[Cacique]

Not necesarily. They can lead as in the case of our society to a representative republic, with staggered elections checks and balances etc.. Our founders did not create a democracy subject to rule by majority, the passions of the moment or the mob. They did create a system where open debate and discussion can be had. The problem is that people seek simple solutions to complex problems or want either black or white answers. Reality isn't as simple as that.

[timm22]

Not necesarily. They can lead as in the case of our society to a representative republic, with staggered elections checks and balances etc.

I agree, to the extent that the checks and balances include the idea of limited, delegated government powers.

If we do not include that idea, the case is different. For example, let's say that instead of granting the government only limited, specific powers, we accept that the state may act on things that have public consequence, for the good of society. Since anything can be shown to have a consequence on society, anything falls under the scope of government control. This is the very definition of totalitarianism.

Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be a dictatorial totalitarianism. It might even be argued to be a benign totalitarianism. But if every facet of life falls under the scrutiny of the state, it IS totalitarianism.