Totalitarianism and Technology in Old and New Era

Totalitarianism and Technology in Old and New Era
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Totalitarianism and Technology in Old and New Era
Introduction
To maintain power and legitimacy, old totalitarian governments invested a lot of resources to sell ideologies to the public. Propaganda created and passed through the media helped these regimes to justify their actions and gain trust from the public. The Nazi regime and the Soviet regime are some good examples of totalitarian regimes. Both of these regimes were driven by the need to industrialize and become economically powerful. To achieve this, the two regimes invested heavily in research and development (Traverso, 2017). Equally, the two invested in the media to sell their ideologies to the people and to gain their trust. Through the media, totalitarian regimes were able to show the public that they could be effective in taking care of public affairs. In addition, these systems created fear among the public through police terror. For instance, the Nazi regime had a police unit named Gestapo while the Soviets had Cheka. These police units were used to suppress the rebellion and collect information necessary for governance. To a large extent, these regimes succeeded in building their economies but in the end, lost public trust leading to their collapse. Today, totalitarian dictatorships are taking advantage of technology to control the public. This is done by spying on the people and controlling the information that is available to the public. Whilst there have been increased calls for democracy, even the most celebrated democratic systems have at one point or the other been accused of infringing on peoples’ rights by spying on them (Wintrobe, 2019). Media censorship as well as paying media houses and individual journalists to skew information is common in modern totalitarian systems. For example, China is said to be spending millions of dollars to create and sell propaganda through the media. States have successfully used modern technological platforms to advance propaganda and create fear in the public, which has, in turn, helped pave way for totalitarian dictatorship.
The Old Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism can be traced back to around the 1920s when many countries were facing an economic depression following the First World War. This type of government is characterized by a system where the state takes total centralized control of resources as well as public and private life. In the earlier twentieth century, the world economy was in disarray following the remnants of the First World War. In a bid to build their economies and become stronger globally, many governments sought to take full control of the available resources. Leaders such as Stalin (Soviet Union), Mussolini (Italy), and Hitler (Germany) tried to justify and build support for their actions through various means including but not limited to propaganda and police terror. Such tools were applied to show the public that the government was looking at its security and that it had control over the future of the nation (Calhoun, 2018). In a sense, existing mass communication channels at that time proved helpful in instigating the motives of these governments.
The above types of governments had various common characteristics. First, totalitarian governments were led by dynamic leaders who envisioned themselves as natural saviors of the people. Leaders such as Stalin and Hitler came to power at a time when the world economy was in total confusion and countries were eager to build up after the ramifications of WWI. To gain control, these leaders first sought to unify people by giving them a sense of motive. As symbols of the government, the leaders also encouraged popular support via force of will and with the help of various tools. For example, police terror, mass communication media, and popular art were some of the tools that governments used to force people into accepting their ideologies. The latter largely consisted of the set goals of the state and aimed at glorifying and justifying the actions of the government. Through tactics such as police terror, persecution, indoctrination, and censorship, totalitarian governments demanded loyalty from the people even though they were denying them basic liberties. Equally, people were expected to give personal sacrifices for the benefit of the state. For example, forced labor in government industries was a common thing in many totalitarian governments. Equally, people would be expected to work long hours as the government sought to attain set goals, which in this case revolved around rapid industrialization. The state exercised control over public and private life-controlling aspects such as education, religion, businesses, art, and personal life.
As aforementioned, earlier totalitarian governments used various tactics to build loyalty justify their actions. One of these tactics is the use of police terror to crush dissidents and force obedience on the public. For example, the Gestapo police unit in Germany and KGB in the Soviet Union helped the two governments to spy on its people and prosecute, execute and imprison those suspected to oppose the government. Whilst such police units would generally be sold to the public as units of offering security, their sinister agenda was to enforce the government’s policies. Police terror was used as a tool to intimidate people and would go even further to apply brutal force to achieve this goal.
In addition to the above technique, totalitarian governments of the time used indoctrination to shape minds. For example, through centrally controlled education systems, governments were able to glorify themselves and their policies. This also helped convince the public that unconditional support and loyalty were required for the smooth running of the country. The indoctrination process is initiated at a young age, encouraged through youth groups and the education system in general (Calhoun, 2018). Enemies of the state who largely constitute religious and ethnic leaders are blamed for everything that goes wrong and is either persecuted or confined to live in certain places.
The last tactic employed by totalitarian governments was the use of censorship and propaganda to advance their interests. To accomplish this, these governments assumed total control of media outlets including print media, radio, and motion pictures among other sources of information. Governments also had the habit to destroy any form of art that was thought to be advancing anti-government views. Censorship in the art industry was at its highest level and individual creativity that was against the views of the state was highly discouraged. The media was required to glorify the achievements of the state and its economic programs.
The above-discussed policies were important in helping totalitarian governments at the time to achieve their economic goals. A common objective among totalitarian leaders was to overhaul the economy. There was a common belief among these leaders that it was their role to make all economic decisions. It was thus their sole duty to identify the economic needs of their countries and develop programs to fulfill them. The result was often high quotas and increased production in the industrial sector. By far, such moves helped in bringing industrialization but increased emphasis led to a shortage in consumer goods (Lubbe, 2019). Through the consolidation of farms, governments created collective farming where families were required to work but the output belonged to the state and families only shared in profits. In other cases, state farms, which operated like factories were introduced. Overall, totalitarian governments while disregarding the rights of their people managed to bring about huge economic changes. However, millions of lives were lost along the way and revolution started to take root.
A New Era of Totalitarian Dictatorships
As noted in the above section, the earlier 20th-century totalitarian government used media as a tool to advance its objectives and create loyalty. At the time, technologies used for this purpose were limited to weaponry, radio, and motion pictures. Today however and with the trend in globalization, technology has advanced to include the internet and other forms of communication. The growth in mobile technology and the internet has redefined how people communicate with each other as well as how information is shared from one point to the other. Equally, the growth in technology coupled with the process of globalization has largely affected how people view human rights issues (Wagner, 2021). This is especially important given the various milestones that have helped redefine and clarify human rights issues. In this modern world, civil rights groups and activists are taking onto technological platforms to challenge governments on matters related to human rights violations and to sensitize the public at the national and international level on how they can press their governments to uphold their rights. Now more than ever, governments are faced with an extremely difficult situation in controlling the kind of information circulating in the public.
The growth of technology while giving the public increased power has also helped how governments around the world are controlling their populace. The benefits accrued to developments in technology have thus come bearing certain ramifications particularly to the growth and sustenance of global democracies. Of importance, in this case, is the ability of the government to interfere or even modify the type of information consumed by the public through the media especially the internet (Aslan, 2020). A worrying issue is how dictatorial regimes are manipulating the new technology to advance their interests, discourage dissidents and even tumble over the very rights that civil human rights activists are trying to advance. Media censorship in this case has increased allowing governments to control what kind of information is available or unavailable to the public.
The above sentiments can best be illustrated using the Arab revolution that hit the Arab world starting earlier in 2011. Earlier in the year, there was an increased public plea for political reform. Thanks to the internet and social media specifically, huge numbers of people took to the street starting from Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli, and other cities in the Arab region demanding change. By May the same year, there were significant political casualties. In Tunisia, Ben Ali was overthrown and in Egypt, Mubarak (Lindebaum, Vesa & Den Hond, 2021). The two were at the time considered as some of the most obstinate dictators and their ousting was seen as a major step towards building democracy. The new wave was countered by new actions by governments in the region and other parts of the world most of which started promising new spending programs. Among the new promised measures was increased spending on infrastructure projects, increased pay package for civil servants, tax cuts, and subsidized prices on consumer goods.
Whilst the above measures were aimed at trading for peace, governments also became fully aware of the power of virtual networks in bringing change. As a result, many countries that previously had not taken censorship as a precaution against political uprising started to choke off information and censor communication. Today, many governments have been accused of censoring information flowing through virtual networks with serious allegations of spying on citizens arising. It is worthwhile to note here that not all censorship involves totalitarian dictatorships. For instance, some states have moved to block internet users or sites depending on the content that these sites provide.
Since the internet was privatized in the year 1995, there have been numerous occasions that governments around the world have intervened and disrupted connections. According to Duwell (2017), half of the incidents involve totalitarian dictatorships and authoritarian governments. Countries such as China, Turkey, and Tunisia have featured at the top of the list of countries that have the highest number of incidents of government intervention. While these countries are democratic and authoritarian regimes, they provide good examples of how governments can take advantage of censorship to control information flow. Some incidences have been necessitated by the need to manage the crisis while some specifically targeted civil rights activists.
Governments interfere with information flow through the virtual platforms and mobile phone technology in several ways and these could lead to varying effects. For example, some totalitarian dictatorships have moved online shutting down political websites. Others have resorted to arresting bloggers, journalists, civil rights activists, and even individual citizens (Al-Amoudi & Lazega, 2019). In addition, states have used a proxy to control internet providers and forcing them to block specific websites or deny access to the internet in totality albeit for a restricted period.
Totalitarian or authoritarian states have been accused of exercising full control over their mobile phone and virtual networks, nodes, and subnetworks more as compared with democratic states. Surprisingly, however, democratic states are more likely to use proxy to target actors in civil society, political activists, and individuals. In essence, research indicates that the highest percent of states interfering with information flow over virtual networks were democracies (Glassman, 2021). However, totalitarian governments have also been using this as a governance tactic. This is true even for developing countries, which have started to use this tactic to maintain social control.
As social media continues to grow in popularity, so has its capacity to be used in collective action. With this knowledge, governments, both democratic and totalitarian have become increasingly aggressive in controlling the kind of information that is generated or exchanged through social platforms. Several reasons have been cited regarding states’ interference with mobile phones and virtual networks. One major reason for this course of action is the need by the government to protect its political authority and the second is to preserve the public good. Protection of political authority happens to be the major driving force behind the growth of totalitarian governments (Tants-Boestad, 2021). Other reasons for interference include maintaining social order, managing election crises, and maintaining social security. In the latter, governments have commonly cited the need to identify and prevent terrorism threats and espionage as the drives behind the interference.
In connection with the preservation of public good, states have more often than not cited things like preservation of cultural and religious morals, protecting children, preserving racial harmony, discouraging criminal activity, and protecting individual privacy as some of the reasons for state interference in information networks. Concerning the preservation of cultural and religious morals, governments have cited the need to stop offensive and blasphemous content that challenged the morality of the state. Included here are cites that sell or distributes pornographic materials or those that favor anti-Islamic sentiments (Duwell, 2017). A good example can be borrowed from a 2009 incident in which many governments shut down access to several internet sites after an event to draw Prophet Mohammed was called online. Countries like Pakistan went a mile ahead to shut social media platforms including Facebook and the media channel YouTube.
Action like the ones described above can have both positive and negative effects. On one side, such actions may strengthen the bond between the government and the civil society especially when the end goal is aligned to the two parties. On the other side, when civil society is blocked from the network grid for a relatively long period, people will ultimately notice and questions will be asked. It is worthwhile noting that not all virtual communities are driven by the same motives but almost all of them are inspired by politics. This is particularly so where social elites and the state have worked extremely hard to put offline communities in check. In this context, even bulletin boards and shopping chat rooms can as well act as platforms through which free speech is exercised (Gstrein & Kochenov, 2020). In line with these, virtual networks allow groups that are externally placed to get into contact with members and give contributions even in totalitarian dictatorship regimes. In the modern global environment, banning political parties would only lead to online political groups even if these are to be based outside the count...