| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
<
< | How A Democracy Dies – The Philippines and its Constitutional Values | >
> | Tech Platforms as the Accomplices of Strongmen | | | | |
<
< | -- By AikenLarisaSerzo - 20 Mar 2022 | | | | |
>
> | -- By AikenLarisaSerzo - 9 May 2022 | | | | |
<
< | First, the Terrorists | >
> | Liberal democracies recognize certain civil liberties: freedom of speech, expression, and of the press; and due process. We have witnessed the perversion of these rights by various regimes with the help of tech platforms. Any attempt at pushing back against strongmen requires an equal push for greater regulation of information platforms. | | | | |
<
< | The Philippine Constitution recognizes certain civil liberties in its bill of rights: freedom of speech, expression, and of the press; and due process. We have witnessed the perversion of these rights by the government in the last six years, through the help of technology and an emboldened regime. This reveals the weak manner by which the values of a constitutional democracy have been transposed on the population. | >
> | The growth of social media platforms, enabled the electoral strongmen to subvert democracy and weaken fundamental rights in the name of national security and stability. The opposing values of societies are being debated on various platforms, with some speech amplified by influencers and bloggers. As eloquently and comprehensively discussed by Maria Ressa, the democratization of the distribution of information relegated journalists, who used to be the gatekeepers of information, to the side. Journalists that report news with integrity are labeled as destablizers or criminals. Bloggers and content creators have taken their place. Those with the deepest pockets can hire an army of organized online trolls to saturate the platforms with their narratives. As members of the fourth estate, journalists must remain protected, abel to hold the line, in order for democracies to work. | | | | |
<
< | The development of certain technologies, particularly social media platforms, enabled the Duterte regime to subvert and weaken fundamental rights in the name of national security. In the process, the executive branch together with security forces evolved to be both executioner and judge, in its fight against persons it deems to be terrorists and plotters against the state. There has been news about the use by the military and police of fake and simulated accounts in order to implicate suspects. Social media accounts are hijacked or created to make it look like it is owned by suspected terrorists identified by the law enforcement agencies. Such accounts then publish incriminating posts which would then be the basis for prosecutions. | >
> | The rise of Duterte and his successor, Marcos, further prove how effective social media content, regardless of its veracity, can shape narratives to win elections. Marcos is dominating the election polls as people are led to believe, through youtube and tiktok, that the plunder perpetrated by his family is untrue, and that his father’s violent military rule was a golden age for the Philippines. | | | | |
>
> | Democracy is taking a beating around the world as electoral strongmen are rising globally. Propaganda plays a crucial role in building and maintaining their grip on power. These regimes invest heavily in its state controlled media outfits as well as in informal social media campaigns; and in blocking alternative sources of information i.e. deplatforming real journalists and suppressing dissent from citizens. | | | | |
<
< | Then, the Dissenters | >
> | It is ironic that the rise of open online spaces and innovation, the very means which should bring people closer together, are also the tools responsible for polarization and weakening democracy. The algorithms of platforms amplify those with the loudest voices. A cited by Ressa, an MIT study shows that lies which anger the most people spread the fastest. Those with the most engagements occupy the premium spaces on our feeds. Platforms thrive on getting users to react. The more data the platform collects on users, the better data they have on our preferences, and the more effective they will be at pushing content to us, and selling information to advertisers. A perfected cycle. Hence, lies and fakes news are effective tools to upsell and cross sell products to users. The products are not limited to commercial goods but government propaganda as well. There is no incentive for platforms to fix the system. Similarly, governments and politicians have learned to game the system. | | | | |
<
< | However, investigations also reveal that the increased focus of the government on national security is an attempt to weaponize law and use it against political opponents and dissenters. State forces utilized platforms, such as Facebook and YouTube? , to spread propaganda and to redtag, surveille and target suspected government “destablizers”. Activists and human right workers are labelled as communists and criminals. Celebrities who vocalize their criticisms of government policies through the former’s social media platforms have been redtagged by the military. Even a national athlete and the eventual gold medalist in the recent olympics (the Philippines’ first gold medal in history), Ms. Hidilyn Diaz, was publicly declared by the Presidential Chief Legal Counsel to be part of a plot to oust the President. This finding was based merely on the fact that Diaz’ facebook account was followed by certain opposition bloggers. | >
> | It is difficult to fight for democracy when developing countries may have been failed by neo-liberalism and the latter’s promises of progress and development. Since the rise of the Brettonwood institutions and the adoption of wide scale reforms by transitional democracies in developing countries in the 1980s, greater liberalization, privatization and globalization do not appear to have led to inclusive growth. Despite reforms made to comply with the criteria set by the World Bank, we’ve seen rising inequalities within most countries. Leaving businesses untouched eventually led to the rise of Big Tech and the platforms. They have innovated enough. It is time to reel them in. A substantial number of scholars have also propounded that development should consider not just economic gains, as initially mandated by institutions like the World Bank, but other factors too such as freedoms too. | | | | |
<
< | Then, the Press | >
> | The hypocrisy of those championing democracy, the US and the West, also helped sell strongmen. Edward Snowden exposed how the United States infringes on the privacy and due process rights of its citizens. Alternative systems in states such as China my start to look appealing: where despite the lack of rule of law and the western notions of liberty, the country’s seen exponential economic growth and the Party has enjoyed relatively high satisfaction ratings. | | | | |
<
< | Combined with a relatively young constitutional democracy, and a culture of impunity, the state can easily build cases and prosecute dissenters on the basis of content made online. | >
> | The failures above helped create a space for anti-democratic figures to take root. Rapid technological developments exacerbated and provided such figures to flourish. Values based on the principles of democracy and liberty are rendered superficial and useless. | | | | |
<
< | An adhoc body under the office of the President and other executive agencies, started labeling journalists as communists or supporters of violent groups in order to invalidate their acts, including fact checking, made by the latter. | >
> | Frankel describes the rise of a dual state in authoritarian regimes, where political matters are handled outside the bounds of the law and rules pursuant to the preference of those in power (the prerogative state), while commercial and private matters follow rules (i.e. the normative state). When it’s politically necessary, there is no need to make government actions even appear lawful or constitutional. This framework may be useful in understanding the development, or lack thereof, of platform and data regulation in flawed democracies. Tech platforms evolved to become crucial tools for electoral strongmen and their regimes. Hence its use and regulation in their respective jurisdictions may be shaped by those in power in ways that would suit them and perpetuate their power further. | | | | |
>
> | It may not be feasible to lobby for reforms domestically as dissent may be dangerous if not futile. Governments in countries where the most powerful platforms are domiciled should take the lead in regulating these companies. This is an opportunity for the West to rehabilitate its reputation and prove that it is in a position to preach democracy. A more active content monitoring system and fact checking should be imposed on the platforms. The platforms may no longer hide behind the argument of remaining neutral; arguing for the libertarian merits of allowing all types of speech. The algorithms have been proven to favor controversial speech and untruths that would incite polarizing reactions. To make democracies work, the West must regulate platforms and thus create a space for journalists and the citizens of the rest of the world. | | | | |
<
< | With a Whimper, not a Bang
An anti-terror law was enacted in late 2020. This expanded the definition of terrorism and the enhanced the authority of law enforcement agencies. The law punishes individuals that are deemed to incite terrorism through “speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners, and other representations”. The law further allows security forces to arrest and detain suspected terrorists up to 24 days without charge.
With a regime that has largely ignored due process, and exhibited low tolerance for dissent, the anti-terror law has the potential to be used by the government to provide a a veneer of legality to its unconstitutional acts.
Recent pronouncements by officials these past few months have further showed that the government’s actions have been extended to include the undermining the integrity of the upcoming national elections, through a campaign of online disinformation, in an effort to perpetuate power for themselves. The state delegitimizes dissent and independent news reporting by painting the messengers of the same as terrorists or communists.
The values of a constitutional democracy are constantly diminished by the repeated actions of select executive and law enforcement agencies over a prolonged period of time. The population is rendered desensitized by the ubiquitousness of the impunity of the powerful, continuous red tagging, and absence of due process. The few that speak out are then subdued by suspected government forces through legal or extralegal means. An independent group found that at least 61 lawyers have been killed under the current administration, most were killed while working. This record is higher than the combined number of lawyers that have been killed in the last 50 years, under 6 different administrations. A disturbing number of activists, human rights defenders, and journalists have also been killed.
The Philippine constitution protects an individual’s freedom to voice its criticism and opposition against government policy and actions. The constitution further protects the freedom of the press. However, similar to the experience of a civil rights lawyer in the United States vis a vis the Patriot Act, “Fear is manipulated and the tools of the penal system are applied to inhibit people from speaking out”. At least in the US, there is an effort to justify the curtailment of certain rights as one recognized under an existing law. In the Philippines, the President created a culture of impunity, and empowered law enforcement and presidential offices to carry out actions on the basis of the President’s speeches or policies. Not always law. There is no effort to make it sound like the acts are lawful or constitutional.
If a constitution is supposed to codify the values of a society, the state of affairs in the Philippines may show the weakness of transposing constitutional principles in the absence of a buy-in from the population to actively adopt these values. Worse, given the high satisfaction rating of the President, we have seen the absence of a general condemnation and apparent anger from the people (from which all power is supposed to emanate) against the government. Given the high satisfaction rating of the President, there appears to be no passionate clamor to defend the individual’s constitutional rights from increasing government encroachment.
Should this culture continue to create a cloud of both fear and indifference, the country’s soul as a constitutional democracy may be in peril. This is how a democracy dies. As aptly described by Nobel laureate Maria Ressa, what we’re witnessing is a death by a thousand cuts.
The draft does two things: it summarizes a series of events, and it presents a constitutionalist's lament over the peoples' disregard of their liberties. The first can be compressed; the second is probably not the form of analysis best calculated to teach the reader something.
The rise of electoral strongmen around the world gives some reason to suppose that Philippine exceptionalism is a tough analytic line to work. It takes you until the last sentence to mention Maria Ressa, whose actual analysis of the techno-social environment you do not discuss or benefit from.
I think there are two viable routes to improvement. You could radically reduce the existing factual discussion, which is basic and can be conveyed in 250 words with abundant links, and then provide in lieu of deploring the irresponsibility of the people for not buying in some actual reason for believing that it makes any difference whether it's this loathsome creature or some other Bongbong pretending to perform democracy and believe in rights.
The other promising route, I think, is to abandon the home-country parochialism and, like Ressa herself, find more general questions that can be asked based not only on one place's history over the last dozen years, but that of the human population as a whole.
| | | |
|