Network
INDOBALINEWS - Recent time has proven again and again the vulnerability of truth. Advancement in technology, evolving political rhetoric, and effective propaganda tactics have rendered truth changeable, although the basics of which states it shouldn’t. Truth is claimed to be what politicians seek, yet they’re rather ignorant of the facts and deny those not corresponding to their interest and ideal. Truth is also shrouded in cover-up and over-the-top rhetoric, creating a narrative of falsehood that replaces the truth in public. In this era, we seem to have strayed further from our past acknowledgement of truth. But is that really the case?
History tells us that the concept of truth was, in the past, based on retellings and scribes. As such, even in the past, truth is barely a qualifying word to begin with. For example, the people of Rome believed that their city was named after Romulus murdered Remus, the original founder of Rome. Although there isn’t much proof to validate the story, the people of Rome believed it to be the truth, because it’s what they’d been told and they didn’t have other sources to doubt the given information. Modern era differs a lot from the past in that information is easily accessible and people have the freedom to interpret the said information, leading to, in many cases, hoax and falsified narrative of the happening. One particular product of this freedom of information is conspiracy theory; a baseless accusation based on one’s “ability to think actively and out of the box”, or so as they claim to be.
The era in which freedom of information is maintained is also called Post Truth. In this era, objective facts are less likely to appeal to people aside from personal belief and bias, in spite of an overabundance of information provided by recent technological advancement. This is also supported by the spread of hoax, misinformation, misinterpretation, et cetera that cause what’s known to be factually correct less appealing to the general public. Politicians, using flaming and factually incorrect rhetoric, appeal to their constituents by saying misleading statements regarding a fact and lead their base to close off all other sources of information; only they can be stated as credible. This is especially true recently, with state politicians popularly calling facts “fake media” and challenging the credibility of the media in front of the public, removing the traditional role of the media as one of the guardians of democracy. Hence, Post Truth politics are born.
In Post Truth politics, politicians, as mentioned earlier, do not use details of their policies campaign to influence the general public, but they frame their policies in such a manner that they appeal to the general public’s emotion. In doing so, however, the details are disconnected and they mostly just repeat their talking points to flare the general public’s emotion. If the reader of this humble article wants to find an example, both Trump (POTUS) and Erdogan (Turkey) have rallies in which they repeatedly scream their slogans (example, Trump’s Make America Great Again and Wall rhetoric) without the details of their policies. But these rallies did capture the emotion of the general public regardless, creating an electoral victory for Trump back in 2016.
Knowing both Post Truths, what’s the connection between these two and political establishment? Political establishment is the heart of a state, the forged interest of its population, and, in many cases, the controlling force of a state’s action. It’s important to note that in the context of democracy, a form of government currently endorsed by the world, political establishment is held accountable by its population. This means that the government (the said political establishment) should be responsible to their population in whatever capacity they serve it, including transparent and reasonable public spending. As once quipped by Lincoln, they are “of the people, by the people, and for the people”.
However, in the era of post truth, even the government is vulnerable to lies. Not only that, but several states, such as Russia (and the US back in 2003 invasion of Iraq), manufacture those lies to masquerade their intentions abroad, for example, the annexation of Crimea. Russian state media and internet bots during the period of annexation broadcasted misleading pro-Russian statements such as their need to protect Russian minority in Crimea from supposedly Ukrainian mobs. This led to the appearance of outright annexation as justified within the Russian population, unaware that this action could be seen as an open declaration of war; only the might of their military prevented this from happening.
In Western Europe, one of the main stronghold of democracy, recent events have proven as well the danger of the government being handled with populist sentiment, especially towards migrants. Several governments, such as Greece, Italy, and France, have elected officials whose policies are unclear, but rhetoric statements were directed against the migrants, creating a sense of “you” versus “them” among the general public. Worryingly, in the United Kingdom, just before Brexit, the trend of politicians of the establishment in spreading false narrative about the EU grew during the Britain EU membership crisis. The false narrative of Brussels’ centralized power (when UK actually had a lot of power as one of the EU’s triumvirate), the intention of EU to de-white the UK through immigration (when Germany was the one who took in the most refugees), and that the commonwealth is still there for UK (though they’re mostly now independent countries).
In Northern America, especially the United States, the reliability of populist politicians in governing is doubtful. As a statistic given by New York Times implies, the presidency handled by Donald John Trump has been called a democratic backsliding following numerous lies told by the white house to the press. For example, even during his first 100 days in office, the administration of Trump has reiterated 20 times more false statements than what Obama had given in his entire presidency. One thing for certain though, every press article that quotes Trump in a negative light or even just slightly criticizes him will be called “fake news”. This isn’t how a democracy operates given that the press is supposed to be the guardian of democracy.
In recent times, especially with the 2020 US election nearing, the administration has been called an example of democracy backsliding. In Portland, Oregon, protestors are being arrested by federal officers without any identification. Not only that, but with the rampant voters’ suppression across states and possible administration sabotage to the USPS (United States Postal Service) have created a sense of the US’ fall to autocracy. The problem, however, doesn’t only lie in the government’s action, but the blindness of the voters in seeing the problems lying in the government is more of a problem. They wouldn’t know they were lied to, because all they voted for was based on their feelings rather than facts, and they wouldn’t know that they’re led astray, until it was too late; the harsh reality of post truth politics.
In the writer’s perspective, the happenings in democracies around the world and the rise of populism are the result of post truth politics. Voters and politicians don’t play the game like it should (vote/campaigning based on facts and interest), but they mostly cater to feelings (see: placebo) than facts and logic based on reality. The deadlier consequences of this trend is expressed thoroughly by Voltaire in just a simple sentence below.
“Those who can make you believe in absurdities, can make you commit atrocities,”
People learn that World War II was the deadliest, they learn that World War II had the first essentially industrialized genocide of mankind, but what they don’t learn is the politics that led to the spark that blew in the deadliest conflict the world has ever seen. The rhetoric, the propaganda, the “you versus them” narrative, the conspiracy theories, and finally the seemingly almighty leader who can do no wrong. It’s only a matter of time before a wrong man, unfit for duty and with fatalistic beliefs, elected to office and starts a narrative of his/her perceived greatness, deceiving the population to follow him/her without any second thought, or hasn’t it been here already?
To safeguard democracy, politicians and their constituents need to change. Change, however vague the term is, can start even from the youngest. This can be practiced through education; instilling a culture of transparency and honesty in the next generation, avoiding the backlash of democracy as we have for now. Not only that, but there’s a need to change the education from a reward based one to a moral one, creating a generation that doesn’t only excel in the fields they’re in, but also safeguard the system guided by the moral they’re taught. The media should also be utilized effectively to safeguard democracy, eliminating perceived dangers to democracy through scoops available to the population at large.
Last, but not least, the writer would like to address the problem of democracy in Indonesia where post truth politics have just hit their onset (spread through politicians believing in lies, conspiracy theories, sectarian opposition, and even denial of the facts). Democracy is fragile, especially in a country with an autocratic past with different versions of military dictatorships. The fragility of democracy can be seen through recent events, where people can be arrested from being accused of “defamation” or even charges as vague as “misleading statements on social media”, especially against political figures. That’s, at least according to this writer, childish and has potential to be used by the wrong person elected to consolidate his power.
The logic is that defamation should not be sued by a person who’s already a public figure in the first place. That person, when elected, should already know that the risk of being a government official is that you’re open to criticism from the public you serve. You shouldn’t sue them for criticizing you because the public is the one elected you to power. That might be incomprehensible, at least for now, to the older section of the populace who’s used to being governed by autocratic leaders. If this isn’t reversed as soon as possible, there’s a chance that the current democracy, brought about by the reformists who paid for it with their life, would fall.
This is an Opinion , Written by Jeffaya A. Basen, Malang City, East Java, on September 25th, 2020 (***)
