Political satire: what is the other side of the coin?
By: Sara Ossman
Tags: Communication, Satire, Comedy, Middle East, Social Movements

When I am battling the blues, I resort to a good movie or a comedy show that makes me weep after a gut laugh as a therapeutic distraction.

Eventually, joyous communication is an art that people strive to master, we feel approved and validated when we bring a smile to others’ faces. But not every humour is sweet. Humour becomes bitter when we ridicule someone through bullying or satire.

In July 2017, Michael Moore called upon an Army of Satire in the United States to take down the president Trump. At first glance, it sounds strange to view grievance and humour as bunkmates. It feels indecent to laugh amid tragedies or mock someone committing the most heinous crimes. But this wondrous blend is called Satire. Megan LeBoeuf refers Satire to any form of humor, including particularly ridicule of authority, which consists of making what cannot be logically true in favor of a belief, rational.

Satire was busy in the Middle East over recent years especially in the form of Talk Shows. It all began with the kick-off of the so-called Arab spring. Bassem Youssef, named “Egypt’s Jon Stewart”, was the anchor of the most-watched show in 2011 “Al Barnamaj” (the Show), followed by many other satirists.

Bursts of laughter fills houses, political and cultural commentary of the absurd situation in the Arab region; political leaders, people displacement, and sectarian strife. The political discourse and the practices of hereditary republics helped satirists to rise to stardom.

But is satire as a craft a recent phenomenon in the Middle East? Let’s have a look on the modern history of middle eastern media. The Machiavellian dictatorial ideology of instilling fear among people to demonstrate the ruler’s superiority was incorporated by political regimes in the Middle East. The governments have given rein to all sorts of violence and persecution against those demanding political reforms, or even expressing their opinions. They imposed control over press publication and online outlets, detaining political and human rights activists, journalists, and bloggers. Although, these governments allowed satire. It has approved staging certain theatre plays containing an indirect critique of the government. We recall the play of ‘the leader’ starring Adel Imam, an actor who is known to be close to the government.

This strategy was twofold. It was a part of this of polishing-up the external image of the government and to conceal the censorship of theatrical productions, and as a form of momentary “breathing” and pressure relief from state control.

Though, Satire is still fun! It can be recalled to have many good sides.

First, humour is precious. Freud perceives humor as a release mechanism that provides the individual with a psychological balance. Laughter has been proven by Robert Provine to be a social behavior that creates and maintain social bonds. Also, the only certainty is that people really enjoy watching satire shows, they may like to see the big heads that seem to be unbeaten on the ropes. Humour is a significant communicative emotional strategy for social movements. Plato points to the “Superiority Theory” which consists of raising the community up by putting the criticized and mocked party down. This mechanism empowers collective identity in social movements communities. Third, satire communicate to less technically minded people, it makes politics more comprehensive even if it did not reinforce their political participation. Some people view satire as a key part in mobilizing youth politically with an amusing laughter and sharp insight, and a fuel for social movements to beat the dissatisfaction. The common ground between social movements and satire makes it look this way, as they are both culturally contextual. Palgrave Macmillan states in her book “Colbert’s America” that it influences young people to actively seek, and look for news and information, after watching an episode of the Talk Show. Satire reveals, ironically, the problems of the criticized behaviour, which requires people’s reflection after the laughter

But what is the flip side of satire? Imagine a giggling couch potato holding their phone with chips in their hands, commenting and interacting digitally, and then fall asleep, they have released all the anger that they might have felt towards a particular issue. Malcom Gladwell calls ‘satire paradox’, explaining that people are less likely to be changed by what they find funny.

The worse is when all what you can see is defamation, masquerading as a critique. All what we can hear is sophomoric insults against people who simply disagree with the satirist decidedly view. This view makes some satire work not only irrelevant to social movements, but also have a social effect. Some of satirists are attention seekers and are able to spread the politic of not accepting the existence of a different view, especially when it touches about deep beliefs. People are digitally loud and outlandish. These works can be marked as demagoguery, eroding our moral compass and sense of decorum.

Does humor really props up social movements? does it really embolden the audience to act upon what is ridiculed?

If it is not harmful, satire’s role to innerve social movements against oppressive dictatorial authorities works only to some extent. Otherwise, it can be a momentary breathing. Laughing is cool, but we need to roar back to life, we need a dramatic awareness-raising and a powerful strategy. The disasters around are never joyous.