Nazarbekoba Z.M.

A. Baitursynov Kostanai State University, Kazakhstan

The post-totalitarian regimes

The orders of the Soviet type is carried to the post-totalitarian, for example a post-Stalin regime. The methods of government already lose a number of the main signs of totalitarianism here. Such regimes differ from the actually authoritative though in a number of the relations the post-totalitarian political, social and economic structures will be transformed in the authoritative direction.

Usually the post-totalitarian regimes develop after withdrawal from life the totalitarian leader-charismatic when the process of a so-called rutinization of charisma (i.e. attempts to preserve ideals of former board) begins. As the cult of personality weakens here obviously, the level of bureaucratization of ruling elite significantly increases.

The main characteristics of post-totalitarianism are: weakening of police or their neutralization by means of army; permission of crisis of management by creation of the center of the power already in the form of the collective, instead of the personal management; restatement of a role of party as former source of legitimacy of the leader; gradual process of a detotalitarization (i.e. removals of the most rigid characteristics of a regime) in order to avoid radical revolution.

The bureaucratization and professionalizing beginning, the certain elements of liberalization (mitigation of total ideology and big tolerance to a depoliticization) of political process mean already post-totalitarian development as a whole. The political scientists allocate three conditions of a regime. The early post-totalitarianism is the closest to totalitarian board, however differs from it, as a rule, by the emergence of limiters on the power of the leader (the USSR at N.S. Khrushchev, 1953-1964). In the late post-totalitarianism the power more and more tolerantly treats regime criticism (Czechoslovakia, 1977-1989). At the mature post-totalitarianism all characteristics of former system of dominion will considerably be transformed, only a leading role of party is invariable (Hungary, 1982-1988).

In totalitarianism there isn't a social, economic, political pluralism, and the power cruelly suppresses some attempts of an institutionalization or simply expression of oppositional opinions. The authoritative regimes recognize limited political and broader economic and social pluralism. At the mature post-totalitarianism the social pluralism develops, the parallel political culture can even be formed, there are in fact anti-totalitarian publications of a samizdat. Then there is also a known economic pluralism in the form of the small private sector in a services sector, agriculture. At the same time the post-totalitarian social and economic pluralism differs from the authoritative: 1) in authoritarianism the private sector and freedom of worship are more developed; 2) the arising post-totalitarian parallel culture represents the new tendency deprived of traditions because the previous regime eradicated all sources of the organized and responsible pluralism.

As the historical experiment shows, the positions of dominating party appeared the steadiest heritage of totalitarianism. And in post-totalitarian societies the official party still possesses a "leading and directing" role in politics, monopoly for the power and is above the state, and the limits of its criticism are authorized only by a framework of "socialist pluralism" of opinions.

However at the post-totalitarianism a character of the management changes. The leaders aren't any more charismatic figures because the collective leadership is capable to be so. The ruling elite extends at the expense of bureaucrats, technocrats and other appointees.

After the death of the omnipotent totalitarian leader the political elite first of all tries to provide predictability of the new head and by that the safety that it becomes almost the main factor of transition from totalitarianism to post-totalitarianism. The leaders of a new regime still are the natives from a "leading and directing" party, but they are incapable on intimidation of the environment and society in whole even simply due to lack of charisma. Besides, ideological limits already act them. From the point of view of constitutionality of the leader power, restriction of its power and predictability of politics the post-totalitarian leadership approaches with the authoritative.

The distinctions between post-totalitarianism and authoritarianism are traced meanwhile in the course of recruitment of leaders. The post-totalitarian leaders surely move forward by the structures created by a totalitarian regime, the authoritative lift to tops of the power by the force of a former regime. The main criterion for the entry into totalitarian ruling group is a personal devotion to the leader, in authoritarianism there is ¾ professional skills in some areas, including the law and commerce. Though the professionalism and competence of management gradually come out on top in mature post-totalitarianism, but access to obtaining such skills is still supervised by party, membership in which is necessary precondition of career.

At the same time the relation in post-totalitarianism to ideology changes from the side of society and some representatives of elite. The comparison of reality with a utopian ideal fills political consciousness with scepticism, apathy or critical moods, mistrust to "ultimate goal" of total ideology. For the majority of citizens the ideology becomes simply formal ritual, i.e. the ideologized totalitarian mobilization is replaced with post-totalitarian conformism (timeserving). If in the totalitarianism the principle "the one who is not with us, that against us", in a going to its change regime it restated "the one who is not against us, that with us". It means, it is possible to speak about the relative deideologization and political demobilization of post-totalitarian society.

So, the characteristic signs of the post-totalitarian regimes:

- absence of political pluralism;

- emergence of elements of social and economic pluralism;

- preservation of official ideology at comparative reduction of an ideologization;

- some weakening of mobilization of citizens through existing institutions, but at providing of the necessary level of conformism in relation to a regime; the bureaucratic nomenclature management recruited from the ranks to ruling party.