Window on Eurasia

Internet Forums Represent Underside of Russian Politics

Paul Goble

Vienna, July 20, 2006 – Because of their increasingly nationalistic and extremist content, Russian Internet forums have attracted attention and concern both in Moscow and abroad. But because of the specific nature of these forums, two Moscow experts say, no one should view them as accurate and reliable barometers of public opinion.

In an article in the latest issue of “Politicheskiy zhurnal,”
Viktor Bekker and Vladimir Tikhomirov survey the latest studies of such forums
and argue that those who may be tempted to see use them as informal
opinion polls should proceed with caution
[http://www.politjournal.ru/], No. 168.

Not only are participants in such online forums drawn from only a thin
slice of the population – the middle class – but those who take
part are able to choose the forums they go to, thereby reinforcing rather
than moderating any position. And they can participate anonymously,
allowing them to say things they might not say elsewhere.

In such an environment, Bekker and Tikhomirov suggest, individuals
often engage in role playing, experimentation with different and often
extreme ideas, and the expression of intolerant views, actions that may serve
as a form of compensation for the tight discipline many such Russians are
now subject to in their workplaces.

That does not mean that the views expressed are irrelevant to an
understanding of Russian political attitudes or are morally acceptable,
they continue. Rather, it is to insist that what is found in these
forums should be viewed as the underside or “subconscious” portion
of Russian politics rather than a reflection of what Russians think and
will act on.

Moreover, and this is especially true of the forums where the most
extreme views are presented, the two analysts continue, these Internet
sites inevitably attract and thus appear to magnify the views of often
extremely small, even “marginal” groups in ways that make it appear
that they are far more significant than is in fact the case.

Indeed, they suggest, that is one of the reasons why marginal political
groups are so interested in taking part in these forums.

To say this is not to imply that these sites do not have an impact on
the broader society, the two scholars say. In fact, it is increasingly
the case that the regular media now cover what is on these sites rather
than the reverse. And consequently, these sites and especially the most
noxious ideas they spread should not be ignored.

Because of these two factors, many officials now want to impose some
form of government control on these sites. But the experts the two
authors consulted said that while it is “theoretically possible” to
restrict traffic to certain sites – the Chinese, for example, block
access to Wikipedia and other sites on a regular basis – it is far
from easy.

Not only can those who host these sites quickly shift providers, thus
allowing the forums to continue to operate, but almost all attempts to
restrict the Internet end up by hurting legitimate users as well,
something that has a negative impact on both the economy and the
political system.

It is far better and more effective, Aleksandr Tarasov of the Phoenix
Center for New Sociology and the Study of Practical Politics, said, to
make use of existing laws. If someone is using a website to spread
noxious ideas such as Nazism, then, the authorities should use the
courts to punish the miscreants rather than try to block these
channels.

Nonetheless, the increasing visibility of such forums almost certainly
guarantees, especially in periods before elections, that Russian
officials will consider any means they can to try to restrict them,
lest the ideas first aired in Internet forums spread and emerge as a threat
to those now in power.

Bekker and Tikhomirov also deal with another group of people who are
unhappy with what is appearing on these Russian Internet forums: human
rights activists who they suggest tend to exaggerate the importance of
these sites even as they call attention to the horrific ideas that
often appear on them.

Such activists, the two Russian writers say, often proceed from two
incorrect assumptions: On the one hand, they tend to believe that
people are good and that any bad ideas circulating on Internet sites or
elsewhere represent the hidden hand of some powerful and shadowy force
like the security organs.

And on the other, they assume that the Russian security organs can
unilaterally generate enormous support for whatever ideas they hope to
put out for whatever goals they have, something these activists believe
the current content of Russian Internet forums demonstrates.

“Nothing could be further from the truth,” Bekker and Tikhomirov
say. People often have ugly views, and political technology is
overrated as a factor in such forums. If the authorities do try to advance an
idea via Internet forums or in Ukrainian elections, it will spread only if
it finds resonance among the users of such sites.

If an idea the authorities are putting out fails to generate a positive
response from the population, the two authors say, it will fall flat
– and there is as history shows little or nothing the authorities can do
about that. Consequently, blaming the channel for the message it
carries is a mistake, but understanding the nature of that channel is
essential.

Latest Window on Eurasia stories | Religion Archive | Islam in Russia and CIS Archive | Orthodox Church in Russia and CIS Archive | All Window on Eurasia Stories Archive |