© EDM

With a global population exceeding 7.5 billion, almost 3,5 billion people around the world have the opportunity to vote in a series of large scale-elections in 2024. However, the integrity of democratic processes is under threat by the increasing spread of disinformation and misinformation, which calls their legitimacy into question. The bedrock of a healthy democracy is open, fact-based discourse and a well-informed citizenry. However, the expected avalanche of election-related falsehoods that will spread like a virus through the information ecosystem is a cause for great concern. Research has shown that fake news is capable of fuelling alarming division in society and undermining public trust in electoral institutions.

As citizens make their voices heard at the ballot box, vigilance and discernment are essential to navigate the minefield of disinformation. The very foundations of self-governance hang in the balance.

The greatest concern with the ongoing and upcoming global elections is the corrupting influence that malicious actors are exerting through a variety of insidious means.

Traditional propaganda tactics such as warmongering and xenophobic disinformation pose a constant threat to the integrity of the electoral process. Equally worrying are unfounded smear campaigns against political candidates and the rise of AI-generated deepfakes – digitally created visual media designed to deceive.

Anti-democratic forces may even attempt to attack the electoral infrastructure itself, as the incident in Spain in July 2023 showed. In the run-up to a regional election, malicious foreign agents set up a fake website posing as an official portal of the Madrid regional government, falsely claiming that terrorists were planning attacks on polling stations. Such brazen attempts to undermine public confidence in the electoral process are a sobering reminder of the challenges facing a free and fair democracy.

A complimentary educational poster issued by Prestwick House, cautioning against the spread of misinformation © Prestwickhouse

In the age of ubiquitous digital information, it is increasingly important to distinguish between two closely related but distinct concepts – disinformation and misinformation.

Disinformation is the deliberate creation and dissemination of false or misleading information with the aim of deceiving or manipulating the target audience. This can take various forms, such as fabricated news, manipulated images or coordinated social media campaigns aimed at spreading falsehoods. The main distinguishing feature of disinformation is the deliberate intention to mislead, often for political, financial or ideological purposes.

Disinformation can be particularly insidious as it is carefully crafted to appear credible and believable, making it difficult for the average citizen to recognise the truth. Disseminators of disinformation may exploit vulnerabilities in human perception, such as confirmation bias or emotional appeals, to ensure that their messages resonate with the target audience.

In contrast, misinformation refers to the inadvertent or unintentional dissemination of false or inaccurate information. This can occur through a lack of fact-checking, the dissemination of outdated or incomplete information, or honest mistakes in reporting or sharing content. Misinformation, unlike disinformation, is not a deliberate attempt to deceive.

However, misinformation can still be harmful as it can lead to the spread of false beliefs and undermine accurate information.

Fortunately, there are a number of mechanisms to protect the public from the scourge of misinformation in elections. These potential remedies range from broad educational initiatives to targeted counter-campaigns aimed at debunking specific disinformation. However, the effective use of such safeguards depends on the resolution of three critical issues.

First, the grave danger posed by the spread of electoral fraud must be widely recognised by scholars and practitioners. Recognising the seriousness of this problem is an essential prerequisite for action.

Secondly, it must be collectively accepted that in certain cases, the categorisation of information as false or misleading is not only justified but also necessary to preserve the integrity of the democratic process. This represents a delicate balance, as such interventions must be carried out with extreme care so as not to infringe on the fundamental right to freedom of expression.

Finally, those tasked with implementing strategies to combat disinformation must ensure that their efforts remain firmly rooted in democratic principles. Any measures taken to protect the public from the destructive effects of disinformation in elections must themselves stand up to the scrutiny of open, evidence-based discourse.

Navigating this complex landscape requires a concerted, multi-layered effort by academics, policymakers, and civil society actors especially at a time when populist political movements continue to gain prominence and an attitude of deep scepticism towards so-called ‘experts’ has taken root in certain communities. Researchers dealing with the scourge of misinformation sometimes find themselves portrayed as unelected arbiters of truth, subject to harsh and unrelenting criticism.

Some critics, even within the scientific community, have gone so far as to dismiss concerns about the rampant spread of electoral fraud as mere “moral panic” They argue that the threat has been greatly exaggerated, that categorising information as false is inherently problematic given the elusiveness of absolute truth, and that any countermeasures could potentially violate basic democratic principles by infringing on the public’s right to believe and express what they want.

This pernicious trend needs to be urgently reversed, as it is based on a highly selective and distorted interpretation of the available evidence.

| STAKES COULD NOT BE HIGHER

Concepts such as “post-truth” and “post-factual politics” have emerged as umbrella terms that encompass a variety of deeply worrying phenomena, all of which pose a serious challenge – and possibly even an existential threat – to the fundamental rights and values on which liberal democracy is based. These terms refer to a recent historical period where political culture is marked by public anxiety about what claims can be publicly accepted facts.

The EU-funded RECLAIM project takes a proactive, multi-faceted approach to tackling this crisis and seeks to analyse the impact of disinformation on liberal democracies in Europe. With a research team that includes thirteen different institutions across Europe, one of the main objectives of the project is to develop policy recommendations and tools based on empirical evidence to address the phenomenon of post-truth politics.

Professor Dr. Maximilian Conrad is the RECLAIM Project coordinator and Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Iceland. In an interview in May 2024, he was asked to elaborate more on ‘post-truth’ politics and whether there ever was an era of ‘truth’ politics: “Post-truth politics does not imply any sort of nostalgia for a preceding era of ‘truth politics’. We are primarily concerned with the here and now – and in this sense, with what you might call a changing status of truth in political discourse. We are talking about a specific style of politics that appears to be closely linked to populism.

As an ideology, populism makes a fundamental distinction between elites and the ‘actual’ people, where elites are portrayed as out of touch with reality as it is experienced by the people. This also means that facts communicated by elites are contested or even outright rejected by post-truth populists on the grounds that the people should not trust allegedly corrupt elites and experts. That makes it extremely difficult to have any meaningful conversation about politics. Understanding this link to populism is fundamental to understanding post-truth politic”.

| THE INESCAPABLE VALUE OF TRUTH

Certain well-known facts are still not believed by large sections of the public. The historical reality of the Holocaust, the life-saving effects of COVID-19 vaccines and the absence of widespread fraud in the 2020 US presidential election have all been confirmed beyond doubt. Yet false beliefs that contradict the evidence on each of these topics persist.

For example, a July 2023 poll found that nearly 40% of US citizens – and around 70% of those who identify as Republicans – rejected the legitimacy of the 2020 election result (Source: go.nature.com/4e43ps2). Such unfounded beliefs have tangible consequences, fuelling hate and harassment campaigns targeting election workers and their families.

The interaction between evidence-based argumentation and the spread of disinformation is particularly evident in scientific fields. In these fields, disinformation campaigns are often coordinated and not random. Historians and scientists have meticulously studied how evidence accumulates and knowledge develops in different scientific fields.

It is important to recognise that scientific knowledge is not absolute or infallible. However, this does not mean that scientific knowledge is arbitrary or unreliable, or that there are no valid standards for evaluating claims. There are established principles and methods within the scientific process to rigorously test theories and research findings before they are accepted by the wider scientific community.

Just as in science, there are rigorous methods to obtain reliable knowledge in other fields – for example, through investigative reporting, court cases, corporate investigations and official public inquiries. Even though it’s sometimes difficult to immediately judge whether information is true or false, this doesn’t mean that we should completely avoid assessing the credibility of information.

People who contradict the consensus opinion of experts often portray themselves as brave rebels swimming against the tide. However, in many cases where the expert consensus is challenged, the opposing viewpoints cannot really be substantiated or they simply reject established facts. These opposing positions often appear to be motivated by political or ideological objectives rather than objective evidence.

Asked how – in the lead up to European elections – citizens can identify false information online, Professor Conrad had this to say: “This aspect is integral to our project, as it relates to issues of trust and distrust, and underlines the importance of understanding the role of mass media in a democratic society. Citizens should be conscious of their choices when seeking information. It is important for all of us to recognise the significance of consulting diverse sources and to understand that the same issue can and should be presented from various perspectives. But what I find really important is to emphasise the aspect of education in all of this: we all need to have the competence to be fact checkers ourselves. In any liberal democracy, it is the role of the State to educate its citizens about their roles and responsibilities and to equip them with the tools to navigate the information landscape.  The project addresses how citizenship education in European states is adapting to these changes”. 

| IN DEFENCE OF TRUTH

It’s sometimes argued that it’s too early to say that there is a problem that requires action, as misinformation is difficult to identify reliably. This argument has been used before by industries such as tobacco and fossil fuels to delay regulations and preventative measures for many years. However, there is already enough solid scientific evidence to justify serious concern about misinformation and comprehensive action to counter it.

Research shows that false and misleading statements become more credible when they’re repeated frequently. Misinformation can measurably change people’s beliefs, attitudes and behaviour – both directly and indirectly by shaping ideological narratives. Even if people don’t intentionally hold on to false information, fact-checking and corrections can only partially undo the damage.

Communicators have tools at their disposal to protect people from misinformation or deception. If a false claim has already spread, fact-checking and refuting that specific claim – “debunking” – is the preferred approach. However, this requires being able to recognise the misinformation as false, which limits its spread. Moreover, debunking is by nature reactive rather than proactive. In order to be proactive – for example, when misinformation is expected but has not yet spread – “psychological immunisation” is a good option for authorities to consider. Vaccination is about early warning and preventive correction – “prebunking” – before the misinformation occurs. Prebunking can focus on facts or logic.

Communicators have tools at their disposal to protect people from misinformation or deception. If a false claim has already spread, fact-checking and refuting that specific claim – “debunking” – is the preferred approach. However, this requires being able to recognise the misinformation as false, which limits its spread. Moreover, debunking is by nature reactive rather than proactive.

In order to be proactive – for example, when misinformation is expected but has not yet spread – “psychological immunisation” is a good option for authorities to consider. Vaccination is about early warning and preventive correction – “prebunking” – before the misinformation occurs. Prebunking can focus on facts or logic.

An example of fact-based prebunking: Before Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, the Biden administration publicly warned several countries in advance. They stated that Russian President Putin would likely make misleading claims about Ukrainian aggression in the Donbas to justify his invasion plans. This prebunking may have limited the international community’s willingness to believe Putin’s stated reasons when he invaded.

In contrast, logic-based immunisation is useful even when the specific false claims are not known. It aims to educate people in general about misleading argumentation tactics. It is not about providing evidence for or against a particular claim, but about whether arguments contain logical flaws (such as false dilemmas or contradictions) or use misleading techniques (such as fear-mongering or conspiracy theories).

| EU DEMOCRACY UNDER PRESSURE

Although the European Union continues to be viewed favourably by most Europeans, it is not impervious to misinformation campaigns and foreign interference. Therefore, the EU has taken concrete steps to strengthen its defences against disinformation by adopting new laws and exploring additional methods to improve societal resilience and protect democratic institutions.

During its 2019-2024 term, the European Parliament repeatedly warned against systematic efforts by foreign actors to interfere in elections. As early as 2019, parliamentarians noted a sharp increase in Russian propaganda and attempts to circumvent restrictions on foreign funding of political parties.

in 2020 and 2022, two separate parliamentary committees were set up to investigate foreign interference in democratic processes in the EU. Based on the committees’ findings, parliamentarians made recommendations to strengthen the EU’s resilience against disinformation and interference and to ensure the integrity of the 2024 European elections.

Parliamentarians expressed their concern about Russian and Chinese interference in EU affairs, but also wanted to strengthen the EU’s defences against interference from other countries such as Qatar and Morocco.

In February 2024, MEPs expressed outrage at new allegations that Russia was trying to recruit MEPs as agents of influence and provide narratives to far-right parties and groups in the EU to undermine support for Ukraine.

In April 2024, MEPs called for further sanctions against Russia in direct response to the Kremlin’s attempts to spread disinformation about the EU through Kremlin-backed media. MEPs also condemned the Kremlin’s interference in allegedly paying certain MEPs and candidates for the European elections to spread Russian propaganda.

In March 2024, the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, addressed the EU’s heads of state and government and warned that the upcoming European elections would test the resilience of the continent’s democratic systems:

“We know very well how far other actors will go to disrupt our democratic processes. We are seeing attempts in many member states to spread disinformation, misinformation and propaganda coming from parties that are hostile to the European project. We cannot allow these destructive representations, propaganda and disinformation to spread unchecked. We must do something about it.”

Metsola’s sobering remarks highlighted the growing threat to European democracy as malign foreign influences sought to undermine public confidence and sow division ahead of crucial elections to the European Parliament.

| RUSSIA TARGETING EU COUNTRIES

The European Parliament adopted a resolution last February, with 433 votes in favour, 56 against and 18 abstentions. It expressed strong outrage and great concern about Russia’s continued efforts to undermine European democracy through interference and disinformation.

The resolution stated that the Kremlin was trying to sow division among European citizens. It highlighted how Russia had recruited some Members of the European Parliament as “agents of influence” and established a relationship of dependency with certain European political parties, including through funding. These parties would then reinforce Russian propaganda and serve Russia’s interests.

The resolution expressed its deep concern about reports that Latvian MEP Tatjana Ždanoka allegedly worked as an informant for the Russian security service FSB. It emphasised that the European Parliament and the Latvian authorities must investigate this matter thoroughly in order to determine appropriate sanctions and criminal proceedings.

The resolution also referred to other cases in which MEPs knowingly served Russia’s interests, including through falsified election observation missions in Russian-occupied territories.

For years, there have been repeated revelations in Europe about Russia’s involvement in financing political parties, politicians, officials and movements in various democratic countries, often in violation of the laws of EU Member States. This financial support, which includes bank loans, purchase agreements and the facilitation of financial activities, is seen as an attempt by Russia to interfere in the democratic processes of these countries and gain influence.

Recent examples of such interference have been documented in several countries. For example, Russia has been accused of providing far-right political parties and actors in Germany and France with narratives designed to undermine public support for Ukraine. Similar activities have also been reported in Slovakia.

In addition, there are concerns about the spread of disinformation and illegal content on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. These issues have caused great outrage among MEPs.

MEPs are very concerned about Moscow’s alleged links to Catalan separatists, including representatives of the Catalan regional government and former MEP and regional president, Carles Puigdemont. The European Parliament is calling for the Advisory Committee on the Conduct of Members of the European Parliament to investigate these allegations of contacts between Catalan MEPs and Russian representatives.

The resolution suggests that Russian interference in Catalonia could be part of a larger strategy to promote internal instability and disunity within the EU. Parliament therefore calls on the competent judicial authorities to thoroughly investigate all links between MEPs and the Kremlin.

| WHAT CAN BE DONE

It is important to encourage public communicators such as governments, non-governmental organisations, the media and the research community to disseminate evidence-based information and challenge misinformation that is likely to cause harm.

Merely stating that “facts are facts” is not enough, especially since people’s interpretation of evidence and knowledge claims can be influenced by social factors. Because truth is not always self-evident, it is easy for malicious actors to create confusion. Therefore, it is crucial for academics, intellectuals, and editors to promote evidence-based information and take a firm stance against false or fraudulent claims, even if it means calling them out. This can be a frustrating experience, as climate scientists who have been actively countering climate disinformation for decades can attest.

With numerous elections taking place this year and their potential impact on a large proportion of the world’s population, it is more urgent than ever to tackle misinformation. While not all claims can be clearly categorised as true or false, and not all misleading claims are harmful, many are. If academic debates ignore the evidence for misinformation, they risk inadvertently aiding malicious actors with anti-democratic and anti-scientific agendas. These actors will exploit academic debates about the existence of objective truths and the ethical justification of interventions to further their ideologically motivated goals.

To protect citizens from manipulation, prevent the formation of false beliefs and preserve democracy, it is necessary to ensure that public discourse is based on facts. Governments have access to various research-based tools that can make a significant difference in achieving this goal.

Now is the time for prompt action.

hossein.sadre@europe-diplomatic.eu