We live in interesting times and are faced with new challenges that are peculiar to this era, the information era. Computers, miniaturisation, internet and the big techs like google, and social media platforms like twitter, facebook, whatsapp, etc have transformed the world in which we live, in more ways than one; some good for humanity and some not so good. It had to be so; my spiritual learning tells me that we are spiritual beings who live in this material world of duality. Good and bad co-exist, as they are but two sides of the same coin. We human beings are given an intellect to be able to decipher what we want for ourselves; the very valuable freedom of choice. Information era demands that we exercise this choice wisely, lest we will lose what we have, our freedoms.
The good part of this era is that it has literally transformed this planet into a global village (of course our own family & neighbours have become relatively distant); one has been able to discover long lost friends from school days, even when they are living anywhere on the planet; one has information on any subject literally on the fingertips, thru a keyboard of a computer/ smartphone (of course, some of it may be misinformation, disinformation or plain fake); and one's voice can be heard all across the globe (but only if you are lucky to live in free and open societies).
Aren't we lucky to live in such free and open societies that we call democracies, where freedoms are guaranteed by the Constitution. Citizens of closed countries like China, North Korea and others do not enjoy the same rights as we do. However, the dual nature of these freedoms have their own challenges, in terms of the balancing of rights vs responsibilities/ duties, as citizens. Information era has brought in many conveniences, but with changes/ challenges that we are not yet prepared for as human beings, or so it seems.
The big techs are giants with global reach that work as per their own norms, which may not be consistent with the laws/ norms/ cultural practices of various societies/ governments, all across the world. Closed countries find it easy to block them. Democracies that guarantee freedom of speech are caught in a Catch-22 situation. Blocking/ interjecting by the govt is not a normal option. Thus the big techs have total control on the narrative on the their platforms, based on their norms. These may be at variance with the govt of a nation-state - a globally accepted unit that exercises political sovereignty, in our times.
The internet permits any citizen of a democracy to access these social media platforms from any where in the world. This coupled with the fact that convergence of technologies/ miniaturisation had ensured that every one these days has the tools to generate, alter, modify, transmit and access information through a smart phone connected to the internet.
Thus social media platforms with international reach, & with the big techs controlling the narrative, as they deem fit, the govts are slowly losing their position/ control as sole repositories/ transmitters of information that they once were in the earlier eras. Privatisation of media led to some dilution of govt control over the information available to citizens, but the print/ audio-visual media had its own limitations/ priorities, as far as availability/ dissemination of information was concerned. Social media has led to a revolution of the amount and type of information available, all across the world.
Three events in the past few months stand out - the first two in the most powerful democracy of the world, and one in the largest democracy of the world; US BLM movement, insurrection at the US Capitol, & mayhem/ violence in the national capital of India on India's Republic day. Social media definitely has a critical role to play; in the spread of real time graphic information, addition of connected historical information by concerned/ vested interests from the affected area, & beyond, which includes international groups, & finally in the building of the narrative, all in real time. This narrative leads to inflamed passions, which mobilises/ pushes a minority section of the people to take the law in to their own hands, and disturb the law and order. Genuineness, or otherwise, of the reasons are not important - they were perceived to be genuine by a section of the citizenry. Democracies pride themselves to guarantee its citizens certain fundamental freedoms; they are not police states. Police is a tool to maintain law and order under normal conditions. Sudden flash events which trigger a group of peaceful, law abiding citizens to resort to violence are difficult to anticipate, and thus overwhelm the routine policing function of maintaining law and order. A state is then faced with serious breakdown of law and order, and violence, in which lives are lost.
A citizen and his inalienable rights are the guiding principles of a democracy. These rights can only be ensured by the state's ability to maintain law and order. The state is thus given the power to perform/ unleash controlled actions/ violence, to meet this critical need. All this is subject to judicial sanction/ scrutiny, to ensure that the state does not exceed its brief against the country's own citizenry. The social media inflamed violence, aided/ abetted by vested interests from within and outside the country, is a growing phenomena of the present situation. Small mobs of driven citizens the overwhelm the law and order mechanism of an area. The mob in all the above three cases was a minuscule of the total population; police running for cover from violent mobs after being outnumbered, make a sad sight. What happens to the freedoms of the balance major part of the population; it will suffer
The present format of democracies, with free, open and plural settings will find it very difficult to deal with such breakdown, and violent outbursts, inflamed by an overload of genuine as well as fake information on the social media. A relatively small group of disgruntled/ dissatisfied/ aggrieved and inflamed citizens can hold duly elected governments to ransom. Free and open democracies will find it challenging to find a balance between individual freedoms and the constitutionally and legally endowed power, including the power to unleash controlled violence, of the state.
Closed countries, like China, can control the narrative in their own country, by denying fundamental rights to their own citizens. They are also known to foment trouble in target countries by turning the strengths of open and free societies in to a weakness. They are known to use in-state, out of state, and non-state actors to accomplish their stated goals. This task is made easier due to the migration of people from different parts of the world, people who immigrate seeking a better life in free and open democracies. How does this impact?
The present United Nations Organisation was formed after the most devastating world war of the industrial age. Nation-states was/ is the accepted form of political representation of people from a region. This has served us well for the past over 7.5 decades. However, we are now at a cross roads. An excerpted paragraph from my article on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of 2020 would give one an idea.
The International Crisis Group plan for peace, of October 2005, speaks of the “contradiction between two principles of international law: the sanctity of international borders and the right to self-determination”. How can these be resolved in modern nation-states? Are these finally going to be the death knell for the present way of organising human beings into political entities represented by nation-states? These are questions that will need to be addressed to prevent wars between nation-states.
Citizens of free societies will have to understand this new paradigm shift.
Information age has led to tremendous empowerment of the citizens of democracies, but has also contributed to increasing challenges faced by democratically elected govts. In case the elected governments cannot maintain law and order, then the rights of each and every citizen will be infringed. In the short to medium term, citizens of free and open societies now have a choice; a state-enforced curb on individual freedoms, or a growth in human consciousness to facilitate governance so as to retain these inalienable freedoms.
We are living in a gray zone now; we have the globally accepted political system of nation-states, all members of the UNO, which range from fully closed to fully open, and various shades in between. These nation-states have legal jurisdiction over its own citizens and its own geography. We have tech giants who run global platforms, across all permissive nation-states, and these have their own organisational norms for controlling the flow of information/ narratives. We have citizens immigrating to other lands, who continue to retain deep cultural and social ties with their home countries. These ethno-religious sub groups are a political force in democracies, which sometimes leads to undesirable consequences in international politics.
How do you think the world is going to evolve? Are humans heading towards a higher consciousness or are we heading for a revolution and the denial of the inalienable rights of humans by the state, so as to help maintain law and order? Democracies are not perfect, but they are the best form of governance that we have seen so far. Can we think of a better system of law making and governance that ensures all freedoms and governance at the same time? Are the days of democracies, where the 'rule of majority making the law, which all follow', limited?
Comments