Subject: Governance

Context

While this year’s Economic Survey focuses on improving the quality and quantity of data for better and quicker assessment of the state of the economy, it pays little attention to access to the data by citizens, ignoring the criticality of data for a healthy and informed public discourse on issues of policy relevance.

Strengthening data architecture

• The government has been proactively strengthening the data architecture for tackling corruption and better targeting of beneficiaries.
• Since 2014, the scope of UIDAI has seen a huge expansion.
• JAM (Jan Dhan-Aadhaar-Mobile) has private details of citizens.
• The government is sufficiently empowered to collect and use information about its citizens touching all the spheres of their life.
• Along with traditional instruments such as the Census, sample surveys and registers of various departments, the government is now armed with real-time data.

Erosion in citizens’ right to access data and widening information gap

• Delayed release of survey data: The citizen’s right to access relevant data for quality public discussion seems to be gradually eroding.
•  In this process, the government has refused to hold itself accountable.
• This is evident from repeated events of delayed release of various survey data.
• For example, data from the consumption survey 2017-18 has not yet been released.
•  Similarly, the first Periodic Labour Force Survey (PLFS 2017-18) was released only after the 2019 general election.
• Undermining of scientific data: Further, instead of relying on the Annual Survey of Industries (ASI), a systematically designed survey for estimation of industrial sector GDP, the government has started to depend on self-reported, unverified data submitted to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs since 2011.
• Now that ASI is nearly redundant for official estimation purposes, the future of this database is uncertain.
• Another example of undermining the scientific database is the delay in the release of Water and Sanitation Survey data 2018. 
• The information gaps in the area of migration are well documented.
• Information gap: While the JAM architecture and pandemic induced tracking tools allow for the mapping of individuals, researchers and the civil society do not have access to that information, which is useful to ascertain the level and prevalence of migration across regions within the country.

Conclusion

This data divide between the state and its citizens is a potential threat to the smooth functioning of a democracy. Without bridging this data gap, the scope of modern technology for tracking development cannot be realised.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

Hate speech is at the root of many forms of violence that are being perpetrated and has become one of the biggest challenges to the rule of law and to our democratic conscience.

Consequences of hate speech

• Electoral mobilisation along the communal line: One of the most visible consequences of hate speech is increased electoral mobilisation along communal lines which is also paying some electoral dividends.
•  Hate speech, in itself, must be understood and treated as a violent act and urgently so.
• With elected members currently sitting in the legislative assemblies and Parliament giving political sanction to citizens mobilised into mob violence and complicit public officials, hate speech is becoming the dominant mode of public political participation. 

Role of Election Commission

• In 2019, the Supreme Court reprimanded the Election Commission, calling it “toothless” for not taking action against candidates engaging in hate speech during the election campaigns in UP.
• The Commission responded by saying that it had limited powers to take action in this matter. 
• So far, the Supreme Court does not appear to have acted decisively in response to allegations of hate speech in electoral campaigns, indicating that the EC must assume more responsibility and the EC has argued that in matters of hate speech, it is largely “powerless”.
• In any case, the EC’s role is confined to the election period.

Legal provisions to deal with hate speech

• The Indian Penal Code, as per Sections 153A, 295A and 298, criminalises the promotion of enmity between different groups of people on grounds of religion and language, alongside acts that are prejudicial to maintaining communal harmony.
• Section 125 of the Representation of People Act deems that any person, in connection with the election, promoting feelings of enmity and hatred on grounds of religion and caste is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine or both.
• Section 505 criminalises multiple kinds of speech, including statements made with the intention of inducing, or which are likely to induce, fear or alarm to the public.
• It covers incitement of violence against the state or another community, as well as promotion of class hatred.

Recommendations and suggestions

• The Law Commission in its 267th report published in March 2017, recommended introduction of new provisions within the penal code that specifically punish incitement to violence in addition to the existing ones.
• Responsibility of Media: In recent years, hate speech in all its varieties has acquired a systemic presence in the media and the internet, from electoral campaigns to everyday life.
• This epidemic of mediatised hate speech is, in fact, a global phenomenon.
• According to the Washington Post, 2018 can be considered as “the year of online hate”.

Conclusion

Enough damage has been done. We cannot wait another day to address this growing challenge.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)

Context

Social media platforms have adopted design choices that have led to a proliferation and mainstreaming of misinformation while allowing themselves to be weaponised by powerful vested interests for political and commercial benefit.

Problems created by social media and issues with response to it

• The consequent free flow of disinformation, hate and targeted intimidation has led to real-world harm and degradation of democracy in India: Mainstreamed anti-minority hate, polarised communities and sowed confusion have made it difficult to establish a shared foundation of truth.
• Political agenda: Organised misinformation (disinformation) has a political and/or commercial agenda.
• Apolitical and episodic discourse in India: The discourse in India has remained apolitical and episodic — focused on individual pieces of content and events, and generalised outrage against big tech instead of locating it in the larger political context or structural design issues.
• Problematic global discourse: The evolution of the global discourse on misinformation too has allowed itself to get mired in the details of content standards, enforcement, fact-checking, takedowns, de-platforming, etc.
• Moderating misinformation vs. safeguarding freedom of expression: Such framework lends itself to bitter partisan contest over individual pieces of content while allowing platforms to disingenuously conflate the discourse on moderating misinformation with safeguards for freedom of expression.
• The current system of content moderation is more a public relations exercise for platforms than being geared to stop the spread of disinformation.

Framework to combat disinformation

• Consider it as a political problem: The issue is as much about bad actors as individual pieces of content.
• Content distribution and moderation are interventions in the political process.
• Comprehensive transparency law: There is thus a need for a comprehensive transparency law to enforce relevant disclosures by social media platforms.
• Bipartisan political process for content moderation: Content moderation and allied functions such as standard setting, fact-checking and de-platforming must be embedded in the sovereign bipartisan political process if they are to have democratic legitimacy.
• Regulatory body should be grounded in democratic principles: Any regulatory body must be grounded in democratic principles — its own and of platforms.
• Three approaches to distribution that can be adopted by platforms: 1) Constrain distribution to organic reach (chronological feed);
• 2) take editorial responsibility for amplified content;
• 3) amplify only credible sources (irrespective of ideological affiliation).
• Review of content creator: The current approach to misinformation that relies on fact-checking a small subset of content in a vast ocean of unreviewed content is inadequate for the task and needs to be supplemented by a review of content creators itself.

Conclusion

Social media cannot be wished away. But its structure and manner of use are choices we must make as a polity after deliberation instead of accepting as them fait accompli or simply being overtaken by developments along the way.

UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)