The mass is a weird being. I am not referring to the Eucharistic celebration in Catholic rites but to the “mass” as a collective of human beings that can be formed either randomly or purposely within a particular context or aim.
At worst a “mass” is a loose connection of humans, each going about their independent lives that happen to have a common element at one particular moment − the best example are commuters on public transport. Think, for example, of the mass of commuters at peak hour in a metropolitan city. At its most effective the mass is a flock, a herd or a gaggle of humans who assemble with a particular intention − such as famously assembled on the morning of the 14th of July 1789 in Paris with the very clear intention of taking possession of the arms in the Bastille.
Apart from the religious connotation, we are used to hearing about “mass meetings” on this island. It’s a national sport that has grown since the formation of political parties and for a few decades (possibly still nowadays) these “mass meetings” have been attended with such religious fervour that one would be forgiven for confusing the religious with the profane. The nineties brought us the full explosion of “mass marketing” − that ended when the personal and different became exalted (see the great Desigual campaign) − before that the mantra of maxploitative products would be capturing the attention of as large a part of the mass as possible.
The social network
In this day and age, the principles underlying successful Internet companies also rely on capturing the masses. Social networks such as Facebook and Google Plus rely heavily on the basic building block of a particular form of mass connections. Having lured the masses into their fold with the bait of “connectivity”, the social networks proceed to fence them off from the rest of the net and to attempt to keep them in their corner of the virtual world.
A problem that both companies like Facebook and Google or parties like our political behemoths may face is the unpredictable frivolity of the masses. A mass is fickle and oftentimes misrepresented. Its power lies in sheer numbers and it is a very rare mass that is constantly clear and uniform on what it wants unless there are very clearly defined rules to calculate its wishes.
Take modern democracy, as envisaged mainly in post-war constitutions, as an example. We had taken the Greek city-state idea of a demos (the mass described as a people or commonwealth) and created a set of rules by which the people through majority voting entrusted a part of them to enact laws in their name and for their better comfort.
Even if we were to set aside the cliché of “the least of all evils” that is often bandied around when talking about the democratic system of government, we would have to acknowledge that the tyranny of the majority business is limited to periodical assessments of the general political orientation that the mass might prefer. In our case we vote every five years. In matters of utmost importance (or in our case when the representatives do not have the balls to legislate the obvious), the ball is thrown back into the mass’ court for it to decide by way of what is commonly known as “the referendum”.
I heart populism
But, as I said in the beginning, the mass is a weird being. There is an increasing tendency to talk in terms of masses. To assume that some kind of majority idea exists about this or that idea. The tools of the net I mentioned earlier have served to exacerbate this tendency and encourage it to the point of legal fallacy and sublime foolishness. The language of engagement in a country where every person is a politician born can only make matters worse. In a perfect utopia (allow me the tautology) the marvels of the Internet would be harnessed to be able to accurately gauge the thoughts and ideas of the masses. But is it a good idea? Should we be governed, judged and policed by the masses?
Ironically, when viewed through the eyes of the press, the noise from Malta’s society presents an inherent contradiction. On the one hand there are the conspiracy theorists − those who assume that anything (from the naming of a bus stop to the arraignment of an individual in court) is decided in some control room by an elite of Freemasons, networked politicians and whatever other label the conspiracy theorist may fancy. On the other hand there is a trend of speaking for the masses: you know the kind that generalise their thoughts as though they represent a huge chunk of the community.
The mass-stirrers are the latest trend in our desert of political values. Having ditched their respective ideological grounds for the fluid umbrella approach, our political parties are now victims of their own populist trends. I have bored you to death with the example of the non-policy of the Labour Party in the divorce debate. It will not be the last time that you will see Labour (and possibly even the PN) operate in this manner. The basic building block of their modus operandi is the pandering to the masses − which is after all what populism is all about. We risk having a government run on vox pops and referenda.
A brave new world
Did I hear you say not bad? Well, let me put it this way. The danger of “the mass” and its frivolous wills can only be appreciated when you look back at the way “the mass” has acted in recent past. Take for example the sad case of the pederast priests. Sure, what the priests did deserves a shower of opprobrium and condemnation of the harshest kind. Which is what the courts of law are there for. Had it been left to the masses and the mass reaction (as stirred by the media) we would have most probably witnessed a lynch mob.
It’s not that the deeds of the two men do not stir feelings of anger and disgust in me but that I would rather entrust their fate in the hands of a clear law with clear punishment than in the hands of a jury of the masses any day. A mass thinks with a hot head. It does not factor calmly and has a short-term rationale. Which is why the only details a mass is worried with is “how high is the tree?” and “is the rope long enough?” or “is the straw dry enough for the fire?”
Mass fail
With Internet activism (or clicktivism) you risk running away with the idea that there is a huge interest in a particular idea or principle. There’s a lot of noise on comment boards and “Likes” being clicked like there is no tomorrow.
When push comes to shove matters may not turn out to be as noisy or likeable as we may have thought. A Facebook friend pointed out two separate incidents that seem to confirm this trend.
First there was the huge online fuss about “The Oasis” development that could have given the impression that all Malta was against the desecration of another green corner of the island. It turns out that when the developer invited the online “complainers” for a meeting to air their complaints only two people turned out. That’s a slap in the face for clicktivism.
The other story was that of the Eritrean Ashih, who had recently lost his life tragically while saving another person from drowning. It seemed that notwithstanding all the bla and rhetoric acknowledging the man’s ultimate sacrifice, when it came to donations to a special fund, the masses were nowhere to be seen. The figure representing “private donations” out of the sum of €6,673 collected was a mere €50. The rest came from various funds and from the hotel where Ashih had worked. I’m not being a bean-counting Scrooge here but it does say much about the much trumpeted “generosity and open heart” of the Maltese public does it not?
Politics for the masses
The populist politicians have fashioned a symbiotic system that guarantees a fast track to the pinnacles of power. Modern day Neros do not fiddle while Rome burns. They are instead so engrossed with the micro-management of pleasing the peasants and keeping their pitchforks at bay that they lost the plot on the real business of responsible government away from the whimsical frivolity of the masses. I’d like to say that that is the case only in our little corner of the world but I would be lying.
The US credit rating downgrading for the first time ever and the imminent clouds of doom that are hovering in the European economic skies (and that’s ALL Europe, including The Cocooned Republic), are in a way the result of the modern day fiddlers. For a long time now they have been busy manufacturing politics for the masses while faking obeisance to the economic rules that bound a still fragile Union. Now the disparate leaders of the European Union are reluctant to break up their holidaymaking as their economy burns. What could they do anyway? Ask the people how to solve the woes? The masses are already gathering in Greece and Spain. The Spanish “Indignados” are “summoning the spirits of ’68” in order to express their disappointment with the current governors. Meanwhile, further south the protracted Jasmine Revolution has reached the bloody confines of Syria… and history, as they tend to say, seems to have gone full circle.
Ite, missa est
We get the word “mass” for the liturgical celebration from the Latin “missa” which originally meant “dismissed”. It’s from the phrase at the end of the celebration when the celebrant invites the congregation to leave. In this day and age mass movements seem to have the power to install and dismiss the leaders of nations at their will. It is an intelligent nation that learns from past mistakes and distinguishes between the frivolous, immediate and spontaneous will of the masses and the informed guidance based on long-term planning and values.
Do we have what it takes to tell the difference? And more importantly, are our representatives investing enough thought and time to develop the right value based policies? Or are we to be saddled with more headless politics for the masses? Ite, missa est.
www.akkuza.com has moved to the island of mass beaching for the next two weeks. Here’s to hoping there’s no mass jellyfish invasion.
