(Candidates for the 21 Falgun elections are reaching out to the public with their manifestos. They are presenting their agenda. At this time, Kantipur is launching a special series ‘Kantipur Bimarsh: Citizens’ Declaration’ to present the people’s agenda to parties and candidates. You too can write a manifesto for this series, focusing on a specific area. We will give space to manifestos that are based on facts, figures, and logic.)

Parties that have entered elections are generally not suspicious of fundamental rights, including freedom of the press and expression. Parties are considered to have participated in elections because they embrace the basic values ​​of democracy. They are believed to have a democratic commitment and spirit.

However, the foundation of trust is not always reliable. In recent years, attacks on fundamental rights have been made by elected rulers. In the book ‘How Democracy Dies’, Harvard University professors Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky write, ‘Democracy is not lost only through a coup or a military coup. There is also an equal risk from elected rulers. They attack democratic institutions under the guise of law and from within the system.’ The United States, India, Turkey and Russia are vivid examples of this.

If we look at history, Adolf Hitler rose to power through elections on the basis of the humiliation suffered by Germany during the First World War and the global economic recession. However, after coming to power, Hitler not only restricted the press and civil expression, but also plunged the whole of Europe into war. How did he, who had created the image of a popular leader, come to be condemned as a villain? You can read William Sayre's book 'Rise and Fall of the Third Reich' to understand that. Even strong institutions like Germany's became vulnerable to Hitler's ambitions and arbitrariness.

The presented article will discuss the youth protests of Bhadra 2082, the ban on social media as a catalyst, and the increasing influence of technology on the social contract between the state and citizens. In addition, it will discuss what approach parties should take to ensure freedom of the press and expression by reducing the burden of false content and commentary during the upcoming elections and why.

 If the new power itself fails in democratic values ​​and delivery, it will decline at the same pace as its rise. There is no need to go to the end to find examples, it is enough to remember the former Maoists who merged into the political mainstream through armed rebellion. Attraction and skepticism towards the new
After the protests and destruction of the youth in Bhadra, there was confusion and skepticism as to what would happen in the country, whether the constitution and order would survive or not, and what would be the future of the nation. At this time, we have arrived at the election festival. With the success of the elections scheduled for Falgun 21, political uncertainty will gradually subside. As the election atmosphere heats up, it is a pleasant side to see a silver lining in the clouds hanging over the state and the system. However, some questions and doubts remain.

The question is how to address issues such as stability, democracy, good governance, economic progress, and youth participation in the state in the country. This can only be assessed from the election results and the political equations that will be formed after them.

The situation is still fluid and sensitive. Institutions are weak due to partisanship and corruption. There is discontent among the people towards the established parties and the state system. Their ‘track record’ and ‘delivery’ are worth forgetting.

Such a background becomes fertile ground for the rise of patriotism. Social media, digital technology and services that fulfill our desires instantly have made people feel powerless. In such a situation, there is also a risk of the emergence of a ‘strongman’ (autocratic ruler) and control over institutions. However, such attempts will not be made in Nepal.

The upcoming elections after the youth uprising can upset the balance of political power. There is also a possibility of the emergence of new forces through the elections. There is a kind of attraction towards new people and forces as well as suspicion. After coming to power, will they assimilate the values ​​and norms of democracy or attack them? This is always a tricky question.

When emerging forces truly emerge in public delivery, there will be cheers everywhere. This will either pressure the remaining political forces to improve or help them to fail. However, if the new forces themselves fail in democratic values ​​and delivery, they will decline at the same pace as they rose. We don’t have to go far to find examples; it is enough to remember the former Maoists who merged into the political mainstream through armed rebellion.

A society with a confused present and a fearful future remembers history again and again. Here too, many characters from history are remembered on special occasions, whether they are heroes or villains, democrats or autocrats. The fact that many people are still searching for Jung Bahadur is a result of that. However, Nepal and Nepalis have already seen and experienced Jung Bahadur.

A blueprint for digital governance
Parties have already made their election promises and manifestos public. As in the past, the public can no longer be reassured by giving empty promises of prosperity and change. Parties should make public a ‘blueprint’ with a specific agenda on how good governance, policy transformation, job creation, and how the fundamental rights provided by the constitution will be ensured. In addition, it is necessary for each party, new and old, to clarify their views and commitment to the overall democratic system, including freedom of the press and expression.

One of the main motivators of the youth’s protests was the sudden closure of social media without legal process. As social media and virtual platforms have been misused as political weapons and social hatred, regulation is necessary. However, such efforts must be in accordance with democratic methods.

Today, social media has become a public platform, where ordinary people can express their thoughts, views and disagreements, and can make their voices heard by stakeholders.    It is not enough to just make empty promises by competing parties to control misleading and false information that spreads like wildfire through the network. Instead, a digital governance framework should be put forward on how to protect the general public and voters from misleading and false information. The parties themselves should also take a serious stand against the production, promotion and consumption of false information.

Freedom of the press and expression is the soul of liberal democracy. Democracy becomes stronger and more refined through criticism, disagreement, caution, dissent and alternative ideas. However, the state, power or interest groups often do not like different ideas and criticism. During the election, some parties have not only expressed their disagreement with the views of different parties, candidates and supporters on social media, but there is an increasing tendency to 'troll' with misleading content and commentary.

Overall, the election campaign itself is becoming 'illusionary', in which artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content has increased lies and confusion rather than dispelling them. There is no direct dialogue between the people and party representatives, and one-way communication is seen. There is less debate and discussion between competing parties and candidates, and more accusations and counter-accusations are seen.

The election code of conduct and some competing parties have discouraged targeting the opposition during the election campaign. Issue-focused debates such as social, economic and political challenges, future course of action, and issues of public concern seem very dull. Not only on social media, the entire public debate has become toxic. And, competing parties and leaders-activists themselves are involved in this in the election - some have directly clashed, some with pseudonyms. Such practices may benefit the candidate or party concerned momentarily, but they weaken the overall information ecosystem, public debate, and democratic competition.

Nowadays, social media has become a public platform where ordinary people can express their thoughts, views, and disagreements, and can make their voices heard by stakeholders. 

However, the insistence and prejudice-driven debate seems to be an attempt to put critics and dissenters in the category of opponents and criminals. Many people have been targeted by cyber attacks, some have been digitally excluded, and many have been retaliated against.

Competing political forces and their leaders and activists are trying to suppress dissent by using those who have a large following on the network and those who have a cyber army. Such trends have made social media a tool for political or vested interests instead of an effective public platform.

Overall, a clean, unbiased, and critically aware debate has not been encouraged in the public platform. Instead, the dominant narrative and mainstream voices are being echoed. Such an ‘echo chamber’ works to create barriers for good governance, equality, equal access and effective democracy.

Nepal is not an inventor of information technology, but a consumer. Therefore, some aspects of information technology regulation are beyond our reach and ability. Nevertheless, it seems that the role of information technology in the relationship between the state and citizens needs to be redefined.    The role of technology needs to be redefined
Social media and overall digital technology are not limited to platforms for expressing ideas and expressions. These networks and technologies have emerged as powerful ‘factors’ in issues of national security, international relations, geopolitical challenges and sovereignty. According to the principle of social contract, a contract between the state and the people is made in such a way that citizens surrender their unalienated rights to the state and want peace and security from the state. 

Now, networks and digital technology have emerged as third parties in the social contract between the state and citizens. Technology has entered not only the process of citizens receiving security from the state and paying taxes to the state in return, but also the social relations, economic transactions and security of citizens. This has brought about a radical change in the traditional concept of the social contract between the state and citizens. Otherwise, digital technology and social networks would not have become a powerful dimension in the 2016 US presidential election, Brexit, the 'Arab Spring', the colorful revolutions in various countries and the current Gen-G protests in many countries including Nepal.

Nepal is not an inventor of information technology, but a consumer. Therefore, some aspects of information technology regulation are beyond our reach and ability. Nevertheless, it seems that the role of information technology in the relationship between the state and citizens needs to be redefined. 

Technology must be used and regulated correctly and safely. The use and consumption of technology is necessary for job creation, economic growth, knowledge production and distribution, and the overall transformation of the nation. However, this is not a matter for a particular individual, leader or party to take on the contract. This seems possible only with the full force of political power and a common national resolve.

Parties should debate such issues during election campaigns. However, the question is, are we not limiting technology only to election strategies and tactics?

Journalism and pseudo-politics
During elections, not only social media, but journalism itself has begun to look like ‘politics in disguise’ (pseudo-politics). And, it is difficult to see the election ‘coverage’ of some media outlets as different from the party propaganda machinery, although this is not clearly visible in many. However, the risk of loyal journalism is that it can ‘expose’ not only itself, but also the parties and candidates who benefit from it.

During elections, not only social media, but journalism itself has started to look like 'politics in disguise' (pseudo-politics). And, it is difficult to see the election 'coverage' of some media outlets as different from the party propaganda mechanism, although in many it is not obvious. Such a trend in journalism is not new. Its roots go back to the mission journalism during the referendum in 2036 and the factional journalism that preceded it in 2007. Such practices further weaken the declining public trust in journalism and the fourth organ. Should we repeat the same undertaking by relying on past weaknesses or transform journalism in line with professional ethics and democratic values?

Joining a professional trade union is a constitutional right of working journalists. However, in our country, partisanship is widespread in the name of trade unions. In the past, the ruling party used to administer an oath of allegiance to journalists at the Prime Minister's residence to take away the respect of journalists and the journalism profession. Such organizations of so-called new and emerging parties are not seen, but there is no shortage of media outlets and journalists advocating for them. Some are active in disguise, while many are presented openly and aggressively, which is unfortunate for journalism.

Not only journalists or their organizations, partisanship is prevalent in state communication-related structures as well. Press Council Nepal, Remuneration Fixation Commission, committees and commissions formed for reforms/suggestions in the journalism sector are all mostly trapped in partisan quagmires. Moreover, partisanship has been institutionalized under the guise of competition and merit.

If journalists are not tied to partisan lines in the name of trade unions, it will help to prevent the journalism profession from becoming professional and party, leader and interest group oriented and make it issue-centric. Now, it is necessary for the parties to clarify whether they will make the journalism world a propaganda tool for the government, organizations and leaders or transform it into a unique, creative and critical public platform as the fourth organ of the state.

Journalism and democracy are complementary

Democracy and independent journalism are complementary to each other. Without one, the other cannot survive. Questions are the key to keeping journalism alive. Questions are the key to saving democracy. Therefore, parties should have a clear idea of ​​what kind of discussions they will promote in the vast arenas of journalism, freedom of expression, public forums, and social media.

However, it is not enough to just make speeches saying that we accept journalism as the 'fourth organ' of the state. It is appropriate to make a political commitment to how journalism can be made strong and effective by fighting disinformation in the race of digital technology and AI. 

Until journalism is economically and politically independent and empowered, it remains at risk of becoming a pawn of the state, corporates, and other vested interests. Therefore, the party's perspective should be clear in terms of the financial health of the media as well.

It is not enough to make speeches that we accept journalism as the 'fourth organ' of the state. In the race of digital technology and AI, it is appropriate to make a political commitment to how journalism can be made strong and effective by fighting disinformation.  The party's perspective should also be clear on issues such as easy access of citizens to public information and documents, and easy, transparent, and regular flow of information from state bodies. Since 2046, hundreds of government documents and research reports related to corruption and policy-level scams have been kept secret until today. In the era of democratic systems and information technology, access to public documents for citizens and media personnel should be easier. 

On the one hand, the general public is burdened with unnecessary information through social media, and on the other hand, they are having to endure many hardships to obtain information of their personal and public interest. When examining the annual report of the National Information Commission, it becomes clear to what extent the common citizen has to face problems from various state bodies for general information.

Therefore, the provisions of the right to information of citizens should be ensured not only in the articles of the constitution, but also through the declarations, promises and actions of the state and the political parties that run the state. In addition, in a democracy, competing parties and the people should be able to assimilate peaceful demonstrations, sit-ins, meetings and protest programs as rights. Parties should also clarify their views on 'digital surveillance' and censorship, which violate fundamental rights such as privacy and freedom of expression.