Main Spheres of Social Life: The Political Sphere

The State as a Fundamental Element of the Political System

Among all the components of a society's political system, the state occupies a distinctive position, providing the system with coherence and stability (the term "state" is used in two senses: as the ensemble of governing bodies operating within a specific territory, and as that territory along with its resident population). The state undertakes an exceptional and necessary range of governance activities, managing societal resources and regulating its vital functions. It serves as the primary instrument of power, embodying sovereignty (from "sovereign," a term denoting independence and ultimate authority derived from the Latin super, meaning "above"). Within the state converge the entire spectrum of economic, social, political, and cultural-spiritual interests of various social groups, as well as the contradictions arising among them, alongside the means to overcome and reconcile these conflicts.

The phenomenon of the state has ancient origins. Historical evidence indicates that the earliest states emerged at the close of the fourth millennium and the onset of the third, along the banks of the Nile, in the valleys of the Euphrates and Tigris, and subsequently in India and China. By the end of the second millennium, these states had attained significant development. The city-states of ancient Greece began to take shape in the eighth to sixth centuries BCE, during which time ideas and teachings regarding the state also emerged. However, perspectives on the origin of the state have undergone significant transformation throughout history, as reflected in various theories.

According to the theological theory (advocated by ideologues from the ancient Eastern religions, the Christian church, medieval monarchies, and Islamic faith), the state is understood as originating from the will of God. The patriarchal theory (represented by Aristotle and others) posits that the state arises from the family, asserting that the absolute power of the monarch is a continuation of paternal authority within the family (the patriarch). The social contract theory (Hobbes, Rousseau, Grotius) maintains that the state emerges from an agreement (contract) among individuals, deriving not from economic relations but directly from human will and consciousness. The psychological theory (Petrazhitsky, Fraser, Tarde) explains the state as a manifestation of specific psychological traits, particularly the human need for subordination; adherents of this theory view the state as an organization formed to govern society by designated individuals. Conversely, the theory of violence (Gumplowicz, Dühring) firmly rejects the notion of the state as an entity reconciling conflicting interests, instead asserting its emergence through the conquest of one group over another, establishing itself as a mechanism for maintaining order on the basis of domination and subjugation. According to this view, the state arises only when certain productive forces exist and property is established.

In line with the classical Marxist theory, the state is created by economically dominant classes, functioning as an apparatus of violence wielded by this class, a machine for maintaining the supremacy of one class over others. The diversity of theories about the state underscores its complex nature and its interrelation with various aspects of social life, each of which can play a determinant role at a theoretical level.

The formation, existence, and development of the state and its institutions are inseparable from historical movements and societal processes, which influence the nature of contradictions between society and the state as its political superstructure. This superstructure tends to evolve into a mechanism of political domination, representing a specific form of authority as a fundamental institution within the state system. In this context, the concept of "power" signifies "domination in the organization of social relations and governance," referring to a societal system of subjugation wherein the will of certain individuals or groups (the ruling) becomes imperatively binding for all others (the subordinated).

As a distinct constitutional subject, the state embodies the public character of human activity. However, this essence is intertwined with the phenomenon of the separation of societal essence from society itself, which meaningfully evolves alongside the development of the state. Since the state mediates the primary contradiction in human activity between its social character and the individual form of expression, its essence evolves in tandem with the unfolding of this mediated contradiction, revealing itself externally as an ascending movement from statehood to the state.

The essence of the state is unveiled through its progression through stages of formation and subsequent transformations as phenomena "in themselves," "for themselves," and "for others." The qualities of statehood can be traced back to early expressions of sociality. However, as an autonomous phenomenon, the state is constituted only when the contradiction between the individual and society can be clearly identified as the principal social contradiction. The establishment of statehood culminates in the separation of the state from society (and from the individual as well) as an independent subject.

Initially, the separation of the state from society merely lays the groundwork for its essence. At this stage, the state still remains a "thing in itself," relating to society as a part to a whole. Its further development is connected with the formation of a bureaucracy as a distinct social stratum (group) within the internal structure of the state, directly performing state functions. This stratum exists in specific relations not only with society as a whole but also with all other social groups. Thus, the state is constituted not merely as a part of society but as its leading group, emerging as a "thing for itself."

Subsequent developments within the state evoke the necessity of establishing social control over the bureaucracy. In the struggle against bureaucratic omnipotence, the formation of the nation occurs. This process exerts a dual influence on both the individual's and society's positions. Here, the individual, on one hand, is affirmed as a fully autonomous and free subject, while on the other, must identify themselves as part of a cohesive entity composed of like individuals, thereby limiting their freedom for the sake of this unity. Thus, the individual simultaneously embodies both a private person and a citizen. On the societal level, this results in the unification of entirely independent individuals based on their affiliation with the state, while the state itself fosters the emergence of the nation, transcending from the bureaucratic stratum to encompass the entirety of society. Consequently, society acquires dual qualities: those of civil society and the political state. The state-nation thus represents the pinnacle of statehood development and functions as a "thing for others," relating to society not as a distinct part to a whole but as a whole to a whole; its ultimate separation from society simultaneously constitutes its identification with it.

What properties or characteristics distinguish the state from other organizations and associations within society, establishing it as the foundation of the entire political system?

Firstly, the state is defined by a specific territory, serving as the spatial form and material basis of human activity. Each state possesses its territorial borders, the preservation of which is guaranteed by principles of international law, such as the inviolability and territorial integrity of states. Inviolability means that states must refrain from any armed aggression against another state’s territory and from its annexation. The preservation of territorial integrity entails preventing the violent dismemberment of the state or the seizure or cession of any part of it.

Secondly, sovereignty, as the supreme authority delegated by the people, is manifested in the autonomous and independent exercise by the state of its functions within the realms of domestic and international law. Only the state acts as a universal, all-encompassing organization, extending its influence across the entire territory of the nation and encompassing all its citizens; thus, it “officially represents society” both within and beyond its borders. Without sovereignty, the state cannot exist.

Thirdly, the state possesses the ability to embody public authority and to subordinate all expressions of other societal powers to itself. It employs methods of governance, and where necessary, coercion.

Fourthly, the capacity to regulate social relations through law, thereby imbuing them with universally binding significance through its decrees.

Fifthly, through the existence of a specialized professional apparatus, the state administers the primary affairs of society and allocates its human, material, and natural resources.

Among the functions performed by the state, one can distinguish between internal and external functions.

The internal functions typically include:

1. Economic and organizational;
2. Administrative;
3. Social;
4. National integration;
5. Demographic;
6. Educational;
7. Cultural and educational;
8. Ecological;
9. Law enforcement.

The primary external functions should be regarded as:

1. Diplomatic (the establishment of broad, stable economic, political, cultural, and other connections with other states);
2. Defensive.

The state, as a political organization that is continually evolving, is always defined by a concrete historical context. States differ from one another in terms of type, form of government, political regime, and structure.

Type of State. The typology of states presents a certain challenge, linked to foundational methodological principles. According to the formation approach, the type of state is determined by historical changes in the mode of production and aligns with the type of socio-economic formation. Thus, one typically identifies the following historical types of states: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, and communist (with respect to the latter, the real existence of a transitional socialist state is acknowledged). Indeed, such a classification within the Marxist concept contradicts certain interpretations of the notion of formation as proposed by its founders and adherents. For instance, Marx generally refrains from associating the terms “communism” and “primitive society” with the concept of “socio-economic formation.” In several works, he delineates three formations in the history of societal development: the primary (archaic), secondary (economic), and tertiary (the true history of humanity). Nevertheless, for the socio-philosophical analysis of contemporary state types, the usage of the terms “capitalist socio-political system” and “socialist socio-political system” remains relevant, characterizing the corresponding types of states. The distinctions between these state types are determined by the following characteristics:

1. Ownership of the means of production (private or social);
2. Forms of social connection among production participants (commodity-value or directly social);
3. Nature of production (archaic, cyclical-crisis, planned);
4. Social relations (relations of class antagonism and those of “friendly” classes and strata);
5. State-legal relations (the state of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with the corresponding form of democracy and rights, and the state of the dictatorship of the proletariat, evolving into a “national” state);
6. Ideological relations (bourgeois and communist).

An alternative classification of state types considers complex transformational processes in the main spheres of social life, resonating with specific epochs of civilization development. On this basis, one identifies traditional (pre-industrial), industrial, and post-industrial (post-capitalist, technocratic, informational, etc.) states, which correspond meaningfully with their respective types of societies.

The traditional type of state embodies the properties of a traditional (“agrarian,” “peasant”) society. These are pre-capitalist (pre-industrial) states, characterized by societal structures of an agrarian type with high structural stability and a mode of socio-cultural regulation grounded in tradition. Traditional (pre-industrial) states exist within tribal and feudal societies. They are marked by:

1. High structural stability and a mode of socio-cultural regulation based on tradition;
2. A significant role within the production relations of tribal or feudal hierarchical social formations;
3. A vast inertia of norms governing socio-cultural life;
4. A simple and stable division of labor, often crystallizing into castes and strata.

The industrial type of state corresponds to the features of an industrial (manufacturing) society. The emergence of such a society, according to A. Tocqueville, is associated with:

1. The development of industrial production based on centralized scientific-technical activity;
2. The process of democratization, which includes the removal of hereditary social distinctions, the abolishment of traditional estate privileges and hierarchies;
3. The establishment of equal civil rights—legal, political, and social;
4. Resistance to the system of class division within society;
5. The formation of a political nation, among other aspects.

Post-industrial states are the result of large-scale scientific and technological transformations that encompassed the most developed industrial countries at the turn of the 20th to the 21st century. The most significant features of post-industrial states include:

1. A shift from a goods-producing economy to a service-based economy, alongside a reduction in the share of industrial labor among the population;
2. A shift in the primary demand for labor towards the theoretical sphere, accompanied by the leading societal role of theoretical knowledge as a source of innovations and political formulations;
3. The proliferation of automated production and informatics;
4. The creation of new “intellectual technology”;
5. Decentralization of production and administrative spheres;
6. Increasing immigration from less developed countries.

A specific role is held by transitional states, or states in transition. The term “transition” is employed to reflect an intermediate state between two stable forms of social organization in any society, irrespective of its historical development level or degree of social maturity, characterized by the simultaneous partial dismantling of elements of the preceding state and the formation of elements of the future state. It is essential to consider that the direction of social transformations does not possess a clearly defined linear character and bears a multifaceted perspective for development. This implies the possibility of alternating progressive and regressive periods of social transformation. Alongside the term “transition,” academic literature predominantly employs terms such as “transformation,” “modernization,” “reformation,” and others that characterize various aspects of social transition. Generally, the concept of “transformation” is associated with the unidirectionality of social changes, indicating an unequivocal progression towards a more perfected form of a specific social system. Emerging as an attempt to investigate the processes of the origins of capitalism or the transition to it, “modernization” in its contemporary form is regarded as a notion of total transformation of traditional or pre-modern societies into a type characterized by technology and social structures typical of the economically prosperous and politically relatively stable countries of the Western world. “Reformation” is seen as a transitional process involving a subjectively chosen mechanism of transformation, aimed at the partial or general functional improvement of a coherent system or its component.

From the perspective of a civilizational approach, particular significance in the functioning of the state is attributed to certain socio-cultural, spiritually-psychological, and legally-legal characteristics, which ultimately determine its type. In this regard, it is pertinent to speak of such types as the rule of law state and the national state.

The term "rule of law" was first proposed by I. Kant and subsequently disseminated through German legal literature in the works of C. T. Welker, R. von Moltke, and others. However, the individual ideas that encapsulate the essence of the rule of law emerged much earlier. These can be found in the writings of Plato ("The Republic," "Politics," "Sophist"), Aristotle ("Politics," "Ethics," and others), and Cicero ("Dialogues"). The concept further evolved in the works of J. Locke, C. Montesquieu, I. Kant, and G. W. F. Hegel. Significant attention was also devoted to the ideas of the rule of law by B. Chicherin, V. Kistyakovsky, P. Novgorodtsev, and others.

In a fairly widespread contemporary understanding, the rule of law is defined as a state in which, based on existing law, the realization of the rights, freedoms, and legitimate interests of individuals and citizens, as well as distinct groups and civil society, is effectively secured.

The rule of law is constructed upon a series of guiding principles:

1. The principle of the primacy and supremacy of law, which underlies the relationship between law and the state and reflects the character and substance of that relationship; in other words, law is always primary and supreme over the state.
2. The principle of legal conformity, which can be regarded as a categorical imperative—a demand for the state to enact legal statutes unconditionally.
3. The principle of formal equality, which presupposes the recognition of rights as equal for all within the framework of freedom.
4. The principle of sovereignty, encompassing both the internal and external independence of the state, recognizing it as the sole subject of politics, an entity that organizes and governs diverse spheres of life based on law; thus, no associations, parties, unions, etc., can undertake such activities.
5. The principle of the separation of powers, which posits the distribution of state power into legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

Therefore, the fundamental principle of the rule of law resides in the notion that all its vertical and horizontal levels, all components, are permeated by law. Consequently, in the broadest sense, the rule of law is a state in which the law prevails. Its ultimate aim is the establishment of a legal framework and legal character for the relationships (mutual rights and obligations) between public authority and the governed as subjects of law, recognizing and securely guaranteeing formal equality and freedom for all individuals, along with the rights and freedoms of human beings and citizens.

The National State
The national state is a type of state that emerges alongside the formation of modern nations and represents a form of their political unification. In political and philosophical theories, the idea of a national state arises as a complement to the idea of the rule of law, founded upon a developed national idea as a continuation of the liberal-democratic tendency. The national idea unites the people at critical junctures in history, awakening heroism, a readiness for feats, and sacrifice in the name of an important, even great (in the popular sense) goal. In essence, the national idea embodies a spiritual concentration of self-consciousness, an understanding by the people of the essence of their existence and purpose in state-building. Unlike the liberal-democratic program, which advocates for equality of civil rights and does not resolve the question of equality of rights for each nation—particularly regarding its right to self-determination—the national idea seeks to address not only the issue of legal equality among people of different nationalities but also the equality of nations in terms of their rights to independent economic, political, and cultural development. At the same time, liberal principles of freedom and equality find their continuation in the national idea and the concept of the national state. This implies that a national state, which safeguards the territorial integrity and political unity of the nation and guarantees its development of a national market and preservation of national culture, must simultaneously be a rule-of-law state and a democratic one that protects the interests of individuals, their political and economic freedoms, thereby ensuring the sovereignty of the individual.

Historically, the development of legal and democratic guarantees by the state concerning individuals—necessary conditions for the formation of a national state—encompasses several periods.
The first period (16th—18th centuries) is characterized by threats to the physical safety of individuals, namely the threat of individual violence. The purpose of the state is defined by its guarantee of life and property security. To achieve this end, the state has the requisite means: police, courts, and a "state monopoly" on power.
The second period (from the late 18th century) presents a threat to individuals posed by the state itself, manifesting as despotism and totalitarianism. The purpose of the state here shifts to ensuring individuals' safety from threats originating within the state, namely freedom and equality. Means to achieve this aim include human rights, the principle of separation of powers, and citizens' right to resist unlawful state authority.
The third period (20th century) involves threats to individuals arising from economic inequality and the free market. The state's goal becomes socially oriented, employing a system of legal provisions to ensure social justice, alongside controls to combat market abuses.

In a contemporary national state, there should be features characteristic of all three periods. A specific combination of legal, democratic, and social characteristics of state structure occurs precisely within a national state. Only within a rule-of-law, democratic, and social state does the nation gain guaranteed opportunities for its development as a sovereign subject of the global community. On one hand, for a developed form of democracy to emerge, there must exist a people that perceives itself as a particular national-political unity. On the other hand, the emergence of a nation necessitates the establishment of democratic institutions, democratic consciousness, and citizens who recognize themselves both as part of the whole and as individuals.

Civil Society
The formation of the rule-of-law state and the national state is connected to the concept of "civil society" as a historical phenomenon arising at a specific stage of human development. In a broad sense, civil society is understood as a system of connections and interests that ensures the free realization of each person's natural rights: the right to life and dignified existence, the freedom to do anything that does not harm others, the right to property, equality before the law, and so forth. Thus, civil society signifies a societal arrangement viewed through the lens of each member's interests.

Civil society emerged as a bourgeois construct, although its elements can be traced back to slave-owning Rome and the Greek polis. This does not preclude the possibility of other forms of civil society emerging in the future.

The notion of "civil society" is linked to the concept of "state," yet it is not synonymous with it. At the heart of the dichotomy "civil society—state" lies the contradiction between the initiative of society's members, their aspiration for the free expression of individual nature, and the tendency toward the organization of social life, centralization, which comes with certain constraints on freedom.

Consequently, civil society is interpreted as a sphere for the self-realization of free individuals, associations, and organizations existing outside the direct activities of the state, which mediates its relations with individuals. This society is characterized by developed economic, cultural, legal, and political relationships among individuals themselves, encompassing mass movements, parties, and groups formed around interests, beliefs, and other characteristics that evolve freely. In civil society, individuals are bound not by power or the state, but by the obligations collectively established through democratic processes (in the form of laws), which the state merely protects. Notably, class, political, ideological, cultural, and national affiliations within civil society do not suppress or dissolve individuality; rather, they allow individuals to stand out without departing from the given social context. Here, a distinctive form of collectivity based on an awareness of belonging to a shared culture unites the national and civic identities.

Social experience demonstrates that the higher the degree of protection of the individual and societal spheres of life from harsh regulations imposed by the state and its organs, the more effectively society develops. Simultaneously, a well-developed civil society serves as the foundation for the stability of the political regime. Contemporary developed nations, based on significantly modernized private property, have shown the ability to respond to growing social demands, making necessary adjustments to the structures of political power.

When the state imposes strict regulations on various aspects of social life, it disrupts the fundamental principle of the relationship between society and the state, transforming state organs from controlled entities into unchecked overlords. The only real possibility for effective societal control over state organs lies in the activation of civil society and the institutionalization of its fundamental components.

The more developed civil society is, the greater the grounds for democratic forms of state exist; conversely, the less developed civil society is, the more probable the existence of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes of state power becomes. In an underdeveloped civil society, certain civic organizations, like the state, may operate in inhumane ways.

If democracy constitutes a system of governance wherein the state is created by the people, depends on the people, and is controlled by the people, then the progress of democracy manifests in the increasing dependency of the economy and political system on civil society. Achieving an optimal balance in this relationship encapsulates the essence of the problem regarding the interactions between the state and civil society.

From a formal perspective, the state is examined in two aspects: as a form of governance and as a form of state structure.
The form of governance refers to the organization of supreme state power, the mechanism by which its structural elements interact. The primary forms of governance are monarchy and republic.

A monarchy is a form of governance wherein the highest state power is represented by a single individual who occupies the throne or is elected for life. If the monarch serves as the sole highest organ of state power, this monarchy is termed "absolute." The monarch's authority is thus understood as the primary source of the state's legal order.

A republic is a form of governance characterized by a collegial body of state power, typically an assembly of elected representatives of the people. In contemporary terms, a republic often operates as a representative democracy.

However, numerous variations exist between these two forms of governance. The degree of concentration of power within the government leads to the emergence of various forms of republics, such as parliamentary and presidential republics, as well as mixed forms, including semi-presidential and semi-parliamentary republics. These categorizations also extend to monarchies, which can exist as constitutional monarchies (where the monarch's powers are limited by the constitution) or as absolute monarchies (where the monarch possesses full control over the state).

The second aspect of state form encompasses the character of state structure, which can manifest in three forms: unitary, federal, and confederative.

A unitary state is characterized by a single center of political authority, possessing complete sovereignty over the entire territory. Within this type of state, local governments and administrative subdivisions may exist but only as units of central governance.

A federal state is distinguished by the coexistence of various states that unite in a common political structure while retaining sovereignty over specific affairs. In this instance, the constitution delineates the boundaries of power between the federal government and the states.

A confederative state emerges as a temporary alliance of sovereign states that act in cooperation while maintaining their independence. Such entities are formed primarily for purposes of mutual defense, economic cooperation, or other agreements.

Ultimately, the problem of the state in contemporary discourse highlights the necessity for a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between the state and civil society, necessitating deeper engagement with historical contexts, philosophical underpinnings, and evolving political realities.

A republic is a form of governance in which all state organs are either elected or constituted by representatives and institutions at the national level. Historically, the republic emerged in antiquity and, in the contemporary era, occupies a dominant position among forms of governance. Republics may be classified as presidential or parliamentary.

The defining characteristic of a presidential republic is the presence of the office of president within the state. However, it must be noted that while the president is always the head of state, they are not always the head of the executive power. Consequently, a presidential republic can only exist when the president simultaneously holds both titles, serving as the head of state and head of executive power. In this case, the president dictates the direction of state policy and is accountable for all its actions across political, economic, social, and other domains.

In a parliamentary republic, the parliament as a whole determines state policy and bears responsibility for its outcomes. Here, the government is formed by the parliament from among the deputies elected from parties or party coalitions. It is led by a prime minister elected by the parliament. The government is accountable to the parliament. As for the president, who serves as the head of state in a parliamentary republic, they may formally be endowed with significant powers but, in reality, do not exert substantial influence over the course of policy. Their role is typically nominal.

The form of state structure refers to the territorial organization of the state. Two forms are distinguished: unitary and federal. A unitary state is one that, within its borders, does not contain any state formations with varying degrees of competence; this means that only unified higher organs of state authority exist within its territory. A federal state, conversely, is characterized by a territory differentiated into a number of relatively autonomous state formations. Here, state power is divided between federal organs that represent the state as a whole and autonomous bodies that are part of the federation.

In addition to a federation as a union state, there also exists a confederation, which is an alliance of states created for specific limited purposes, such as military or economic cooperation.

The concept of the state extends beyond merely its form of governance; when discussing it, one must also consider the political regime, which can be defined as the sum of means and methods through which power relations are enacted within society.

Typically, three primary types of political regimes are distinguished: totalitarian, authoritarian, and democratic. Although there are also transitional (interim) types, these can be broadly classified as follows: totalitarian, rigidly authoritarian, authoritarian, moderately authoritarian, limitedly democratic, fully democratic (or simply democratic), and progressively democratic (anarchistic).

A democratic regime is an organization of power relations within society, grounded in the principles of democracy. Democracy (literally, "rule by the people") is a method of organizing social interaction characterized by the dominance of the governed over the governing or by the equality of both parties. This method of social organization is internally contradictory and historically evolving. Thus, absolute democracy is an abstraction, as democracy always manifests in a specific form, such as elite democracy or mass democracy, which can take the shape of ochlocracy—the rule of the mob. This indicates the real possibility of democracy approaching and transforming into its opposite—authoritarianism or totalitarianism.

The most favorable social foundation for a democratic political regime (fully developed democracy) is a civil society composed of economically independent citizen-owners. A democratic regime operates on a multiparty basis. The representative bodies of state power and self-governance are elected through general, equal, direct, and secret elections. Thus, elections are viewed as a universal form of citizen participation in the political life of society. At the same time, elections occur under the principles of competitive political party struggle, and the results serve as indicators of their popularity within society. It is the outcomes of universal elections that allow a particular party or coalition of parties to attain the status of ruling power, while their opponents find themselves in an official and legitimate political opposition.

In a democratic political regime, decisions are generally made by majority vote. However, a characteristic feature of fully developed democracy is the protection of minority rights. State-wide laws are enacted either through a referendum or by the highest representative authority—the parliament.

The democratic political regime is predicated on the principle of the separation of powers—legislative, executive, and judicial—which operate under a system of mutual checks and balances. The constitution proclaims and legally guarantees the equality of citizens. Every citizen has the right to criticize the authorities and any of their representatives, as well as to seek judicial review of their unlawful actions. The rights of individuals and citizens under a democratic regime are considered the highest value, and their protection and assurance are deemed the most important tasks of the state.

An authoritarian regime is a method of organizing power relations within the state, founded on the principles of authoritarianism, or a form of political governance in which unchecked supreme power resides with a single individual—a sovereign ruler—who is not subject to any representative body. Authoritarian regimes most often arise in conditions of radical socio-economic transformations within society. Such a regime embodies and reflects this transitional nature, bearing the mark of inherent duality. Some democratic elements and structures may still operate: an electoral system may function, political forces may contest in parliament, and multiparty systems may be permitted, among other things. However, these democratic elements are severely restricted. The political rights of citizens, social-political movements, and political parties are significantly curtailed, and their activities are regulated, resulting in a legal framework where permissive laws predominate over prohibitive ones. Legal opposition generally possesses a purely formal character. Nevertheless, unlike totalitarian regimes, measured dissent and limited press opposition are allowed within authoritarian systems. As global experience shows, authoritarian regimes can evolve into democratic ones.

A totalitarian regime (associated with the concept of "totalitarianism" from the Latin totalitas—"wholeness, completeness") is a form of organizing power relations within society that enacts absolute control over all spheres of social and individual life. This term is most frequently used to describe despotic regimes that emerged in the 20th century (Nazism, "real socialism," Islamic fundamentalism, etc.). Totalitarianism is marked by complete (total) control over all forms of societal activity and over the life of each individual. In a totalitarian regime, the state engulfs society and the individual, leading to the total alienation of citizens from their spiritual sphere due to its subjugation. Under totalitarianism, the distinction between political and apolitical spheres of life disappears, and any form of unauthorized activity is obliterated. Any dissent is penalized by law, and any minority is prohibited. Public-political organizations and movements that formally exist are completely regulated in their activities. The totalitarian regime is characterized by total unfreedom, in stark contrast to the passive unfreedom experienced under an authoritarian regime.

The totalitarian regime enforces a monopoly on political and economic power. The ruling party is typically conflated with the state, absorbing it, which ultimately leads to a crisis of state institutions and statehood. "Leadershipism" becomes an attribute of totalitarianism, while terror serves as a means of internal policy within the totalitarian state. The party-state directly intervenes in all forms and types of economic activity, exercising strict control and regulation over them. The economy, like other spheres of public life, is actively militarized. The monopoly extends to the mass media, whose content and dissemination are placed under stringent control.

Totalitarian regimes are characterized by ideocracy (literally, "rule of the idea"), irrespective of the specific content of that idea (national-socialist, communist, religious). This results in the total ideologization of all aspects of societal life, including science, education, art, sports, etc., all built upon the dogmatized principles of a singular official ideology while rejecting any alternative.