The architecture of control

Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have understood that control over information is synonymous with control over society. Whether through the overt machinations of totalitarian propaganda or the more insidious mechanisms of digital surveillance, the suppression of dissenting voices is a hallmark of authoritarian governance. Benito Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy and Sheikh Hasina's contemporary administration in Bangladesh-though separated by time, geography, and ideological context-both illustrate the strategic manipulation of media to maintain political dominance.

Mussolini, a master propagandist, sought to create an omnipotent state ideology through stringent press censorship, state-sponsored censorship, and injecting nationalist fervor into the public domain. His Italy was a laboratory for modern authoritarian media tactics, setting precedents that would be refined by later regimes. Fast forward to the 21st century, and Sheikh Hasina's government in Bangladesh presents striking similarities-weaponising judicial systems, economic pressure, and digital surveillance to muzzle independent journalism and consolidate political power.

THE BIRTH OF A TOTALITARIAN MEDIA MACHINE: Benito Mussolini's totalitarian experiment in Italy sought to reshape the state's institutions and the very minds of its citizens. A master propagandist, Mussolini was deeply involved in the interconnected mechanisms of propaganda and censorship, having realized their possibilities in guaranteeing ideological hegemony. As George Orwell rightly stated, "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The idiosyncratic structure of Italian Fascism rested on a precarious balance-encouraging mass confidence in conjunction with an extensive culture of fear. This political project extended beyond governance and economic policy, seeping into the very consciousness of Italians, whom the Fascist state sought to reorient towards unwavering devotion to the nation-state.

MUSSOLINI'S MEDIA MONOPOLY: Acutely aware of appearances, Mussolini established the High Commission for the Press in 1929. While nominally maintaining the appearance of a free press, his regime demanded strict adherence to national interests, a nebulous term that positioned the state as the ultimate arbiter of truth. "The press of Italy is free," Mussolini declared, "freely obedient to my commands." The Press, like other institutions, was absorbed into the nationalist project, with journalists expected to serve as educators and ideological enforcers rather than as independent critics of power. The notion of adversarial journalism, which subjected state actions to scrutiny, was anathema to Mussolini's vision. Instead, the Press was enlisted as a militant force, one that was expected to function as a monolithic bloc in the interests of the Fascist state, choking off oppositional discourses before they could even be born. Rather than relying on post-factum censorship, Mussolini preferred control of the Press in advance, setting explicit expectations of complete loyalty to the regime.

THE WRITTEN WORD AS A WEAPON: As a former journalist and editor, Mussolini understood the potency of the written word and took an active role in censorship policy. Starting in the early, he supported laws to muzzle voices of opposition, 1920sparticularly the printed mouthpieces of opposition political parties. His techniques of press manipulation evolved concurrently with his consolidation of authority; by the time Italy transitioned from parliamentary democracy to dictatorship, Mussolini had personally taken over the operations of censorship. His regime tightened its hold by directly taking over the censorship function of regional prefectures, which had enjoyed semi-autonomous status when they regulated local publications. Fascist squads, often beyond the reach of legal authority, launched violent assaults on bookshops and physically assaulted those who defied their prohibitions, all with implicit state approval.

LESSONS FROM WORLD WAR I AND THE NAZI MODEL: The Italian state's experience of wartime censorship, particularly in World War I, set a precedent for Mussolini's authoritarian media policies. As early as 1915, the government had imposed strict speech regulations, targeting political groups opposed to the war. Mussolini thus inherited a country already accustomed to censorship, facilitating his transition to absolute press control. The interwar period, marked by social and political volatility, created an environment ripe for Mussolini's ambitions, just as Adolf Hitler would later exploit similar conditions in Germany. Indeed, Mussolini's censorship strategies grew more sophisticated in direct response to Nazi propaganda innovations. Following his 1934 meeting with Hitler, Mussolini's press chief, Galeazzo Ciano, restructured the state's propaganda apparatus to more closely mirror the Nazi Reich Ministry for Popular Enlightenment and Propaganda. The Fascist government no longer relied on decentralized and ad hoc media management methods. Still, it established a vast bureaucratic machinery, the zenith of which was the establishment of the Ministry of Popular Culture with its Orwellian ring. This step legalized the state's control of Italy's intellectual and cultural discourse, making tactical use of resources to impose ideological conformity.

PROPAGANDA BEYOND THE PRESS: Mussolini's propaganda project extended beyond the written word, permeating visual culture and public art. Institutions such as the Istituto Luce were tasked with producing state-sanctioned cinematic narratives, glorifying Fascism, and reinforcing national unity. Theatres were legally mandated to screen government-produced films, while murals and sculptures portrayed Italy's expansionist ambitions and technological progress. The aesthetic contradictions of Fascist propaganda-its simultaneous glorification of Roman antiquity and embrace of modernist and futurist style-reflected the ideological contradictions of the regime itself. Fascism, in Kaplan's terminology, was a "polarity machine," bringing together apparently incompatible elements in the construction of a unified nationalist myth.

THE FRAGILITY OF TOTALITARIAN CONTROL: Although Mussolini himself ultimately lost power in 1943, the impact of his authoritarian model endured in many forms through the twentieth century and beyond. His attempt to construct a comprehensive state ideology is a cautionary tale, illustrating totalitarianism's strength and boundaries. Despite the collapse of overtly fascist regimes, milder forms of authoritarian governance have persisted, subtly reshaping democratic institutions while maintaining a veneer of pluralism. As historian Hannah Arendt once warned, "The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution."

HASINA AND THE BANGLADESHI MEDIA LANDSCAPE: A contemporary parallel can be drawn between Mussolini's media strategy and the policies of Sheikh Hasina's government in Bangladesh. While operating within a formally democratic framework, Hasina's administration has increasingly exhibited media centralisation and press control characteristics reminiscent of Mussolini's Italy. Under the Awami League's rule, Bangladesh has witnessed a significant decline in press freedom. According to the Reporters Without Borders Press Freedom Index, Bangladesh's ranking has plummeted, signaling an alarming trend of increasing government interference in media operations.

The passing of the Digital Security Act (DSA) in 2018 was a tipping point in the repression of press freedom. Written in the name of maintaining national security and public order, the law has been used systematically to harass journalists, activists, and political opponents. The law makes it a crime to report "against the spirit of the liberation war" or government policies, thus silencing voices of dissent. As Noam Chomsky pointed out, "If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we dislike, we don't believe in it at all."

Beyond legal restrictions, financial and economic mechanisms have been employed to control the media space. Government-controlled advertising revenue is selectively channelled to pro-government media, ensuring economic reliance on government favor. Independent newspapers and television channels are starved of funds, while outspoken journalists are harassed, threatened, and even jailed in some cases. The experience of journalist Shafiqul Islam Kajol, who forcibly disappeared for weeks before being arrested under the DSA, highlights the repressive measures against those who dare to question the ruling authority.

The government's use of digital surveillance further exacerbates press suppression. With the rise of state-controlled social media monitoring, online dissenters face criminal charges for expressing critical opinions on digital platforms. Like Mussolini's concept of proactive censorship, Hasina's administration employs cyber monitoring as a pre-emptive strike against potential dissent, ensuring that criticism is quelled before it gains momentum.

THE LIMITS OF AUTHORITARIAN MEDIA CONTROL: Despite these parallels, there are critical distinctions between Mussolini's Italy and Hasina's Bangladesh. Mussolini's regime was explicitly totalitarian, seeking to obliterate political pluralism in favour of a single-party dictatorship. In contrast, Hasina operates within a nominally democratic system, where contested elections still take place. Additionally, the ideological underpinnings of their rule differ significantly-Mussolini's vision was rooted in an aggressive nationalist and militaristic ethos. In contrast, Hasina's governance, though increasingly authoritarian, remains tethered to the language of democratic legitimacy and economic development.

Nevertheless, the fundamental logic underlying their media strategies remains strikingly similar: both leaders recognized the indispensable role of press control in shaping public opinion and securing political dominance. Whether through Mussolini's militant journalism or Hasina's digital-era censorship, the suppression of dissenting voices remains a powerful tool in the arsenal of leaders seeking to entrench their authority. As history demonstrates, however, such centralised control over information-no matter how meticulously constructed-remains inherently unstable, susceptible to the forces of resistance and change it seeks to contain. Thomas Jefferson correctly stated, "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."

Dr. Serajul I. Bhuiyan is a professor and former chair of the Department of Journalism and Mass Communications at Savannah State University, Savannah, Georgia, USA. sibhuiyan@yahoo.com