2025-05-09
"Give them bread and circus and they will not revolt." said Roman poet Juvenal. "brooooo....!" probably replied the Roman king Maximus as the the idea to start Roman circus hit his brain. For 'games', there were many. For 'bread', it was already coming from Egypt. It was only the public unrest that was not in control, but the circus paved the way! Roman emperors started one of the first documented state-sponsored distraction to prevent any revolt from the public regarding growing inequality, poverty and political struggle.
However, moving forward to today the situation is quite different from what it was under the Roman rule. If any nation would want to try distracting its public from the real issues the traditional roman circus might not give the best results. For A- the population is way more and running so many real state sponsored circus might not be possible. B- People want consistent stimulation on their screens to be actually distracted. I remember reading somewhere that many people these days are doing something called 'casual movie watching' where they turn on their Netflix but do not actually watch the TV, instead they scroll on their phone while the movie is playing in the background. Such people would never show up to a state sponsored stadium to see random people running and jumping. Forget getting distracted by them!
Also, comparatively the basic public need of belly and mind (bread and game) has changed as more stimulant in both food and entertainment is getting demanded. I mean see people these days don't even laugh on the memes which were a major laughing stock in early teens. Try sharing an old meme and most probably you will get a reply that its a 'dad joke'. More and better source of entertainment is required as a true alternate of roman circus.
So exactly what an aspiring dictator or a failed state head should do to distract public? Movies, games and bread are already there but what if despite all this people have started to see the underlying problems of a state and have started to question? What should the head of a failed state do? And whatever circus he might start it must provide equivalent if not more stimulus which a roman citizen might have gotten upon seeing a man being executed by pulling apart by four chariots in the roman circus. So can a war be good alternate for roman circus in modern times? Che, the state head, start a war for public appeasement?
"Yes yes a war can make people forget about not-so-good things happening under my rule. and hatred towards enemy will give nationalism a rise in their hearts. War is the solution"- the head of a falling state may say - "But..but the war must be controlled if it escalates into a real war it might backfire me. But if it is controlled and less tense then it won't be much of an entertainment for the public. No no, the media is in my hand. Yes I will order them to exaggerate our military actions, undermine that of the other side's. And yes I must choose a weak enemy just in case. And if any international media starts to show alternate facts I will ban them. Moreover Twitter accounts of everyone from the enemy state will be in the banned list. Twitter follows rule of the land in which it operates. My land, my rules! ban ban ban! Haha I have solved this problem. Given them bread, will show them the game now, and they will not revolt."
Can such a thing work? Can war ever be used for mass appeasement? Is it being done? Has anyone ever done it? I don't know. But the basic idea that someone from middle class who wakes up at 10am on a fine weekend morning, on his cushiony bed, opens his twitter/TV and see stimulating visuals that his team is bombing and killing the enemy team. He enjoys this far-far away from the border where the real but controlled war is being fought, men are dying. Will the consumer of such state-sponsored appeasement stop for a moment and question about corruption and economic slowdown? He will continue the consumption and meanwhile the real condition of the state will keep getting deteriorated with more and more corruption, divide between citizens, income inequality, attack on free speech and more state control. This continuous public appeasement of war might condition the public to be hyper nationalistic and blood hungry that societal situation will go so down that even a literal war may seem least harmful thing happening at that point.
Who will be to blamed? The head of the failed state? or the consumer of such appeasement? Or maybe as long as this bread and game is going on no one will stop to blame anyone. News channels will get TRP, people the amusement and politicians the power.