Screen politics

I call it TV democracy. People spend years watching superficial and foolish things on their TV screens – most of the channels are just light on substance and short on comprehensiveness – and then acquire a simple and biased view of public life. They are therefore ready to vote for people like Donald Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, meaning, for simple minds that speak to the most common stereotypes and views. Those elected have the legitimacy the polls give to the winners. But they do not possess the knowledge and the experience that are required to lead a country. They know that. They react to it through arrogance and a fighting stance. And they keep implementing demagogic and inflammatory policies, to hide their weaknesses and respond to the primary feelings of the TV watchers. Their leadership is based on showmanship, on theatrics, and on headlines.

This ends up by eroding the democratic institutions and creating deep fractures within the nation. These leaders are expert dividers, specialists on managing people’s passions and instincts.

TV democracy is a serious threat to national progress, social cohesion, and stability. Unfortunately, in many countries, we seem to be moving in such a direction.

Fake news

This April has been an exceedingly difficult month for so many all over the world. We know the reason, the visible reason. But behind it, there is a lot that remains unclear. And when the clarity is missing, some people just take advantage to launch their own campaigns, particularly those fellows who have ill intentions. That explains the large number of fake news that is spread through social platforms daily. Unfortunately, those fakes get lots of followers. And they are amplified by bots, internet robots. One of them is about the 5G telecommunications network. I wonder who might be behind the crusade against 5G. Who would gain by sabotaging that advanced system? The fact of the matter is that someone or some organisation is trying to undermine the credibility of the fifth-generation technology for cellular networks.

The Chinese Communists do not know how to communicate

I have not talked with President Xi Jinping. But I guess he is immensely worried with what is going on in China. There is a major public health problem. We might not know all the dimensions of the problem, but there is no doubt it is a huge challenge for everyone in the country. But besides the health deep concerns, the coronavirus epidemic is creating major economic, social and, I would dare to say, political problems in China. The streets and the malls have been deserted. People are afraid of the contagion. But above all, they are not getting the message that matters politically: that the government knows what they are doing and will be able to control the spreading of the disease. This message must be formulated soonest. And must be made credible.

I do not see it addressed in the next few days. The government knows how to direct but it is not very good when it comes to communication techniques. The official line, repeated again and again, and expected to be trusted because in comes from the top, is not being accepted by the people. They are just growing more and more concerned.

Beijing and the coronavirus messages

The Chinese people are now very well connected through social media. They share information and images freely, as long as they make use of the approved platforms and applications and the subjects are not politically censored. The people’s information is more trusted than the official information provided by the government and its media-subordinated outlets.

This is now the situation with coronavirus epidemic. Most of the information is obtained through social platforms. And they show that the health services are under extraordinary pressure and cannot respond to all the demands. They also show that some districts bordering the affected areas are taking local initiatives that are not necessarily approved by Beijing. These initiatives included roadblocks and interdictions. They have all the trademarks of spontaneous, impulsive actions. That seems to indicate serious panicking and a bit of chaos. 

It is true that this is a major challenge. The messages coming from the centre, from the leadership, show concern but lack the necessary reassurances that an emergency like this one requires. I get the impression that the official communication strategy is still unclear and unfocused.

The critical importance of civic movements

As I get ready to address a key civil society association that brings together several prominent NGOs and citizens’ groups on matters of geopolitics and strategy, I try to concentrate my speech on three messages.

First, in today’s world, civic movements are key agents of social change. They contribute more than political parties to real value transformation, as, among others, #MeToo, the #ClimateStrike, the #UmbrellaMovement of Hong Kong, the LGBTQ grassroots actions, or India’s people’s campaign against corruption (@IPaidABribe) have shown. Governments know that fact and that’s why they are afraid of such movements. On the side of the political parties, their leaders are yet to understand how to connect with the citizen’s initiatives without falling into populist approaches and rhetoric.

Second, I would like my audience to discuss the role of the social platforms and the interaction between such networks and traditional media. In my opinion, the networks link people and keep them informed and mobilised, but it is the traditional media that gives a critical boost to such civic initiatives and struggles. TV channels, above all, but also credible print media. When they report about what is brewing in the social media, they give the cause a lot of leverage. They add a critical element of credibility. Therefore, we should not dismiss the links between the new and the conventional means of communication.

Third, we need to understand success. What makes a citizen’s movement successful? There is now some research on the matter. It needs to be further systematised and disseminated. Special attention must be given to issues of good leadership, personal commitment, focus, simplicity and image. But several lessons can already be drawn.

Fragmentation and the balance of interests

Recently, I have seen a bit of alarm about our “divided societies”. Some analysts would even say that we are more divided than ever, and they would point in the direction of the social platforms as the vehicles used to promote splits – and conflicts – among the people.

It’s true that Facebook, Twitter and other instruments of communication are being used to propagate all sorts of views. And to create a group mentality that aims at opposing – and fighting, as well – another set of opinions.

But I think the reference to fragmentation is exaggerated. Our societies have for a long time been composed of different social categories. Politics and democracy have been the translation of different interests and distinct views about societal organisation and our common destiny as a nation. Diversity is the norm. And we should not be afraid of it. The point is to be able to find the equilibrium between the interests of diverse categories of people. That’s what leadership must be about.