These words refer to the wielding of power by a single person or a small group of people, usually without the consent of the governed. Authoritarian , the most general of these, is also the most objectively descriptive and least disapproving in tone, although any of these words will have negative implications for the citizens of a democracy. Authoritarian may describe any form of rule ?from a monarchy to a democracy ?in which unquestioning obedience to those in power is expected or demanded: the military junta that instituted such authoritarian measures as censorship of the press; children whose upbringing was neither permissive nor authoritarian . Paternalistic refers to an authoritarian tendency that sees a populace as childlike and unable to govern itself. The word may suggest either benevolent rule or a style of government determined to keep the governed helpless and dependent: the paternalistic stance of most banana republics; the paternalistic attitude of some university authorities towards their students. Oligarchic refers to the rule of an elite, but does not suggest what grounds are used to determine who is a member of this ruling group: the oligarchic power of the English nobility before the rise of the monarchy. Plutocratic suggests an oligarchic rule based specifically on wealth: the emergence of the first plutocratic industrial giants of the 19th century.

The remaining words are all much harsher in tone than the foregoing. Of these, autocratic is the mildest, though stronger than authoritarian . It suggests the absolute rule of a single person, but such a rule may be as repressive or benevolent as the person chooses: autocratic rulers as different as Queen Elizabeth I and Louis XIV; the rare husband who still insists on autocratic control over his family.

Totalitarian is perhaps the least exact of these words in its implications. It suggests the concentration of power in the hands of the few; it also suggests the context of a modern collectivist state. A totalitarian government is certainly authoritarian , but may or may not be oligarchic , plutocratic , paternalistic or autocratic . Such a state would certainly suppress civil liberties, but might still have a benevolent notion, however, misguided, if its duties to the people. On the other hand, it might be based exclusively on the self-aggrandisement and greed of a ruling class: the Puritans of the New World who, out of self-defence, constructed what amounted to a totalitarian state; a Stalinist regime that was more totalitarian than those that preceded or followed it.

Dictatorial and tyrannical both may be simply descriptive of autocratic rule, but more often suggest strong disapproval for repressive tactics. Dictatorial , at its most neutral, specifically refers to leaders other than hereditary rulers such as kings. At its most negative, it suggests repressive harshness: Cromwell, who was less dictatorial than many kings; family life embittered by her dictatorial maternalism; companies no longer dictatorial towards their employees. Tyrannical may once have been most appropriate to describe the power of a king, but now it applies more generally to any arbitrary, almost whimsical one-men rule: the tyrannical head of the Parliamentary committee; his tyrannical outburst against his son’s disobedience.

Fascist (also fascistic ) and despotic are the most harshly negative of all these words. Fascist in its narrowest sense applies to a strongly nationalistic and militaristic right-wing regime that suppresses civil liberties and attacks selected minorities: the fascist tendencies of many anti-Semites. The word, however, is often used loosely as pure invective for any authoritarian stand: fascist gangsters who took control of the neighbourhood. Despotic could once be applied less negatively to any absolute, autocratic rule, but now it would be more often understood as indicating a fiercely cruel and savagely repressive ruler or government: the rapidly disappearing despotic family head; a government so despotic that citizens could be shot without a trial.