So i was just watching this weeks Great War video and it mentioned that in the UK at this point in the war, January 1918, there was basically no freedom of the press and that the only point of view the British public saw was government propaganda and anyone opposing the war was suppressed.
If the voting public is prevented from knowing the truth of a situation are they really voters? Is there really democracy or it closer to the democracy of totalitarian regimes where you only see one name on the ballot?
Yes, they’re really voters, albeit they are voting with limited information. They really can choose between the Conservative candidate and the Liberal candidate, even if as a result of censorship they are poorly informed about the issues that the victorious candidate will have to address while in office.
Democracy is a process for electing a government. If the electorate wants civil liberties, they elect an administration that grants them as a reward for good behavior.
In times when the nation is at risk of attack, it may be necessary to limit the rights of the people to engage in potentially rebellious behavior. that places the nation at greater risk than usual.
I have a right to move about freely without carrying papers, but not directly because this is a democracy, and that is not a right in all democaracies. Rather, because I had a right to elect an administration that defends that right. Civil rights are not all the same in all democracies.
Civil, human and political rights were far less advanced the world over 100 years ago. I know in the US people were given long prison sentences for opposing WW1.
We haven’t had total war in a long time. During WW2, nations were spending 40% of GDP on military spending. So who knows how we’d act in that situation.
But for recent wars in the developed world, they don’t seem to have affected people’s civil or political rights at home.
However in the US, things like ‘state secrets privilege’ are used to suppress embarrassing or criminal information about the government. But that is also used in peacetime.
Britain was not in any case a very good democracy at this point. Less than a third of adults had the vote. The public was still very much used to having decisions made for them by “their betters” and less inclined to hold them to account
Actually, as of January 1918, this ceased to be the case. Parliament enacted the Representation of the People Act 1918, which gave the vote to all adult men (i.e. property qualifications for men were abolished) and to married women over 30 who either met a property/education qualification, or were married to someone who did. The net effect was that about 75% of the adult population had the vote.
Yes I know. Which means, if you think about it, that in that case war actually led to the expansion of democracy. The fact that many of those formerly disenfranchised men had been fighting in the trenches, and women had been driving ambulances and making munitions was part of the moral case for giving them the vote in the first place.
Yes. But, to return to the OP, it’s arguable that at the same time the war led to an expansion of democracy (through the widening of the franchise) and at the same time the undermining of democracy (censorship negatively affecting the ability of voters to cast an informed vote).
On balance, I’d say that the widening of the franchise was much more significant, and was also permanent, while the censorship was limited in effect (it only affected information relevant to the conduct of the war, and most issues of public policy were unaffected) and was temporary.
Significantly, women were granted the vote in Germany in 1918, in Austria in 1919 and in the US (federally) in 1920. And they were granted the vote in France in 1944 and in Italy in 1945. So wars do seem to be associated with an expansion of the franchise.
I would agree with that. Also, the kind of top-down paternalistic government censorship characteristic of the start of the twentieth century is not precisely the sort of information restriction that we need to be worried about today.
Our problem is more sifting the truth, which is undoubtedly out there, from the reams of misinformation surrounding it.