Crisis of confidence: Disinformation erodes democratic stability
In a fast-changing world, political manipulation and disinformation deepen societal fractures, accelerating radicalization and authoritarian trends in once-stable democracies worldwide.
In a nutshell
- Authorities manipulate narratives to avoid politically sensitive issues
- Governments obscure inconvenient truths to maintain control and support
- Disinformation is used to deflect criticism and postpone difficult reforms
In crises, it becomes clear how much citizens’ perceptions of reality differ from the sometimes distorted images presented to them by those in power. Established democracies are experiencing an endemic crisis of confidence fueled by leaders’ quests for power, combined with uncontrolled immigration, that is shaking the foundations of social cohesion. The radical forces on the fringes of society are growing, the political center is shrinking, and with it, the voice of reason. Manipulation of public opinion by those in power – or those seeking to destabilize it – is accelerating radicalization, already leading to civil war-like conflicts in some hotspots.
Two recent examples come to mind in the democratic world. In the United States, President Joe Biden’s physical and psychological overexertion was already obvious when, in 2023, he announced his candidacy for a second term. Yet the White House, the Democratic Party establishment and a majority of commentators in the country’s leading media outlets repeatedly maintained that he was fully fit to hold office. In the United Kingdom, the newly elected Labour government faced riots directed against migrants; Downing Street was right to use police force to counter the violence. But instead of also analyzing the multifaceted causes of the anger impartially and preparing a change in economic and migration policies to address grievances, it chose to mobilize exclusively against “Islamophobia” and the “far right.” This suggested that even in the motherland of parliamentary democracy, the contours of authoritarianism may be emerging.
Democracy faces a test
Ignoring growing criticism on social media, governments and government-affiliated media in both countries sought to impose a distorted picture of reality on the public by concealing, whitewashing and sewing outright disinformation. That is eerily similar to the complete lack of freedom of information in authoritarian states like China and Russia, where those in control, in an effort to entrench their uncontested rein on power domestically and further it beyond their borders, routinely deceive their people and hide the truth. That such attempts fail sooner or later is a lesson from history: “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time,” as Abraham Lincoln is purported to have said.
In recent American history, Watergate, the Iran-Contra affair and the weapons of mass destruction allegedly stored in Iraq were examples of “fooling by disinformation.” That ploy was used again by the Democratic camp in the current election campaign. The party establishment’s claim that Joe Biden was physically and mentally capable of another four years of the presidency was stubbornly maintained even when Americans had long since formed their own opinion of the president’s condition from his TV appearances. The first doubts about Mr. Biden’s health were already expressed when he announced his candidacy in April 2023. A poll published in August of that year found that 77 percent of Americans, including 69 percent of Democrats, thought President Biden was too old to run against Donald Trump again. Nevertheless, it would be 10 months before Mr. Biden’s pitiful debacle in the CNN debate with former President Trump on June 27 in front of 50 million viewers brought clarity.
“The debate was not just a catastrophe for President Biden,” wrote American journalist Bari Weiss, “it was more than that. It was a catastrophe for an entire class of experts, journalists and pundits, who have, since 2020, insisted that Biden was sharp as a tack, on top of his game, basically doing handstands while peppering his staff with tough questions about care for migrant children and aid to Ukraine.”
“You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.”
Anyone who committed the transgression of using their own eyes on the 46th president was accused, variously, of being Trumpers; MAGA cult members who do not want American democracy to survive; ageists; or just dummies easily duped by “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “fake news” and, most recently, “cheapfakes” (media manipulations produced using inexpensive, widely available tools).
The reason people hide the truth
But why did the White House and the Democratic Party cling to the legend of the fit president for so long? One honorable motive was respect for Mr. Biden and his life’s work. Another was to protect him as best as possible from attacks from the Trump camp.
Mr. Biden’s weaknesses were denied until, due to time constraints, only Vice President Kamala Harris was considered viable as his successor. It was by no means certain that the Democratic Party would have chosen Ms. Harris in a fair intra-party contest. Before being nominated as the party’s candidate for the presidency, her popularity was low, and her performance as vice president was unremarkable. Even sympathetic commentators admitted that she had failed in the area of addressing the root causes in third countries of mass immigration to the U.S., which she was given responsibility for curbing. Had an open debate taken place earlier in the campaign cycle, it could have destabilized the party and caused political chaos. The Democratic establishment expected Ms. Harris to guarantee the continuation of President Biden’s reelection course.
Three months before the presidential election in the U.S., Americans were presented with a paradoxical picture: President Biden, who was campaigning for the last time despite his cognitive deficits due to advanced aging, was considered by many of the American people to be the only candidate who could defeat Mr. Trump. Then, rather suddenly, he was eliminated after the truth came out on the televised debate. Subsequently, following her accepting the Democratic nomination in August, 59 year-old Kamala Harris has avoided giving interviews or press conferences at which she would have to comment on fundamental political questions. Instead, she goes from one rally to the next with her trademark laugh, thinking that she is spreading good cheer and making 78 year-old Mr. Trump look elderly.
Facts & figures
A disinformation primer: Not all falsehoods are the same
Lie: A false statement made with the intention to deceive.
Misinformation: The unintentional spreading of false information that the sender believes to be true.
Disinformation: False or misleading information deliberately spread to deceive or mislead people.
Manipulation: The act of influencing or controlling someone or something, often in a deceptive or unfair way, to achieve a desired outcome.
Conspiracy theory: A belief or explanation that suggests events are the result of a secret, often sinister, plot by a group or organization, typically lacking substantial evidence.
Abraham Lincoln’s warning is still valid, but needs to be updated on one important point: Those who deliberately leave the public in the dark by withholding information or actively disinforming them are themselves the ones who contribute most to the spread of fake news and conspiracy myths. That shakes confidence in democracy or obliterates it. The result of the destruction of democracy can be seen in today’s Russia. President Vladimir Putin has done just this, prohibiting free media, imprisoning and killing voices of reason and forcibly spreading his own narrative to feed his hunger for power. Russia’s elections, like its democracy, are no longer considered either free or fair.
Dangers of avoiding transparent discourse with voters
The violent riots that broke out in the UK city of Southport and quickly spread to several cities in Britain and Northern Ireland show how dangerous disinformation can be.
On July 29, 17-year-old Axel Rudakubana stabbed three girls aged six, seven and nine to death in a dance school and seriously injured eight other children and three adults. The next day, racist extremists joined by several Southport residents attacked the local mosque after a memorial rally, looted immigrant-run businesses, set cars on fire and injured more than 50 police officers. The identity of the alleged perpetrator was not initially disclosed (as per the law), allowing a rumor to spread on social media that he was a Muslim refugee. In fact, Mr. Rudakubana is neither Muslim nor a refugee; he was born in Lancashire to Christian immigrants from Rwanda.
Announcing his identity earlier may not have changed the racist anger directed against all non-whites. But while politicians, led by the new Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and the media, unanimously condemned the violence of right-wing extremists and the judiciary imposed drastic punishments in summary proceedings, the counter-violence of the Islamists, who armed themselves in a “Muslim Defense League,” remained under-reported. The Somali-born journalist Ayaan Hirsi Ali commented that “minority communities are treated with kid gloves in comparison to native Britons.”
Read opinions and comments on pressing issues
- Europe’s biggest challenge comes from within
- The EU won’t let a good crisis go to waste
- Called to serve
- Vatican geopolitics
- An era of dogmatism
The moniker “Two-Tier Keir” latched itself onto the man who was only Prime Minister for a month. Instead of condemning the use of violence equally, regardless of who it comes from or against whom it is directed, Mr. Starmer decided to single out what he calls the “far right” and made a point of stressing the need to keep Muslims and minority communities safe. His rhetoric serves to embolden disaffected Muslim youths by furthering the narrative that Muslims are persecuted in Western countries. It is this narrative that Islamists seize upon to radicalize the population and stir young men to violence. The response also serves to demoralize the British population, many of whom have found that their extreme concern over the effects of mass immigration falls on deaf ears.
Migration and its challenges deserve honest consideration
With a total population of nearly 67 million in the UK, the 2021-2022 census registered 10.7 million migrants (foreign-born members of the population). This represents a share of just under 17 percent, though it increased by nearly a third compared to the 2011 census. It is estimated that the number of migrants increased by a further 1.4 million in 2022 and 2023 alone, two-thirds from non-EU countries, with immigration of people born in the EU decreasing. The proportion of people born abroad is particularly high in London and the southeast of England, where around 47 percent of foreign-born UK residents live.
Unlike the U.S., the UK was not a country of immigration until the second half of the 20th century. It was not until after World War II in 1948 that the British Nationality Act legalized immigration from countries that were once part of the Empire and now are part of the Commonwealth. By the 1960s, hundreds of thousands of people had already come to the UK in this way. The Commonwealth Immigrants Act (1962) accelerated immigration by making it easier for families to join those already in the UK.
The first major conflicts between migrants and locals broke out in London at the end of the 1950s. However, the attempt by right-wing extremists around fascist leader Oswald Mosley to use the unrest for their own ends failed. At the time, the majority of Britons spoke out against the steady influx of migrants, but racist motives played only a minor role. An April 1968 poll by Gallup found that 75 percent of the British public believed that controls on immigration were not strict enough. That figure would soon rise to 83 percent. On April 20, 1968, the Conservative Member of Parliament Enoch Powell warned party members in Birmingham of the consequences. Quoting Virgil, he said, “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.’” The speech sparked heated debate and prompted Edward Heath to exclude Mr. Powell from his shadow cabinet. Nevertheless, polls showed that his position was widely approved (69 percent) and it probably contributed significantly to the Conservatives’ election victory in June 1970.
Late Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher made similar comments in a television interview in 1978:
If we went on as we are then by the end of the century there would be four million people of the new Commonwealth or Pakistan here. Now, that is an awful lot and I think it means that people are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture and, you know, the British character has done so much for democracy, for law and done so much throughout the world that if there is any fear that it might be swamped people are going to react and be rather hostile to those coming in.
But even during Ms. Thatcher’s time in office and especially after the end of her era in November 1990, the “multicultural” transformation continued through the constant influx. Instead of addressing concerns, politicians and the press began to throw accusations back at the public, ignoring reality. This was done not just through charges of “racism” and “bigotry,” but in a series of deflecting tactics that became a replacement for action. Socialists, liberals and conservatives all came to terms with it. The more recent prime minister, Boris Johnson, wrote in The Telegraph in 2012: “We need to stop moaning about the dam-burst. It’s happened. There is nothing we can now do except make the process of absorption as eupeptic as possible.”
There are also concerns about migrant crimes, especially sexual crimes against native populations. But such worries in the UK are swept under the carpet and have not changed the optimistic tone of the government and the well-meaning press. Authorities look the other way. It took more than 10 years to solve the case of the abuse of 1,400 mostly vulnerable white girls of working class origin and the daughters of Asian families by Pakistani child molesters. Every time “grooming” scandals occurred, local authorities turned a blind eye for fear of causing community problems or being accused of racism, disinforming their constituents.
Scenarios
Likely: Irregular immigration to continue despite integration failures
In the past 10 years, 29 million migrants came to Europe, legally or illegally. Despite all political declarations of intent to regulate and reduce migration flows, uncontrolled immigration continues. A clear example of this conundrum is Sweden, where families of immigrants now make up a significant portion of the population and integration has failed. In 2023, 385,000 migrants arrived in Europe without following established procedures, and the pressure to abandon migrants’ home countries is increasing. According to estimates, the number of refugees worldwide was 114 million in 2023.
In the absence of an effective strategy to curb immigration and deport migrants who are staying in Europe illegally or committing crimes, Enoch Powell’s warning about the “rivers of blood” is more relevant today than ever.
Unlikely: Countries receiving migrants will maintain vibrant democracies
In view of the increasing risk of violent clashes between locals and migrants of starkly differing cultural and religious backgrounds, European democracies are set to take on increasingly authoritarian traits. Surveillance of citizens will intensify, and freedom of expression will be restricted. At the same time, as governments restrict the rights of the native-born population, authorities will do little to ensure migrant societies adhere to democratic norms, and instead, authorities may allow increasingly large pockets of culturally alien migrants to govern themselves by their own laws, potentially including Sharia law.
For industry-specific scenarios and bespoke geopolitical intelligence, contact us and we will provide you with more information about our advisory services.
Sign up for our newsletter
Receive insights from our experts every week in your inbox.
