The Death of Prigozhin Shows the Futility of Governments Monopolizing Information

Distrust in the state and supposed professionals run deep in Russia. For an ordinary Russian, the need for "fixing things up yourself" is ingrained, as there is too great of a chance that unscrupulous individuals with fake licenses charge too much money for not much professional results. From fixing homes to administrating medicine, many Russians do it by themselves, assuming that their amateurism is still more efficient and less deadly than the risk of paying money to the wrong people and facing the deadly consequences of their falsified expertise.

That distrust in fake professionals has now extended to mass media as the war in Ukraine goes on. With their personal reputation in tatters, Russian citizens are now questioning the fundamental direction of what Russia stands for and who presents an authoritative narrative. Nowhere is this distrust clearer than in the aftermath of the death of Wagner's chief Yevgeny Prigozhin. As international media expressed the possibility of Prigozhin being assassinated by the Kremlin as a retaliation for his aborted mutiny and march toward Moscow, Russian netizens are already circulating rumors about his fake death.

Backed with grainy pictures of disguised Prigozhin going about daily life in Moscow, the rumors speak of a possible behind-the-scene deal that shows the Kremlin being strong against traitors but also lenient toward Wagner, itself a major piece of Russian economic and political influence abroad. The fact that the Kremlin released a cryptic statement praising Prigozhin for his supposed organizational talent while doing its best to keep his funeral low-key only serves to encourage future rumor-mongering. The inconsistency of Prigozhin's treatment in the official narrative only entrenches the distrust of ordinary Russians.

In the end, whether Prigozhin is a state asset, a traitor, or a talented individual is less important to the proliferation of rumors about him and his relationship with the Russian government, than the heavy-handed desire of the government to control the overall narrative, whatever the truth may be. Yet, the harder that state-owned or backed media attempt to portray a straightforward story of unfortunate demise and past heroism, their diminished status as gatekeepers of honest information ensure that social media posts without dubious veracity find plenty of ready audience among the general public.

The media is certainly not the only place that the Russian government's attempt to own the industry has only caused the ordinary people from trying their hardest to get around the limitations. My research in the Russian Far East in 2018 had plenty of stories about how both real and imagined attempts by state agents (police, managers of state-owned companies, and other bureaucrats) to shake down or outright take over private businesses have led many to simply disguise their business dealings through a mix of forceful lies and clever camouflage. 

The result is that the attempt by the state to ensure ownership, whether it be information or business dealings, with the explicit aim to strengthen the role of the state, only end up weakening the state in the eyes of the general public. Through resourceful attempts to avoid the state's conscription by other means, people find themselves creating a parallel state in private, providing mutual support to get work done unbeknownst to the bureaucrats. The result is lost taxes when it comes to businesses and lost credibility when it comes to the dissemination of information.

The plight of the ever-weaker Russian government in the eyes of its people should be a lesson for all governments. The Russian government's motive for wanting to control the populace is by no means unique to Russia, as a polity or culture. Every leader, whether political or business, have a desire to ensure control over underlings by achieving a monopoly over their purse strings as well as information imbibed. These leaders think only through both creating a unified, generally accepted narrative, and then backing it up with financial resources, will people be willing to listen and follow their leadership.

The Russian government's botched narrative in the aftermath of Prigozhin's death show just how quickly such a strategy can unravel in extraordinary situations. In today's hyperconnected world, new information can travel at the grassroots level much faster than leaders can come up with agreed-upon stories to explain the new information. The slightest inconsistencies can create distrust that is not easily erased. So perhaps instead of trying to monopolize, it is better to recognize the reality consist of different possibilities that are not always controllable by a single leader.