Examining the Position of Individual Security in Authoritarian and Totalitarian Systems
Keywords:
Individual security, authoritarianism, totalitarianism, expansive criminalization, apparent legitimacy, official ideology, identity engineeringAbstract
Individual security, as one of the fundamental pillars of human rights, holds a relatively institutionalized and protected position in democratic systems through the oversight of independent judicial bodies and the participation of civil society organizations. However, in authoritarian and totalitarian systems, this fundamental right faces serious challenges. These regimes, through a deliberate redefinition and conceptual hollowing of individual security, have transformed it into an instrument for consolidating political power, suppressing dissent, and implementing social engineering. Given that previous analyses have largely neglected the structural and ideological dimensions of this issue, the present study adopts an analytical–comparative approach to examine the impact of authoritarian and totalitarian structures on the restriction of individual security. The findings indicate that authoritarian regimes generally operate by enacting vague and broadly defined laws that allow expansive interpretations of political and security-related offenses, as well as by employing exceptional legal frameworks such as states of emergency, in order to legitimize the suppression of political opposition. In totalitarian systems, governments systematically and deliberately violate individual security by employing mechanisms such as the manipulation of public opinion through official media, mass mobilization, and the weakening of oversight institutions, all of which are examined in this study. Finally, the study proposes several measures to safeguard individual security, including strengthening the principle of separation of powers, ensuring judicial independence, reinforcing oversight institutions, imposing precise legal limitations on governmental authority during exceptional circumstances, and establishing democratic accountability through support for independent media, civil society institutions, and international monitoring mechanisms.
Downloads
References
1. Shariatpanahi AG. Essentials of Constitutional Law. Tehran: Mizan Publishing; 2023.
2. Moqadam Saman D, editor Human rights and national security in different countries of the world. First National Conference on Law, Jurisprudence, and Culture; 2020.
3. Shariatpanahi AG. Lectures on Public Law. Tehran: SAMT Publications; 2011.
4. World Justice P. Rule of Law Index. Washington, DC: 2023.
5. Arendt H. The Origins of Totalitarianism: Harcourt, Brace and Company; 1951.
6. Friedrich CJ, Brzezinski ZK. Totalitarian Dictatorship and Autocracy. 2nd ed: Harvard University Press; 1965.
7. Linz JJ. Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers; 2000.
8. Transparency International Organization. Corruption Perceptions Index. Berlin: 2023.
9. Freedom H. Freedom in the World Report. Washington, DC: 2023.
10. Kadivar M. Authority and Authoritarianism. 2020.
11. Ghaffari G. Political Authority and Political Culture in Iran. Tehran: Qoomes Publishing; 2006.
12. Fakouhi N. Power, Politics, and Culture. Tehran: Ashian Publishing; 2017.
13. Agamben G. State of Exception. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.
14. Rahmani H. Authority and Legitimacy in the Modern State. Tehran: University of Tehran Press; 2014.
15. Shariatpanahi AG. Toward a Better Constitution: The Origins of Freedoms and Individual Rights. Tehran: Mizan Publishing; 2005.
16. Foucault M. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York: Vintage Books; 1995.
17. Lyon D. An Electronic Panopticon? A Sociological Critique. Sociological Review. 1993;41(4):653-78. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-954X.1993.tb00896.x.
18. King G, Pan J, Roberts ME. How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression. American Political Science Review. 2013;107(2):326-43. doi: 10.1017/S0003055413000014.
19. Duverger M, Shariatpanahi SAG. The Principles of Political Science. Tehran: Mizan Publishing; 2020.
20. Shariatpanahi AG. Constitutional Law and its Political Institutions. Tehran: University of Tehran Press; 1989.
21. Undp. Human Security Report. New York: 2022.
22. Zenz A. Break Their Roots: Evidence for China's Parent-Child Separation Campaign in Xinjiang. Journal of Political Risk. 2019;7(7):1-29.
23. Jafari Dolatabadi A. From national security to human security. Dadnameh Journal. 2010(4):37-9.
24. Linz JJ. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Journal of Comparative Politics. 1978:33-0. doi: 10.56021/9780801820090.
25. Hosseini SL. A comparative analysis of the criteria for limiting public freedoms in the Islamic system and the international human rights system. 2016;5(10):129-54.
26. Scheppele KL. Law in a Time of Emergency: States of Exception and the Temptations of 9/11. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law. 2004;6(5):1001-83.
27. Shamloo B, Yousefi A. The state of public emergency in the international human rights system. Judicial Law Journal. 2016;80(96):110-28.
28. European Commission. Turkey 2019 Report. 2019.
29. Evans R. The Third Reich in Power. New York: Penguin; 2005.
30. Fromm E. Escape from Freedom. New York: Holt Paperbacks; 1941.
31. Hosseini M. The role of modern technologies in limiting or guaranteeing individual security. Public Law Research. 2020;28(3):105-25.
32. Rafiei N. The position of privacy with a cyber security approach. Journal of Law, Journalism, and Communication. 2020;2(3):38-62.
33. Applebaum A. Gulag: A History. New York: Doubleday; 2003.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Mehrzad Razmjooe (Author); Jafar Kousha; Bagher Shamloo (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
