n a country such asEngland, on the other hand, twenty years of civil war in the 17th century as well as theGlorious Revolution of 1688, produced a constitutional monarchy.In the 19th century, it was the dual revolution -- the Industrial and French Revolutions --which created the forces of social change which monarchs, enlightened or not, could notfail to take heed. A large middle class had made its appearance in the 18th century butlacked status. Now, in the 19th century, this large class of entrepreneurs, factory owners,civil servants, teachers, lawyers, doctors, merchants and other professionals wanted theirvoices heard by their governments. They became a force which had to be reckoned withand the government began to utilize its talents by creating large, obedient bureaucracies.In this way, government seemed to reflect the interests of all when in actual fact, theyrepresented the interests of the bourgeoisie. So European governments maintained orderby giving the middle classes a stake in the welfare of the nation. Governments also builtstrong police forces and armies of loyal soldiers. Meanwhile, the great mass of people, the"swinish multitude," lay completely unrepresented. And radicals were either imprisoned orexiled because of their liberal, democratic, socialist, communist or anarchist inclinations. Despite these measures, and there were others as well, traditional authoritariangovernments were not completely successful. Their power and their objectives werelimited. These governments lacked modern communications and modern transportation.They lacked, in other words, the ability to totally control their subject populations. Thetwentieth century -- thanks to improved technology -- would change all that. In fact, it canbe said that true totalitarian regimes are limited only by the extent to which masscommunications have been made a reality. And, of course, with mass communicationscomes mass man, and the capability of total control. F...
