These much-hyped digital “soldiers” are primed to fervently believe in any bizarre conspiracy
theory that emerges in the digital space. They generate all fire and no light, and even that flame
fades after a few hours, much like hot air and sizzling steam. Hidden in the anonymity of social
media, this lively digital crowd vents and creates noise for a time, but then the digital algorithms
shift the top trends, and off go these keyboard “warriors” on a new wild goose chase, fervently
pursuing and steadfastly trusting the latest fake news. The cacophony and enthusiasm of these
keyboard “warriors” cannot replace disciplined planning and detailed organization, which are
essential for any effective grassroots campaign for change and progress.
The solid core of our newly urbanized keyboard political “warriors” consists of youth—the
disillusioned products of our dogma-drenched, imagination-starved educational system. Far from
being harbingers of progress, they embody the noise of profound unreason, the echo chamber of
ingrained irrationality, and the cheerleaders of dim folly. Those with tough skins and strong
stomachs are invited to spend a few hours scrolling through their digital caves, where vulgarity
masquerades as opinion and foolishness struts as insight. Any lingering illusions that these
disorganized keyboard “warriors” could ignite a new political dawn—forget revolution—should
swiftly fade after such a digital encounter.
The new digital platforms are not catalysts for revolutionary change—they are the latest opiate of
the people. The old inertia persists—only the nature of the opiate has shifted. Even when these
technologies allow for the eruption of some “spring,” those moments are fleeting at best—soon
enough, the winter of history returns, sometimes with a veritable vengeance in the form of a
reversion to the core governance model of states.
Nurtured by our educational system to believe without evidence, this anonymous digital crowd
represents the quintessential hoi polloi. It eagerly follows the newest and loudest self-promoters
as political Pied Pipers, without seeking proof of their personalities, policies, or performances. The
worldview of these glorified digital “warriors” lacks the inspiration and influence of modernism,
science, organization, evidence, logic, planning, knowledge, or rationality—qualities essential for
navigating and succeeding in our postmodern era. Expecting these youthful keyboard “warriors,”
with their profound unreason, ingrained irrationality, and dim folly, to act as agents of change and
progress in the postmodern era is futile and fallacious.
Lastly, much of the political noise we hear today revolves around horizontal change—elite factions
clamoring for and clawing their way into the corridors of power. However, there is an eerie silence about calls for vertical change. It is easy to understand why hardly anyone wants to rock the boat and why vertical reforms have little momen-tum. There is always a fear of being targeted, isolated, and excluded by the global economy. Moreover, there is hardly any alternative or new blueprint for revolutionary change around which people could rally; a similar consensus prevails everywhere. Such a lack of alternative governance models makes experimenting with new systems risky and unrewarding. Mainstream political manifestos serve more as a mirage reflecting one another than a roadmap for radical change. Lastly, genuine leadership capable of inspiring the current generation to the extent that they would sacrifice their lives and liberties for the delayed gratification of creating well-being for future generations is nowhere to be found. While many followers may be waiting, no trustworthy leaders exist!
“…revolution is a collective-action problem, which is, of course, a problem of cooperation. A collective is powerful when everyone acts in unison, but insurgence entails risks. Each individual, therefore, faces a temptation to stand aside and let others pay the costs of insurrection while enjoying the benefits that any success might bring…To understand why, it helps to think about the likely costs and benefits of taking part
in dangerous collective action. In large numbers, each individual’s contribution to a revolt will make only a small difference to the chance of success. Meanwhile, the costs of being discovered as a conspirator remain just as stark. With such odds, it might be better to wait for others to make the first, most dangerous move and hope to benefit from the freedom that a successful rebellion could bring.” (Nichola Raihani: The Social Instinct: What Nature Can Teach Us About Working Together).
True vertical change is always complex and costly, requiring detailed planning, significant sacrifice, and a mindset geared toward delayed gratification. In contrast, horizontal change is much simpler and less expensive, often promising—but rarely delivering—instant gratification. It can mystify and indulge us with a nebulous sense of movement without achieving transformative progress toward social justice and participatory governance.
“These dynamics produce the “free-rider” problem: people who share the same values may nevertheless be tempted not to take part in collective action in order to avoid paying the costs. This tendency, of course, intensifies when punishments against dissidents increase. For example, recent research on Hong Kong protests shows that when pro-democracy university students expect others to take part in rallies against antidemocratic measures, they themselves become less likely to join the protests, free riding on others’ efforts. Free riding is at the root of the collective-action dilemma: without coordination, only a minority of people who desire social change take part in collective action.”
(Daron Acemoglu and Simon Johnson: Power and Progress: Our Thousand-Year Struggle Over Technology And Prosperity).
So, when we next hear revolution and revolt used interchangeably, remember the difference. Without a fundamental vertical transformation, the political noise is usually just a boisterous scuffle for more seats in the same old elite power club. Have you met a revolutionary lately? The individuals we keep hearing about are often just revolting people (sometimes, in both senses of the term)! So, the next time someone brandishes the banner of revolution, inspect it closely. Chances are, it is not a blueprint for a bright, sunlit future but a recycled pamphlet printed with bright new ink.
“The becoming drags the has-been along behind it.” (Friedrich Nietzsche: Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality, 1881).
Nietzsche’s insight captures this endless struggle: takeoffs interrupted by the relentless weight of
history, the fleeting possibility of “becoming” often crushed by the baggage of the “has-been.”
Despite our aspirations of “becoming”—metamorphosis into the next Japan or even a Turkey— the gravitational pull of our “has-been” refuses to loosen its grip.
People and groups occasionally break free from history’s gravitational pull—but only through
extraordinary force and will. Such escapes demand relentless effort and energy, a near-reckless
momentum, and sheer audacity to jettison the baggage of centuries. Yet, around us, little evidence
of such catalytic effort exists. The thrust required to climb the Mount Impossible of transformation
remains absent. The weight of the “has-been” still anchors us, and the escape velocity of change
remains a distant dream.
Given the four-and-a-half-millennia weight of our “has-been,” the near certainty that our
“becoming” will be nothing more than déjà vu in disguise, and the unfortunate reality that the
supposed vanguards of revolution—our would-be gravediggers of the ancien régime—are too
sedated by their digital opiates, the odds of a sudden, radical, and vertical transformation are
ridiculously low. Is anyone ready for the barricades yet? Or shall we wait another four and a half
millennia—Harappa would understand.
The writer is a lawyer & can be contacted at asim_ali@ksg03.harvard.edu
