In September, young people in Nepal held massive protests that led to serious political changes. The reason was the government’s decision to ban social media. Those platforms were constantly filled with stories about the authorities’ “corruption” and lavish lifestyles, and the government’s nerves, apparently, gave out. In vain. “The people” (whatever we mean by that overused word) today cannot live without social networks.
But are such protests always 100 percent spontaneous? Isn’t it possible to organize them and present them as spontaneous? Of course it is. Using the same social media—or simply SMS messages. In the end, it’s a matter of resources: one can send out a thousand or ten thousand fake, semi-fake, or partly true messages, and voilà—“public opinion” is ready. It’s enough to skillfully and professionally circulate something like, say, “Sashik’s 50/50 deal,” (the infamous ‘50/50’ kickback scheme once attributed to a powerful figure nicknamed Sashik”) and the “spontaneous protest,” with the active help of “activists,” will gain tremendous momentum.
Since only a few months remain until Armenia’s nationwide elections, I assume there will be plenty of such cases of “public opinion formation.” The latest example came earlier this week.
Former Human Rights Defender of Armenia Arman Tatoyan announced his intention to participate in the elections. Literally minutes after the video of his announcement appeared online, representatives of the authorities (naturally) and part of the opposition began discrediting him: “he’s so-and-so’s man,” “so-and-so’s project,” “financed by so-and-so.”
Read also
That fact points to two things:
a) some opposition circles see Tatoyan as a rival, and
b) the opposition camp still lacks agreement that all criticism should be directed at Pashinyan, while in other matters, yes, they may argue—but shouldn’t try to undermine each other.
Why do people rely on “smearing” rather than substantive debate? The reason is simple: it’s an effective tool that, moreover, requires no intellectual effort whatsoever.
At its core lies the same mechanism I described earlier. If you send 10,000 fake messages claiming that person X, say, drinks human blood for breakfast, “the people” will believe it. And there is no authority whose word can refute it. People are always ready to believe the most absurd things..
Aram ABRAHAMYAN
