Fear

When it comes to the definitions of various political regimes, what really makes the difference between one system and the other is the way in which it encompasses the human nature. 

For instance, in a liberal democracy, the human nature is credited with free will and the capacity to decide its fate, with a minimal intrusion on behalf of the state. 

In a dictatorship, the human nature is considered weak, unreliable, even dangerous when not contained by a very elaborate state system, therefore, it needs to be permanently supervised and controlled, from an early age through education and further on, through an omni-present surveillance system which relies often on voluntarily human informers. From this point of view, both the right and the left dictatorships do endeavour the same future for their citizens: their consciences need to be modelled carefully, like a knead, while under a permanent pressure to conform to the values assumed as right by the state.

When it comes to define the 'enemy', the dictatorships usually use a very generous definition that includes both its own citizens that under various circumstances, including foreign influences, might display openly thoughts and opinions and even behaviours, contrary to the state-accepted values. Those values might be subject to change, therefore as a member of the close community you have to be permanently connected with the vital ideological organs of the state. Yesterday's favorite might turn overnight into the public enemy, so better watch out!

What a dictatorship, or an emerging dictatorship is mostly afraid of, is the difference of opinions, especially those opinions who seem to neglect its awesomeness. The builders of such a system are afraid that once people are being told that 'the King is naked', more and more subjects will follow because, isn't it, they are just weak mortals, unable to have their own opinions. A democracy stays stronger despite and often thanks to its critics. Democracies, as we'are witnesses in many parts of the world right now, are not irreversible and you need dedicated institutions and individuals strongly believing in the values of freedom.

The dictatorships in the making are operating in a reverse mode. Institutions aimed at guaranteeing the check and balances are discredited - especially the judiciary, theoretically an apolitical entity, is invaded suddenly by political interventions, mostly when at stake are serious corruption files against politicians, media is facing a permanent pressure, in the modern variant being forced to reproduce various battle lines produced by skilled governmental spin doctors. Anyone daring to utter a different opinion is labelled as 'enemy'. 

Of course not everything which is said in a democracy is true. Individauals and/groups might be biased, driven by hate or just unable to understand some specific situation and historical contexts. They can be manipulated, the messengers of a specific ideology or religious mindset. 

In a democracy, such people are allowed to have their opinion, eventually being assisted and being offered a different version of facts. A strong democracy is not afraid of dissidents and critics, even the unfair ones. The only real threat is a person or group of people aiming at destroying violently that democracy or taking control over the democratic institutions in order to restrain the basic freedoms and institute dictatorship. 

Fear is the cheapest and deadliest fuel in a dictatorship. For fear, basic freedoms are limited. For fear, dissidents are put into prison and interrogated. For fear, media is taken away its basic freedoms. For fear, people with apparent or obvious antagonistic opinions to the state's ideology are not allowed to enter. For fear, people are paying their way into freedom, either by open acts of corruption even by willingly acts of denunciation. 

Who really wants to live with fear?