Why talk about totalitarianism when it has almost arrived, what should be known about it, how to recognize its advance in the process and whether it is possible to resist totalitarian practices?

In an interview with "Nowadays" the Belarusian philosopher, author of the books "Community-after-the-Holocaust: on the way to a society of inclusion" and "The female face in the revolution"

reflects on what is happening from the point of view of modern science.

Volga Shparaga, photo by Violeta Savchyts

— Many philosophers studied and are studying totalitarianism, analyzing the experience of Nazi Germany, the USSR, and Italy.

Do their works explain why totalitarianism or its signs became possible again in the post-Soviet space?

- I follow the Ukrainian researcher and philosopher

In the book "Dialectics of Modernity in Eastern Europe", which was published in 2020, he analyzes where authoritarian and totalitarian practices in the post-Soviet space come from.

He connects them with the process of reverse social development and calls it "demodernization".

Minakov classifies the countries of the former USSR according to the types of this reverse development.

For example, he united Belarus, Azerbaijan, and Russia into one group of countries in which the creation of vertical power determined the opposite social development.

Regarding Belarus, I also believe that the verticality of power and hierarchy in all spheres is a key mechanism of the regime, and the Belarusian protests of 2020 were precisely the answer to this, a horizontally connected society took to the streets, which wanted to show an alternative to a rigid hierarchy, that is why it was fundamentally, to make the protests peaceful.

— Is the risk of the revival of totalitarian societies a problem only in the post-Soviet space or a global trend today?

- This is not only our problem.

The researcher of totalitarianism,

, wrote that "totalitarian solutions can calmly survive the fall of totalitarian regimes, turning into a temptation that will be renewed every time it seems impossible to mitigate political problems or alleviate economic suffering in a way that is worthy of a person."

Umberto

published an excellent text in 1995 - "On Eternal Fascism".

In this essay, he highlights many traits that we see continue to operate today and are primarily associated with right-wing populism.

These are traits such as the cult of tradition and traditionalism, which opposes knowledge, neglects details, distinctions and rationality;

disagreement as treason;

racism, xenophobia;

the cult of courage and masculinity, the rejection of everything that does not correspond to the established norms of sexual life;

the cult of heroism and death, the rejection of pacifism as weakness, the discourse of permanent war;

justification of social hierarchies, contempt for the weak.

Well, instead of individual rights, monolithic unity of the people.

Another book on this topic is "On tyranny.

20 lessons of the 20th century"

It was connected with the coming to power of

I was in the USA in 2017 and I remember how Snyder was criticized in the academic sphere for equating Hitler, the trials in Eastern Europe and Trump.

But after what Trump did in the USA, it became not funny.

- Are the signs of modern totalitarianism changing?

— In 1975, the American researcher of authoritarian and totalitarian regimes

, relying on the experience of the 20th century, singled out three main signs of a totalitarian system.

The first is the presence of a single, but not monolithic, center of power.

It doesn't have to be a party.

Belarus, for example, does not yet have a ruling party, although Lukashenka has allegedly already started the process of creating one.

The second sign is a single, autonomous and more or less intellectually developed ideology with which the ruling elite or the leader identifies himself.

Russia has such an ideology - "Russian world".

In Belarus, as the researchers claim, this ideology was empty, its key idea was complete loyalty to the regime.

But even an empty ideology shows: this is dissent.

We see today in Belarus a struggle with white-red-white symbolism, European narratives, and at the same time we see a return to the discourses of the Soviet era, the justification of Stalinism and the glorification of violent practices.

The struggle for ideology is also a struggle for the information space through means of propaganda.

That is why independent Belarusian mass media are now declared "extremist organizations" so that people are afraid to receive alternative information.

The third sign is constant calls for active mobilization and broad participation of citizens in the implementation of political public tasks.

Moreover, passive submission and apathy, the "my house is from the edge" position is already undesirable, the regime must be actively maintained.

If we take Belarus as an example again, until 2020 being apolitical and cynical was encouraged and allowed.

Today,

is trying to mobilize people.

We see that it does not work very well, because the mobilization was a symbol of the protests of 2020, because in order to mobilize, you must first transplant and expel from the country all dissenters.

That is, unlike Russia, in Belarus only the first sign of totalitarianism is clearly manifested: the center of power is merged with the power apparatus, they are trying to establish control over the entire society, including private life.

Today in Belarus you can stop a person on the street and tap into his phone and the like.

The other two signs are not so obvious, but the changes show that Belarus is moving towards a totalitarian regime.

This is more than consolidated authoritarianism.

- Do modern researchers give an answer as to how people can resist it?

- In the already mentioned book "On tyranny.

20 lessons of the 20th century" Timothy Snyder just thinks about it and gives 20 recommendations.

The first recommendation is not to obey in advance, trying to show your loyalty.

We need to watch when they start to subjugate us, that is, to study the mechanisms of subjugation and try to resist them.

Another recommendation is to protect public institutions.

Choose an institution, such as a trade union, and defend it.

The researcher lists what to be afraid of: "Beware of a one-party state, armed formations, if you are armed, think."

Today, by the way, we hear that Lukashenka has already spoken about the armed people's militia.

If the society is divided, it should be countered with the opposite actions.

Snyder pays a lot of attention to language, because totalitarian regimes are characterized by neologism, he urges to be vigilant about words and symbols that express hatred for people.

For example, I am critical of the phrases "Belarusian language is our weapon" or "solidarity is our weapon".

It seems to me that language is a bridge, support, and solidarity is necessarily connected with empathy.

It is not necessary to militarize the language, as the regime does, it is necessary to insist on its meanings.

Among other recommendations of Snyder: be responsible for the way the world looks, believe in the truth, investigate, build your private life, participate in good works, do not lose your presence of mind.

When the unthinkable happens, be brave.