-Shirin Ebadi and Christophe Deloire
These trends can be reversed, but only if we agree on the causes of democratic backsliding and target our solutions accordingly.
That is easier said than done. In her 1967 essay “Truth and Politics,” the philosopher Hannah Arendt noted that, “Freedom of opinion is a farce unless factual information is guaranteed and the facts themselves are not in dispute.” Unfortunately, Arendt’s farce has become our reality.
For any democracy to be meaningful, its people need access to trustworthy information produced in a free and pluralistic environment. But this basic requirement is being tested as never before. Around the world, oligarchs are buying up media outlets to promote their interests and increase their influence, while journalists who report on issues like discrimination and corruption are met with intimidation, violence, and murder. How can we guarantee freedom of opinion under such conditions?
Information and communication technologies were supposed to give us more freedom, not less. The early Internet democratized news and ended the dominance of traditional publishers and pro-government conglomerates. But this initial promise has given way to an “information jungle,” where deep-pocketed predators outmaneuver an unassuming public. Today, governments wage information wars; politicians use social media to spread lies; and corporate lobbyists disseminate deceptive content with ease. As a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology recently found, fake news spreads online faster than real news—often significantly so.
Simply put, the globalization of information has tipped the scales in favor of those who view falsehood as a tool of control. Dictators easily export their ideas to open societies, whereas content produced under conditions of freedom rarely moves in the opposite direction. This challenge has been magnified by the growth of multinational technology companies, which have come to dictate the architecture of the public sphere.
In the history of democracy, mechanisms have evolved to improve the accuracy and ethics of journalism. Although imperfect and often invisible, these regulatory protections have brought many benefits to users and producers alike. But the pace of change in the media industry—for example, between television and print, or news and advertising—has blurred the clear distinctions on which these rules were originally based.
Protecting democratic ideals in this conflicting environment is a vital and historic task. That is why Reporters Without Borders (RSF) is joining with Nobel laureates, technology specialists, journalists, and human rights activists to launch the Information and Democracy Commission. As co-chairs of this independent initiative, our goal is to refocus global attention on the value of “a free and pluralistic public space,” and to offer solutions that enable journalists to work without fear of reprisal and allow the public to access accurate information easily.
In the coming weeks, we will draft an International Declaration on Information and Democracy, and in coordination with the leaders of several democratic countries, work to secure support from governments around the world. Our efforts will accelerate in mid-November, when global leaders gather in Paris to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day and to attend the Peace Forum and the Internet Governance Forum.
Democracy, with its roots in the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and reason, must be defended. Democratic governments and citizens must not fall victim to fake news, “trolls,” and the whims of despots. The International Declaration on Information and Democracy is intended to strengthen open societies’ ability to combat authoritarian forces.
We all have the good fortune to be alive during a period of extraordinary technological potential. And yet, we also have the responsibility to ensure that new ways to share information are not turned into tools of oppression. As the mission statement of our commission succinctly puts it: “Democracy’s survival is at stake, because democracy cannot survive without an informed, open, and dynamic public debate.”