Political absurdity becomes a tool for persuading supporters — Dawn
Pakistani outlet Dawn examines in a column why politicians’ statements that contradict logic, science or historical facts increasingly do not provoke condemnation but gain the support of followers. The author links this trend to changes in the media environment, identity politics and declining trust in institutions.
As an example, the outlet cites Polish Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski’s statement that Poland could quickly defeat Russia in a direct conflict. According to the author’s description, commentators in the United States and Europe treated these words with mild mockery, while they received an approving reaction on Polish social media.
Statements as a marker of loyalty
The article also mentions Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2019 remarks regarding India’s airstrikes on Pakistan. He explained that cloud cover could have hindered Pakistani radars, although radars operate using radio waves. The author writes that Modi’s supporters presented this claim as a manifestation of military talent.
Among other examples, Dawn names remarks by former Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan in 2021, when he linked the rise in sexual violence to women’s clothing. After criticism from women’s rights activists, his supporters, including women, said that critics were trying to undermine traditional cultural values. The outlet also mentions Khan’s approving words about the Taliban’s capture of Kabul in 2021.
More current news is available on the UA.News Telegram channel Telegram.
The columnist cites statements by former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro about Pfizer vaccination, as well as Donald Trump’s remarks about rising sea levels made during his first presidential term. The article considers these examples part of a broader trend in which political support outweighs critical assessment of the content of statements.
The role of algorithms and repetition
Dawn refers to the concept of American scholar Dan Kahan on “identity-protective cognition.” Under this logic, a person may assess information not by its reliability but by whether it confirms their belonging to a political group. Rejecting a leader’s claim, even an absurd one, may be perceived as switching to the side of opponents.
The outlet also mentions research by psychologists Gordon Pennycook and David Rand on misinformation: repetition of a claim can increase its perceived plausibility. Social media algorithms that promote content with high engagement contribute to the repeated dissemination of provocative statements in digital information bubbles.
In the author’s view, populists can use a stream of false or absurd claims as a way to disorient audiences and exhaust fact-checkers. In such an environment, expert assessments may be presented as the position of the establishment, while politicians’ contradictory statements may be portrayed as a demonstration of opposition to the system.
