What to do with authoritarians has been debated in the field of communication for some time. Something completely appropriate, considering that they appropriated part of the public debate in order not to accept plurality, keep (polarized) society divided, sow chaos (with a fascist undertone by not recognizing the institutions of the state) and provoked violent verbal actions (through the media, social networks) and physically (demonstrations ).

The authoritarian, in order to guarantee his own existence, does not give up his formula of discrediting the one he considers an opponent, letting him feel his strength (“you want to feel my power”), gathering his faithful and loyal followers (some convinced, others paid, some more afraid ) so that they repeat their decisions, their punishments, their mockery, their persecution, their violence.

Democracy without a Republic

An authoritarian needs to constantly create chaos, for which he will do what he has to do. There is no ethics and worse morals in his behavior. That is why he will always be presented as a good guy in the film: he is the best alternative, the only one who knows the answers, who can lead. The rest are useless, liars. He will turn his words into prophecies, into religion, so his message will be repeated in his own words and, many times, in the way he says it.

When we are faced with authoritarians who have punishments and suspicions that their crimes were wider, then it is even worse. He will force his people, not knowing what they are defending and what interests – never saints – to protect, praise and position extremely dangerous stories.

authoritarianism vs. democracy

The question then is how to deal with it? First, pedagogy must be carried out with those who participate in discussions with authoritarians or their speech repeaters. I clarify, not with authoritarian. He will be dying for you to mention it, to confront him, to provoke him with your sarcastic tone and well-learned technique of attacking emotions. It should be ignored.

Back to the followers. The best discussions are conducted with information. Yes, it’s not a country used to data, but you have to stimulate thinking and help connect the dots to reflect. You must return their statements in the form of questions. Surely their answers will be violent, but emotionality and emotionality have limits, but they will start to speak from a different perspective, to educate.

Reader’s Letter: It’s ‘Presidential Assassination’

Another is working with journalists. Although public opinion now has no owner, but millions of owners, journalists contribute to the direction of the discussion and must retrain themselves to get out of emotional, immediate reactions and learn to reformulate questions. It is imperative to demand information, not statements.

The third – also for journalists and those participating in the public debate – is related to the previous one: reminding those dominated by ideology that there are many things that unite us as a country: culture, geographical space, families, gender, identity, seeking the common good. Ideology is just a belief. (To be continued). (OR)