To begin with, it is necessary to state that both totalitarian and authoritarian regimes might seem to be the same at first. Nevertheless, there are some minor differences that can be seen only after an intensive course of studying these systems (Stewart, Klein, Scmitz, & Schröder, 2016). In general, the regimes mentioned above imply only one person or a certain group of people that rule the entire state, whereas democratic countries put their populations above people in parliaments.
The totalitarian method is based on one leader and his or her charisma. Fortunately, there are not many countries in the modern world that follow the given model. However, in the twentieth century, such states as Germany, the USSR, and Italy were under control of their local leaders (Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Joseph Stalin). When people felt particular connections between their minds and speeches of these speakers, they were likely to give them the power to rule their lives.
In turn, authoritarian autocracy focuses on maintaining a country’s lifestyle with the help of one or several politicians that are allowed to decide on what might be the best for their nations. Such individuals as Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and Ferdinand Marcos were dictators that always made their countries (Uganda, Iraq, and Philippines) participate in multiple military conflicts (Stewart et al., 2016). Such leaders usually achieve their positions by imposing a threat on their colleagues and regular citizens in general. Due to their physical power and dominance, everyone else was obliged to listen to different orders of the tyrants listed above. In this case, people’s wishes and desires were disregarded. Unfortunately, there is not much the population can do about such regimes in their states as they may be jailed or even murdered for any attempts to change the system.
References
Stewart, S., Klein, M., Scmitz, A., & Schröder, H. (2016). Presidents, oligarchs and bureaucrats: Forms of rule in the post-Soviet space (2nd ed.). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.