Gordon Robinson | The essence of propaganda

Apocrypha, our favourite Fantasyland where all politicians are friends and Oma D’unn solves political problems by parable, was a ball of confusion.

Readers remember Oma? Like a moon, he was bright only in the dark but had a knack for thinking outside every box, so after retiring from politics, opened his own consultancy firm named Oma Unsacked! This time, Oma was consulted by recently minted Speaker of the House, July Polemess, who had changed the practice of immediately tabling certain reports submitted to Parliament from crucial government oversight agencies.

Because of a hue and cry, July asked for multiple legal opinions from government lawyers but refused to share the second and third opinions she requested. Public blowback was intense and persistent for months until she relented; published the Opinions; and reverted to the former practice of immediate tabling. She hoped the matter would simply go away, but her own political colleagues kept the issue on the front burner by insisting that the Opinions vindicated the Speaker’s original stance. This opened the door for a swath of legal experts to comment that the Opinions didn’t support July.

So she asked Oma what she could do to make the issue go away. Oma advised her to buy all available red ink pens. She looked puzzled, so he told her the story of the Russian brothers.

“Two Russian brothers hear the national propaganda about Siberia ... how beautiful the weather is, how the shops are stocked with all necessities and luxuries, and prices are low.

Boris worries: ‘Maybe they’re just saying that to get people to move out there and work in the salt mines. How can we tell?’

Vladimir thinks a while and comes up with an idea. ‘Hey! How about I move out there? Then I’ll write home and tell you how it really is!’

Boris is pessimistic. ‘Suppose the censors see it? If it’s bad news, they won’t allow the letter to go through!’

Vlad thinks a while longer. ‘I know! I’ll write down that it’s great no matter what. If it’s true, I’ll write it with black ink, but if it’s false, I’ll write it in red ink!’ Boris agrees that this is a fine plan, and Vladimir leaves the next day. After a week goes by, a letter arrives:

‘ Dear Boris,

The weather here is warm and sunny and the local beauties are out getting sun tans. You can buy anything you want here from blue jeans to electric shavers! The KGB stays in their office and don’t bother anyone!’

Boris sees that it’s in black ink and is overjoyed. His elation is tempered when he reads at the bottom ‘P.S. There’s only one problem. I can’t seem to be able to buy red ink anywhere!’”

July still didn’t get it, so Oma explained that if most people only hear one story presented one way often enough, it becomes true.

Propaganda thrives on repetition. Once only one version is available, you have no worries.

NO NEED TO CHANGE

Back home on The Rock, our Speaker’s similar circumstances were followed by a concerted propaganda campaign by JLP parliamentarians, activists, and social media trolls alike under the heading “Vindication!”

In lockstep, they were all adamant that the long-hidden attorney general’s opinion “vindicated” the Speaker. But they neglected mentioning exactly what was the detailed action taken by the Speaker that they say was vindicated. Or they misrepresented her consequential practice as being her original action.

The Speaker’s action for which she sought Opinions was an insistence on changing a long-standing parliamentary practice that she said was contrary to law. In. Her. Opinion! She said she felt constrained to make decisions “in keeping with the law”.

The attorney general contradicted her by opining that nothing in the previous practice contravened any law or Standing Order. Nothing in the law mandated or prevented either former or new practice. So since there was no need to change prior practice “in keeping with the law” (according to the attorney general), what was the real reason for the change? Why change what was perfectly legal on the expressed rationale that it wasn’t?

Vindication? Shmindication!

Lookie here. This isn’t rocket science. The “vindication” argument is patent, perverse propaganda. Nobody resists publication of their own vindication for nine months.

One last thing (said Lieutenant Colombo). NOBODY in their right mind reverses a hotly disputed decision as soon as that decision is publicly vindicated. Not even in Apocrypha! That’s more like Alice in Wonderland-level fantasy.

Peace and Love

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.