Reflections on power and politics in eRomania

Day 2,589, 14:40 • Published in Romania Croatia • by Ion Vlahu

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.” – Joseph Goebbels

Some of my readers suggested my last article needed a little more polish and should offer more analytical insight. I thought they were right and I’m trying today to explore the subject more thoroughly. I’ll write this in English since my endeavor is more theoretical in nature so it can be used to analyze, deconstruct and eventually comprehend political discourse in eRepublik, especially if it’s cloaked under the mantle of populist rhetoric.

I wrote “The portrait of the eRepublikan Revolution – propaganda and deconstruction” under the claim that the eromanian political landscape is, for a while now, under the siege of a new breed of politicians, thoroughly populist in rhetoric, anti-establishment in nature. These people – unconsciously or deliberately, I am not sure yet – actively created rifts in our society, pitting young players vs old players, poor against rich, the many against the few, legitimizing a hateful, spiteful speech, accusing the political establishment of creating an oligopoly that exploits and discriminates the average player. The accuse is nothing less than virtual genocide, as ridiculous as that may sound in a browser game. For some time I ignored this conduct considering the eromanian political community is mature enough to circumvent the rageoholics and borderline insane to gain political clout and consistency. I was wrong, of course, since communities have sometimes the tendency to self-detonate and watch the world – including their belongings – burn. We can call it the Nero effect.

Discourse of power

The first thing in political speech is the transparency of its message and emitter. When someone makes a legitimate political speech he recognizes his role and standing in that particular subgroup (of politicians) and admits the scope of its endeavors is attaining political power. It does not matter the exact topic of the speech as long as it is presented as a critique against the way the political opponents wield power. What is less legitimate is the blurring of the political boundaries and expressing social or systemic critique from an apparent benevolent point of view when in reality the true purpose is attaining power.

Let’s say Ion Vlahu rages in the press against the exploitation of his fellow men by a greedy, morally bankrupt elite. Ion Vlahu has a social prestige obtained not through politics but through press. He is believed by a part of community because – it is thought – has altruistic goals. Ion Vlahu legitimizes in dozens and articles and hundres of press comments a worldview. Then, after a while, Ion Vlahu transfers his credibility as a publicist to Ion Vlahu the politician. What’s dishonest in this scenario is the illegitimate transfer of credibility between the two layers of Ion Vlahu’s identity.

What the eromanian community needs to understand is that the rhetoric of some public personae promotes a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Or a politician in a civic leader’s clothing. As I warned in the ending of my other article on this topic: Beware the ones who want you empowered with any cost, all they usually want is power.

You should be careful on how you interpret public discourses that conceal under the pretense of selflessness the lustful quest for raw power.

Anatomy of discourse: Arcana Imperii and the quest for Order

I’ve written a short version of the worldview held by the politicians I’m talking about here (click the link) – it’s in Romanian but if there’s any international reader interested, use g translate. So we have there the carcass to dissect.

There are two key concepts there that must be underlined for the construct to become intelligible: CONSPIRACY and ORDER.

For the narrative to be seductive it has to confuse people and give them – paradoxically – a simpler way to understand what’s happening. If it’s not quite clear now, have patience, it will be.

The conspiracy part of this weltanschauung is needed to offer a scapegoat, a conjuration of the powerful and the amoral that hijacked the state and enslaved society. The best part of a conspiracy is that you can blame some people but you don’t have to offer a logical, decent explanation about how they got there and how they do these terrible deeds. It’s enough to name some of their political minions, just happening to be the ones you are confronting at a certain point. Basically, anyone who disagrees with you can be an avatar of these people. It’s a great blame machine. Stand in my way and you are a servant of dark forces that try to silence me that represent the true will of the people. What could be better than align yourself with good and fight against the wicked?

Of course, political dualism is one of the oldest schemes in the playbook, an inherent part of the political tradition inspired by Christianity. And it’s at play in eRepublik also.

The second part of the plot is order. For a pessimist like me, social interactions between people, institutions and so forth are chaotic in nature. The social fabric is reconfigured constantly by the imperfect nature of our functioning as a group. The song of the Ainur is not synchronized in people. But chaos and arbitrary is not enough for most human minds. Humans crave for sense, predestination or order. The fear that nothing is fixable and chaos is not the product of evil disrupting our natural order is sometimes to much to bare. Every political dystopia that promised the finality of history and the returning to a golden age of man proved to have sufficient traction to uproot and destroy hundreds of millions of people, all in the name of a higher good. So creating a tangible enemy that disrupts the natural order of the community is essential for having a successful narrative.

Disenchanting the believers

Always call a spade, a spade. Talk honestly to citizens. Don’t tell them what they want to hear only to gain their vote. Try harder and be humble. Have patience and explain. Act only by the force of logic, argument and morals. Don’t steal. If you are unable for the task, don’t take it upon you. Do this constantly and you might persuade some. Don’t do it, and the war will rage on.