There was an interesting approach to a story about Manuel Zelaya on the official radio news this morning: the story covered Zelaya leaving Honduras, some months after he had been ousted in a military coup, much of which time he spent in the Brazilian Embassy in his own country.
The story first reported that ‘left-wing’ Zelaya had been ousted and, after a deal in which he received ‘political amnesty’ but would still be subject to (unspecified) ‘criminal charges’ would now be leaving the country on a full-time basis. It was quite clear, according to the story, that this was ‘the end of the problem’ and the end of any political upset – now that another (contested) election has taken place and a political opponent of Zelaya’s has been sworn in to office.
What is interesting is the clear exposition of establishment thinking (of course I need not point out the coup parallel):
i) according to the establishment, the system works well and does not need to change
ii) the people are happy with the current system and do not want change
iii) anyone who wants to bring about change is a rogue, an ill-intentioned person acting individually
iv) since only ill-intentioned people want change, then they must be removed and any act that might elsewhere be considered illegal and immoral is justified as accepted malfeasance (and hence forgiven or just ignored) because it helps remove an ill-intentioned person and prevents unwanted change.
Naturally, this method is made a great deal easier with the enforcement of the politics of silence – that is, serious disincentives to prevent people discussing the issue openly together with co-optation of the mass media to put out the official line regularly and, preferably, unopposed.