ABSTRACT

In a recent article Graf Ballestrem (1992) has rightly stressed that after the

fall of most communist regimes we can see that the much criticized theory of totalitarianism has been, on the whole, more successful in explaining

events than the alternatives offered by many of its critics. He shows that we

can even demonstrate this by discussing five characteristics used by

Friedrich and Brzezinski (1956) to define totalitarianism: a dominant totali-

tarian ideology, a monopoly party, a secret police applying terror, a monopoly

of information and a centrally planned economy. Still, in spite of the merits of

this analysis it cannot be denied that there are severe weaknesses in the theories

developed, for example, by Friedrich and Brzezinski or by Hannah Arendt (1951), as is rightly stressed by such authors as Schlangen (1970) and Linz

(1975), to mention only two of many important contributions. These theories

are too static to account for the causes of the rise of totalitarian regimes, their

development and their breakdown or change into different political systems.