On 18 August, I published an opinion piece in The Namibian newspaper, titled: ‘The people of Venezuela have spoken.’ 

In that opinion piece I, inter alia, stated that I had observed the presidential elections that were held in Venezuela on 28 July. I further argued that, according to my analysis, and contrary to what was being reported in the Western media, there was no proof that those elections had been rigged. I have been informed, by a very reliable source, that the negative SMS comments my opinion piece attracted were almost unprecedented. 

My response is that I am neither surprised nor intimidated by that. 

With all due respect, most commentators on the Venezuelan elections were relying on what was reported in the Western media without doing their research. I will give one example of what I am talking about. CNN, for example, reported while we were in Venezuela that “…. there are very few international observers on the ground….” We were close to one thousand international observers, and I know it for a fact because we were all staying in the same hotel.  

The question is, how is it possible that so many people often swallow American propaganda lock, stock and barrel?  

The answer to that question is what I am trying to answer in this opinion piece.

The battle of ideas in a developed capitalist state like the US has everything to do with what Antonio Gramsci calls “bourgeois (capitalist class) hegemony.” “Bourgeois hegemony” simply means that the ruling capitalist class not only justifies and maintains its dominance but also manages to win the active consent of those over which it rules. Hegemony, in this context, simply means the ideological predominance of the values and norms of the ruling class over the rest of society. 

It was in this context that Marx was to remark that the “…ideas of the ruling class in every epoch are the ruling ideas.”  

The theory of “bourgeois hegemony” was further elaborated upon by other neo-Marxists like Adorno and Marcuse, who came up with the concept of the “culture industry”. The argument here is that, just like a factory that produces standardised items, the “culture industry” creates a “mass culture” or “popular culture” through different activities and cultural outputs. These are things like the entertainment industry, mass media, politics, education, religion, etc. The result thereof is that this “mass culture” socialises the citizens to adopt certain cultural values; without them realising that they are being influenced.

The American State machinery would normally define and promote a certain narrative and a good number of people, both in the US and internationally, would typically buy into that “reality” without realising that that “reality” is just a “truth claim” that can be challenged.  

It is, therefore, no wonder that according to an American public opinion poll by CCN on the war against Iraq in April 2003, about 67% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, and they, therefore, supported the invasion of Iraq.

In another public opinion poll conducted by Time magazine in their 6 November 2006 edition, only 38% of Americans felt that the invasion of Iraq was a good idea. 

How is it possible that so many people in what is supposed to be the most “informed society” bought into the case for war against Iraq and about three years later, all of a sudden, they seemed to have changed their position?    

As we all know by now, neither the weapons of mass destruction nor a direct link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Al Qatar could be found, which were the main two reasons Bush had used to justify the invasion. 

Why is it that there is so little critical thinking in the US or assuming that there is, why does it not have serious policy impact?  

 This uncritical thinking derives its beliefs, norms, and values from existing thought and social practices, and it is, in short, rooted in ideological hegemony or control. This type of control is somewhat “hidden” or “covert” because ideological apparatuses are less obvious and, therefore, much more effective in mystifying the dominance of class rule.

The American “free citizen” cannot imagine that there could be other transcending modes of freedom. This is the theme that Herbert Marcuse set out to address in his classical book ‘One – Dimensional Man’ (1964). Marcuse refers to that mode of thinking as “freedom” without “freedom” because the system is “immune” to change.

In the same way, the role and dominance of the American mass culture in the world should be analysed within a broad context of strategic, security, economic and cultural interests. All these interests are underpinned by a powerful, albeit covert, ideological dominance that is so elusive and evasive that it is very difficult to pin down. 

Therefore, more often than not, a good number of global citizens may think that they have taken an “independent” position on a certain issue, without necessarily realising the degree to which they have been influenced by the Western and/or American media.

*Gerson Uaripi Tjihenuna is a Commissioner of the Electoral Commission of Namibia (ECN). The views expressed here are his own, and not those of ECN.