Abuse in Politics: Can We Stop It?
Online and personal abuse was given a higher prominence during the 2017 General Election, where candidates of all parties exposed the vicious messages that they received. Robbie Nicoll investigates why such abuse occurred and what role society can play in reducing it in future.
The recent BBC report into online abuse included many examples of victimisation and abuse given to candidates in the 2017 General Election campaign. This included shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott’s experience of racist and sexist abuse, MP Simon Hart describing swastikas being painted on office walls and fellow Conservative MP Andrew Percy being subjected to anti-Semitic abuse. The Sunday Herald’s report on a series of abusive pro-Union accounts which frequently used abusive language towards SNP figures indicate that this is a problem spread across politics as a whole whilst so-called ‘cybernat’ attacks have become part and parcel of Scottish politics ever since the 2014 independence referendum. Social media and in-person attacks have also been reported against UKIP supporters, Brexit campaigners, backers of Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn and both Democrat and Republican supporters in the USA.
All of the people affiliated to these various parties and campaigns will have their own contrary evidence to present on why their supporters are all entirely above reproach and why the opposing sides are in actual fact the ones to blame. In every group a minority of members take their beliefs too far — this article is about what I perceive to be a more general slide.
Since the June election there have been many theories offered as to why abuse has suddenly become so prevalent. Diane Abbott believes ‘social media had turbo-charged abuse due to the speed and anonymity offered’. Social media means that groups can be more organised and that people with similar beliefs can meet each other when otherwise they never would have done. Social media can also provide a direct route to someone in a powerful position — MPs are no longer mythological creatures who we only ever see on the TV, or on our doorsteps at election time and are therefore an easier target for disenchanted social media users. In addition, the anonymity of social media has proven to be extremely popular with those who seek to divulge negative opinions about others and vicious bullying on anonymous posting sites such as Ask FM and Spillit were both directly implicated in various teenage suicides and cyber-bullying cases. This means that perpetrators of online abuse can hide behind the protection of anonymity and not be held to immediate account for what they write.
However, social media is only a catalyst for the type of abuse that exists within politics — it can’t be blamed for radicalising someone or forcing them to think a certain way. Moreover, this type of abuse is neither new nor unique to party politics. Personal insults and smears are present in all walks of society. Anyone with an interest in Scottish football will know that, depending on their team, they are either Irish republican terrorists, British imperialist thugs, or have an involvement in bestiality or incest (your taste depends on what part of the North East your team is from). Avid watchers of YouTube will be aware of the emergence of the diss-track scene, where YouTubers who dislike each other will post rap videos with the lyrics insulting the other. The recent diss-tracks between the prominent YouTuber group the Sidemen have been entertaining due to the faux drama and obvious lack of intent, but some have also contained misogynistic and homophobic verses. As a result, the young fanbase of these stars who are not as aware of the purposes of the scene have descended into abusing each other, often with sexist and homophobic insults.
In psychology, two of the accepted theories of aggression — the Frustration-Aggression hypothesis and the Social Learning theory — explain that aggression can come from a blocked goal or achievement. For example, if someone is late to work, then they become aggressive because of that blocked goal. This can also be demonstrated in a political context. Someone who wants Jeremy Corbyn to be in government will be angry at the Labour MPs who have undermined him throughout his leadership; and an alt-right white supremacist will be aggressive if they see a black person who they think should be deported to achieve their goal of a white-only state or nation. However, it is a stretched analysis that will attempt to link a goal to every political conflict. What exactly is the goal in mind for those who describe being transgender as akin to ‘a mental illness’, following the UK Government’s decision to review the Gender Recognition Act? Aggression doesn’t discriminate and there is often no achievable goal in mind when abuse occurs, therefore when it comes to disagreement with other people the accepted theology does not apply in full.
We instinctively want people to agree with us, and the common factor in conflict is one person or group in disagreement with the other. It is proven that the social circles we choose to build are filled with people with similar interests, likes and dislikes. Therefore, it is a shock to the system when we are met with an opinion we do not agree with. How can someone even comprehend a different way of thinking from me? In the case of a Scottish nationalist, how can someone ever possibly want to be part of a Britain that is falling off a Brexit cliff-edge and want to deny our nation their own independence? From the perspective of a Scottish unionist, why would someone ever want to commit such economic self-harm or to deny their British identity? The answer that we come to is that they are an idiot; they are stupid; they are only interested in themselves; they are a Tory (of the blue or red variety); they are a communist; they should shut up or be denied a voice because of their gender, skin colour or sexuality. It is too easy to escalate into abuse if you have no comprehension of how somebody else thinks differently from you.
Important figures including politicians and celebrities have a responsibility to acknowledge this and take a lead in reducing the adversity within society. Extreme left and right-wing personalities have been given too much representation and the tangible change that has brought abuse out into the open has reflected this. David Cameron depicted Jeremy Corbyn as a terrorist sympathiser, a threat to national security and a communist radical upon his elevation to Labour leader — is it therefore any surprise that there were no other insults towards Corbyn besides these? Donald Trump legitimised the neo-Nazi and white supremacist rallies through his refusal to condemn the Charlottesville gathering, thereby enabling others to adopt anti-Islam and anti-Judaism beliefs. The adversarial atmosphere and platform that has characterised most political debates can therefore be seen to influence the views of society as a whole. If we want to create a peaceful society and stable political atmosphere, powerful figures must lead the way in accepting that their opinions will not always be agreed with. By extension, society will follow.
