Totalitarianism, violence and Terror

The totalitarianism constitutes one system. The totalitarianism has one nature in many aspects and shapes; it pragmatically develops a reciprocal structure and unified means under a consistent code of conduct—all rest on violence. Apart from ideologies, religious or not, the problem has one name, one identity and one essence; it is the totalitarianism. A comprehensive reading of the current state of the region between the Mediterranean and Persian Gulf will clarify and support this thinking.

The totalitarian dictatorships and terrorists are in an alliance of convenience. Although they have two different ideologies and agendas, they have mutual basic interest and pursuit is to keep freedom and democracy along with their culture out of this region.

The former totalitarian Ba'ath regime in Iraq, for example, had known this fact early and began soon after its defeat in the Gulf War ΙΙ the Islamization of the state notwithstanding the official totalitarian secular ideology of al-Ba'ath. Moreover, it had a chance of about 12 years to do that without serious pressure targeting directly the regime to end its rule or to enforce it to change the course. Finally, that produced an extraordinary fertile environment for terror. May history teach us? Given it frequently repeats itself.

To achieve peace, security and prosperity in the Middle East, there must be, first, a serious course of action aimed at the totalitarianism in the Middle East. This course of action is indispensable first step in the long march of democracy there. Moreover, targeting totalitarianism is an indispensable action in the war on terror to get the terrorists isolated with no cover or facilities or nourishing sources.

 

Political System and Peacefulness

The totalitarianism is a system based on violence, in which the violence becomes the real and dominant value, which with time turns into an integrated system and becomes a culture. This value, practically, forms and constructs the whole institutions of the state and society (those become one entity identified by/with the political power) because it is only the cause of maintaining the existence of the state (power) at the inside and outside level and ultimately becomes the source of legitimacy.

Hence, it is familiar that only the totalitarian regimes support and encourage the transnational terror and eagerly pursuit the WMD and other violent means in the international politics. On the contrary, in democracies the system of compromise and peaceful means replaces the system of violence. The violence in democracies ― more precisely the coercion ― is only usable to maintain and keep the system itself at the domestic and international level.

Any authoritarian regime's foreign policy depends on the nature and the interests of this regime. The authoritarian regime makes its foreign policy on the considerations of his interior policy. It is a matter of fact and necessity that the interior and foreign policies should be consistent because they belong to, represent the same decision-making system, values and interests, and intend to maintain those, which are the intrinsic structure of the regime in power. Moreover, the authoritarian regime is totally aware of the indispensability of the compatible foreign context for the sustainability of its rule.

It is extremely important, in my view, to make distinction between what is 'pragmatic' and what is 'existential' in political choices to the totalitarian regimes to define their political scope. The basis of classifying the 'pragmatic' and the 'existential' is the rationality of political determination to the concerned regimes. This rationality is fundamentally defined by the regime's interests at the first place and dictated by the ultimate objective of regime's continuation.

The connection between authoritarian ― particularly totalitarian ― regimes and destabilizing and destructive efforts and policies is natural in contexts in which the historical hospitable environment of theses regimes changes especially at the regional level, and this is the case of the post-Iraq Middle East. This is a genuine political phenomenon in terms of totalitarian political systems.

 

Balance of Power and International Stability and Security

I endorse the realist theory of the international relations about the balance of power. In maintaining systems, especially at the international level, what matters is the balance of power but at the status quo level not the dynamic one because any change or new player would change the whole equation. It is indispensable to identify the powers on the scene and to define the system to be maintained. Do the totalitarian terrorist regimes and organizations in the Middle East, like Iran's and the Ba'ath party, perceive the international stability as the U.S. or EU besides the international community? And is the international realm the same after 9/11?

The transnational terror, which is a new international trans-border power in the realistic sense, needs a new balance of power to restore the international stability and peace. The counter trans-border power is promoting freedom and democracy to isolate and alter its nourishing environment and consequently destroy it in addition to the terror's political supporters (always totalitarians and authoritarians) through international effort, and that what is supposed to be the international system of stability and peace.