Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Even before the direct mention of Russia, that state came to mind as an example of
despotism, particularly in the control of information. From the Bolshevik era, to the Soviet era,
and even continuing on until now, with their supposed democracy in which Vladimir Putin wins
elections with 101% of the vote, censorship has been a key component of Russian government.
It is fascinating to see how this desire for control is being combatted by the proliferation of the
internet. As mentioned in the reading, people of despotic countries tend to outwardly suppress
discontent while inwardly disagreeing with the powers at be. The internet now offers a place that
people, hidden in anonymity, feel comfortable expressing their true opinions while also being
heard by thousands of people. The idea that tyrannical regimes are obsessed with censorship
and control is exemplified in the fact that Russia already has an entire agency devoted to taking
down media on the internet that is essentially deemed anti-state. The power of the internet was
displayed in full during the Arab-Spring. Protesters utilized social media to share ideas and
coordinate, despite the best efforts of their dictators to try and cease this contact.
It seems to me that leadership in a despotic society can hardly be considered true
leadership. Leadership implies persuasion and charisma. The true despot needs neither.
Coercion is very different from persuasion; coercion pays no attention to the true leanings of the
subject whose actions are being forced. In this outcome based society, you dont need a person
who is capable of drawing others in, or who considers wise council, or who pays attention to the
needs of his or her constituents, you need a person who is strong and capable of doing
whatever is right for the state. This is not leadership, this is despotism.
total agreement
lack of discussion
ideas come from authority
ignorance of government
considering ecology
obedience/compliance
Features of a more thoughtful public:
o criticism
o willingness to discuss
o understanding reasons behind policy
o govt must be open about policy
o follow specific ideas
o critical/question authority
o active listening
o time frame when making decisions
o consensus
o collaborative inquiry
o active community member
o exchange of info
o proactive in the sense of progress
o skeptic
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
autonomous
individualism
critical discussion
consent
several competing ideas or logical frameworks
new ideas are generated by the public
knowledge and understanding of the government
considering the ecology of ideas or policies
not overly afraid of the government or authority structure
outward skepticism with consideration of all sides
outspoken criticism
participation in the political process
open discussion that leads to joint decisions
sustained engagement