OUR PARTNERS
A combination of actors can provide a powerful wave of support to fight online political violence. This programmatic option explores the ways in which cross-party caucuses and parliamentary independent oversight bodies can foster institutionally sustainable and participatory approaches to regulating violence.
Cross-party caucuses and parliamentary oversight bodies can play a role in the prevention of online and physical violence. This programmatic option looks into ways in which they may do so. The following definitions are used:
Independent oversight bodies, parliamentary watchdogs, regulatory bodies, ‘officers of parliament’, parliament’s extended hand and similar terms are some of the names for independent offices or agencies reporting to dedicated parliamentary committees. They are independent from government but also parliament. Parliaments review their reports, which can serve them to perform their oversight function and call government to account on the findings. In recent years, we have seen an expansion in the establishment of independent bodies, in part due to social changes and the need for additional oversight. For example, countries are designating commissioners for information and data protection, commissioners for equality, commissioners for future generations, commissioner for environment and anti-corruption agencies beyond electoral commissions, to name a few.
Cross-party caucuses comprise MPs from all or almost all parliamentary political parties (but having both position and opposition MPs is a must). Cross-party groups provide an important forum for MPs from different parties to share information, discuss policy issues, channel common concerns and engage with relevant organizations.[1] Members of a parliamentary caucus engage in multi-partisan advocacy within parliament, urging MPs to prioritize legislation and budgets, often with a focus on the most vulnerable communities and households. Many parliaments already have caucuses for issues such as gender, climate and health but also SDGs, GOPAC, open parliament and similar concerns. They meet with relevant government entities, civil society and citizens. Based on their work and learning in the caucus, MPs may return to their committees and provide more informed proposals. Finally, due to their informal nature, cross-party caucuses are likely to be efficient prevention and peacebuilding mechanisms.
The role of parliament is to put forward legislative frameworks to prevent (online) electoral and political violence, which may be supported through its independent oversight bodies as well as through cross-party caucuses. Parliamentary committees’ work is particularly important for this process because they review reports submitted by the independent oversight bodies and propose further action. Public engagement may be institutionalized with the cross-party caucuses, audit institutions, ombudsperson, anti-corruption agency, commissioner for information and commissioner for equality through parliamentary committees and similar bodies.
The rapid development of digital technology is a serious challenge to national governance systems in today’s world and may lead to discrepancies in power and/or outpace the legislative framework. Public consultations and parliamentary regulatory and oversight powers need to be employed to secure inclusiveness. Different perspectives on the potential impact of digital technology on the integrity of the public sphere, its potential for manipulation and influence on political processes, legislation and elections need to be discussed and looked at from an inclusive point of view.
Datafied elections: With private companies developing advertising and marketing methods to sell private data to political parties at a rapid pace, elections are also becoming ‘datafied’. Political campaigns combine their own data on voter behaviour with commercial data from data brokers to profile their voters. Given that digital political campaigning may be poorly regulated in certain contexts and countries, and as it may present an area that can influence elections, this too may lead to unrest and protest. Digital platforms are one of the modalities giving people hope and amplifying voices at times of crisis. However, they may also be used to silence certain voices and may exclude those without access. As a result, there is a need for extensive consultations to shape policies and legislation regulating these spaces, and they may benefit from international best practices as well as conversations being held at the global level due to the nature of digital spaces. Cooperation and coordination are key. Internally, for example, cooperation between the electoral commissions and commissioners for information would need to be established throughout the electoral cycle.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) seems to be a vehicle for accelerating the dissemination of political misinformation and disinformation online. Evidently, AI has a role in influencing political discourse. The question seems to be how and to what extent it may affect elections. Trust is a key term in this regard with perceptions related to the harm that AI may cause, potentially fuelling already decreasing levels of trust in elections and democracy. There seems to be a general consensus that there is a dire need for pre-emptive policy and risk management of AI while the overall regulatory framework seems to be outpaced by the rapid development of AI. (Hansard Society, 2024)
Digital platforms governance needs to be based on respect for the right to freedom of expression, access to information and respective standards, making it open and safe for everyone. With the growing danger of disinformation, hate speech and cyberspace risks to the electoral integrity, there is an evident need to facilitate participatory consultations to feed into the development of regulatory frameworks on personal data protection and digital platforms accountability.
The following steps are to be considered as part of this activity:
[1] https://www.parliamentaryindicators.org/indicators/effective/parliamentary-organization/cross-party-groups
The Constitution of Zimbabwe prescribing public engagement in the legislative process and committees; also the National Assembly of Kenya’s petition tracker indicating the committees reviewing petitions and the status on the response by the Parliament(Transparency International, 2023).
United Kingdom House of Commons Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee that in 2019 published its final report ‘Disinformation and “fake news”’ (United Kingdom House of Commons, 2019) following 18 months of inquiry. This report showed the extent of the parliamentary power to regulate and investigate. The report prescribed a mandatory code of ethics for tech companies to be overseen by an independent regulatory body, reforms of electoral communications laws, and rules on overseas involvement in elections.
Canadian Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics that in its 2018 report, ‘Democracy under Threat: Risks and Solutions in the Era of Disinformation and Data Monopoly’(Parliament of Canada, 2018) determined breach of personal data involving Cambridge Analytica and Facebook, as well as broader issues concerning the use of personal data by social media companies and the way in which such companies are responsible for spreading misinformation and disinformation.
For more informations contact : [email protected]
follow us on Twitter