Historically, rebellious universities have often been the last bastions of freedom in non-democratic societies. Their cry for breaking the chains of an enslaved society could be heard by almost every "great leader", while often it was the students who were the initiators and bearers of change when the last hour of the dictatorships was struck.
As a rule, the regimes responded to student and civil protests - in those situations where there was some kind of rebellion because the resistance was still not completely suppressed - with repression, in the eyes of the dictator and his machinery the most effective means of dealing with dissidents. The degree of repression depended solely on the degree of openness of the dictatorship, so in those dictatorships that went to the extreme limits, the repression itself had no limits. Therefore, in order to see the repressions in an adequate way, it is important to distinguish between the dictatorships themselves. Although today's (European) spin-dictatorships increasingly show some features of open dictatorships, they cannot be compared to the classic dictatorships of the last century. What unites them are the mechanisms of taking complete control of the government and capturing the state - they are united, of course, by repression - but they are also significantly distinguished by the degree in which it is expressed.
photos: wikipedia.orgTHE DICTATORSHIP THAT Shook the WORLD: Chilean President Salvador Allende just before the putschists will liquidate him;…
Pinochet (CHILE)
The twentieth century saw many undemocratic regimes in Latin America. Some of them were particularly repressive, and perhaps the most representative are Chile under Pinochet's dictatorial baton, as well as Peron's Argentina.
In 1973, the Chief of the General Staff of the Chilean Army, Augusto Pinochet, staged a military coup in Chile, bombed the Moneda Palace (in which the then left-wing president Salvador Allende committed suicide) and, with the hearty help of Washington, turned the country into a dictatorship that he would rule for seventeen years. The true nature of this general's rule came to light very quickly - through mass arrests, the ban on political life, torture, kidnappings and executions. Immediately after coming to power, the military junta dissolved the congress, banned the activities of political parties and trade unions and suspended the constitution. Political life ceased to exist. The media were put under complete control, and the regime also turned to dealing with artists - the eligible ones were rewarded, and the ineligible ones were destroyed. The most repressive institution became DINA, the secret police responsible directly to Pinochet, with the task of eliminating all forms of opposition.
photo: wikipedia.org...leader of the military coup and later dictator of Chile, Augusto Pinochet;...
And while Pinochet enjoyed the support of world democracies, in his Chile repression practically had no limits. Leftists were the first to be hit. According to Amnesty International and official Chilean reports, during Pinochet's rule at least 3.000 people were killed or disappeared, while around 40.000 people survived political imprisonment and torture. The network of secret prisons and torture centers was managed by DINA, and methods such as electric shocks, sexual violence and physical abuse were used. On the other hand, more than 200.000 Chilean men and women were forced to leave the country due to persecution. People were imprisoned in football stadiums, liquidated without trial, and many political opponents suddenly disappeared - they became Disappeared.
As an anti-communist, the Chilean leader maintained good relations with the US, mostly until the end of the Cold War. He presented himself as a stabilizing factor in the region, opened the market for the influx of foreign investments and ensured that the Allies turned a blind eye because of "rumors" about repressive internal policies. One of the few social groups that tried to express their dissatisfaction with protests were students. Through various non-violent forms of resistance and small-scale actions, only possible in such conditions, the students represented an important symbol of resistance to the dictatorship. The regime, on the other hand, responded harshly. With the introduction of a state of emergency and curfew, the use of the military, and finally arrests, the protesters were persecuted and punished. Decrees were introduced whereby university rectors were appointed by the army, while campuses were nationalized or privatized. It was only in 1987, near the end of Pinochet's dictatorship, that the students managed to force the regime to make concessions and restore some kind of limited autonomy through a new series of protests.
photo: wikipedia.org...mothers of missing fighters against the perverted regime
PERON (ARGENTINA)
Although Pinochet's regime had fascist elements and was strongly authoritarian and right-wing, it is open to debate whether it was fascist. What adorned the classical fascist regimes, and what seems to be missing in his case, is the "idea of national revival", as well as state interventionism in the economy - his economic policy was neoliberal. On the other hand, Argentina under the rule of Juan Peron (mainly the first part from 1946 to 1955) can be said to fulfill even more elements of the definition of fascism. Unlike Pinochet, whose coming to power was based on a military coup and the support of a foreign factor, Peron became the president of Argentina in the elections, which certainly gave him a significant dose of legitimacy. Admittedly, his mass popularity that preceded the presidential elections was also acquired during the military junta, however, Peron only had the role of minister of labor and social policy in it. Nevertheless, this ministry proved not to be unimportant - it enabled him to have direct contact with the working class (then very important in Argentina), which he won over with his populist measures.
Immediately after taking power, Peron embarks on a decisive confrontation with all those who can become a potential threat to the regime. Prominent oppositionists, union opponents and intellectuals are arrested and imprisoned without trial, improvised camps are established, the secret police create an atmosphere of fear by monitoring everyone. However, he does not stop there. He tries to suppress any potential form of criticism before it even appears. Print media are shut down or transformed into pro-regime ones, while radio stations (then an important form of information) are taken over by similar trade union organizations. At the same time, propaganda is also working in the other direction - the personality cult of Juan and Eva Peron is being built.
One of Peron's first repressive measures was aimed at universities. Professors were imprisoned and persecuted, loyalists took their place, autonomy was suspended, and every attempt to restore autonomy was characterized as subversion for which there was no mercy. It is interesting that the students in the first years of Peron's rule were divided. As he himself gained his wave of popularity through social reforms, part of the students fell for this measure, which turned out to be purely populist. Later, the student protests intensified, but they certainly reached their peak during the dictatorship of Jorge Rafael Videla Redondo, an even more cruel and repressive colonel-general than Juan Peron.
Like Pinochet, Peron also played the card of stability, thus trying to ingratiate himself with the great powers. However, instead of openly siding with one side, he tried to balance capitalism and communism by advocating the idea of a "third way". In this way, he ensured good relations with both, and when those relations became strained, he adjusted the negotiating positions to only one goal - his own survival in power.
MATURE (VENEZUELA)
A more recent example of a repressive non-democratic state in Latin America is certainly Venezuela, under the authoritarian baton of current president Nicolas Maduro. One could say that the Venezuelan path from Chávez to Maduro was a kind of transition from a spin-dictatorship (although that term was coined later) to an open dictatorship. And while Hugo Chávez managed to consolidate power and reduce the institutions to a semblance of action, Maduro completely marginalized them. The 2018 elections, in which he secured a second mandate, were characterized in international circles as "fixed". During Chávez's time, political opponents were arrested and persecuted, and the media were turned into pro-regime newspapers (and private ones were fiercely attacked). However, his successor raised the repression to a higher level - as in the past in Latin American military dictatorships, now in Venezuela there are reports of mass executions without trial, as well as disappearances and torture of political opponents.
The same applies to the attitude towards student protests. During Chávez's time as well, protesters were met by the police, tear gas and rubber bullets, but under Maduro there were also cases of students' deaths in confrontations with the police. Instead of a situational response, a systematic crackdown now dominates, embodied in arrests, torture and mass accusations of terrorism. Also, in addition to the regular security forces, Maduro uses i collective – paramilitary formations often made up of criminals and local gangs that are used as a violent cudgel of the regime.
The social reforms implemented by Chávez had some success - primarily in the area of poverty reduction, which made it easier to mask the regime's sudden return to authoritarianism. On the other hand, Maduro has no such relief, and his regime is completely exposed. If Chávez created the image of necessary repression for the sake of achieving social justice, those Potemkin villages experienced a complete collapse under Nicolás Maduro.
FRANCO AND SALAZAR
The rise to power of Francisco Franco in Spain and Antonio Salazar in Portugal differed significantly. Although both were dictators, the context was different, and consequently the degree of repression they resorted to. At the end of the day, Franco, much more cruel than Salazar, ruled Spain until his death, while the latter was replaced near the end of his life. Franco came to the head of the state through a military coup that culminated in a civil war, from which he emerged victorious. On the other hand, Salazar (the longest-lived dictator in Europe) came to power through institutional means.
The first used mass repression through executions, torture and disappearances of political opponents (mainly leftists), while the second resorted more to selective and quiet repression - although one should not harbor illusions that his political opponents fared better. The only difference lies in the mass. And while both tried to stifle any kind of opposition by banning opposition political parties, Franco established total control over criticism, while Salazar used more surveillance. It can be said that Salazar never managed to establish the cult of personality that Franco had in Spain - who, like many dictators, wholeheartedly enjoyed addressing the nation frequently through the available channels of communication.
Although both regimes had numerous elements of fascism, they managed to survive in a Europe newly freed from the same ideology. Salazar courted the anti-fascist coalition, while Franco skillfully used soft power over the years to repair his image in the international community, an image that allowed him to do whatever he wanted at home. Among other things, Franco founded a cultural institute that promoted the Spanish cultural heritage around the world, established close cooperation with Hollywood, invested heavily in sports, and cultural diplomacy succeeded in concealing internal repression with images of exotic and sunny beaches and bright blue seas. He wanted to show that the sun is nowhere as bright as in Spain. Behind those scenes, however, repressive laws hid, institutions collapsed, colleges were subjected to state-controlled curricula, around 15.000 primary school teachers were fined, and 6.000 were permanently banned from working. Students were arrested, and candidates were appointed as rectors and deans.
The students in the late 60s and early 70s were the initiators of the wave of discontent against the dictatorship. The rebellion at the Complutense University in Madrid marked the beginning of the delegitimization of the regime, which culminated in a democratic transition after Franco's death in 1975. On the other hand, the academic crisis at the beginning of the 60s in Portugal opened cracks that significantly contributed to the final downfall of the Salazar regime. Young people rebelled against tyranny, censorship, colonial wars, organizing mass protests and strikes. Salazar responded with force, but this only temporarily delayed the fall of his regime.
MODERN DICTATORSHIPS
In Europe (including Turkey) today there are no more dictatorships identical to those of the last century. Russia, Belarus and Turkey passed the phase of spin-dictatorships and, over time, evolved into open dictatorships. Nevertheless, they are still significantly different from those of the 2016th century, primarily in terms of the degree of repression. The leaders of Hungary and Serbia can be said to still fall under the definition of spin-dictators. And while classic dictatorships are exclusively based on fear and open (often systemic) repression, spin-dictatorships are characterized by covert repression and at least an apparent imitation of the functioning of democratic institutions. Political opposition exists, it is not threatened with a ban, but it is decisively destroyed mainly through media manipulation and targeting with the labels "enemies of the state". On the other hand, a personality cult is built around the leader, cemented by populist measures, which cause a positive reaction among a significant part of the population (at least at the beginning). The problem arises when, in moments of social crisis, repression stops being concealed and becomes more open or open - like in Turkey after the failed military coup in XNUMX - then spin-dictators start walking on the thin line that separates them from a sudden return to open dictatorship. Increasingly open repression is usually preceded by a loss of control over narratives; propaganda and manipulation are no longer enough to control public opinion. Institutions fall under total control, the legislative and judicial powers become an extended arm of the executive power, and elections lose all meaning. In those moments, any opposition becomes too much of a threat for the dictator and he can no longer tolerate it. He resorts to arrests and imprisonments on flimsy charges, which are justified by "national security".
Russia and Belarus followed this path not so long ago - the first after the invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and the second after the presidential elections in 2020, accompanied by mass demonstrations. The transition from spin to open dictatorship was often accompanied by international isolation, which could certainly be seen in these two examples. Turkey, on the other hand, avoided this latter consequence.
The foundations of spin-dictatorships can be found in the way of ruling that Marxist theory recognizes as "Bonapartism". Napoleon and his conquering revolution undoubtedly brought a dose of progress to Europe, but the internal policy he led in France was authoritarian (many would say dictatorial) to say the least. Therefore, Bonapartism can be described as a historical model that showed how authoritarian leaders could use formal democratic institutions and populist rhetoric to consolidate power, control social conflicts, and avoid open repression. The Bonapartists centralize power in their hands, but strive to integrate different social layers - the people through populist measures, and the elite by encouraging their interest competition until it threatens the leader himself. Formal democratic frameworks will function, and repression will be limited. In this way, the Bonapartist will balance between different social groups on the one hand, while on the other hand he will be the guarantor of the stability of society.
All dictatorships are limited in time. Although at first glance the society in them seems completely paralyzed, experience has shown that sometimes social crises break out, where the regime's immunity falls. It is also true that modern dictators have behind them the lessons of the mistakes of classical dictators that allow them to perfect their models. Those who manage to find a balance for the longest time and remain floating in the vacuum of selective repression and apparent democracy have learned the best lessons.
