Propaganda for the democratized?

When viewing the powerful documentaries of Leni Riefenstahl, one cannot help but be amazed. The precision, the force, the sheer enormity of Nazi rallies, it is difficult not to be impressed by the coordination of such events. Those and similar military parades in modern day North Korea, which depict thousands of soldiers and citizens parading for the glory of their country are not only somewhat frightening, but also mesmerizing. Needless to say, these mass rallies and Riefenstahl’s documentaries are made for use as propaganda.

Propaganda, the pejoratively tinged word, which conjures up the images of Stalin-led USSR and Franco’s Spain... Propaganda as defined by Leonard Doob cites the “control of individuals through the use of suggestion…regardless of whether or not the propaganda intends to exercise the control” (Black 123). Edgar Henderson elaborated on the definition of propaganda, listing several requirements for a piece to be considered as such. Henderson concludes that propaganda works to affect an individual in a certain way “before he can deliberate freely” (Black 123). It is therefore safe to say that documentaries like Riefenstahl, which shock and overwhelm the viewer with the enormity of the Nazi party’s purpose, can certainly be defined as propaganda.

However, is propaganda useful in countries where there is no other choice of politic, but the one presented? Is propaganda not more useful in democratized countries, where one may voice a plethora of different opinions, possibly destabilizing the government or balance of power? Leni Riefenstahl films did earn numerous accolades in Nazi Germany, but regardless, citizens were not allowed to protest the government. Besides strengthening the support of known followers and converting those unsure of the party’s goals, one could say the films were a bit superfluous.

Thus, is public diplomacy the “propaganda” of democratized states? Is public diplomacy the Anakin to propaganda’s Darth Vader? Cull breaks down the definition of public diplomacy into several components; listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange, international broadcasting and the half-cousin of public diplomacy, psychological warfare (10). Cull outlines several examples of good acts of public diplomacy…Switzerland’s “listening” to UK citizens who saw the Swiss as conservative, due to their support of the Conservative Party and thereafter saw the switch of Swiss support to the Labour Party (29), etc. Though public diplomacy serves as a positive reinforcement of a country’s image, one cannot help but wonder if propaganda would be far more useful, especially in democratized states. If the progressive initiatives of the democratic-majority Congress (before the midterm elections) were propagandized, would a greater amount of legislation have been passed, with speed and consensus? Instead of disunity and strife, if the ideals of the democratized nation were propagandized, could there be positive results? Of course, the use of propaganda is a double-edged sword and one with a sharp point, so perhaps it is better to leave it in the belt and continue to use the olive branch of public diplomacy.