The Scholl Effect

Ok, so let's talk politics.

Many people are saying that we're returning to an era of dictators. And many will continually draw parallels to previous dictators in their actions. So, let's explore this. Using an article by the website HowStuffWorks & PreserveArticles, I'm going to look at the key characteristics of a dictator and give examples of both historical figures and contemporary figures of today. So we can put this to bed once and for all. This one is a bit of a read.

1) CULT OF PERSONALITY - The idea that people portray themselves as the hero of their country, to the extent where people foster the idea of them as a deity. Historical figures include Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Muammar Gaddafi and Idi Amin to name a few. Modern examples definitely include Vladimir Putin (calendars) and Donald Trump (come on, the guy's a walking demagogue). Jacob Zuma could also be included here and definitely Robert Mugabe.

North Korea is a good example of this as a dynasty but I will remove Kim Jong-un from this as, from what I've researched, the Cult surrounds his two predecessors more. Interestingly, I would also place Nelson Mandela in this. But the difference with him is that his image was garnered by South African people whereas the aforementioned examples were created by themselves and their cronies.

2) MILITARY STRENGTH - The idea that they are incredibly supportive of their military, they may have served themselves, and that a lot of their domestic and foreign policy is based in and around military matters. This one is hard to gauge in this day and age as many countries would prefer peace than war but it still occurs. Kim Jong-un is the best example of this in the modern era, given his military-first economic policy that favors bombs over bread.

But two classic examples would be Adolf Hitler and Napoleon Bonaparte. We know that Napoleon was incredibly imperialistic and wanted more French territory for French people. Equally with Hitler. (Liebensraum). Bashar Al-Assad is also in good company here.

3) NATIONALISM AND NATIONALISTIC FERVOUR - "Make America Great Again". "America First". "Eine Volk. Eine Reich, Eine Fuhrer". "We send the EU £350 million a week. Let's fund our NHS instead". What do all these slogans have in common? Well, they all incite nationalism and nationalistic pride. In the inter-war period, Hitler did this to great effect after Germany was diminished by war reparations and war blame. Trump does it now with his hats and his America First doctrine. Putin does it by focusing on the idea of the orthodoxy and the idea of the nuclear family. North Korea does this through the idea of military might. Rodrigo Duterte claims he will end crime and drug addiction and make the Philippines great again.

To do this, you have to make the country believe that the country has been weakened to begin with. Trump blames Obama, Putin blames the West, Kim Jong-un blames the West, Rouhani blames the West ok there's a pattern developing here. But nationalism and the idea of racial superiority is a strong feeling to incite. And, sadly, it's easily incited. (Britain First, some elements of UKIP, La Front Nationale, La Liga, Five Star etc). Even the Government of Syria and Israel use nationalism as a tool for justification. Galvanize the people in one cause and you can do anything.

In my opinion, Imperial Japan probably did this the best as it was a subtle, yet natural progression from isolated Island nation to global empire. To devestating effect. Especially for southern Asia and China.

4) CRACKDOWN OF MEDIA AND KILLING OF OPPONENTS - Salisbury Incident aside, Alexander Litvinenko was a critic of Putin and was killed. Trump is constantly trying to decry the American Liberal Media. Assad dismisses innocents as terrorists, Erdogan continually dismisses opposition politics and Idi Amin killed anyone who even looked at him the wrong way. It's a perfectly logical conclusion. If you're in charge, you don't want to be usurped. Kings and Queens did it on a daily basis for centuries. But dictatorships are different. They come to power in a different way so, therefore, the dynamic is different. Nowadays, many people who exhibit dictatorial tendencies are often voted in democratically. But in the 1920s and earlier, many people who were dictatorial arrived through revolution or by some kind of backhanded event.

For instance:

Adolf Hitler - Came to power as Chancellor democratically in 1933, but then slowly consolidated his power until he officially became Fuhrer following the death of President Hindenburg. (RIP Weimar Republic).

Josef Stalin - Came to power after a Game Of Thrones style shit show following the death of Lenin. Not only did he manage to paint himself as Lenin's right hand man, he also managed to alienate an entire movement against Lenin's ACTUAL right hand man, Leon Trotsky.

Vladimir Lenin - Came to power in 1917 after a revolution that dissolved the Provisional Government and created a brutal civil war that lasted 4 years.

General Francisco Franco - Gained power after a brutal Spanish Civil War.

Idi Amin - Came to power after a military coup.

Muammar Gaddafi - Came to power following a military coup.

Hafez al-Assad (Current Syrian President's Father) - Came to power following a military coup.

...you get the point.

Nowadays, many of them are voted in. Unless you're in China and then you don't really have a choice. So, why do people vote them in?

For a joke?

For nostalgia?

Pretty messed up nostalgia to be honest.

But, frankly, partly yes.

Many Millennials will say that people vote for people like Trump, who sometimes spouts racial language and condones racist behaviour, because they miss a time when the white race were all-powerful. And, there may be some truth to that, but surely we can't suggest that we vote for dictatorial people because we want our race to be the best and superior?

Well...

...actually...

It's logic. I'm not saying it's right, but it's logic.

And this is something else which many dictators believe in:

5) SOCIAL DARWINISM AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST - Evolution. Darwinism. The idea that the strongest will survive. Well, this isn't a theory that just exists in the field of biology. It can also exist in the field of Sociology. In Social Darwinism, the strongest in society will thrive while the people who cannot, or will not, survive will struggle. When dictators get hold of this however, it can focus on one particular group of people.

Hitler hated the Jews. Stalin hated the Jews. Caesar hated the Christians...and the Jews. (Ok, let's give the Jews a break now).

Trump doesn't like Muslims or Mexicans. Putin doesn't like LGBT. Idi Amin didn't like Asian Immigrants. Saddam Hussein didn't like Kuwaities or Kurds. Erdogan doesn't like the Kurds. The So-Called Islamic State hated...well...everyone.

So, what's the best way to make sure these groups don't thrive? Target them and turn Social Darwinism in your favour.

This is harder to get away with these days thanks to the proliferation of social media and globalization but it's not impossible. All you need to do is create legitimate policy that disadvantages these group as an 'unfortunate side-effect'.

"Oh, this policy adversely affects the Sikh community? Oh. That's terrible. But it's good in the national interest so...we're keeping it and you can't change shit".

This one is a key characteristic though. But, from what I've read (and I'm always keen to be corrected if necessary), this was really only a thing in the 20th century on this scale. I mean, Britain expelled Jews from the country in the Medieval period and only allowed them back in Cromwell's time. And even then that's because they were the best accountants in Europe.

[One thing I never understood about the persecution of Jews. A lot of the countries and leaders who have done it identify as Christian. But Jesus was Jewish?]

So this is how to be a dictator. Do we have many dictators in this current era?

No. No we don't.

But we do have totalitarian leaders and people who exhibit totalitarian tendencies. (Trying saying that when drunk!)

Because many of these people are now in some way democratically elected, it's harder to pin the 'dictator' badge. (I like there idea there's a badge). But, as I'm sure we can all agree, we're in an era where these ideas are still prevalent (they always will be) but they are now working to an entirely new paradigm. These people have to navigate far more information and obstacles than they did 80/90 years ago. But there will always be people who are susceptible to them and people who oppose them. Like Sophie Scholl, who this blog post is dedicated to.

Scholl was a student that sent out information in Nazi Germany denouncing Hitler, which was illegal then. She was killed by the Nazis for free speech. Something which many people still die for in this day and age, thanks to Totalitarian wannabes.

May there always be more Sophie Scholls in the world.