How alternative facts are undermining democracy

More recently, in the post-truth world that we live in, misinformation isn't even intended to make us believe anything. If you look at Donald Trump's record, he utters something like 10 to 20 false statements per day. According to fact-checkers, that's about 20,000 misleading statements since he became president. Does he want us to believe 20,000 things that aren't true? I don't think that is the purpose of misinformation spouted by Donald Trump or other populist politicians worldwide. Instead, I think that misinformation is trying to undermine our faith and belief in the possibility of agreeing on facts.

That's a radical shift from pretending to care about reality. We’ve moved beyond weapons of mass destruction to now abandoning the notion of a shared reality altogether and replacing it with things like "alternative facts." One of Donald Trump's advisers famously referred to alternative facts following his inauguration. She disputed the undeniable fact that fewer people attended Donald Trump's inauguration than Barack Obama's four years prior.

The moment you abandon the notion of a shared reality, you're undermining democratic discourse. You're undermining democracy. If you say, ‘Oh, I have my own set of facts,’ then no communication is possible. There cannot be a debate if some people make stuff up and then present that invention as an alternative fact. We must share beliefs and accept the rules by which we arrive at decisions supported by evidence.

The real problem with misinformation isn't just what it does to democracy. Even more problematic, it resembles the German and Italian regimes of the 1930s. These fascist states shared this view of truth as something not subject to evidence but rather subject to a feeling supported by intuition. A leader then articulates that feeling. This approach to truth was the defining attribute of fascism, and we know what that did to the world. I don't think anybody can argue that it was a positive outcome.

Overall, we're now encountering a very similar view of truth. Truth has become something based on intuition and faith vis-a-vis alternative facts. It is no longer supported by evidence. This 1930s approach to the truth is making a comeback now, and I think it is potentially dangerous. This comparison goes beyond merely describing attitudes towards truth. There are other frightening similarities, as well.

So, how do we deal with that? What can we do about it? Fortunately, recent research has shown that acceptance of such blatant lies and misstatements is limited to specific circumstances. People only accept demagogues when they feel left behind or excluded from a political system; when they think that society is corrupt or otherwise not serving their interests; when they're feeling threatened by outsiders or that others imperil their privileges. People accept demagogues because they want to express their opposition to the establishment.

That is crucial to understand in today's political climate. Falsehoods by politicians are sending a signal. They are signalling contempt for the establishment. These politicians don't want us to believe anything in particular; they want us to know that they can lie with impunity and undermine democratic discourse.

A political response is required to break this pattern. Better communication, like better bumper stickers, do not resolve these issues. Instead, what’s needed is political change. Moreover, the political change required now is to ensure that people don't feel left behind or excluded from society. We've got to provide opportunities for people who are not highly-educated but are still entitled to a dignified life with a good income and a good job. We have to look after those people so that they do not become susceptible to demagogues. I believe that is the critical challenge for the future to leave this post-truth world.

Populism and nationalism are resurgent in many parts of the world. For example, in Brazil, we have a populist politician who acts like Donald Trump. In India, we have a government that, as far as I can tell, is retreating from democracy and becoming increasingly nationalistic and ethnocentric. Therefore, this points to a global problem.

Nevertheless, I’d guess that if the West were to show moral and political leadership in dealing with this problem, it would make it more difficult for other leaders to follow the same path. When Donald Trump acts the way he does, he is not a good role model for the rest of the world. Therefore, it's difficult for us to expect African, Asian, or South American countries to be model nations when the Western world's leading government is acting so poorly. To solve this problem, the West must step up to its leadership role. At the moment, we're not playing that role well.

Moreover, we can go beyond that. We can look around the world, and we can understand how people respond to misinformation from politicians in different societies. Along those lines, my colleagues and I recently compared the United States to Australia. In both cases, we presented participants with false statements by politicians, which were then corrected. We then asked, ‘How did that change your belief, and how did it change your attitudes about the politician?’ In the United States, we found that people were responsive to corrections and adjusted their beliefs about the claims made by their favourite politician. However, changing their faith had either no effect or only a minimal effect on their attitudes towards the politician and their voting intentions.

On the other hand, we observed something very different in Australia. Similarly to the United States, people also adjusted their beliefs in response to corrections. Additionally, when they learned that politicians misrepresented facts, many Australian participants reduced their faith in the politician and indicated that they would not like to vote for them. Thus, there was a connection between factual accuracy and their voting intentions.

Although we can't be sure, several reasons may explain this difference. If you look at the countries’ electoral systems, there are striking differences between the two. In Australia, for example, voting is mandatory. You get fined if you don't vote there. That's completely different from the US, where voter turnout is something politicians manipulate all the time — one party benefits from increasing voter turnout while the other benefits from decreasing voter turnout. If voting were mandatory, that would not be the case.

Furthermore, voting in Australia is preferential. Citizens rank order the parties from most preferred to least preferred. This rank ordering matters, so the parties talk to each other and negotiate what they should tell their followers about how to rank the other parties. Consequently, there is pressure against extremism in the Australian system because the parties must work together, whereas there isn't the same pressure in the United States.

To me, that's a fascinating point because it tells us that the problems we're having are not inevitable. They can be fixed without censorship, without revolution and without large-scale upheaval by merely looking at the structure of elections and how society makes decisions. As such, I believe there is a lot of knowledge out there that we can harness moving forward to ensure that we're not retreating from democracy.