The new and significant threat from these authoritarian states does not amount to a return of the Cold War. The China and Russia of today, for example, would be almost unrecognizable to those who lived under Mao and Brezhnev. Ordinary citizens in both countries have far more access to information than they did a generation ago. Travel abroad for holidays, the ability to purchase consumer goods of all descriptions, and a range of other personal freedoms are available to a large portion of the population. And, of course, both countries have joined the global trading system, and international commercial relationships are flourishing.
Indeed, the new authoritarianism is distinguished by a recognition that absolute control over information and economic activity is neither possible nor necessary. These regimes have developed methods that allow them to “guide” and “manage” political discourse; selectively suppress or reshape news and information of political consequence; and squelch, coopt, or parasitize the most important business entities. The priority is political control, and any societal actor that is prepared to acknowledge the supremacy of the ruling group—and comply with its directives when called upon—is free to operate with a certain amount of autonomy. But the extent to which citizens can exercise their rights depends not on the law as established by freely elected representatives and enforced by impartial courts, but on the state of their relations with the leadership. Loyalists are rewarded, enemies are punished, the neutral are neglected or casually abused, and all of these labels are assigned in an arbitrary and capricious manner.
China’s media sector is a telling example of 21st-century authoritarianism in practice. In keeping with the CCP’s ongoing experiment in authoritarian capitalism, the party has developed a “market-based censorship” model in which both traditional and online media operate as commercial enterprises—surviving mostly on advertising revenue, and enhancing production quality and entertainment value to attract audiences—but are required to carry out political directives from the authorities. This includes stressing certain topics in the news, suppressing others, and employing an in-house censorship apparatus to ensure compliance.
Authoritarian governments use their control over news media to fend off scrutiny and criticism of official activities. While Russian authorities have focused their suppressive efforts on domestic news outlets, international broadcasters including the BBC, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) have not been spared. Each of these broadcasters, whose programming has attracted a dedicated following of Russian listeners interested in an alternative voice, has been targeted in recent years by Kremlin-orchestrated intimidation campaigns. RFE/RL’s local partners—Russian radio stations that rebroadcast its programs as part of their own formats—have been audited and subjected to various other forms of harassment. Since 2005, a total of 20 such RFE/ RL affiliates have been closed, the majority due to political pressure. Prior to the crackdown, the Russian Service had affiliates in all 10 of Russia’s largest cities, whereas today Russian Service programs can be heard on local stations in less than half. Governments in other parts of the former Soviet Union have undertaken similar efforts to obstruct international broadcasting. There is no local rebroadcasting of RFE/RL content in Azerbaijan, Belarus, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan. Several other countries, including Armenia, Georgia, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, have used official means such as bans and temporary states of emergency to frustrate domestic access to RFE/RL programs. Many of these governments also hinder access to information on the internet, including news and analysis produced by international broadcasters. In 2008, a massive cyberattack was launched against the website of RFE/RL’s Belarus Service, disrupting access to all of RFE/RL’s websites for nearly two days. Governments in Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Armenia also block domestic access to RFE/RL websites.
Chinese authorities jam U.S. government–funded Radio Free Asia (RFA) broadcasts by co-channeling Chinese opera, funeral music gongs, and static, as well as by overriding RFA’s signal with their own programming. The Chinese government publically professed an attitude of openness toward international news organizations and nongovernmental organizations during the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, but it continued to block access to the RFA website. RFA encounters these and similar problems with jamming, censorship, and intimidation by authoritarian regimes elsewhere in Asia, including in North Korea and Burma. Despite these efforts at repression, RFA’s audience still manages to access broadcasts through short- and medium-wave radio, satellite links, and on the internet via proxy servers.
News professionals who stay within editorial boundaries but nevertheless manage to succeed commercially are rewarded and move up the career ladder. Those who do not risk professional stagnation or ruin. And media workers are well aware that this system is backed up by the unfettered power of the state to harass, intimidate, imprison, and even execute those who fail to respond to its instructions. Moreover, the media landscape—both online and off—is actively policed by government officials armed with the latest technology available on the world market, one of the benefits of the country’s opening to international trade. Having all but perfected these modern censorship techniques, China is now beginning to serve as a model and mentor for other authoritarian governments around the world.