The Propaganda of Power: Old Rhetorical Formulas in the New European Politics

The history of political propaganda shows one unpleasant fact: ideologies change, regimes fall, but the language of power remains surprisingly similar. Politics is always looking for a way to convince the public that a certain course is not only advantageous, but also morally correct — and that its opponents are on the side of backwardness, ignorance, or even moral failure.

In Czech history, one of the most famous examples of such propaganda is the statement of Protectorate Minister Emanuel Moravec, who during World War II. World War I called on Czech society to leave„low snobbery" and became part of the "European community“. This statement was part of Protectorate propaganda, the aim of which was to convince the Czech public that the country's future lay in integration into the Nazi-organized "New European Order".

It is curious that the historical context of the then regime and today's European integration are similar. It is also remarkable how similar rhetorical tools propaganda uses across these formations.

Moravac's rhetoric stood on three pillars: moralization, delegitimization of opponents and glorification of the transnational political structure. Precisely these three elements appear repeatedly in politics - regardless of ideology.

The first pillar isa moral claim to the right opinion. Moravec was not arguing about political strategy; argued that a "moral man" must occupy a certain position. Thus, the political choice was not presented as a rational discussion of the interests of the state, but as a question of personal morality.

This mechanism is one of the most effective propaganda tools. Once a political dispute turns into a moral judgment, the opponent ceases to be a partner in the debate and becomes a symbol of backwardness or guilt.

She was the second pillardishonoring one's own nation. The expression "Cecháčekism" was not only a stylistic turn. It was an instrument of political pressure to label a part of society as small-minded, provincial and incapable of understanding the "big European perspective".

Similar language appears in politics whenever elites try to delegitimize opposition to a particular project. Critics are then described as populists, reactionaries, provincial nationalists or people who allegedly do not understand the "modern world".

He was the third pillarappeal for a large multinational project. Moravac's propaganda promised a place in a "European community" that would overcome old national conflicts and create a new continental order. In reality, it was a political construct controlled by a power center.

However, history shows that transnational projects always have two faces. They can be an instrument of cooperation, but also an instrument of political centralization, concentration of power and totality.

It is here that there is room for a critical comparison with today's European politics. CurrentEuropean Unionit is presented as a project of integration, stability and shared values. This is a legitimate political idea. The problem arises when there is no open debate about this project, and arguments are replaced by moralizing language, the introduction of meaningless legal norms and totalitarian tendencies.

Critics of the European Union are automatically labeled as populists, extremists or people who allegedly do not understand modern Europe in the public sphere. At such a moment, the political discussion again moves from the level of arguments to the level of moral condemnation.

Propaganda still works the same way: it createsmoral hierarchy of opinions. At its peak are "right-thinking Europeans", while skeptics are described as an obstacle to progress.

Such language is dangerous to democracy not because it advocates a particular ideology, but becausewill limit the scope for legitimate criticism.

The European Union is a political project – and like any political project it must be open to debate, criticism and doubt. However, as soon as it is presented as the only morally permissible path, political communication begins to move away from democratic discussion.

Yet the history of the 20th century provides a warning. Political regimes that began to moralize political decision-making and delegitimize opponents gradually lost the ability to conduct open debate.

Emanuel Moravec's statement therefore acts as a special historical memento today, because it reminds us how easily propaganda can use the language of morality, transnational identity and contempt for one's own society.

And therein lies the greatest paradox of modern politics: regimes change, ideologies come and go, but propaganda patterns remain surprisingly constant.

Democracy does not depend on everyone sharing the same opinion. It stands for the fact that no one opinion must be declared the only morally permissible one.

Source:

1. BRYANT, Chad.2007.Prague in Black: Nazi Rule and Czech Nationalism.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674024519.

2. GRUNER, Wolf.2019.The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia: Czech Initiatives, German Policies, Jewish Responses.New York: Berghahn Books. ISBN 9781785336867.

3. UHLÍŘ, Jan B.2006. Emanuel Moravec – Czech National Socialist.History and Military, 55(2–3), s. 25–63.

4. BITTMAN, Ladislav.1983.The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider’s View.Oxford: Pergamon-Brassey’s. ISBN 9780080315720.

5. CZECH RADIO.2011. Emanuel Moravec – the face of Czech collaboration with Nazis. Available from:https://english.radio.cz/emanuel-moravec-face-czech-collaboration-nazis-8562122