The authoritarian landscape is changing, yet the strategies and objectives remain the same in some aspects. Some weak democracies are exhibiting patterns of resurgent or perpetuating democratic erosions without immediately resorting to the barrel of the gun. In the age of digitalization, modern authoritarian figures in backsliding democracies are relying upon new spaces and methods to express monopolistic control over the social and political apparatus of the state.
Traditionally, authoritarian leaders of weak democratic systems utilize the breadth of state controls and mechanisms to monopolize political affairs under their control. These include a plethora of state powers, from direct use of police power, to utilizing checking mechanisms initially meant to curtail oversaturation of power towards one body of government. However, with millions of people coming from various demographic sectors of society connected and interacting with one another every day, social media has been an instrumental tool for regimes showing authoritarian tendencies to control information and gather popular support that would perpetuate public favor and defend the regime against accountability and opposition [RELATED ARTICLE: Marco Bünte, The role of Social Media in Democratic Backsliding and Authoritarian Resilience (2020)].
Along with these strategies comes a pattern of appealing to an alternate electorate due to their prevalent presence in social media and their increasing roles in political discourse: the youth. Recently, electoral campaigns of authoritarian figures, such as in Indonesia and El Salvador, have been observed to cater to younger voters, sugarcoating their candidate’s authoritative personalities with alternative personas akin to the trends and interests of the youth. These strategies are encapsulated in what is known as “Digital Authoritarianism”. Several scholars have pinpointed the general strategy as to how authoritarian leaders in weak or backsliding democracies utilize digital spaces to control the information propagated within the population, repress opposition, and achieve a digital environment that supports the agenda and the figure of the authoritarian leadership [RELATED ARTICLES: Hélder Prior and Digital Populism (2021); Manuel Melendez-Sanchez and the El Salvadoran case (2021); Aim Sinpeng and Southeast Asian country cases (2020)]. These include the following: (1) establishment of social media influencer and support base to propagate regime propaganda and quell opposition; (2) use of legal and policy mechanisms to repress dissent media actors; and (3) in the case of recent populist authoritarian leaders, the maintenance of public personality compatible to the interests and trends of their targeted electorate. The populist wave that has been occurring since the late 2010s has featured a set of modern populist leaders that incorporate these strategies to consolidate their respective constituent populations and take greater control of the social and political affairs of the state. Prominent among such examples is the case of the Philippines under the Duterte leadership. We will discuss in the following sections how the Dutertes exhausted these digital strategies to retain political support and significance, even now in the Marcos Jr. presidency.
SOCIAL MEDIA DYNAMICS UNDER DUTERTE
Rodrigo Duterte’s high-margin victory has introduced a leadership that promised Filipinos an “iron fist” toward addressing issues of crime, drugs, corruption, and the communist insurgency. His electoral campaign skyrocketed in prominence through widely used social media applications like Facebook, garnering millions of multisectoral support over online content focusing on his bailiwick of Davao being safe against criminality and corruption. These online spaces that propagated him to power are utilized further throughout his term. Duterte has lived beyond his “iron fist” reputation, towards breaking democratic processes and mechanisms that constrained his predecessors. Under the popular regime, the country has seen the systematic use of state institutions to induce violence towards criminals and dissidents, and consolidate political power from all branches of government to bypass checks and balances. At the same time, it has retained popular support despite turbulent political and economic instability. Arguably, public support for this relies upon the regime’s online campaigns, which can be seen following digital authoritarian strategies. The Dutertes have established a wide network of influencer and support bases built by celebrities, other influential personalities, common folk, and even troll account systems. These actors function in a “mob”-like manner, contributing to the wide-range dissemination of formal and informal pro-regime propaganda and disinformation and engaging in groups to serve as a consolidated public voice in condemning, harassing, and threatening those who criticize the regime agenda. Furthermore, the regime utilizes formal institutions, mainly through policy and legal mechanisms, to prevent opposition from gaining influence in online spaces. One of the prominent cases of this tactic is Maria Ressa and Rappler facing numerous raps, from cyberlibel raps to cases challenging their permit to operate in the country, to quell their continuous criticisms of the drug war and corruption within the administration. Lastly, the populist personality aspect is maintained by the continuous tactics of the regime to protect the president’s charisma and ensure that his appeal to his voter base is maintained, if not widened. Duterte’s popular appeal is commonly associated with his hypermasculine and paternal rhetorics that complement his “Tatay” (father) figure – a “bad boy” who can be rough and brute, but all for the sake of care and compassion to the Filipino people – which serves favorable across various demographic groups, even the youth [RELATED ARTICLES: Alqaseer & Pile and Duterte’s Toxic Masculine Rhetoric (2020), Sharmila Parmanand and the Chauvinist Populism in the Philippines (2020).
MOVING FORWARD POST-DUTERTE
As we move towards a new presidency, we still see how the lessons of the past still affect today’s political strategies and dynamics. Social Media is now the primary arena for political engagements between the state, civil society actors, and the citizenry. It is crucial to recognize how instrumental the digital sphere is for authoritarians to charm, influence, and steer the electorate to their ideals and interests. At the same time, they undermine institutional and popular checks that hold them accountable. There are lessons to be learned and incorporated with these developments. Whatever we do, people will not stay off social media. It is better to utilize and analyze social behavior and trend patterns to consolidate popular support for democratic champions. In the long run, it is through playing the social media and optics game that we will regain the democratic institutions broken down by our current authoritarian-leaning incumbents.
The photo used above is acquired from a Manila Times column article.
Social media has indeed revolutionized the world’s political landscape. While it has democratizing effects, such as increasing the public’s participation in political discourse, it too has largely contributed to the rollback of democracy.
Political actors such as candidates and their parties have deliberately and maliciously deployed social media as a tool to manipulate public opinion and, by extension, the polls. Their army of proxies (i.e. influencers and trolls alike) amplify, rehash, and even repackage their rhetoric to cater to a diverse audience. The public at large, even unconsciously at times, contributes and worsens the state of democratic backsliding by sharing and broadcasting disinformation through their own social media networks. All the same, social media companies are slow to respond to these maladies through self-regulation. Governments are even slower to put the appropriate regulations in place. For incumbent regimes that benefit from this ecosystem, regulatory mechanisms are thrown out of the window.
Social media appears to be a dog that bites the hand that feeds it. While it benefits from its users’ digital traffic, it leeches off them and doubles down to maximize its gains. So what should we do if the government itself exploits social media to its advantage? The pushback should start from citizens. In the same way that the government and political actors weaponize social media, citizens can and should utilize it as a countermeasure against the former’s malicious strategies.
In the end, it will be the citizens themselves who will bear the brunt of a worsening democracy. And so, citizens should prevent the further erosion of democracy through effectively using social media as a tool to forestall democratic erosion.
Hi Dino! Your analysis of the Duterte regime’s control over the Filipino citizenry through social media is insightful and alarming. You pointed out various ways in which authoritarian leaders can manipulate digital platforms to spread regime propaganda, stifle opposition, and maintain public support. It’s significant how you highlighted Duterte’s use of personas and language tailored to younger voters to build a following in this demographic, securing support for their political agenda. This is particularly relevant as younger generations increasingly depend on digital platforms for information and socializing. It’s worrying to consider the mechanisms within social media, such as algorithms that promote user engagement, which contribute to the spread of echo chambers, false consensus, and polarization.
It is well known that social media plays a key role in society by serving as a platform for a multitude of interactions to occur, facilitating the exchange of information and the evolution of ideas. However, as you mentioned, with its misuse comes the challenging issues of misinformation and regime propaganda indirectly and adversely influencing people’s ability to make critical and analytical decisions.
While the tactical usage of social media and analysis of social behavior trends may be used as a supplement in combating against Authoritarian Digitalization, it may be difficult in the long run to concentrate efforts effectively into common pro-democracy objectives, especially with discourse being a common factor present in online spaces. It may also backfire and lead to more people being dissuaded from ideal candidates that promote the common good, simply because they are treated as outcasts for initially not contributing to such a cause. I believe an essential aspect that we should take into consideration in addressing such an issue is to hone and develop the Filipino’s ability for critical analysis to identify false information and decide for themselves rather than participating in the mob-like mentality that the corrupt candidates’ network hope to establish and utilize in the proliferation of their ideals being presented as the only correct ones. While such is easier said than done, it establishes a more stable foundation wherein people are able to autonomously act and make decisions that are representative of their own authentic beliefs and not simply what they were misled into believing, a key factor for the success in democracy and a player in disabling Authoritarian Digitalization.
The use of social media as a strategy to appeal to a wider range of audiences and gain power is certainly becoming a trend among authoritarian leaders. Especially in this digital age, it has become easy to gain support and convenient to silence critics. You mentioned the rise of “Digital Authoritarianism”. I would like to add an emerging strategy under this—the use of artificial intelligence (AI). I recently studied how South Korea’s Yoon Suk Yeol utilized artificial intelligence (AI) in his campaigns for the 2022 presidential election. Yoon’s team created an AI avatar of him that would answer people’s questions in a funny manner. People were entertained by his avatar’s answers which were written by his campaign team. It is not unlikely that this strategy would appear soon in the Philippine political context. Considering that Filipinos love being entertained, I think that if a Filipino politician were to adopt this tactic, that politician would gain publicity and probably even become viral. If AI becomes normalized in the Philippines, authoritarian leaders like Duterte will have more avenues to manipulate facts and remain in power. It is important to remember that people have to be responsible in using digital tools and platforms in order to prevent further democratic decay.