By Dr Samuel Chindaro
The 2018 Zimbabwe elections saw an unprecedented use of social media for political
campaigns, debates, discussions, disseminating of information, and news
provision. The internet and social media,
supported by the revitalised democratic approach by the new dispensation,
created a level of transparency in the election process that has never existed
in Zimbabwe before. It was evident that social media will continue to play an
important role in the future political discourse of the country.
Zimbabwe’s
political landscape has changed significantly in the last year with the exit
from the political field of the two main actors, Mugabe and Tsvangirai, and the
fresh approach by President Mnangagwa; and the internet has played a significant
role in this transformation. Social media is now a serious factor in political
campaigns in the country and in the way people think about issues.
Taking the lead,
in an unprecedented move by a Zimbabwean President, was the President himself
who interacted directly with people via his official Facebook page and Twitter
handle. He took time to respond to questions posted on his page; providing
previously unimaginable access to the country’s leadership. The opposition leader, Nelson Chamisa was also
active in this respect, using the platforms to mobilise his support.
Zimbabweans
embraced the opportunity to interact more easily with candidates and officials
without attending live events which were streamed live by different online
media outlets, individuals and organisations. Some politicians availed
themselves temporarily on various Whatssupp groups in question-and-answer
sessions. It was proof that the availability of alternative ways to ensure
coverage of political parties have evolved so much that access to “state media”
as a judgement of election fairness is not only retrogressive and unreasonable,
but also irrelevant in this digital age!
For political
leaders, it was an incredibly efficient way to quickly explain events, ideals
and plans. Unfortunately, at the same time, social media offered false comfort
to some politicians; as evidenced by events that unfolded. Several candidates
were lured into a false sense of comfort and popularity by the number of
followers, number of re-tweets and ‘likes’ neglecting the high likelihood that most
these were from either diasporans, people outside their constituencies or
simply unregistered voters, and got the shock of their lives when elections
came around! Additionally; there were also several politicians and activists
who were caught “offside” by the unforgiving digital footprint; as their
previous posts came back to haunt them when they shifted positions or
contradicted themselves.
The
unprecedented attention given to the Zimbabwe elections under the new
dispensation brought with it a mixture of participants which included
international observers, self-exiled politicians and self-appointed political
commentators, experts and armchair critics, most of whom were very active in
social media. It was apparent that even though social media platforms are
extremely powerful with a huge reach, they also have the potential to be used by
political mis-contents and criminals to cause political harm and social
disturbances.
Even though
social media can enrich the political process, it also comes with dangerous
possibilities. Following in the footsteps of the Trump-Russia-Facebook fake
news scandal; it was evident that political and social harm could be inflicted
on Zimbabwe by the misuse of social media to spread fake news. The election
process witnessed a flurry of fake news, sensationalisation of issues and
incitement of violence among other vices. It was proof that Facebook and
Twitter are no longer just social networks, but information media that is
dangerously easy to use as a weapon.
The platforms
offered a rich environment for those who wanted to increase polarisation and
incite violence; with self-exiled politicians who had fallen out with the new
dispensation, and opposition activists playing a prominent role. For example,
social media activists; whilst hiding behind their keyboards and/or their
diaspora bases, were able to abet the incitement of some people to start
violent protests in the guise of “defending their vote” even though the
election results had not yet been announced.
Nothing online
is always exactly as it seems and Whatssupp, Facebook and Twitter platforms
were the most prevalent source of fake news before, during and after the
elections in Zimbabwe. Like accusations of witchcraft, some of the fake stories
got repeated often enough that they appeared to be legitimate. It was often
difficult to distinguish articles that were misinformed from those that had
been carefully researched on fact. The constant stream of links and rumours
about political leaders and candidates was a mixture of truth, lies, satire and
speculation with several of them being based on pure fabrications.
Typical examples
of fake news were a video purporting to prove ballot stuffing, which was letter
identified to be one from Kenya; and another one which was being promoted to
prove post-election violence which was letter discovered to have originated
from Nigeria! A lot of fake pictures and videos were also circulated and shared
with the various observers and organisations through tagging, mostly of violent
scenes from incidents far away from Zimbabwe, which formulated opinions of some
of the gullible individuals, especially those that had pre-conceived
perceptions of Zimbabwe. The opposition were caught in this web of fake news
and fabrications to an extent that they tried to unwisely use it as evidence in
their election challenge!
This brings us
to one of the hidden forces that operated on social media; which was “confirmation
bias”. “Confirmation bias” is defined as
the tendency of people to seek out only information they agree with. It limits
people’s ability to question information that confirms or upholds their beliefs
and people are inclined to interpret new evidence in light of beliefs
associated with their social groups.
Listening to one
Georgina Godwin on Sky News presenting opinions based on her Twitter feed as
facts reinforced the “confirmation bias” phenomenon. Some of the observer
reports were also based on unverified reports from their Twitter feeds which
they accepted as facts most likely based on the “confirmation bias” syndrome. They
became part of small, deeply polarised groups of individuals who tended to
believe everything they heard, no matter how divorced from reality. Surely how
would you expect an observer from a country that had pre-judged the elections
by imposing sanctions on the country before the elections not to suffer from
“confirmation bias”?
The majority of
followers on social media probably share common outlooks with the majority of feeds
within these groups tending to express the same point of view. Inevitably some
people became fuelled by the belief that only their views existed as they were
never exposed to contradictory ones. Confirmation bias limited people’s ability
to question information that confirmed or upheld their beliefs, unfriending and
blocking people who posted contradictory opinions, creating an echo chamber. It was common to be told “to go and play
with your friends” if you did not echo the views of the group. It is this pre-selection
and confirmation bias that fake news exploited with precision!
For this reason,
social media reinforced opinions and made it more difficult for people to
entertain
alternative points of view. It helped to make people more opinionated
and less tolerant of others. The result was social media with a political
discourse that was devoid of real ideas and broken into several polarised
groups, which were deeply divided on partisan grounds, even on fundamental
political issues.
The Zimbabwean
experience reinforced the notion that social media can be a threat to the
public’s political knowledge by constraining contact with diverse viewpoints
and alternative beliefs. To overcome some of the negatives of using social
media, one should make an effort to connect with an assortment of people with
diverse viewpoints. Politicians should continue to embrace the opportunities
that social media brings as a valuable source of information and use it to
manage their own campaigns, publicise and initiate important socio-economic
issues. It is incumbent upon everyone involved in the political process to make
sure social media power is used to harness everything good about the Zimbabwean
political system, rather than to hasten political trends that are hurting the
country.
Without
sufficient regulation, there is a clear danger as social media can be powerful
enough to brainwash, incite, misinform and polarise Zimbabweans. This should of
cause be carefully balanced with allowing open debate and protecting the
freedom of expression.
Despite concern
about this new information warfare and its potential negative impact on Zimbabwean
politics, there are reasons for optimism. Knowledge of how fake news and
confirmation bias affects us can ultimately change behaviour, helps us to not
succumb to the manipulation, which ultimately strengthens democracy. It is easy
to be influenced by misinformation posted by friends, leaders and followers,
even if they do not intend to mislead you. It is therefore necessary to use a
great deal of discernment before believing anything you read on social media.
We can use
social media as a medium for common ground on important issues plaguing the
country and as a place of healing. At
the very least, we should use social media to better understand those who voted
differently than we did. However, this requires commitment to civility and
tolerance of disagreement and self-control.
If we use our
social networks to promote objectivity and civility, instead of partisanship
and volatility, then we turn social media into truly one of our most important
and powerful tools. If your posts are expressions of ridicule for those who
support opposition politicians, ask yourself how much value you are getting
from the time spent writing those tweets or comments.
Dr Samuel
Chindaro holds a PhD in Electronics (University of Kent), MSc in Electronics
and IT (University of Birmingham) and a B.Eng. Hons in Electronic Engineering
(NUST). He is also a Chartered Engineer (Institution of Engineering and
Technology). He can be contacted on S.Chindaro@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment