War Propaganda Produced by Democracies and Totalitarian Regimes - Essay Example

?Topic: War Propaganda Produced by Democracies and Totalitarian Regimes Affiliation: States or countries across the globe engage in myriad activities that involve critical decision making in relation to governance and leadership. Sovereignty across states informs the manner in which the central authority in a state or country is placed in power. Since the era of colonial times to date, the unfolding events within that period have influenced inter-state relations, resulting in different forms of governance and leadership. In this respect, democracies and totalitarian regimes have emerged to serve diverse and dynamic purposes across the globe. War involving states or countries within and across national borders has been a common concept since time immemorial. Countries and continents have engaged other countries and continents in war. The first and second world wars serve as critical examples in this respect. Both democracies and totalitarian regimes have been involved in wars, the only difference being the way they conduct their business in every aspect of the war they engage in (Sondrol, 2009, p.157). War propaganda has and still is specifically notable in both democracies and totalitarian regimes. However, differences emerge in respect to the war propaganda produced by democracies and that produced by totalitarian regimes. To understand the principles of war propaganda in both democracies and totalitarian regimes, it is vital to consider the basis upon which democracies and totalitarian regimes operate and function within power and authority of governance and leadership. Governing the people entails critical decision making on behalf of the people (Clark, 1997, p.259). To aid this process, different political systems are adopted, with each system depicting aspects of democracy or totalitarianism. For example, different countries around the world exhibit aspects of socialism, capitalism, or communism. Democracy in governance and leadership embraces the difference between all persons involved. The power and authority of governance rests in the people. In other words, the people are treated as equals by the law, and their fundamental rights and freedoms that pertain to voicing their opinions in legislative processes are observed. In democracies, constitutions are vital in ensuring a smooth flow of governance and leadership without oppression by the tyranny of the majority players in the political system (Welch, 2001, p.105). Britain, for example, is governed under monarchism, with its constitution being unwritten. However, the country is a democracy, just like the United States among others. The constitution is the supreme law that guides leadership and governance in democracies. Any decisions that intend to affect people’s lives must significantly involve the people before they are upheld. People practice their freedom of speech within the provisions of their democratic rights. Democracy also encompasses press freedom by allowing press autonomy. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press provides for support or critique of the current regime in democracies, allowing the people to have a given level of control over their lives (Kershaw, 2004, p.14). On the other hand, totalitarian regimes are the complete opposite of democracies. The United Kingdom today cannot compare to the Hitler regime that oppressed the people. The power and authority of a totalitarian regime is not limited, and the personal and private life of the people is controlled by the totalitarian regime in every aspect. People governed within totalitarian regimes have little or no say to any decisions made regarding their lives. Propaganda in totalitarian regimes is a critical concept due to the fact that the popularity and the public favour those totalitarian regimes seek rests in propaganda. This is the primary basis of retaining power and authority in totalitarian regimes. In order to critically capture the difference between war propaganda produced by democracies and that produced by totalitarian regimes, it vital to consider the similarities and differences between democracies and totalitarian regimes. Democracies totalitarian regimes have critical similarities that characterize their practice and decision making processes. One of the most observed similarities is that people can be oppressed with each of the two forms of governance or leadership. Democracies advocate for equity among people and work against oppression in the society. However, the process through which the government or leadership is installed is primarily determined by the majority where the voting process is used. In this regard, a single party could be empowered by the majority and the minority may be prone to oppression. Totalitarian regimes basically operate and function on the basis of oppressing the people. Governments in both democracies and totalitarian regimes could manipulate the entire political system to gain power and authority that could render such governments stronger against the people. Irrational voting can also be realized in both democracies and totalitarian regimes. Election candidates could express high desire to improve the lives of the people they want to lead. However, this does not rule out the fact that this objective could be achieved at the expense of others outside the candidate’s leadership jurisdiction. On the same note, abuse of office and power cannot be rules out in the two forms of government. On the other hand, democracies and totalitarian regimes have their differences. One of the most critical differences between the two forms of government relates to freedom for the people and the media (Shulman, 1990, p.93). Democracies freely observe the people’s fundamental rights and freedoms, while totalitarian regimes control such rights and freedoms in all aspects. Media and speech rights are relatively curtailed through control by the central totalitarian authority. Equality is a fundamental principle in democracies, while the opposite holds in totalitarian regimes. Democracy upholds the rights of multiple candidates in governance, allowing the public to air their concerns and express their opinions. Totalitarian regimes, however, work on the single-party system basis, thereby giving power to people already in power or those in support of the system (Sondrol, 2009, p.181). In this regard, while democracies listen to public voices, totalitarian regimes oppress and silence the public. The highlighted differences offer an insight into the difference between war propaganda produced by democracies and that produced by totalitarian regimes. War propaganda is perpetrated to serve different motives depending on the specific war in question or war in general. Concepts and practices of democracies and totalitarian regimes create differences in war propaganda depending on the motives that ought to be served, and the operational basis of the two forms of government. War propaganda is primarily designed to influence public opinions in both friendly and enemy countries (Luckert, 2011, p.218). For instance, the Vietnam War critically outlined the war propaganda system in the United States of America. Also, the wars between Britain and Germany, and Germany and France were characterized by diverse and dynamic war propaganda, with myriad motives to be served therein. Propaganda also tends to create confusion across different parties, depending on the specific motive that the propaganda is intended to serve. Demoralizing enemies cannot go unnoticed in propaganda undertakings. In other words, they are diverse and dynamic objectives and goals related to propaganda that can be achieved in both democracies and totalitarian regimes. Wartime propaganda encompasses manipulation or coercion of public thoughts, or those of the enemies in question. War propaganda highly depends on communication and passing of information to the public or to the enemies bound to a given war. The intent is to create a scenario that is actually illusional or one that seeks to make the public oriented to a certain phenomenon relative to war. Modes and means of communication are primarily employed, most importantly the media. The idea is to capture the interest of as many people as possible, in all the regions that the underlying war covers. A fundamental aspect to capture in the difference between war propaganda produced by democracies and that produced by totalitarian regimes is the involvement of and the role played by media and personal speech. In democracies, the autonomy of media and freedom of speech is upheld (Kallis, 2005, p.186). In this regard, the produced propaganda can be subject to debate by various parties within the democratic political system. The involved persons can differ in opinions and arguments about the war propaganda, and each of these aspects could be captured by media. This is to mean that although the motives of war propaganda could be the same in both democracies and totalitarian regimes, the manner in which the outcome of this war propaganda is achieved varies between the two forms of government. In totalitarian regimes, the media freedom and people’s freedom of speech is controlled by the central totalitarian authority. Media operations in the United States and the United Kingdom are different from those in the Middle East due to government interference in media and speech. In this regard, the media and the people cannot debate the issue or express their different opinions and arguments. This is because their freedom to do so is curtailed by the regimes. What is communicated and the information passed by the totalitarian regimes remains observed whether or not the people desires to do that. Even where the motive of the war propaganda is not subject to change in both democracies and totalitarian regimes, personal and private expression of opinions cannot be practiced within totalitarian regimes. War propaganda in democracies influences the public and war enemies taking into account the fundamental rights and freedoms of the people, while totalitarian regimes do not (Darman, 2011, p.242). The objective of democracies is to advocate the practice of equality among the people. On the other hand, totalitarian regimes are characterized by oppression to the people. In other words, people have no independent say on the decisions made by such regimes. War propaganda in the two forms of government differs with respect to the way the public receives the information passed by the propaganda. War propaganda in the case of democracies is not autonomous. The reception of propaganda information by the public is somewhat uncertain. This is due to the fact that the public and the media can freely debate, refute, or criticize the propaganda (Aulich, 2007, p.109). A certain outcome cannot, therefore, be determined in advance. In the context of totalitarian regimes, the outcome of propaganda can be predetermined. This does not mean that the people could be rational or irrational for that matter as to remain fixed about the raised war propaganda. Rather, the public and the media have no choices to make. Once decisions are made by the totalitarian authorities, no one can go against them if trouble is to be avoided (Chapman, 2008, p.127). Although the public may have divided reactions, arguments, and opinions regarding the propaganda produced by totalitarian regimes, the information of those regimes holds across all persons. Criticisms are not welcome within such regimes, thereby silencing any reactions to the propaganda. The effects of propaganda produced by totalitarian regimes can, therefore, be predetermined due to the underlying oppression that makes the people and the media absolute followers, a complete opposite scenario in democracies. Countries engage in war for different reasons, but all wars are tailored towards achieving specific goals and objectives. The events that unfolded and consequently led to both World War I and II had specific objectives to achieve, thus the involvement of numerous countries that consisted of both democracies and totalitarian regimes. Both democracies and totalitarian regimes may exhibit similar reasons to engage in war. However, these two forms of government differ in the manner they execute their activities in war. Due to the fact that democracies must observe individual rights and freedoms, war propaganda in this respect is rather “diplomatic” in nature. Information flow must be regulated in such a way that it remains within the provisions of democracy. This does not mean that war propaganda will not influence public opinion and significantly ridicule enemies in war, but rather the process of doing so is carefully undertaken by the involved stakeholders. Decisions that pertain to war propaganda are not haphazardly made. Doing so would result in jeopardized provisions of democracy in democratic societies. War propaganda does not only influence the public within the source country, but also the other parties bound to the war in question (Kershaw, 2004, p.25). In most cases, enemies in war are demoralized through war propaganda. The objective is to enable the perpetrator gunner public support that would present rival parties in a war as the “demons” in war and the enemies of the people in the environment that war propaganda emanates from. On the other hand, war propaganda produced by totalitarian regimes in the same context is forced to the people. As earlier mentioned, totalitarian regimes oppress the people, and the people comply with totalitarianism to avoid getting themselves in trouble. The flow of information regarding war propaganda in totalitarian regimes originates from the regimes and goes directly to the people through the approved channels. The official communication of the totalitarian authority becomes the public opinion, unlike in democracies where changes could be realized in the process. The political science field of study takes into account diverse and dynamic concepts, aspects, and practices that relate to governance and leadership. Highlighting the different forms of government denotes social and state differences across the globe. Democracies hold that all persons are equal and have proportionate opportunities in running their own lives. On the other hand, totalitarian regimes are oppressive and highly serve self-interests in relation to power and authority. In this regard, war propaganda within the two forms of government differs, informed by their differences in functionality and the practices involved in both democracies and totalitarian regimes. References Aulich, J. (2007). War posters: weapons of mass communication, London: Thames & Hudson. Chapman, J. (2008). The British at war: cinema, state and propaganda 1939-1945, London: Tauris. Clark, T. (1997). Art and propaganda in the Twentieth Century, London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson. Darman, P. (2011). Posters of World War II: allied and axis propaganda 1939-1945, London: Windmill. Kallis, A. (2005). Nazi propaganda and the Second World War, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kershaw, I. (2004). The Nazi Dictatorship: Problems and Perspectives of Interpretation, London: Arnold. Luckert, S. (2011). State of deception: the power of Nazi propaganda, Washington, DC: United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. Shulman, H. (1990). The voice of America: propaganda and democracy, 1941-1945, Madison: University of Wisconsin Press. Sondrol, P. C. (2009). "Totalitarian and Authoritarian Dictators: A Comparison of Fidel Castro and Alfredo Stroessner", Journal of Latin American Studies 23 (3): 599. Welch, D. (2001). Propaganda and the German cinema 1933-1945, London: Tauris. Read More