George Orwell was a complex and a controversial figure in many aspects of his life and work. His work, especially “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and “Animal Farm,” has been scarily prophetic. On the 70th anniversary of his death last month, some opted to address him as a person or discuss his ideological choices. Others engaged in the futile exercise of trying to project his views to answer such questions as: Had he been alive today, would he support Brexit? Or would he own a smartphone? His writings hardly give a definite answer to any such questions. But more important is to realize that, above prophetic prowess, he left us with acute, perceptive and precise observations of human nature and behavior that transcend time.

For the most part of his writing life, authoritarianism and totalitarianism were commonplace features of some of the most powerful countries in the world. And, rather than prophecy, his imagination took such forms of power to their inevitable conclusion. The Spanish Civil War, fascist Italy, Nazi Germany, Stalin’s Soviet Union, or even McCarthyism in the US, which he witnessed in its early stages, all provided plentiful material to help him outline a dystopian world controlled by “Big Brother.”

Recent advances in technology have made it easier to enable and empower authoritarianism and so construct an Orwellian world. Advanced technologies of surveillance and intrusion — to the extent that they render private life nonexistent — are handing power to regressive forces in society, which are undermining and at times oppressing more progressive and liberal forces. A surveillance society is bound to be an intimidating one, and one that instills fear of free speech and debate.

In his original preface to “Animal Farm,” Orwell stated: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” Isn’t this just what the current political and social debates are lacking? We are losing our ability to conduct constructive and informed debate; the kind that forms public opinion, instead of instigating an emotive discourse based on fears, prejudices and biases. In authoritarian regimes, freedom of speech comes at a risk to one’s well-being and even freedom. In democracies, public discussion — instead of constructive deliberation about values and policy options — turns into garnering support in elections at any cost, even if it means pandering to the lowest common denominator and spreading half-truths, outright lies, and smears and incitements against one’s opponents. Honest contention, the fuel for considered long-term decisions, is conspicuous by its absence.

A world that not that long ago cherished and embraced scientific knowledge is now a ‘post-truth’ world

Yossi Mekelberg

It is “Nineteen Eighty-Four” and its thought-provoking, innovative vocabulary that, since it was written in 1948, has left a long-lasting mark on political debate, with its relevance only increasing over time. Terms such as newspeak, doublethink, Big Brother, memory hole, thought police, and Room 101 entered the language. Technologies such as social media, closed-circuit television cameras with facial recognition, and cybersecurity have become, at least seemingly, more subtle means of social control — the tools of an invisible totalitarianism in which we are ostensibly willing participants, but in actuality have very little say over.

Sharing data with government and businesses is no longer a choice because, unless we do so, we may be unable to enjoy public services or be left outside the economic system. There is an even more sinister role for data collection, in the skewing and manipulation of political processes such as elections and referendums by injecting huge doses of half-truths and even lies into the campaigns. From two of Orwell’s terms — doublethink and newspeak — emerged the term doublespeak. Doublespeak is the language of opposites, such as war is peace, and peace is war. That is how countries justify going to war or intervening in other countries, claiming to promote stability and human rights, as they did in Iraq and Syria, while they sow destruction, mainly to promote their own vested interests or misguided ideologies.

Winston Smith, the main protagonist in “Nineteen Eighty-Four,” works as a censor in the Ministry of Truth, which, instead of providing the people with well substantiated, fact-based truths, feeds the masses an engineered version to suit the invisible regime. Recent elections in many countries, as much as the Brexit referendum and other major political debates, have become based on make-believe “facts.” There is a generation of politicians who specialize in telling the populace what they think they want to hear, not what they necessarily deeply believe, if they believe in anything. Social media enhances this, as any comment, search or purchase we make is analyzed, sometimes even censored, by people watching us from thousands of miles away. Greater forces know who we communicate with and software provides authorities with the content of these communications at will, often without our permission or knowledge. Such content can be used to manipulate, stop or punish us.

A world that not that long ago cherished and embraced scientific knowledge is now a “post-truth” world — a descriptor defined by the Oxford Dictionaries as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” The entire public conversation about issues such as migration, climate change, Brexit, the use of military power, the welfare society, or the violation of human rights versus security, is based more on beliefs and emotions than facts. And incitements against political opponents, reminiscent of Orwell’s “Two Minutes Hate,” have become increasingly frequent.

Whether Orwell’s writing was prophetic or just very perceptive will remain an unresolved subject of debate, especially as 21st-century scenarios increasingly resemble those of the world of Big Brother, with the state watching, manipulating and controlling so many aspects of daily life. With the Fourth Industrial Revolution at our doorstep, the dystopia of “Nineteen Eighty-Four” might become a blueprint for authoritarianism, which, if not averted, would make all of us mere pawns in a bigger game, turning Orwell’s forewarning into a frightening reality.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations at Regent’s University London, where he is head of the International Relations and Social Sciences Program. He is also an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. He is a regular contributor to the international written and electronic media. Twitter: @YMekelberg