The “paid protester” trope is a tired one that has been around almost as long as protesting itself. It typically serves two purposes: it delegitimizes the protests in the eyes of the supporters of those on the receiving end of the protests; and it plays into a comforting fantasy that reassures those same people that what they’re doing isn’t really being opposed by any significant share of the population — just people who are getting checks to do so. [...]
The “paid protester” attack is often used by those in power, typically authoritarians. Egyptian state television spread rumors during the anti-Mubarak uprising in Tahrir Square that a “foreign element” was paying protesters. When the Kremlin was rocked by massive anti-Putin, anti-corruption demonstrations the same year, Putin told reporters that he knew “that young people were paid for coming,” and claimed the others had been manipulated by foreign agents, including Hillary Clinton and the State Department. After Mohamed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood took power in Egypt, Human Rights Watch reported that anti-Morsi protesters were accused of “being paid by opposition leaders,” a baseless charge that the new president repeated on television. [...]
That doesn’t mean that the concept of paid protesters is a total myth. There are plenty of examples of people being paid to demonstrate — except those paying tend to be many of these same authoritarian governments.
While Putin was complaining about students being paid to demonstrate against him, Time reported that it turned out he was paying people to make up the massive, adoring crowds at his inauguration, which millions of households watched on TV. And for all Putin’s complaints about foreign agents directing the protests against him, the Kremlin itself provides support to Russian emigres who pay protesters in the United States. Meanwhile, widespread reports uncovered that Mubarak paid Egypt’s rural poor to attack protesters and counter-demonstrate in Tahrir Square.
No comments:
Post a Comment