|
Why we
tolerate dictators
By Kuldip
Dhiman
WHEN Joseph Stalin died in 1953
after a quarter-century of brutal rule, he was not only
the indisputable master of the then Soviet Union but also
of other Soviet bloc countries, covering nearly two
million square kilometres with a population of
1,34,188,000. Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Mao, Peron,
Ceausescu, Suharto also ruthlessly controlled their
people for decades and finally ruined their countries. In
comparison, no democratically elected leader can boast of
such a long reign. And the way Castro, Gaddafi, Saddam
and Milosevic are carrying on in spite of all efforts to
dislodge them, the question arises: how do these tyrants
manage to hold on to power for so long, and more
importantly, why do we tolerate them? Moreover, with the
recent coup by the army in Pakistan, the question
naturally arises could a dictator grab power in
India?
Fear psychosis has been used by
tyrants because they couldnt be bothered with
public welfare. But with the spread of education and
communication, tyrants can barely rule their subjects
unmindful of world opinion. Much to their dislike,
dictators now have to maintain a veneer of
respectability. In line with Platos concept of the
Philosopher King, they have to appear
intelligent and cultured. Since most of the modern
dictators are neither philosophers nor kings
Stalin was the son of a cobbler, Hitler of a minor
official, Gaddafi of a Bedouin, Milosevic of a school
teacher to gain acceptance and respect of the
masses, they have to rely heavily on ideology so that
they are seen as saviours of their country, not usurpers.
For the first year or so
after grabbing power, it is generally smooth sailing;
things appear to be moving in the right direction, and
the country seems to be doing well because there
are no strikes or demonstrations. People breathe a sigh
of relief, especially if the previous democratic regime
was incompetent. At last there is someone who gets things
done, they think. People are lured into a false sense of
security. But after the euphoria of the promised
utopia wanes and people begin to see the true
colours of their new ruler, the rein of terror begins as
it was witnessed in the erstwhile Soviet Union, Cuba,
China, Uganda, Nigeria, some Arab countries and the
banana republics.
In The Prince,
the bible of all despots and dictators, Machiavelli tells
us that once power is acquired, the state could either be
governed with love or fear. But since love and fear
can hardly exist together, it is far safer to be feared
than loved. Napoleon was in full agreement with
Machiavelli when he declared, My dominion is
founded on fear. If I abandoned the system, I should
immediately be dethroned.... When a king is said to be a
kind king, his reign is a failure.
To justify their
misguided ideologies, dictators quote philosophers out of
context, and even misinterpret them deliberately. And
while doing so, they have no compunctions at all about
using the doctrines of even those thinkers who are
against totalitarianism. William James, Henri Bergson and
Freidrich Nietzsche had quite unwittingly played an
important part in the shaping of later
etatist-authoritarian thought, although all the three of
them were bitter critics of totalitarianism. And
ironically, Ludwig Gumplowicz (1838-1909), the
philosopher whose doctrines were directly borrowed by
Jew-haters like Mussolini, Hitler and the Communists, was
actually a Polish Jew! He believed that the state
originates in conquest and is maintained by power, force,
and intimidation. Without power or force, the state would
cease to exist.
While terrorising anyone
who shows signs of dissent, dictators use propaganda to
keep the ordinary masses under control. Hitlers
propaganda methods typify the ones used by other
totalitarian regimes, and even democracies use these
techniques effectively. "It is possible by means of
shrewd and unremitting propaganda", Hitler wrote,
"to make people believe that heaven is hell, and
hell is heaven". To get the most out of it,
propaganda must be "aimed always and primarily at
the emotions, and very little at mens alleged
reason". "Propaganda", he stressed,
"had no more to do with scientific accuracy than a
poster had to do with art.... The greater the mass of men
to be reached, the lower its intellectual level must
be." Propaganda must deal with a few simple points
driven home by endless repetition tell a lie a
hundred times and it gets believed. Too many issues
confuse the masses. This technique is used successfully
during elections even in democratic countries such as
India: every party has usually only one basic election
issue, be it the Emergency, communal disharmony, external
threat, Ayodhya, Kargil, or the nationality of a
candidate.
Another cardinal
principle of propaganda is that rational arguments must
never be used. Rational thinking means asking questions,
but when people start asking questions, anarchy follows.
So it becomes imperative to crush the inquisitiveness of
the masses. The eighteenth-century Swedish-German
philosopher, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, said that if you
wish to control the masses, you must fashion them in such
a way that they simply cannot will otherwise than you
wish them to will. This is by no means an original
thought, because more than two thousand years ago, Plato
advocated a lot more cruel methods to control the masses
in his Republic. He believed that infants should
be separated from their mothers as soon as they are born,
so that the state can bring them up as ideal citizens.
Although dictators would love to follow this wonderful
advice, even an utter fool can see it is impractical. So
they create youth wings instead, thus transforming an
entire generation of loyal men and women who would die
for them without asking any questions. Macaulay suggested
that many an army had prospered under a bad commander,
but no army had ever prospered under a debating
society. Hence, the so-called freewill freedom of
thought and expression must be crushed totally, because
the will becomes really free when its freedom in the
ordinary sense has been totally destroyed. To Gumplowicz
the notion that man is a free being is absurd. "This
fancied freedom and equality is incompatible with the
state and is a complete negation of it."
And if any one dares to
disagree with the state ideology, he must be crushed
pitilessly. Here Nietsches writings come in
handy:"A man loses power when he pities," he
wrote, "Pity thwarts the law of development which is
the law of selection. It preserves that which is ripe for
death; it fights in favour of the disinherited and the
condemned to life. By multiplying misery, quite as much
as by preserving all that is miserable, it is the
principal agent in promoting decadence."
The ultimate propaganda
technique the authoritarian rulers use is the principle
of the big lie. "With the primitive simplicity of
the masses a great lie is more effective than a small
one,"Hitler says, "because they (the masses)
often lie in small matters, but would be too ashamed to
tell a great big lie. Hence it will never occur to the
broad mass to suspect so large a lie, and the mass will
be quite unable to believe that anyone could possibly
have the infernal impudence to pervert the truth to such
an extent." Hardly an original thinker, Hitler
clearly borrowed this from Aristotle who contended that
the masses could be impressed by "the magnificent
lie." China has used this method so successfully,
that 10 years after the army massacred 155 students, and
injured many more at the Tiananmen Square, many Chinese
dont believe that it ever happened."No, our
army couldnt have done that," they say even
after evidence is shown to them.
But all propaganda is
useless if the leader does not keep the masses motivated.
No one can go on ruling forever by merely promising to
provide the populace with the plainest physical wants
such as food and clothing. As soon as their bellies are
full, people start demanding other things such as better
education, better conditions, and worst of all even
freedom. Hence, a more effective way of swaying the
masses is to keep them busy by appealing to some vague
dream of glory, empire, nationality, or religion, and
external threat. Awaken in their minds a chauvinistic
sense of racial, religious, and cultural superiority, and
then tell them that their superior race or religion is
threatened by other inferior races or religions. Create
so much distrust, hate, and insecurity that people begin
to believe that their world would end without their
leader. Tell them that in the struggle for existence only
the strongest and the best survive in other words
kill or be killed. To justify this belief, they again go
back to Nietzsche who believed that war and courage have
done more great things than charity, and every natural
gift must develop itself by contest. Mussolini twisted
this out of context and made Italians believe that strife
is the origin of all things, and the day when "there
would be no more strife would be a day of melancholy, of
the end of things, or ruin.... Peace is hence absurd or
rather it is a pause in war."
The political scene in
India now is not very different from what it was in
Europe when Mussolini and Hitler and the Communists came
to power. People are quite sick of frequent changes in
government; it makes them uneasy and insecure. Lurking in
the shadows of political heavyweights, there might be one
unassuming party worker or a dissatisfied general who
might assume total control of the country. Yes, it is
highly unlikely to happen, but political sociologist
William Montgomery McGovern warned us over 50 years
ago:"Wherever there is widespread belief that
dictatorship is the best form of government, it is not
difficult to find persons to fill the office of dictator;
and wherever there is a widespread dislike of
dictatorship, it is difficult, if not impossible, for
such persons as Mussolini or Hitler to seize the reins of
power." Didnt we get a taste of
authoritarianism not too long ago when the entire nation
of nearly a billion was rendered impotent for 18 months?
Going back to the
original question why do we tolerate dictators
and, perhaps, even love them in spite of being aware of
their cruelty and ruthlessness? The ordinary masses are
only too happy to be goaded like a herd of cattle, too
selfish and too preoccupied with their own safety. As
long as they are safe, their families are safe, their
jobs are safe, and as long as their own existence is not
directly threatened, they hardly care who is ruling them.
Or perhaps they even get some sort of masochistic
pleasure out of the whip of a dictator.
Mussolini was once asked
if it was possible for a dictator to be loved by his
people. He said yes it was, because the "crowd loves
strong men. The crowd is like a woman."
|