Political prejudice

Political repression is the act of a state entity controlling a citizenry by force for political reasons, particularly for the purpose of restricting or preventing the citizenry's ability to take part in the political life of a society, thereby reducing their standing among their fellow citizens. Repression tactics target the citizenry who are most likely to challenge the political ideology of the state in order for the government to remain in control. In autocracies, the use of political repression is to prevent anti-regime support and mobilization. It is often manifested through policies such as human rights violations, surveillance abuse, police brutality, imprisonment, involuntary settlement, stripping of citizen's rights, lustration, and violent action or terror such as the murder, summary executions, torture, forced disappearance, and other extrajudicial punishment of political activists, dissidents, or general population. Direct repression tactics are those targeting specific actors who become aware of the harm done to them while covert tactics rely on the threat of citizenry being caught (wiretapping and monitoring). The effectiveness of the tactics differ: covert repression tactics cause dissidents to use less detectable opposition tactics while direct repression allows citizenry to witness and react to the repression. Political repression can also be reinforced by means outside of written policy, such as by public and private media ownership and by self-censorship within the public. Where political repression is sanctioned and organised by the state, it may constitute state terrorism, genocide, politicide or crimes against humanity. Systemic and violent political repression is a typical feature of dictatorships, totalitarian states and similar regimes. While the use of political repression varies depending on the authoritarian regime, it is argued that repression is a defining feature and the foundation of autocracies by creating a power hierarchy between the leader and citizenry, contributing to the longevity of the regime. Repressive activities have also been found within democratic contexts as well. This can even include setting up situations where the death of the target of repression is the end result. If political repression is not carried out with the approval of the state, a section of government may still be responsible. Some examples are the FBI COINTELPRO operations from 1956 to 1971 and the Palmer Raids from 1919-1920. In some states, "repression" can be an official term used in legislation or the names of government institutions. The Soviet Union had a legal policy of repression of political opposition defined in its penal code and Cuba under Fulgencio Batista had a secret police agency officially named the Bureau for the Repression of Communist Activities. According to Soviet and Communist studies scholar Stephen Wheatcroft, in the case of the Soviet Union terms such as "the terror", "the purges" and "repression" are used to refer to the same events. He believes the most neutral terms are repression and mass killings, although in Russian the broad concept of repression is commonly held to include mass killings and is sometimes assumed to be synonymous with it, which is not the case in other languages.

Political prejudice is a pervasive global issue that threatens the foundations of democracy and social cohesion. According to a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 64% of individuals across 27 countries believe that political polarization has increased in their country over the past decade. In the United States, a study by the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago revealed that 55% of Americans feel that their political opponents pose a threat to the nation's well-being. Furthermore, a global study conducted by the European Social Survey found that 38% of Europeans would not like to have neighbors with different political views, indicating a significant level of intolerance and division. These statistics highlight the urgent need for societies to address political prejudice and foster inclusive dialogues that promote understanding and respect for differing ideologies.

Political prejudice is an insidious and escalating menace that corrodes the very foundations of democracy, fragmenting societies, and stifling progress. Fuelled by echo chambers and confirmation bias, this toxic phenomenon blinds individuals to alternative viewpoints, fostering an atmosphere of hostility, hatred, and division. The repercussions are dire, as political prejudice hampers constructive dialogue, erodes trust in institutions, and undermines the pursuit of common goals, ultimately jeopardizing the very fabric of our democratic societies. Urgent action is needed to dismantle the walls of prejudice and build bridges of understanding, lest we succumb to the perilous consequences of an increasingly polarized and fractured world.

While political prejudice can sometimes be a contentious issue, it is important to note that it is a natural outcome of democracy and the diversity of opinions within society. In fact, healthy political discourse often involves robust debates and disagreements. By dismissing political prejudice as a serious issue, we risk undermining the democratic process and stifling the free exchange of ideas. Rather than denying its existence, we should focus on promoting tolerance and understanding, as well as encouraging open dialogue that allows for the exploration of different perspectives.