By GEORGHIO TOMELIN*
In the era of post-factual politics, it is a given that we are all immersed in post-truth. If pre-lies take over the political scene, voters will have no way to defend themselves.
There is no such thing as a “single truth” about narratives. However, “lies about facts” do exist and are very common. The two previous statements may seem contradictory, especially to those who believe that truth is the direct opposite of lies. Truths and lies need to be analyzed in the political context, in the post-truth era.
Today, we are immersed in a system governed by speed: a transversal “dromocratic” process, through which digital speed transfixes all sectors of human understanding. The Democracy Observatory of the Attorney General's Office, especially through its Jurimetrics Committee, intends to analyze data and the impacts of fake news on the election results.
In the Brazilian electoral system, incorrect political information cannot be refuted in time and ends up interfering with voters’ choices. Fake news exploits voters’ insecurity. When it comes to politics, frustrated voters end up being lured by malicious content. The electoral system needs to ensure that voters are not deceived, just when they are deciding who to vote for.
A simple example may help to understand: if a voter is “incorrectly informed” on the eve of the election that “his or her candidate is a criminal or that he or she cannot be elected for some reason,” this voter will tend to change his or her vote in favor of another politician. After the election, it will be too late to reverse the effects of the deception.
Fake news during the process can indeed distort the outcome of the election, as it affects the free formation of the popular will. The speed at which social networks spread incredible versions affects freedom of expression. We are governed by speed, which is why we speak today of “dromocracy” (“dromos”, in Greek, corresponds to street, road, race, route, and even a path of agility).
“Dromology” is the study of this fastest path or shortcut. “Dromocracy” thus discusses the mechanisms for attentive management of digital media in times of fast democracy. Those who decide quickly may end up deciding badly, since conscious decision-making would require tranquility to select premises.
It is undeniable that the fake news can directly affect the results of an election. This is because they violate freedom of expression, which is the basic precept for good information in a democratic state governed by the rule of law. Fake news surrounds and stifles the real debate of political ideas: those who think differently will not have the essential space to express themselves.
“Active citizenship” can only be achieved through the discussion of concrete social problems, not electoral fads or fantasies. Honest political relations therefore involve freely selecting the most relevant public issues and projects. To this end, the electoral process must be free and transparent. Freedom of expression cannot be diminished by the dissemination of fake news.
In elections, citizens vote for the candidate who most closely resembles their worldview. The impenetrable voting booth must ensure the aseptic extraction of the popular will. Tainting candidates with factual inaccuracies can alter their real chances of being elected. Only complete information, positive or negative, can form an educated electorate to freely choose their leaders. Propaganda aims to disseminate ideas, with the goal of influencing people and gaining voter support. It is a valid process and must be restricted to the limits of the “fair play electoral".
It is through propaganda that voters can form their judgment about candidates for elective office. Politics is the accumulation of forces, not the art of goodwill. However, individual choices can be based on personal preferences and affinities, and there is nothing wrong with that. The freedom of voters to like or dislike someone does not, however, legitimize defamation or slander against opponents. The fact that there is no single truth about the dispute of narratives in politics does not authorize anyone to falsify facts about the personal situation of those running for political office.
Social media is a perfect environment for “lies about facts” to spread quickly and be amplified. During election campaigns, fictitious accusations cannot be used to weaken some candidates and artificially fabricate the success of others. The expansion of technological access becomes a threat to the electoral process.
As fake news are the basis of electoral disinformation in a society with limited political education. Control over its dissemination cannot be done solely by the Judiciary. Social mechanisms of control and verification need to be put into practice. Electoral law has provisions that combat false information: these mechanisms are reinforced by the right of reply, the prohibition of anonymity and the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression.[I]
Broad political debates, serious criticism and a plurality of ideas must prevail in elections. Perverting facts, without political time to contradict them, is purposeful misinformation that belittles our democracy. The topic is relevant, and the AGU Democracy Observatory intends to bring the matter to everyone's attention, so that legal and social control mechanisms can be improved. In the era of post-factual politics, it is a given that we are all immersed in post-truth. If pre-lies take over the political scene, our voters will have no way to defend themselves.
*Georghio A. Tomelin, lawyer, holds a PhD in State Law from USP and a PhD in Philosophy from PUC-SP. Advisor to the AGU Democracy Observatory.
Note
[I] For further study of the topic, we recommend the text “Freedom of expression and the dissemination of news preordained to disrupt electoral processes” (published by Georghio Tomelin, Kahio Fernando Garcia Alves and Marcelo Andrade in REDESP 14/2024, v. 8 n. 1 – TRESP EJEP Magazine).
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
