|
|
I was reading Hannah Arendt's book The Origins of Totalitarianism until the library recalled it (bastards!) but she talks about how a feature of totalitarian movements is that they gain the support of populations who can't be arsed to vote, etc. For her, then, it's not precisely about "apathy", it's about the way that totalitarian leaders position themselves as legitimized by or intervening in huge, huge issues of national identity/pride/destiny, rather than on specific, more traditionally "political" issues. Hence people who do not feel they are represented by any of the political parties become part of totalitarian movements, and incidentally reveal that democracies can (and often do) function without the participation of the majority of citizens.
Anyone who knows more about this than me please jump in, I'm floundering a bit without my book. |
|
|