Under what conditions would we describe a country as totalitarian, then? I’m not arguing with you, I’m trying to figure out what is being argued about, because it’s really unclear to me.
We’re discussing a county where police have a totalitarian mindset, kill people at an alarming rate, are almost completely unaccountable for those killings, where those those killings disproportionately target people who are poor and/or members of racial minorities. We agree on all of that.
The people of the country vote for politicians who appoint* police chiefs, set police budgets, and manage police oversight bodies. So the people are variously voting for the existence of this totaltarian police force that kills people (disproportionately based on their class and race), not exactly voting for it but not prioritizing voting against it, or fighting against it but failing to stop it.
(* I don’t know if some police chiefs are directly elected but it hardly matters to the point I’m making)
To me, that’s a racist, classist, murderous country. All the conditions have been met and there is nothing to discuss. Comparisons to other countries don’t change the facts. That the country could be murdering twice or ten times as many people doesn’t mean they aren’t murdering people. That those killings (and voter disenfranchisement and all kinds of other problems) could be even more targeted at black and Indigenous Americans (and other racial groups) and at people without the money to defend themselves doesn’t change the fact that they clearly are targeting those people.
So that’s why I say I don’t know what is being argued here. Based on your comment that you don’t think the population is predominantly inclined to totalitarian thinking, it sounds like you are saying it’s some kind of psychology test.
I’ve heard from people who know Iranian culture that Iranians really aren’t thrilled with the Iranian government, by and large. I can’t back that up, but it doesn’t matter for the purpose of argument whether it’s true or not. Imagine it is true, and that the Iranian people are not inclined to totalitarian thinking, but rather the liberal thinking. Does that somehow make Iran not theocratic, because the people don’t think that way? I’d think we define totalitarianism/theocracy/dictatorship by the power structure of the society, not by the heart’s desires of the people of the country. A government is totalitarian by virtue of having the power to stop anyone who disagrees with them, not by virtue of having people agree with them.
I’m not trying to be dismissive here but I’m really not getting it. If a car is painted blue then it’s a blue car even though the majority of the parts of the car are not blue. The outside, top part of the car is the part we look at when we say what colour it is. If the police force is draconian and totalitarian and kills people and those people are people of certain racial groups then that’s a murderous, racist society because that’s the part of the society we look at to tell whether it is that thing.
I can’t help being feeling that this is really a discussion about how to use the word “predominantly”.
Quite right.
