Authoritarianism is a social organization whereby the citizens are subjects to authority and, they do not question anything (Skoll 58). In this form of governance, the rulers are not obliged to account for any public resource they use. Any attempt of the citizens to question the rulers’ conduct is considered disobedient to the authority. Populism, however, is just a political philosophy that tries to support the rights of the people against the so called privileged elite. Having mentioned that, however, terror simply means something that can instill fear. The subsequent analysis in this essay is given by pulling together information from the various reliable sources, which will provoke a deep a discussion on the above quote.
Authoritarians normally rely on the simple psychology that nothing motivates like fear (Skoll 68). Moreover, they also believe that gratitude is normally granted to those few individuals who promise protection. In most cases, we not only find these people complying with their leaders, but they also adore them. There is normally an extremely compelling scenario in this system of governance. Why do I say so? We find that the authoritarians do not terrorize their nations. They simply point to enemies who terrorize the nation if the state would not offer the necessary security (Kundera & Asher 78). A lot of propaganda that defies logic and commonsense are consequently perpetuated, thereby instilling fear in the citizens. In other words, the citizens are put in a situation whereby they have limited opportunity to express their displeasure. Anyone who defies the decree of silence is likely to face unprecedented consequences.
In the recent past, it has been the governance, which is often carried out in the United States. It had been fueled by the terrorism activity. Due to the terro,r it goes without say that a strong hand is normally needed to ensure that people are secured. With such politics, it is often quite common to hear the leaders using unusually strong terms to refer to their enemies. For instance, they use words such as the red enemy and many others (Kundera & Asher 87). Such brandings reflect the desperate measures taken by the leaders to continuously instill fear among their subjects. The strong words significantly resonate with the media that spread it across the world without much scrutiny. On another perspective, the media, the government and the masses spread the words, making the entire perception of terrorists’ complexity an international common belief.
As a result of authoritarian leadership in other parts of the world, most Americans have developed a sense of insecurity which to some extent would be false about the issue of terrorism (Petrilli 78). For instance, from the year 2009-2011, a period during which most parts of the nation neglected information about terror attacks and great number of people did not believe in the hazard (Skoll 40). From various studies, which were well conducted during this period, nearly half the population has always expressed their worries about becoming victims of the terrorists. This is because of the campaigns that have been going on in the country. Not even once do the politicians fail to mention or talk about terrorism during their political rallies.
Having a critical glance at the terrorism hazard, they seldom have three principal agenda which include instilling fear, creating alarmism and last but not least, making the victims overreact, especially after an attack (Ibrahim 49). From what has been happening, it will not be wrong to make some general conclusion that to a certain level, they have achieved success in it. Most Americans when asked whether they still expect another terrorist attack in the coming years. 90% answered yes, which should never be the case (Skoll 96). From my point of view, this fear also arises from the type of campaigns that had been promoted in the USA. The terrorists have achieved some level of success in instilling fear in the people of America, subsequently leading to intense hate for Muslim community.
In addition to those, due to the overwrought responses after the most tragic event September 2001, where 3000 innocent people lost their lives, more than 3000 people died after that (Zolov 15). This occurred because the terror was in the whole land. Some died because they opted to use their vehicles rather than the airplanes because of fear of terror attack. Others were also driven into wars that had been made politically possible events of the terrorist.
Moreover, terrorism is always associated with fear based on news reports which all too often distort the information.(Akbarzadeh & Yasmen 80). In most cases, we link the attackers with exceptionally powerful weapons that could either be nuclear or chemical (Zolov 90). To be precise, we often relate them with the weapons of mass destruction (Petrilli 109). This is due to the fact that we have become manipulated by authority and we seem to believe everything that rulers tell us. For example, during the September, 2011 attack, the most complicated weapons that were used was the box cutter. However, because of the ignorance, we believed the leaders. In other words, the terrorist’s attack with the weapons of mass destruction is simply a message delivered to us by the rullers. The masses, on the other hand, consume such false information without any critical analysis. If the weapons were nuclear, then I suppose that the number of the victims would have risen to ten thousands rather than 3000 (Ibrahim 50).
From history, we learn that before the terrorism became one of the main problems of the United States, the country still struggled valiantly from the various Philippines and Caribbean bandits (Ibrahim 87). The president of that nation, William McKinley under thorough guidance from the Republicans, opted for recommendations rather than war (Zolov 128). He noticed that the idea of letting his commercial rivals take charge of the Philippines was not a legitimate business. He not only educated the Filipinos, but he also uplifted and Christianized them (Kundera & Asher 85). That kind of leadership is completely opposite to the one that is being carried out currently. What happens is that they try to fight a murderous war full of violence and execution. That, however, should never be the case because it worsens the already existing situation of terror.
The major difference between the two eras, i.e. the bandits’ and terrorism, is that during the latter period specialist experts and extremely well equipped institutions have been established to monitor the miscreants and offer guidance when needed (Akbarzadeh & Yasmen 85). Many of the “national security” members are normally part of FBI, Pentagon and CIA (Zolov 56). They develop a well-organized informational-perspective output that relays information within the institutions. The other members of the society remain fully dependent on the institutions. People end up doing everything they are told no matter what the consequences for their safety are going to be. Despite the fact that terrorism has eliminated drastically, people still are afraid of the terrorist hazard (Petrilli 96). This fear is transferred to the people through security alerts and travel bans to certain locations. The people’s reliance on security information from this special institutions becomes the main concern.
In fact, according to the United States, human rights violation is much inferior to terrorism (Herman & O’Sullivan 90). To elaborate on that, during a press conference in 1981, states’ secretary Alexander Haig said that terrorism was going to replace human rights violation in the recent future. This was a clear indication that indeed the friendly states just started engaging in human rights violations. (Herman & O’Sullivan 111). However, it couldn’t be blamed on authoritatianism. The law obligated the administration to give a general testimony that there was a greater improvement to the situation of human rights in El Salvadoran (Zolov 62). Not only this wrong perception of reduced human rights violation becomes a façade but it also shifted people’s attention to the terrorists’ threats. The people, without realizing, could not entirely analyze the manufactured threats and responded with vengeful hate for those perceived to terrorists and their sympathizers.
The emphasis on terrorism made by the Soviet Union had some advantages in the allegation framework (Akbarzadeh & Yasmen 55). The reason is that terrorism to a large number of people is a symbol of fear that connotes violence and brings sinister images into the mind. In fact, it normally combines both the ability to fascinate with the ability to immobilize. The government also tries to magnify those dramatic acts and presents to the citizens in a way that the ordinary citizens feel totally powerless and insecure (Ibrahim 100). They, therefore, resort to being so loyal to the government that they do not question any action by it. They simply do this in order to be secure. This kind of fear continues to torture Americans, despite numerous attempts to stay calm.
In conclusion, the regimes that have been established continue to use terror as the primary form of governing the United States (Petrilli 10). This is simply because the purpose of this war is generally to pacificate which means that they want to return their citizens to that measure of passivity and defeat (Ibrahim 90). It also happened before the Second World War begun. By then, that form of governance used to be referred to political equilibrium. Popular movements and the known democratic governments in this case, take advantage of the rather ignorant citizens to impose a threat by raising the basic salaries and at the same imposing higher taxes. The privileges are also limited, and access of the basic commodities becomes another hard bone to chew. The consumption of distorted information by the masses becomes the tool of manipulation employed by the leaders. Once the masses’ weaknesses have been exposed, they end up with minimal options as far as human rights protection is concerned. It, therefore, becomes clear that the people remain indented to the ruling class, irrespective of how unpopular the government has become. The authoritarianism becomes a double sword to the masses, creating hatred and giving terrorists’ the power to instill unnecessary fear among the people.