George Orwell’s novel ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ is often cited to highlight the dangers of the excesses of power. A meme doing the rounds on the internet cautions that this novel was “a warning, not an instruction manual.”
Commentators frequently use ‘Nineteen Eighty-Four’ as a reference point to describe different moments in history; from the politics of Soviet-satellite states in Eastern Europe, to Senator McCarthy’s obsession with the ‘Enemy Within’, to President Nixon’s involvement in Watergate, to the problems of the ‘surveillance society’ and the election of President Trump.
Now just over years since its publication, Orwell’s dystopic novel still ignites many an imagination.
The novel is set in Airstrip One, a province of the super-state of Oceania.
Oceania is in a perpetual state of war with two other super-states: Eurasia and Eastasia. The governing structure of Oceania is particularly interesting. Here, the government is omnipresent; the public is under continuous surveillance and mani-pulation is the order of the day.
The Ministry of Peace deals with defence, the Ministry of Plenty is responsible for economic affairs, the Ministry of Love maintains law and order while the Ministry of Truth dispenses news, entertainment and art. Each ministry has an abbreviated Soviet-style name. Nothing is what it seems.
Peace is achieved through perpetual war. The economy depends on rationing, law and order involves torture and manipulation and truth is just propaganda.
Orwell introduces several phrases which are now part of the English language. Newspeak is a fictitious language which is used in Oceania to restrict those concepts which might threaten the regime. Thoughtcrime includes every thought which opposes the system. To combat thoughtcrime, Oceania has the Thought Police.
As an antidote to Thoughtcrime, Prolefeed provides the masses with the necessary entertainment in order to stop them from knowing too much.
Big Brother is depicted through the image of a man in his mid-40s with a heavy black moustache who wields power over every citizen under surveillance.
People are constantly reminded: “Big Brother is watching you.” It is never clear whether Big Brother is a real person or the personification of the Party.
Everything about the novel seems bleak. Its main character, Winston Smith, is a weak and cowardly man, a heavy drinker and a smoker. He works as a clerk in the Ministry of Truth where his job is to re-write history to match the line pushed by the party.
He doctors photos, manipulates historical events and revises newspaper articles to remove ‘unpersons’ – people who have fallen out of favour. It is through this work that he starts to have doubts about the system he operates in.
Orwell’s work still resonates with readers. Much of it seems fresh, relevant and accurate.
Orwell himself had the first-hand experience of propaganda. In 1941, he began working as a producer for the BBC. At the height of World War II, he realised that this job involved him acting as a propagandist to advance the aims of the war.
He lasted in this job for two years before resigning. He claimed: “I was wasting my own time and the public money on doing work that produces no result.”
Truth has become something relative and to be dispensed with while certain official pronouncements are indistinguishable from propaganda
His trenchant criticism is often seen as an attack of totalitarianism. The adjective “Orwellian” is now used to denote a state of constant surveillance, a totalitarian government or a pervasive personality cult.
Orwell’s work still finds resonance because it taps into something more profound that ails every democracy.
No democratic government – be it socialist, liberal, centrist or conservative – is immune to certain impulses. Orwell identifies most of them and makes us question our politics and our actions.
In many ways, the 70th anniversary since the publication of this novel, a few days ago, demonstrates that political problems change in form but not in substance.
Language has become more politicised.
New limits imposed by the demands of excessive political correctness limit our ability to debate and discuss several issues for fear of causing some unintended offence.
Much of these limitations are imposed for ideological reasons. This means that language must only be used in a particular narrow, politically correct, worldview while making it impossible for any unconventional political views to be held.
Rather than strengthen democracy, this has had the opposite effect.
Indeed, in many cases, such restrictions have led to a direct erosion of many fundamental freedoms such as freedom of speech and freedom of conscience.
As a consequence, we’ve seen a proliferation of so-called “thoughtcrimes.” There are many ideas which are now perceived to be politically unacceptable in so-called polite society.
By writing off and failing to engage with some of these ideas (even to refute them logically), many individuals now find a political home in the most unpalatable of groups.
Orwell’s idea of Prolefeed is now part and parcel of our political life. Bread and circus politics are often used to appease disgruntled citizens, celebrity political endorsements have replaced more measured political arguments, and public debate has been dumbed down to online arguments on social media and other fora.
Truth has become something relative and to be dispensed with while certain official pronouncements are indistinguishable from propaganda. There is also an increase in the number of “unpersons” – those who might not share our views or who may be different and may, therefore, be ignored or erased out of public life lest they confront us with uncomfortable facts.
We also seem to have come round to Big Brother. While democracy is radically different from authoritarianism, it nonetheless is prone to the rise of the technocrat – those individuals who are supposedly more knowledgeable about everything and anything but are not accountable to anyone.
In the bleak and dystopic world of Nineteen Eighty-Four, there is very little hope.
The most unlikely source of brief resistance comes from the flawed, ordinary and somewhat unlikeable Winston Smith. And so it is in our societies.
We fail ourselves when we do not realise the significance of lone voices that stand up to the madness of the crowds.
This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece