"Voting crowds, that is collectivities that need to elect the holders of certain functions, represent heterogeneous crowds. First of all, they show a weak ability to reason, the absence of a critical spirit, irritability, gullibility and a tendency to simplify." Gustave Le Bon
Remember the Monty Pythons and that movie episode when they proclaimed the Messiah, who was followed by hordes of followers? The Messiah was trying to explain to them that they should stop behaving like that, that they should disperse nicely like people, and not follow him like some herd. He told them: "You must be different!" and they answered: "We must be different!"... "You are all individuals!" and they repeated aloud: "We are all individuals!" and they continued to follow him closely. Only one voice was heard, persistently protesting and quietly saying "I'M NOT!"
This humorous scene was described in detail by the sociologist Bauman, in the book "Fluid Life", saying that a crowd of individuals angrily looked around, WHO is that dissident saying "I AM NOT!". Those "different individuals" were ready to lynch him - but they couldn't easily find him in a mass of people who looked like each other.
Crowd characteristics are also present on social networks: irritability, malleability, exaggeration of feelings, banalization of information and the prevailing influence of leaders. Different leaders. Thus, we can conclude that voting crowds resemble each other, only that "our crowd" thinks it is made up of "different individuals".
For example, "Vučić's list" of intellectuals, artists, athletes and celebrities - who support him - was published yesterday. There are about 650 names on the list. The mass of "different individuals" on social networks readily welcomed this Leader's "answer" to the "Appeal 100" - a list of 100 public figures who at the end of 2016 sent an appeal to Saša Janković to run for president (it should be mentioned that the appeal was subsequently signed several thousand people).
Many "different individuals" tried yesterday to explain the difference between these two lists. They say that no one even asked these 650 if they wanted to, nor did anyone offer them any choice - because their existence depends on the Leader. While "100 people for Janković", thinking for themselves, supported their candidate on their own initiative. Some of them, like, had to - and others wanted to. There were also more difficult, rude or worse explanations of a few "different individuals", and some can be classified as cultural-fascism. So I don't agree with that. I think those 650 people are there of their own free will - which apparently makes it worse.
I did not comment on that list. I need to refer to only one segment. I consider it scandalous that so many deans, professors, academics and doctors of science can be found on the list of support for a certain autocratic regime - which has fallen deeply into totalitarianism. Because education is only good when it serves its purpose and any context in which education is something else - a context in which deans and professors become tools and instruments - that education necessarily degrades. Especially considering the problem of plagiarized doctorates and fake diplomas, on which the majority did not take a stand.
Of course, in "Apel 100" there are retired professors, or those who are still teachers. But they were not placed in that horrible and "massive" context, nor would they, I appreciate, allow them to be just a tool in anyone's work. Especially not a tool of an authoritarian ruler. That's why I don't have a problem with them. And not because they are smarter, better, prettier or because there are my friends among them. So that, for me, is the most painful thing on the "Leader's list". So painful, that comments, comparisons and ridicule of "famous" people are redundant and often tasteless. Everyone has the right to support whomever they want. Everyone has the right, but I have no obligation to understand everything! It is sufficient.
For the avoidance of doubt - I was not a signatory of "Appeal 100". I didn't want to for several reasons. For the few who are interested, this one is perhaps the most important. I was the co-author and producer of the series "My right", which talks about the rights of citizens - through examples of the work of the Institution of Citizens' Protector, headed by Saša Janković for ten years. I thought it would be distasteful for me to beg or "appeal" for the protector to run for president. It wouldn't even be professional, especially since those signatures were collected before the series was even broadcast, and it was recorded a long time ago. I will leave aside the other reasons why I considered such an appeal wrong at the time.
But for the avoidance of even greater doubt: I am not a "dissident" who shouts "I AM NOT". I will vote for Saša Janković. Was it even necessary for me to write this? I consider everything that I have said and written about Janković in the last two years, including everything "drawn" through the "My Right" series, more significant and stronger than my "presence" in the campaign. Also, everything I am saying, despite the numerous "inconveniences", about the Leader and the "results" of all his governments - is an attitude that cannot be changed. Simply, because I think that fascism does not change. Independently, I have never participated in political campaigns (but I have participated in all student and civic protests). Apart from that, I wouldn't even be useful in a campaign. I would often say that it is not a good campaign and that it should be done differently. Nobody likes that.
But the idea is not to engage in criticism, but to help some undecided voters. Seven days before the election, apathy is still high. Many "expected more" from Janković or from the entire opposition. They don't know if they will go to the polls. A few are still confused by the campaigns. Why?
Messages that contain "quality arguments" (on which Janković's campaign is based, for example) have a greater impact in conditions of so-called high involvement. This is important when there really are media freedoms and open dialogue - then arguments have meaning. People participate in debates, evaluate the arguments presented and form attitudes as a result of all the processes in which they receive different information. There is no such thing. The darkness is great. "Low involvement" prevails among the people.
In conditions of "low involvement" (as it has been in Serbia for at least three years), people simply accept what has been "offered" to them for a long time and are much less influenced by quality arguments. The media is closed, there is no dialogue, people are on benzedines or on reality shows. In such conditions - superficial, entertaining and attractive messages or the sources from which they come have a greater impact. The messages sent through the media to the "voting masses" confirm opinions more than they change them. And that is our problem, which the opposition did not notice, or at least not in time.
That's why Vučić's campaign is like that, no matter how much they laugh at his creepy videos. That's why Beli "caused chaos". That is why the campaigns of the opposition are largely wrong and because of this, among other things, there is a feeling that "they are not doing anything", that "it is not enough" and that "we have no choice". Of course, the good they do cannot be noticed in this media darkness. The conditions are unequal (I've already said that I don't understand why they even participate in such elections, which, after all, no one will even control).
Election results are most often reciprocal in relation to investments in pre-election campaigns. And that's scary. Because Aleksandar Vučić has all the media today. The only thing that can save us is a large turnout and serious control of elections. Now I should say something optimistic, full of hope.
With apologies to Woody Allen for changing one of his words (I write Serbia instead of humanity): "More than any other time in history, Serbia is at a crossroads. One path leads to despair and complete hopelessness. Others, until complete extermination…” So what is optimistic in these words?
"The path of despair and complete hopelessness" requires the opposition to admit that almost nothing has been done. Only by facing the past can we start from the beginning. And that beginning, whenever it happens, is full of despair. But above all, I mean the awareness that we won't even have the opportunity to go down that road - neither to face each other nor to do anything - if the Leader wins in the first round. Then we only have "The Road to Total Extinction". If that happens, and the chances are not small, we will have the opportunity to read many "lists" in the next five years, at least.
Is the alternative too bad to even be considered? I don't agree with that! Nothing can be compared to one man having absolute power. Any one man! We know that not enough was done in the pre-election campaigns. We know that the messages and arguments did not reach many. So try to explain to the abstainers you know that they should go to the polls on April 2nd. Let them vote for whoever they want, just get out. And you know, you remember, the way we pulled the sleeves of some grandmothers and neighbors so that they wouldn't surround Sloba... well, that. I'm not satisfied with this way of thinking, but I can't find a better solution.
In order to defeat the Leader, everyone should vote: those who like and respect some candidates; those who believe them but also those who don't; those who don't think much about politics, but also those who will "hold their nose" while voting. The one with a critical spirit but also the one who has become a "walking ghost". And, unfortunately, there are many of them. It will be good if at least some of them say to themselves "I AM NOT A WALKING GHOST!", if they manage to get to the polling place and round up the candidate according to their conscience. Good luck everyone.
(Bojana Maljević is an actress and producer, "Twitter, scumbag, foreign mercenary" in her free time)
Bonus video:
