The Roots of Totalitarianism in Collective Identity

Political regimes do not arise in a vacuum. They are the outcome of long histories, cultural traditions, and the ways societies learn to organise themselves in response to threat, scarcity, or opportunity. When we consider totalitarianism – systems of government in which power is centralised, dissent is stifled, and the state intrudes into every aspect of life – it is tempting to treat it as an aberration, a tragic deviation from the normal course of human freedom. Yet the truth is more unsettling: certain societies carry within their histories and identities patterns of hierarchy, control and submission that make totalitarian rule more likely.

Historical Continuities

In some cases, totalitarianism is less a rupture than a continuation of older authoritarian patterns dressed in modern clothing.

• Russia: Centuries of Tsarist autocracy ingrained the expectation that the state is embodied in a single ruler whose authority is near-absolute. Soviet totalitarianism extended pre-existing habits of centralisation and surveillance, merely changing the symbols.

  
  

• China: Confucian traditions of hierarchy and obedience to authority, reinforced by imperial bureaucracy, facilitated Mao’s mass campaigns and later the Communist Party’s enduring control.

Cultural Predispositions and Case Studies

Societies scarred by turmoil often prefer security over liberty, and this preference can tip the balance towards totalitarian rule.

• Germany: Fragmented political traditions and Prussian militarism, combined with economic collapse after the First World War, primed Germans for Nazism’s promise of order and revival.

  
  

• Spain: Centuries of Catholic centralism and suspicion of pluralism made Franco’s authoritarianism appear a return to order rather than an alien experiment.

  
  

• Italy: A history of fragmented governance and weak civic institutions made Italians receptive to Mussolini’s Fascist appeal for unity under a strong state.

Antibodies Against Totalitarianism

By contrast some societies developed traditions that offered resistance to totalitarian forms of rule.

• Britain: Parliament, common law and civic debate created habits of compromise and suspicion of over-centralisation. Even in total war, Britain resisted totalitarian tendencies.

  
  

• France: Despite absolutism, republican ideals of popular sovereignty survived revolution and empire. Although Vichy France (a Nazi puppet state) betrayed them, the republican identity revived afterwards.

  
  

• Japan: Although she pursued militarist totalitarianism before 1945, Japan’s identity was reconstructed under Allied occupation into one of constitutional democracy.

A Typology: Authoritarian versus Pluralist Inheritance

To understand how history shapes political outcomes, it is useful to divide societies into two broad categories:

1. Authoritarian Inheritance

   
   

   • Long histories of monarchy or imperial rule (Russia, China, Spain).

   • Strong militarist or hierarchical traditions (Germany, Italy).

   • Cultural emphasis on unity, obedience or collective duty over individual freedom.

   
   

   Response to Crisis: In times of war, famine, or economic collapse, such societies tend to fall back upon the “comfort” of strong rule. Citizens may willingly exchange liberty for security, and elites may support repression as a guarantee of order.

   
   

2. Pluralist Inheritance

   
   

   • Long histories of parliamentary or representative institutions (Britain).

   • Cultural emphasis on civic rights and revolutionary ideals (France).

   • External reconstruction embedding pluralism (post-war Japan, parts of Eastern Europe after 1989).

   
   

   Response to Crisis: Even under stress, these societies are more likely to seek solutions within existing pluralist frameworks. Leaders may be granted extraordinary powers temporarily, but these are usually contested and limited.

Contemporary Implications: The Post-Soviet World

This typology helps explain the divergent trajectories of states that emerged from the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

• Russia: The authoritarian inheritance of Tsarist and Soviet centralisation never disappeared. Although the 1990s flirted with pluralism, instability and economic crisis reinforced the instinct for strongman rule. Vladimir Putin’s rise was less a revolution than a reversion to the familiar: the figure of the ruler as the embodiment of order.

  
  

• Belarus: A country with no strong republican or parliamentary tradition, Belarus lacked pluralist antibodies. Alexander Lukashenko’s consolidation of power in the 1990s was made easier by a culture accustomed to external rule (Polish, Lithuanian, Russian) and sceptical of civic autonomy.

  
  

• Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan): Deep traditions of clan loyalty, patronage and centralised authority made these societies particularly prone to authoritarian consolidation. Independence did not produce democracy but the reinforcement of personalised regimes that mirrored Soviet-era centralisation under new flags.

By contrast:

• The Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania): These countries had short but significant experiences of independence and parliamentary government between the two World Wars. They also inherited strong civic identities rooted in European traditions of pluralism. When the Soviet Union collapsed, they were able to revive these memories and institutions, swiftly anchoring themselves in the European Union and NATO. Their pluralist inheritance proved resilient against authoritarian relapse.

  
  

• Ukraine: Ukraine sits uneasily between the two traditions. Centuries of domination by foreign empires left her with weak central institutions and a strong culture of local autonomy. This produced a paradox: instability and corruption, but also a persistent resistance to authoritarian consolidation. The Orange Revolution (2004), the Revolution of Dignity (2014), and the resilience of democratic traditions during the ongoing war against Russia all reflect Ukraine’s pluralist inheritance in embryo, despite enormous pressure to revert to authoritarianism.

  
  

• Georgia and Armenia: Both illustrate the struggle between pluralist aspirations and authoritarian temptations. Georgia has cycled between democratic breakthroughs and authoritarian relapse, while Armenia has shown tentative pluralist renewal since 2018. Their outcomes remain contested, reflecting mixed inheritances of both centralised imperial rule and grassroots traditions of resistance.

The Tension Between Past and Present

The post-Soviet world demonstrates vividly that history is not destiny, but it sets the stage. Where authoritarian inheritance is strong and pluralist antibodies weak, relapse into autocracy is common. Where even a faint memory of pluralist self-rule exists, societies can resist, albeit imperfectly. The endurance of liberty depends on whether these memories can be reinforced by institutions, alliances, and external support, as in the Baltics and, increasingly, in Ukraine.

Conclusion: Patterns Sewn Into the Fabric

The idea that totalitarian systems are sewn into the history and identity of a society does not mean they are inevitable. Rather it means that they are comprehensible: they grow out of inherited political culture, collective psychology, and lived experience. Russia, Belarus and Central Asia illustrate authoritarian inheritance; the Baltics and parts of Ukraine illustrate pluralist inheritance. The fate of countries like Georgia and Armenia shows that the contest is ongoing.

Totalitarianism, in this view, is not an alien transplant but a shadow of the past, taking new forms whenever crisis, fear or ambition awaken it. The endurance of freedom depends upon whether pluralist habits – however fragile – can be made strong enough to resist those shadows.