A commentary on the Fallibility of Political Spectrum

By Hannah Hippmann

The linear political spectrum and political compass display a left-right, authoritarian-libertarian model. However, when analysing the consequences and methods of dictatorships, extreme right regimes, such as Nazi Germany, and extreme left, such as Stalinist USSR or North Korea, are very similar in methodology, despite having inverse foundational ideologies (left vs right). Opposing ideologies can converge toward similar authoritarian structures when power becomes centralised. North Korea is admittedly an odd choice to represent a communist state, yet my point is how some self-described communist states evolved into systems that diverged significantly from original Marxist theory. This ‘denomination’ reveals how, whilst a country is labelled as one form of government, it may function as another, which I will discuss later. Moreover, this exposes flaws in the political compass and how language has inadvertently perpetuated the distinction and hatred between the opposites on the political spectrum. I'm not trying to attack these ideologies or societies per se, but explore how they draw more parallels than they are represented.

On the political compass, communism (how it has occurred in reality, such as North Korea) and fascism are in the top corners of authoritarian left and right, respectively. To take an example, North Korea exhibits characteristics of an absolute monarchy in the sense that power is passed through the Kim bloodline. Moreover, the cult of personality remains in North Korea, where the Kim dynasty is treated with quasi-religious reverence within their society, along with ultra-nationalistic values, historical revisionism, extreme censorship, and propaganda. This devotion and elevation of leaders was also present in the USSR, where Stalin was idealised as the infallible protector of socialism. Despite being enemies, the Nazi regime also provided Hitler with the status of Germany’s sole saviour, establishing the Third Reich and regaining Germany’s authority and respect on a global scale. Furthermore, dissent is suppressed in these authoritarian societies through the encouragement of violence, imprisonment, and terror. I acknowledge that these nationalistic values of this communist society differ from the homogenous ethnicity/culture/religion nationalism present within fascist communities, yet in North Korea, it is more pride and love for their leaders, nothing else trumping their government's nationalism. Hitler also abused Nazi Germany and riddled it with propaganda, and required ultimate respect and love for him by German citizens. I understand how it is integral that communist ideologies have roots in equality and the abolishment of economic and racial hierarchies. I comprehend that there is a distinction between ideology and actual political outcomes, and I think this needs to be represented better globally. 

To expose further similarities, the militarisation of the state is a prime criterion for calling a country authoritarian, where they rely on military symbolism, external enemies, and permanent states of emergency. Militarisation helps authoritarian governments create submissive populations. External enemies unify citizens, justify state control, and legitimise the suppression of dissent. Again, these parallels between extremist nations are irrefutable, only proving how the political spectrum fails to capture the nuance and reality in systems of government. Furthermore, the most essential factor to an authoritarian regime would be the unquestionable authority of the leader and the system by which they rule. By fabricating a narrative that an ideology is morally absolute, disagreement and the right to democratic process are framed as evil, dangerous, and malicious. Whether this be fascism, communism, or religious extremism, when they combine these facets, it results in a scarily similar and oppressive society that fails to account for fundamental civil liberties. Whilst a personal opinion, I must comment how, even if one does not think democracy is the best way to rule a nation, as it certainly has its flaws, to not do so would be to infringe on the freedom of speech, to have a meaningful vote, of press and media, fair trials, and of assembly and protest. 

Furthermore, the use of language and constant modelling of the extreme authoritarian right and left as opposites has contributed to a subconscious separation and distinction between nations. It supports a "them vs. us" way of thinking that obscures deeper social and political progress. Some regimes challenge the linear political spectrum, such as China, with its integration of a select communist party, yet it still engages in a capitalistic economy. Online political tribalism, from the curation of our ‘For You Page,’ has allowed extremist propaganda on both ends to seep into minds. Despite continuous debate around the ethics of this, it is clear that this further polarises communities and creates confidence in righteousness in the eyes of extremists. We can parallel this to Cold War rhetoric, where there was a moral and ideological boundary between capitalism and communism, freedom and tyranny, and the East vs. the West. It weaponised propaganda to manipulate citizens into thinking the ‘other side’ was evil and infringing on human rights, fostering a ‘them versus us’ worldview that still has remnants in modern society, preventing good faith debate and critical thinking. If our system of categorising these political theories is flawed and overly simplistic, then is this language of distinction, of binary categorisation, of polarisation dangerous, especially when considering global politics? Doesn't the language inflate this hate against groups and embed this separation and opposition between states? Shouldn't the world thus adopt and adapt language and models to portray a multi-dimensional political spectrum, surpassing even the political compass (since there needs to be a distinction between ideology, actuality, and consequence)?