What interests me most around the ideas of coercion and consolidation is how they are discussed primarily in relation to autocracies. We talk about Kim il Sung, the Supreme Leader from North Korea who so successfully whipped up this climate of a cult of personality so that he could literally control the minds and hearts of the people he ruled over. We might talk about how effective this method of control is compared to coercive means - especially for people like the Kim's in North Korea who, whether they like it or not, sit on top of a very strong military. While extremely coercive to say the least, the Kim's must utilize this cult of personality lest they rely too much on the military, therefore granting them power.
However, these ideas of consolidation - particularly the cult of personality - are they not present in political systems the world over, whether that be autocracy or democracy? Does this mean that populism is a danger to democracy?
 |
| This Lady is not for Turning |
For example, Mrs Thatcher relied heavily on her personality to win elections. Prior to her reelection in 1983 and the Falklands War, Thatcher was one of Britain's most unpopular Prime Ministers. However, with the fallout from the Falklands she created an image of herself for the public: a strong, determined, yet ferocious and boardline terrifying individual who people feared as much as respected. For example, in this clip recorded just after her fall from power, she is interviewed by a young Paul Holmes. Thatcher is positively terrifying in this clip when challenged about her style of politics: the combination of fear and populism which leads her supporters to love her, and her opponents to wince https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvSef2zTFds
She created this image of herself as the 'Iron Lady' and people voted for her because of this hard knee'd, hard elbows approach to politics. She is famously quoted as saying that "this lady is not for turning." and this fueled a vitriol in UK politics for leaders to be harsh, strong, iron fisted and antagonistic. In many ways, post 1983 Margaret Thatcher set the agenda for what politics should be for the next decade - how politics is 'done', how politicians should behave, and what good leadership should be. It seems like she set the standard. But is this a method of consolidation? Is it a cult of personality?
By looking at examples such as Thatcher, we can see how difficult it is to draw a fine line between tyrants and democratic political leaders when it comes to the more subtle elements of politics. It seems clear to us whether a leader is autocratic or not based on their use of violence (again, Thatcher was hardly clear of any doubt here by utilizing the police to crush democratic opposition in the North of England) but we become stuck when it comes to the 'winning the hearts and minds of the people'. In a democracy, a cult of personality could easily be shrugged off as populist leadership, or strong leadership. But in the presence of violence, we consider it a dictatorship or autocracy.
Examples: Thatcher speaking before Parliament and utlizing her formidable populist attacks in Parliament https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tetk_ayO1x4 (the famous NO NO NO speech).
Good points, Ted. Nevertheless, one key distinction here is that Thatcher does not control the public sphere - people freely expressed hatred of her, and in many contexts did not feel socially pressured to express admiration for her. All politicians worth their salt try to energize supporters and win "hearts and minds" but only some can use the coercive machinery of the state to help in this task (as in Syria or North Korea).
ReplyDeleteI also think it is interesting how much power an individual can wield in a democratic environment. Although nowhere near as terrifying as Thatcher, John Key wields a notable amount of personal power over our current national government. Reliant on his so called ‘brand Key’ to promote the party at each election, John Key seems to be able to get away with embarrassments that would be the end of any lesser politician. Aaron Gilmore had to resign after yelling at a waiter, even after 25 years in parliament Maurice Williamson got snapped interfering in police negotiations and had to go, yet John Key seems to be able to use the parties reliance on this ‘brand’ to get away with almost anything (including the recent ponytail drama). Not likely to be result of his ability to rule with fear, such power must come from a cult surrounding his own personality.
ReplyDeleteMichael Berg (300222489)