(This is Part 21 of a series. Go back to Part 20.)
A little geopolitical story-telling, and then we'll use that as a channel to something deeper:
In North Korea right now they have drills every day for all the citizenry. Very loud sirens and air raid drills go off every day, and the citizenry drills for war by taking shelter. For instance, in the capital people take shelter deep inside the subway system. Then, while the populace is hiding, martial music is played along with slogans extolling the courage of the motherland.
The war referred to, of course, is an expected invasion by the United States, which the populace is told could come any day now. Observers on the scene have reported that the populace is in deep fear of being attacked.
A populace in deep fear goes hand-in-glove with an increasingly totalitarian government. Fear and anxiety are the basic mechanisms by which a populace is enticed to give up its freedom and openness for greater control by the state. Fear and anxiety are also the basic means by which this greater control by the state is maintained.
That is why all totalitarian states are also militaristic ones—they must have an enemy to help keep the populace in fear and anxiety.
In all cases where a country is now a police state, it had an earlier existence that was more liberal, open and free. It may not have been democratic from our point of view, but the populace had a relatively greater degree of freedom and ease at one time.
In making the transition, then, from a more liberal and open state to one characterized by authoritarian control, the essential element is that the populace comes to feel that it is under attack or potential attack by some internal or, more commonly, external threat.
When a populace feels that it is under attack or potential attack, the usual rules go out the window. The society comes onto a "war footing," and laws are passed that tighen surveillance of and control over the citizenry in various ways in order to make the country more "secure" against the threat or perceived threat.
If the country is a democratic one, or relatively so, lawmakers themselves are made to feel a greater sense of fear. Under such conditions, which are increasingly characterized as a societal emergency, lawmakers are then much more willing to pass legistation which cedes more and more control to the executive sector of government in order to deal with the threat.
As one example among countless ones, Hitler used the Reichstag fire of the early 1930s—the origin of which is still unclear—to induce fearful legislators to create wide-ranging changes in the government structure.
These various changes, made in the name of protecting the fatherland, had the effect of flowing more and more power to the executive branch—and ultimately to the chief leader himself. All of this is par for the course and numerous examples could be given; only the details would vary.
Why do I bring all this up? Because it illustrates a larger principle, looked at in the next section.
(This is the end of Part 21. Go to Part 22.)
—jim sloman, 2.14.03 for Jun 12
|
