How Authoritarians and Fascists Break Democracy — One Institution at a Time
Image Credit: BBC
The Day Britain’s Fanatics Finally Broke the BBC — And Why It’s a Warning to Us All
by umair haque
You know a country’s in bad, bad shape when its…sportscasters are on strike…because they think the government’s treading in dangerously fascist waters. That country, ironically, shamefully, enough is, Britain. And we’re going to talk again about the meaning of it all. Because this little example cuts much, much deeper than you might think. It’s not about sports, or news, or even politics — but, in the end, the precise way that Orwell taught us authoritarians use to degrade our institutions and our societies, bending them to their will, turning everything upside down and topsy turvy.
What do I mean? Let’s start, as usual, with what happened. Gary Lineker, one of Britain’s most beloved figures, and its top sportscaster, a former Golden Boot winner himself, spoke out and said that the government’s rhetoric about refugees was “not dissimilar to” Germany in the 1930s. The BBC forced him to step down, following days of furious attacks from ultra conservatives, who said Lineker was the one at fault, “diminishing” the Holocaust.
But…was he? This is where the Orwellian part of the story begins. It wasn’t just Lineker who called the government’s language reminiscent of 1930s Germany. Before him, a Holocaust survivor and scholar had literally confronted the government, and said precisely that. The government — and this is something genuinely bizarre, unique, and troubling about Britain today — “refused to accept” that, just as, for example it “refuses to accept” the fact that Brexit literally costs, every day, 200 times what little Britain’s gained.
These are facts.
Lineker’s said to be voicing his “opinion” — and plenty of people have come to his defense for that, because he’s such a beloved figure. But they are missing the point, well-intentioned as they are. Lineker was not stating an opinion, but a fact.
What fact was that? When a government says that there’s an “invasion” of certain kinds of people — when in fact there’s not — that’s precisely what did happen in 1930s Germany. The entire theme of Nazi propaganda, after all, was that Germany needed “lebensraum,” living room, because it had been invaded by Jews. That the purity of its blood had been invaded by the LGBTQ and differently abled. That this invasion necessitated and justified aggression, violence, and war.
This is a fact. If anyone disagrees about this fact, then we are not capable of really having an intelligent discussion at all, are we? I mean for someone to say “the Nazis didn’t think that Germany’d been invaded and taken over by Jews and other hated figures!!” — it’s a non-starter. Such a person is a fanatic and a bigot prima facie. Modern history is build on this understanding. It is literally the reason Europe became a union. To prevent xenophobic fears of “invasion” from ever rising again, which sparked enmity and war.
So. Let me make the point again, because it is an absolutely crucial one. Not one that is up for debate. Lineker was not really stating his opinion. He was stating a fact. More or less every Holocaust scholar, history professor, anybody’s who vaguely familiar with the events of the 20th century will agree, and has to. Yes, this is a mirror of such rhetoric, language, speech.
And that speech is not a game. It’s not merely Derrida meets Wittgenstein words don’t mean anything post-modernism — that’d come later, as a consequence of Orwell, which we’ll come to. This kind of speech? It’s an act, which has consequences. Those consequences place nations on slippery slopes.
Now. Why is all this connected to Orwell? You see, when we think about Orwell — and we’ve all read him — because his critique was so powerful, so large, so coherent, we ourselves often get lost in it. But let me try to connect a few dots we often overlook.
The BBC forced Lineker to step down for violating rules of “impartiality.” But Lineker was stating a fact. Not an idle opinion. And in saying that impartiality can only be done when facts are equated with opinions, the BBC made a terrible, terrible mistake. It degraded itself in just the way Orwell warned. Orwell’s point wasn’t just about language — but how the perversion of language goes on to degrade institutions, and that, in turn, can be used to shatter a society.
Now, that point’s a little obscure, because it’s much easier to focus on the language, so let’s really draw it out.
Let’s imagine that the government had said, “climate change isn’t real!” and a Linekeresque figure had said, “climate change is real.” And then the BBC forced him to step down. Surely you see the problem there. Anyone can. Just because a government, or anyone in power, or anyone at all, says something, doesn’t make it true.
So what is “impartiality” — as a designing rule for institutions? Is it just…saying both sides say different things, but both must be considered true? Of course not. It has to be — for an institution to be worth anything at all — impartiality to the truth. That is, your opinions cannot supersede facts.
Consider that we used “opinions are equal, and truths don’t matter” as a designing rule for institutions. It should be immediately clear how absurd it is. I injure you. Then, in court, I say, hey, it’s your opinion I harmed you. Facts? What facts? We’re here to equivocate opinions. It’s absurd because, well, it doesn’t work.
We cannot design institutions to deliberately ignore and obscure truth. It leads to some very, very dark places when we do.
What were some institutions that went out and obscured and denied truths? Well, let me give you another example, which many will shout is too extreme. But again, that’s besides the point — it’s a telling one. The entire point of Nazi institutions was just this — to obscure and hide truths. No, the Jews weren’t being incinerated in gas chambers. Why, that was a lie! No, the Nazis didn’t set in motion genocides. The Gestapo? They weren’t repressing anyone, they were freeing the average German from all those who were out to get them. The SS? Just patriots. Political volunteers, who did the hardest work of all, because they were so dedicated to the Fatherland. Propaganda. The banners. The films. The posters. Its entire point was to hide and obscure truth after truth.
These are the dark places we end up at when we say truth is not a value institutions must adhere to, elevate, prize, cherish. No, I’m not saying — don’t be ridiculous — that Britain’s doing any of that. What I am saying is that there is a reason we design institutions to defend the democratic value of truth. Because truth belongs to us all.