.png)
Rebecca SE Tan
22 July 2022
“Remember, Remember, The Fifth of November,
Gunpowder treason and plot
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot”
"V for Vendetta" starts with this famous nursery rhyme, which alludes to the Gunpowder Plot of 5 November 1605. This plot was an attempt to remove King James I from the throne in response to the persecution of Roman Catholics in England. In this movie reaction paper, I aim to dissect some of the key themes in this provocative movie – fear, power, and morality.
Fear
In this movie, fear is used as a mechanism for control - the fictitious state utilises fearmongering to establish totalitarianism. The state has total control over the "senses" of the people – the Fingerman enforced curfews through violence, the Ear tracked down dissent, while the Mouth spread propaganda to promote subservience to the state (subservience is unity!). As an example, Gordon Deitrich is raided and later executed when he satirised Adam Sutler (the High Chancellor) and the government on television. With such extensive surveillance and a record of harsh punishment, the public may end up self-censoring and self-regulating, afraid to cross an arbitrary line. This atmosphere reminds me of the book "1984" by George Orwell, where "Big Brother" is always watching.
These fictional depictions tease at an age-old question: is it better to be under political absolutism or complete statelessness? After all, this is where social contract founders Hobbes and Locke differ - while Hobbes would choose absolutism, Locke holds a preference for the "State of Nature". He quips, "What security, what fence is there, in such a state, against the violence and oppression of this absolute ruler?" (Second Treatise of Government, Ch. 7, Sec 93).
Beyond fiction and theory, governments today already use fear of an external threat to justify "extreme" actions. In Myanmar, the killing and rape of Rohingyas have been justified by painting Muslims as a "security threat". In Malaysia, the call to "protect minorities" have been exploited to institutionalise draconian laws that potentially limit political discourse. In Singapore, politicians evoke a sense of vulnerability in citizens by constantly prodding that they live in a little red dot".
Yet, from the ruler's point of view, fear and control may merely be used as a tool to implement your ideas – especially if you believe in the superiority of your thinking. Famous philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli leaves us with this potentially controversial quote: "it is better to be feared than loved if you cannot be both."
But is there really a case to be made for fear? Look, for example, at the efficiency of the authoritarian state of China – maintenance of order and a swift containment of the recent Covid-19 pandemic. On the other side of the coin, however, we mourn the Tiananmen Incident, the Uighur Crisis, their invasive surveillance system, the ban of "sensitive" media and the alleged disappearance of political opponents.
Power
Power is not intrinsically immoral, although it enables the wielder to carry out evil. Indeed, "absolute power corrupts absolutely" - power can become incredibly unjust when it exempts wrongdoers from consequences. The Fingermen abused the power and guns bestowed unto them, to the point of sexual harassment (of Evey Hammond) and merciless killing. To the state, force is justified as long as it can "unite the country" against the "common enemy" – Muslims, Jews, homosexuals, and other "undesirables". Such fascist ideology draws parallels to the Holocaust, with the name "Adam Sutler" intentionally reminiscent of "Adolf Hitler".
Are our current political systems, even with their institutional separation of powers, truly sufficient to prevent a charismatic leader or party from repeating history? How can we ensure that power continues to remain with the people? For example, Singapore's People's Action Party has had an uninterrupted rule since 1959, with enough seats to change the constitution frequently. Is it possible that there are substantial institutional bases that have sustained the unwavering support of this party?
Morality
What is the role of morality in politics? Does morality even have a part? Towards the end of the movie, it was revealed that Adam Sutler's rise to power and wealth was primarily attributed to the purposeful release of a deadly virus to the country. Sutler was propelled to his position through the ensuing fear and chaos while acquiring wealth by selling the cure. In politics, it is often debated whether morality should be at the forefront of decision-making. After all, a good heart may not necessarily result in sound policy, while a crafty politician may produce better results. Thucydides provided us with his ideal - a ruler like a fox and lion, cunning and ruthless in seeking advantages. But in the pursuit of power, might such rulers not sacrifice public interests for their private ones? Still, perhaps it is too naive to hope for a moral politician, but simply one who is held accountable to the people.
Discussion
A quick google search informed me that this movie was made in the context of the George W. Bush Administration, with parallels drawn between the fictitious prisoners in the concentration camps to the torture of Abu Ghraib prisoners. Yet, I believe the main political message juxtaposing state control and civil liberties is still incredibly relevant today. While the movie may seem like a dystopian version of reality, I am wary of the possibility that these states may exist or come into existence if we are not careful in protecting our civil rights. What do you think? What can we do to prevent such a descent into totalitarianism? Let me know in the comments below!
Comments