Professor Merara Gudina Interview About Current Issues movements almost always asserted that the nation (which they alternatively employ to refer to either the whole country or a particular ethnic group) was in a state of profound crisis resolvable only through a “radical political transformation”. They were highly convinced of their self-professed mission” to save the nation”, and evoked the need to take drastic action against a nation’s ‘inner enemies’. Their vision of the newly created man or woman was the one “uncontaminated” by the selfish desires for “individual rights” and “self-expression” and only devoted for realization of the renewed nation’s destiny.
It should be noted that despite the aforementioned similarities, each fascist movement had its own unique ideology based on its own cultural and intellectual narrative that justifies the ideal of the movement. Some fascist movements had certain racial or ethnic group as object of hatred or scapegoat such as the Nazi’s anti-Semitic ideology.
However, some latter ones did not have this sort of hostility. Instead, they emphasized the need to preserve distinct ethnic identities, and preached a “love of difference” which some scholars call it “differentialism”. And they cite the right-wing movements in France during the 1990s as an example of this form of fascism.
In general, the present rising appetite for totalitarianism, albeit with new form, seems not limited to Europe, but rather is fast spreading across the globe. As highlighted above, the sole ambition of all totalitarian regimes in whatever form they come – neo-fascism, neo-communism (may be the so-called “revolutionary democracy”?), neo-Nazism, apartheid – is to remold and re-engineer societies in the image of their own predilection via a police state that attempts to strictly control the life and soul of citizens.
More often than not, totalitarianism provides a one-size-fits-all solution to all human, social and historical ills that denies the unique nature and experience of each human being and social collectivity. Thus, it is inherently insensitive, inhumane, immoral and highly repressive of human potential.
It goes without saying that such a repressive rule will always result in heavy human suffering, inefficient use of available human and social resources, greater inequality, and many more other social malfeasances which ultimately condemn citizens to a lower state of emotional, spiritual as well as physical life