By DARLINGTON CHILUBA

ONE of the great illusions of politics is that it has the advantage of being elastic and self-justifying to the extent that it can manipulate facts and create belief systems that become normal. 

To the politician, a well-crafted slogan can be the perfect weapon to wield the public into frenzied consensus that can rival religious beliefs. Often, these belief systems, when unchecked can become violent and unproductive.

In the era of social media, such conflict can be exaggerated and dangerous. Evidence continues to show that social media can be friend and foe. 

No nation is safe from calculated conflict irrespective of the developmental stage because human beings are largely the same psychologically.

In North America for example, the political differences between the two dominant political parties, Republican and Democrats, appear to have become more personal and dangerous than ever before.

The traditional differences between these two political parties used to be a case study on astute politics and difference of opinions that did not lose mutual respect. 

Any group that threatened the government of the day was labelled terrorist or blacklisted, irrespective of which party was in power. That seems to have changed especially since the last elections in that country.

Political party manifestos are becoming overshadowed by groups more interested in creating fear and militant solutions to their apprehensions which go beyond just political differences.  

So, issues are not anymore just about political and economic virtues such as jobs and healthcare, or taxation, immigration and subsidised tertiary education. 

Social causes, or more precisely granular and personal human concerns and some of their unresolved conflict have become topical (and exportable).

Some of these social and personal issues have become dressed in political colours either for sympathy, safety or logical reasons. The problem is that once fear becomes a dominant motivation, then self-protection and preservation take precedence over consensus and mutual respect. 

Throughout history, social movements have been at the centre of some of the most monumental changes in many countries. For instance, trade unions, in the middle of the last century were the safe haven for the disenfranchised public.

Politics found it safer back then to befriend than create enemies of unions. In North America, James Hoffa led the International Brotherhood of Teamsters which had membership exceeding one million in the 1950s, making it a forceful player on the governance stage able to cause nationwide disruptions; and they did so.

It provided safety (for jobs and families) while ably confronting government on issues that affected the so-called common man. 

In Europe, one of the more memorable trade unions was led by the great Lech Walesa through the Workers’ Defence Committee and the Free Trade Unions of the Coast.

The union movement was in direct conflict with the polish government and provided the needed checks and balances for national benefit.

In Zambia, the Zambia Congress of Trade Unions led by then Mr. Frederick Chiluba, provided formidable checks and balances for over 20 years of the one-party state.

The ability of these unions to galvanise members for a particular agenda put them in direct conflict with governments. 

Incidentally, both Walesa and Chiluba became the first democratically elected presidents of their respective nations. This was especially on account of their ability to command large numbers and formulate honest and relatable messages that drove to the core of mutual respect, furtherance and existence.

In today’s world, the likely and more liberal comparative to this kind of influence is social media. Politicians who understood the power of creating a social media agenda like Barack Obama, outperformed their rivals by creating a far-reaching base that could disseminate information instantly and build on that information as a core belief or principle. 

Even the youth in Egypt were able to effectively use this medium to bring the reign of President Hosni Mubarak to a sudden end. 

Interestingly, international terror groups and cyber criminals long understood the communicative and disruptive power of social media before the regular user caught on. They created uncomfortable conflict with national governments such that regulation became essential priority.

Given all this, it is not difficult to understand why some countries prefer downright censorship than arms-length oversight. 

That social media is able to bypass government’s lengthy bureaucracy and reach the public much quicker is both attractive and dangerous. Attractive because the leader appears accessible; and dangerous because there is neither real accessibility nor responsibility and loyalty on the part of the followers. 

Competition for power is not new and many government systems are built to withstand administrative changes at state and bureaucracy levels.

However, as the world leans towards a universal consensus of values and rights, there appears growing intolerance for those that hold different world views. No side is willing to give up the freedom social media offers whether as an illusion or fact.

What is true is that geographic sovereignty has been formidably challenged in a way that forces political figures to carefully balance being a personality or public representative. What is even more certain, is that no government is willing to give up its immense power to a platform that it would rather control.