Crisis Response Checklist: Democracy vs. Totalitarianism
This 12-question checklist allows observers to rate a government's crisis management approach based on its actions, moving from the accountable responses of a liberal democracy toward the repressive tactics of an authoritarian state.
The Totalitarianism Risk Score (TRS)
For each question, assign a score from 1 (Most Democratic/Open) to 5 (Most Totalitarian/Closed). Sum the scores to get the final Totalitarianism Risk Score (TRS).
| Score | Rating Description |
| 1 | Democratic/Transparent: Favors accountability and fact-based repair. (Corresponds to Levels 1-3 of the initial taxonomy). |
| 3 | Minimizing/Stonewalling: Uses legal ambiguity and media manipulation to control the narrative. (Corresponds to Levels 4-7 of the initial taxonomy). |
| 5 | Totalitarian/Repressive: Uses state power and fear to eradicate the truth and punish perceived enemies. (Corresponds to Levels 1-6 of the totalitarian taxonomy). |
The 12-Question Crisis Response Checklist
| # | Question | Score (1, 3, or 5) |
| Q1 | Acknowledgement: Did the leader offer a public, unreserved apology for the core misconduct or harm? (If yes, 1; If admitted only as a "technical error" or "oversight," 3; If denied absolutely or blamed on foreign enemies, 5) | |
| Q2 | Accountability: Was the responsible high-level official or leader immediately removed from power due to the evidence? (If yes, 1; If a low-level scapegoat was purged, 3; If no one was removed, or the accused was promoted, 5) | |
| Q3 | Truth & Evidence: Was the government's full internal evidence (e.g., meeting minutes, emails) made public to an independent inquiry? (If yes, 1; If stonewalled with "ongoing legal process," 3; If evidence was declared "un-personed" or destroyed, 5) | |
| Q4 | Whistleblowers: Were the initial accusers or journalists protected and praised, or were they silenced/pressured? (If protected, 1; If ignored or attacked (Level 5), 3; If legally intimidated, imprisoned, or tortured (Level 10), 5) | |
| Q5 | Media Coverage: Did state-affiliated media provide thorough, critical coverage of the scandal? (If yes, 1; If minimized or balanced with unrelated positive news (Level 7), 3; If coverage was dominated by propaganda overload/a "new truth" (Level 5T), 5) | |
| Q6 | Scope of Blame: Was the scandal confined to the specific act, or was it framed as an ideological plot against the state? (If confined, 1; If the accuser's motive was attacked, 3; If framed as "sabotage" or "revisionism" (Level 3T), 5) | |
| Q7 | Resolution: Did the government offer visible, measurable policy/systemic reform to prevent recurrence? (If yes, 1; If offered an internal review with no change, 3; If response involved increased internal security/control, 5) | |
| Q8 | Legal Interpretation: Did the government respond to the spirit of the law, or did it rely solely on technical, legalistic denials to mislead? (If spirit, 1; If used limited, technical denials (Level 6), 3; If an investigation was used to fabricate evidence against the victim (Level 6T), 5) | |
| Q9 | Dissent: Were dissenters, critics, or protestors treated with respect, or were their families also targeted for retribution? (If respected, 1; If ignored/marginalized, 3; If collective punishment was used against families/associates (Level 4T), 5) | |
| Q10 | Leader's Status: Did the leader appear capable of making errors, or was the leader’s infallibility a major defense against the charges? (If capable of error, 1; If relied on minimizing/normalizing (Level 3), 3; If defense relied on the Cult of Personality (Level 9T), 5) | |
| Q11 | Historical Record: Is the scandal documented accurately in public records, or has it been scrubbed from official history? (If documented, 1; If information is confusing/incomplete, 3; If the event has been "un-personed" from all records (Level 1T), 5) | |
| Q12 | Ultimate Consequence: What was the highest penalty for those involved in the scandal? (If demotion/re-education (Level 11T), 1; If firing/loss of public office (Level 1-2), 3; If forced public confession, imprisonment, or execution (Level 2T-4T), 5) |
Final Score and Rating Scale
Sum your 12 scores to get the final Totalitarianism Risk Score (TRS). The minimum score is 12; the maximum is 60.
| Total Score (TRS) | Rating (1-5 Scale) | Interpretation (The Spectrum of Governance) |
| 12–20 | 1 (Strong Democracy) | Crisis managed through accountability, apology, and visible reform. The cost of the scandal is primarily paid by the leader, not the system. |
| 21–30 | 2 (Flawed Democracy) | Crisis managed through legalism, delay, and strategic deflection. Tactics like stonewallingand blaming the opposition are primary. |
| 31–40 | 3 (Hybrid Regime) | Crisis managed through scapegoating, intimidation, and selective media suppression. The government is willing to sacrifice lower-level officials to save the elite. |
| 41–50 | 4 (Authoritarian State) | Crisis managed through propaganda, weaponized investigations, and fear. The rule of law is used to punish critics, and the public is overwhelmed with "new truths." |
| 51–60 | 5 (Totalitarian State) | Crisis managed through eradication, terror, and systematic violence. The truth is destroyed, the perpetrator is "un-personed," and the system is infallible. |
發表文章
