NOMEN EST OMEN AND IS THE NAME A DESTINY?

In previous posts we have seen that naming and “word traps” are one of the most effective techniques for spreading disinformation. When using these words, an entire narrative or stereotype for a group is automatically assigned. Labeling and ad-hominem attacks are often used to attack someone you disagree with or with whom you have conflicting interests.

Malicious naming has been encountered in various everyday situations since childhood. Many of us may remember examples of someone being nicknamed or neglected from a young age and dragged on for many years. Many labels and nicknames were attributed to kings, military commanders, rulers, and other important figures, and influenced how they would be remembered in history. Charles III, ruler of the Holy Roman Empire of the IX century, was also known as Charles the Fat. The same nickname was coined by Alphonso I of Portugal, Conan III of Britain and Henry I of Navarre. It’s needless to mention that the nickname did not help them to be remembered as high-ranking rulers. Ivan Vasilievich IV is certainly more known as Ivan the Terrible, as well as Pippin the Little from his inherited noble name.

Naming, which is imposed by someone else (the so-called exonymy), has a strong effect on the perception of a person or group. Combined with stereotyping, and in extended use, it can crucially affect how we perceive those who wear these labels or abusive nicknames. By looking at a few examples, we will try to discover other important features of this technique that can be easily misused not only for disqualification or stigmatization, but also as a means of spreading disinformation and propaganda narratives.

Betrayer 

In everyday communication, the word traitor has a very broad meaning and use, from naming someone who has actually comitted betrayal, to abusing an opponent in order to disqualify him or her in a dispute. “Et tu Brute?”(You too Brut?) Is a sentence associated with probably the most famous example of betrayal, along with that of Judas Iscariot. In Dante’s “Divine Comedy” the deepest circles of hell are intended for traitors. Some names, such as Quisling, according to Vidkun Quisling, a Norwegian politician and colaborator with the Nazis during World War II, have become synonymous with betrayal.

But in political practice and throughout history, abuses of this term for political degradation are also common. The word traitor can be used by both sides of a political conflict, and instead of an act of betrayal, it can actually be a “war of words” for political points, or it can cause complete confusion in public to cover up the real facts.

This word is most dangerous when used by political groups to maintain a certain conflict or prolong the status quo. In such situations the use of a word “traitor” can be a powerful weapon to stigmatize anyone who has a different view or proposal for resolving a conflict or dispute. This contributes to the manipulative use of the term ‘betrayal’ against sometimes necessary actions such as dialogue, negotiation, agreement or showing tolerance. Also, one who monopolizes “the right to name who is or who is not a traitor”, gradually creates the authority of a “patriot” or “defender” of some large group interest. If you are main factor who decides who is a traitor, then you must be a great patriot, roght?

These linguistic and political tactics often lead to strengthening of nationalism and polarization in the society, especially in the era of social networks where the use of such disqualifications has become a daily occurrence. Unfortunately, such is the case in North Macedonia where the word traitor is often used in political disputes. The more a political group strives for extreme nationalism or totalitarianism, the more it is inclined to call any different attitude treacherous in order to justify the “normality and logic” of its extreme-nationalist or totalitarian positions. Such examples are found in political groups in the country, but very often in nationalist narratives of the diaspora, from different ethnic communities, who, through radicalization of vocabulary, are trying to impose their ideas and attitudes and gain broader support. Such phenomena of “extremism of public speech” and the imposition of radical narratives are now greatly facilitated by the Internet and social networks.

The death of the Macedonian revolutionary Goce Delchev because of the betrayal and his famous sentence about Macedonia and the traitors influenced the creation of a particular intra-ethnic sensitivity to this term and word. Similar narratives about historical betrayals are found in other ethnic communities in Macedonia, so any political abuse of the word traitor has serious consequences and its manipulative use must be pointed out.

Junta

 The word “junta” has an interesting use in political communication in this region. It began to be used frequently by the Macedonian opposition after the end of the political crisis in 2017, and lately by the political opposition in Albania. The word junta was also frequently used during the conflict in Ukraine by the Russian authorities for the Kiev government.

What ideas and narratives initiates this notion in a local context?

The word junta has two main meanings: (a) the highest authority in the hands of the government following a military coup, and (b) the name of various political groups and organizations in Latin America.

In the Macedonian political context, the use of the word is linked to the turmoil over who actually carried out a coup with the events of April 27, 2017, whether it was the supporters of the then government who violently attacked the Parliament, or the new parliamentary majority with the alleged illegal election of the Parliament Speaker. After some of those involved in the Parliament raid were accused of terrorism, the use of the word junta to name the prime minister and the government he led (Zaev’s junta) intensified. Speaking strictly in communication terms, it was instensification of the party rhetoric in an attempt to achieve a sort of a narrative balance, or to counter terrorism charges on the opposition supporters, which would fit in the narrative that “the new government had carried out a coup by illegally electing a Speaker of Parliament”. The widespread use of this term on social media is gaining additional siginficance by being associated with the Latin American stereotype of forcibly seizing power, creating a “banana state” and a government that has betrayed its country which has lost its sovereignty.

The terms “Kievyan junta” and “military junta” are very often used by Russian social network users. In that political context, the meaning of the word junta has been associated with revolutionary groups and movements in Latin America supported by the United States, especially during the Cold War. It points to similar ties and support for the Kiev government from the West. In this sense, the use of the word junta as a “puppet government supported by the United States” is also used on the social networks in Macedonian language, as an additional meaning to the already mentioned interpretations of this term.

In the case of Albania, the connotations are somewhat different:

“I am ready to give up my mandate and sacrifice myself like Salvador Allende, to prevent the installation of a military junta … (Albanian President Ilir) Meta said.”

“United Albanian opposition continues protests against criminal government and Balkan Maduro, as current  Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama (Democratic leader Lulzim Basha said) and continued to face, without return, servants of the ruling criminal junta.” .

The above examples show that the focus of the word “junta” is on the stereotype of Latin American leftist or socialist revolutions that use violence and coups to come and stay in power.

We can conclude that the certain weaponization of words varies depending on the local social, historical, and political context. The use of these words-triggers, labels, or words-traps is directed towards ctivation of previously existing narratives, whether they are in support or oposition of some ideology, anti-Western, anti-American, e.t.c. Their systematic repetition reinforces those narratives and that is their main communication use, i.e. repeated activation or reactivation of narratives that should create a certain, often negative, atmosphere in the public.

Sead Dzigal