We know that anger is a useful weapon in politics. Nationally, it is notoriously used by some populist leaders to sow division and increase support for extremist movements. On the international scene, it can be used to weaken rivals and destabilize the regimes in place. In addition to being very effective, anger is an easy weapon to use, because most often it is enough to exacerbate a negative feeling that is already present. A practice likely to be mobilized for this purpose is called astroturfing (or similitantism), a concept defined by the Office québécois de la langue française as a “communication strategy that consists of simulating the spontaneity of a movement of adhesion to a message by masking its sponsored nature”.
In a political context, one of the approaches employed by groups that indulge in similitantism is to pose as representatives of the people who are committed to defending the interests of citizens, while concealing objectives that are often in no way related to the common good. . In some cases, these supposedly popular movements can hide interest groups that devote significant financial resources to them. But more often than not, the instigators of these campaigns need nothing more than a sensitive subject to stir up tempers, and they can very quickly step back to watch the inferno ignite. We know that this type of strategy, which has been given a second wind thanks to digital media, can be used on different scales to manipulate public opinion and pervert debates.
Researchers recently raised the possibility that astroturfing may have played a role in the trucker protest in recent weeks. Of course, the modalities and the reasons for this possible interference are not yet clear. Nevertheless, the case has something to think about. Not being used to seeing our internal conflicts attract so much attention, we can indeed wonder what could have happened. More importantly, we can wonder about the measures to be taken to prevent the anger that is rumbling within the population from gradually transforming into more violent movements, or even that certain legitimate frustrations come to distort our democratic values. Shouldn’t we, for example, avoid legitimizing aggressiveness as much as possible by expressing it too freely in public discourse? On this point, the American experience reminds us all too well how the “normalization of hatred” in politics and on the airwaves can lead an animosity that was thought to be confined to a small group to reach every layer of society (all orientations political and ideological), thus facilitating the work of those who take advantage of the division to serve their interests.
If, until now, Canada could feel left out of these trends, it must be recognized that, for some time, certain polarizing policies have raised the tension a notch. At the same time, we feel that aggressiveness is expressed more freely through certain representatives of political and media institutions.
This is how we see the gradual normalization of the use of a subtly aggressive vocabulary, used to denigrate citizens, with expressions such as “disgusting”, “imbecile” or “without design”, words which reflect a restrained anger in the population. Words that insidiously penetrate our minds and give us permission to express our bitterness without restraint. A bitterness which, even when perfectly legitimate, could lead us into a dead end.
Several specialists are sounding the alarm and raising the possibility that the truckers’ movement may have been financed by American far-right groups. Every day, the star hosts of the channels associated with the Republican Party, as well as government spokespersons, encourage the Canadian demonstrators by calling them heroes and patriots, thus freezing the population in a posture of ever more unshakeable rivalry, the backtracking has now become far too costly on both sides.
In these circumstances, it therefore seems more appropriate than ever to stop and ask who is benefiting from this anger. The anger of governments that mirrors that of citizens towards the unvaccinated. The truckers’ anger towards the authorities. The anger of the population towards the demonstrators. A fury that little by little ends up reaching all of us at different levels.
Although it is sometimes difficult to control anger, experience beyond our borders has taught us that it can also be perilous to stir up this feeling, even when it is specific to a small isolated group, because it sometimes just waiting for a charismatic leader to invade and degrade the atmosphere.