The guest: our democracy in the hands of disinformation

Democracy is unique in that it is the only system capable of ending its own life. Indeed, it is based on a series of principles among which we can cite popular sovereignty, the independence of justice, and freedom of the press, freedom of expression or respect for international law. The first of these is its strength, its legitimacy, but also its fragility. Attacked from all sides for years by populist, nationalist and libertarian movements, liberal democracies are close to losing the decisive battle for information.

Our system is strong when popular expression is respected. And to express themselves for themselves, citizens must be able to be informed of the facts. However, for the last decade, Western countries have been plagued by disinformation, particularly via digital platforms. Particularly worrying when we know that, according to the Selects 2023 study, which studies the electoral behavior of the Swiss, 20% of us get our information via websites and social networks. And that the traditional press is increasingly put under pressure.

However, these companies are all in the hands of a handful of men, more powerful than many heads of state and behaving as such, without benefiting from any democratic legitimacy. Following in the footsteps of libertarian Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, boss of Meta (Facebook, Instagram, WhatsApp), announced that he wanted to renounce the moderation of fake news on his platforms. A political act in itself as it offers a boulevard to nationalist populists and their allies – notably Russia, which supports, through disinformation, any approach that could cause Western democracies to falter.

The last voting campaign saw some very respectable leading politicians denying scientific studies in the name of freedom of expression or spreading erroneous information, no doubt spread by lobbies. Were they aware of this or were they manipulated? In any case, these episodes revealed the extent to which our system, although long tested by populism, was in danger.

Fragile barrier

Considering that lying is an opinion is a dizzyingly slippery slope and yet it is an increasingly widespread idea. What can we do? Boycott? What will happen when opinions are no longer separated by algorithms, but by platforms themselves? The barrier between information and opinion will then have completely disappeared, and, living in silos, in parallel realities, we will no longer be able to communicate with each other.

Politicians have a duty to defend our country and its inhabitants against these attacks, whether they come from within or from without. By requiring strict moderation from these platforms, and by guaranteeing the plurality of opinions through serious media. If only so that the law is respected and our beautiful democracy preserved.

Did you find an error? Please report it to us.