Orwell's 1984 and Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 combined?

[festive1]

really? tell him to make an account on this website, i'm sure we would love to hear your husbands opinion about democracy in Africa, especially since he has a double masters in international economics and african politics (is it african politics or something else) did he go to the university of london, or the U of Exeter?

Johns Hopkins SAIS program, and I was waiting for you to get online. Give me a minute to collect stuff, he sent me a 20 page book outline which I don't think I can post in its entirety.

---

Sounds like her husband has better things to do, but that's just my opinion.

Ah, but he humors me! And forwards me documents...

---

This is not my work, it is my husband's. He has given me verbal permission to post this. Notes in brackets [ ] are mine, these are excerpts, and I'm filling in.
So for starters, a working definition of totalitarianism:

Given the pejorative connotations surrounding the label “totalitarian,” it is not only necessary to be precise in its application, but to appreciate its implications. Linz [reference to Juan J. Linz, Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes] notes the following characteristics of totalitarianism:
1: There is a monistic but not a monolithic center of power, and whatever pluralism of institutions or groups exists derives its legitimacy from that center, is largely mediated by it, and is mostly a political creation rather than an outgrowth of the dynamics of the preexisting society.
2: There is an exclusive, autonomous, and more or less intellectually elaborate ideology with which the ruling group or leader, and the party serving the leaders, identify and which they use as a basis for policies or manipulate to legitimize them. The ideology has some boundaries beyond which lies heterodoxy that does not remain unsanctioned. The ideology goes beyond a particular program or definition of the boundaries of legitimate political action to provide, presumably, some ultimate meaning, sense of historical purpose, and interpretation of social reality.
3: Citizen participation in and active mobilization for political and collective social tasks are encouraged, demanded, rewarded, and channeled through a single party and many monopolistic secondary groups. Passive obedience and apathy and retreating into the role of “parochial” and “subjects,” characteristic of many authoritarian regimes, are considered undesirable by the rulers.
Linz also describes the feedback between the center and the processes of participation within the controlled organizations, the role of propaganda and intellectuals, the use of terror, the system’s collective or mobilizational aspects, the emphasis on conformity, and the frequent development of the cult of the leader as salient characteristics of totalitarianism, although some of these characteristics may also appear in non-totalitarian authoritarian regimes,2 and some of these characteristics may not always be present.

He's a dense writer, but he's writing for political scientists, not the New York Times best seller list.
Do we have agreement upon the definition of totalitarianism?

---

And I was mistaken, it is Eritrea he claims is totalitarian, not Equatorial Guinea.
[quote]
Undoubtedly, the most clear-cut totalitarian state in Africa is Eritrea, which is often compared to North Korea. Although data is scarce, since foreigners are not allowed outside the capital, Asmara, and the country rarely makes international headlines, the evidence seems more than sufficient to qualify the Eritrean regime as totalitarian, based on documentation by Human Rights Watch, the US State Department, and Freedom House, among others. In a comprehensive report by the Norwegian researcher, Kjetil Tronvoll, “The Lasting Struggle for Freedom in Eritrea,” he concludes:
“The current situation in Eritrea regarding democratization and human rights can only be described as an extremely totalitarian military dictatorship. The President is relying on just a handful of men to control the security and military apparatus in order to dominate and suppress the entire Eritrean population. As this is written, in April 2009, there are no signs of change of mind or policies among the Eritrean government, and the extremely dire human rights situation is sustained. The following points sum up the situation:
Although the Constitution has been ratified, it is not implemented, and the constitutional provisions regarding democracy, human rights and good governance are not observed;
Only the government party (the PFDJ/EPLF) is allowed;
The government controls all mass media, the independent press has been shut down since September 2001;
The government directly interferes with and controls the judiciary;
Extrajudicial sentencing and killings occur regularly;
There is widespread detention without trial of individuals associated with any kind of activity not prescribed or sanctioned by the authorities;
Detainees are routinely tortured, and prison conditions are in general inhumane;
Freedom of expression is severely curtailed, if it exists at all;
Freedom of assembly is severely curtailed, prohibiting the gathering of more than a handful of people;
Independent research and academic freedom are severely curtailed;
The government restricts the development of an independent civil society. No independent human rights or civic rights organizations exist;
Due to government priorities and mismanagement, there is escalating poverty and a sharp decline in economic activities;
The government is nourishing a ‘political culture of war’ and enforces a continuous mobilization of young men and women sustaining Africa’s biggest army;
The existence of an elaborate secret intelligence network, spying and informing on all sectors of society;
Religious communities are restricted in the practice of their beliefs and ‘new’ Christian churches are banned and their followers persecuted;
The relevance of the international society is weakened, as the government becomes more and more authoritarian;
The Eritrean government is a regional ‘spoiler’ of peace, currently pursuing destabilizing strategies in Somalia, militarily challenging Djibouti, and supporting the armed Ethiopian opposition.10
The central role of ideology in providing the framework for the Eritrean state is revealing, reinforced by the decades of war that contributed to the militarism, intolerance of dissent, and increasing centralization of decision-making. Eritrea’s president, Isaias Afwerki, has long been committed to “guided democracy,” a form of centralized control to develop the economy and unify and transform the society. “Democracy in this view had more to do with participation (voluntary or not) than accountability. In the tradition of state-centered authoritarian socialism, they relegated political democracy to the status of a luxury.” Connell traces the inspiration for the Eritrean system to Leninist traditions. “In Isaias’s case (Eritreans traditionally go by first names), this was reinforced by training in China at the height of the Cultural Revolution, during which he received intensive exposure to Maoist doctrine whose themes of extreme ‘voluntarism’ and populism continue to define his world view.”11 Despite Eritrea’s economic difficulties, the government expects the recent discovery of large deposits of gold to reinforce its ability to maintain control, while the regime is at the same time tightening the restrictions against the few international agencies still working in the country.12
Other aspects of the regime that conform to classic notions of totalitarianism are equally compelling, such as the existence of the secret Eritrean People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP) revealed by Isaias in 1994, which he said was a party within the EPLF that had functioned as a revolutionary vanguard, directing the wider organization. Although the EPRP was officially disbanded in 1989, the government continues to be run by an amorphous and shrinking group of people whose authority is dependent on the favor of Isaias. The use of mass mobilization is also remarkable. As the International Crisis Group has observed, “National service puts large pools of labour at the state’s disposal for commercial agricultural projects and the building of roads and dams; however, these are exercises in state control rather than significant contributions to economic development – many such projects are largely irrelevant.”13 Although the ICG has opined that “the state cannot strictly be considered totalitarian, since it lacks the bureaucratic and technological resources to control its citizens quite so effectively,”14 Connell has found, “Longtime confidants refused to express criticism of the regime in public places, even in whispers, for fear they might be punished. Nor would they voice criticism over the phone or in emails, as they believed all electronic communication was monitored.”15 In other words, however unsophisticated it might be, the Eritrean state has been quite effective in imposing total control.
[\quote]
He has equally compelling arguments in the case of Ethiopia and Rwanda.