This is a question I often think of when I hear about countries considering blocking just one protocol with encryption, such as tor: How would a resourceful government block tor. Clearly France wouldn't consider a total ban on all encrypted traffic, but one could make a strong argument for doing so in a country where laws prohibit disloyal, disunifying or critical communication.
It seems though that even countries with poor human rights records allow encrypted traffic, while restricting all traffic to application level proxies that speak only unecrypted HTTP would certainly solve the problem, in as much as unmonitored communication by citizens can be seen as a problem. Why don't we see totalitarian limits on the internet itself more broadly?
To clarify, I'm asking what is to be lost when a country decides that it must be able to view, analyze and modify all communications to and from its citizens online. That western websites often use HTTPS is a good argument, and a kind of surprising one, given that social media seems to be a primary weapon against despots.