In a world that prides itself on the values of democracy, why are people all too willing to acquiesce their freedom to the state abandoning democracy with relatively little resistance? One might ask themselves such a question while observing Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi “effectively [bypassing] parliamentary [requirements]” to prematurely annex Kashmir whilst also maintaining a relatively high approval rating of 64 percent. One might also face such a dilemma when observing the apathy of the Filipino people to the “12,000 extrajudicial killings” under President Duterte, another strongman enjoying “record-high approval.” The key to understanding this cognitive dissonance might lie in a key phenomenon behind the historical rise of populist authoritarianism: the aestheticization of politics.
The aestheticization of politics is a concept first explored by political philosopher and cultural critic Walter Benjamin, who used it to serve as an explanation “for the seductive fascination of fascism.” The aestheticization of politics shifts the focus of politics to artistic expression rather than effective governance. The underlying danger behind the existence of this phenomenon is that it is more often than not abused by authoritarian regimes to apply “the grotesque impropriety of applying criteria of beauty to the deaths of human beings,” presenting any deaths as a result of injustice or tyranny as a small contribution to a profoundly artistic and pure national struggle in which suffering is appreciated as a normal and reasonable means to an end. Examples of aestheticized politics can be found being used to significant success in propaganda such as Leni Riefenstahl’s Nazi propaganda film, Triumph of the Will, as well as the various works of the fascist-sponsored Italian futurist movement, both of which detail a great struggle in which the purity of the human spirit is shown to be recognized through violent struggle against all that is degenerate, leaving its viewer feeling “threatened by extinction by images and a simulacra of reality.” It is then only a matter of time as repeated exposure to such media leads to death being seen as a mere fact of theatrics, and a society experiencing an “inhumane indifference to ethical... and moral considerations” of political action.
Though the ideologies espoused by the societies Benjamin referred to when formulating his theory, Mussolini’s Italy and Hitler’s Germany, are by no means widely accepted today, the aestheticized political process that underpins their allure is just as present as ever: A blatant abuse of the aestheticization of politics is occurring within the Indian political sphere through Bollywood, the Indian film industry. For example, in the 2018 Bollywood film Baaghi 2, the protagonist, a stoic military man Ronny, grabs a man and “ties him to the front of his jeep and uses him as a human shield to get through a lane full of stone-pelters.” By this point in the film, viewers are more likely to see Ronny and his goal of rescuing his lover’s daughter in a noble light, leading them to glance over this ignobility. Viewers might recall, however, an event one year before the movie’s release, in which Kashmiri civilian Farooq Ahmed Dar was apprehended by the Indian military and subsequently “tied to the front bumper of a military jeep as it patrolled villages… serving as a human shield against stone-throwing crowds.” One must ask themselves if, by being shown a dramatized facsimile of the real atrocity in which the perpetrators are displayed as heroes, they would still view the event as a blatant abuse of human rights or as much of an inconsequential artistic display as the film, which went on to gross over $2 billion.
President Duterte of the Philippines, another strongman often accused of demagogy, is equally as adept in aestheticizing politics, with the basis of his successful campaign being rooted in promises of keeping the streets safe and clean of drug lords. In this case, the aestheticization of politics is heavily facilitated due to the promise of visible benefits without the ethical violations that were the means to reach this end. While an outsider may observe the clean and drug-free streets of Manila and think well of Duterte, it is all to easy for the 12 to 20 thousand victims of violent police and paramilitary action in this pursuit to slip out of mind.
The dangers of viewing the ramifications caused by political action as a mere byproduct of artistic expression has also taken its toll on the American political landscape, albeit not to a lethal degree. No words can provoke a more vivid image than “Build That Wall”, a long-running popular chant expressing support for the expansion and renovation of the US-Mexican border wall. Glaring problems with such a feat, such as the fact that over two thirds of illegal immigration comes from visa overstays as opposed to border crossings and the rapidly climbing estimates of the construction expenses reaching over $20 billion, are undermined by the aesthetic of an “immigration invasion” prevented only by an immovable wall protecting a rejuvenated nation. The preference of emotional appeal to pragmatic action is blatant in this aspect, and it is apparent that this political narrative of invasion is fueled by an all too human desire to gravitate towards struggle and redemption. One must not underestimate President Trump’s experience in conveying the appeal of such aesthetic struggles, as his past experience in the television industry ensures that he is seasoned in the art of subjugating reality for the purpose of media consumption. Benjamin noted in his observations of 20th century authoritarianism that much of the aesthetic appeal of a government comes from its film industry. With this in mind, one must take note of how President Trump’s allies within the film industry portray him. In the promotional image for his film Death of a Nation, Dinesh D’Souza presents an amalgam of the faces of both President Trump and President Lincoln. The association of Lincoln and his deeds to that of Trump are of great significance, as it has been theorized by Benjamin’s contemporaries that the conflation of an aesthetic conflation of a modern struggle to a previous one is a commonly used tactic in aestheticized politics.
With the very real implications of a politics aestheticized posing a threat to the ero of modern democracy, it is apparent that the free nations of the world must take measures to ensure that it does not find its democratic foundations eroded by deceiving theatrics. To prevent a reality of harmful political action from being non-differentiable from media, the film industry is urged to avoid contracts entailing an artistic interpretation of violence for political means solicited by aspiring authoritarian entities. The film industry, often complicit in pushing the narratives of demagogues, must reevaluate this relationship lest they risk eroding the independent nature of the film industry, losing their autonomous nature, and resulting in both the producer and consumer being negatively impacted whilst their democracy is undermined. Individuals sympathetic to the democratic way of life must be mindful of the policies proposed by their legislators, ensuring that there is no hidden suffering masked by grand narratives of prosperity. The aestheticization of politics is, ultimately, unavoidable, and the burden lies on the citizens of their nation to remain mindful about separating the violent and political from the aesthetic and the abstract.