Mint | Lessons on hyper-diversity from the people of Papua New Guinea

There are so many crises raging around the world that you can ask why I have chosen to bring the one in Papua New Guinea (PNG) to your attention this fortnight. So let me tell you the reason upfront: It is an example of why hyper-diverse societies can end up in deep trouble unless they develop the necessary social capital needed to govern themselves. The post-colonial state was carved out of an arbitrary chunk of the Melanesian archipelago (the region comprising the easternmost stretches of Indonesia and islands northeast of Australia). Its claim to fame is that it has the most diverse population on the planet, with over 850 languages and thousands of bands and tribes, in a population of over 10 million living in a country the size of Maharashtra and Gujarat combined. Read the full article here.

Mint | Championing pluralism globally will make India a ‘vishwaguru’

Contrary to what its critics think, India is well placed to be a vishwaguru, an exemplar state that shows the world the way towards a better future. Like all good gurus, it is neither perfect nor without self-doubt. Its many failings are open for all to see. Just like a good guru need not be a mahatma, it is not necessary for India to attain moral, political or economic superpowerdom to put forth its formula to improve how the world governs itself. Read the full article here.

We Need to Stop our Minds from Being Hacked

Over the last four decades, we have found that human rationality is not what it was cranked up to be. For three centuries, it was generally held that humans employ their mind to the merits of the issue before them, weigh the pros and cons, and then decide accordingly. From this understanding followed the idea of the primacy of the individual, the importance of human rights, the morality of liberal democracy and of free markets. We also constructed the academic disciplines of economics, sociology, philosophy and politics based on the rationality of humans. Liberal democracies must move to reduce the vulnerability of their citizens’ minds to being ‘hacked’.

The Operating System of Liberal Democracy needs a Big Upgrade

The basic idea is that the best form of government is one by popular consent, and since it is impractical to get everyone’s opinion on every issue, people elect a few hundred representatives who act on their behalf. An added advantage of this method is that the representatives can apply their mind to complex issues of public policy and moderate impulsive, reckless and extremist tendencies that can take hold of public opinion from time to time. They also have a natural incentive to develop professional expertise in public policy matters and also to uphold the interests of their constituents in political negotiations conducted in the legislature.

Ambedkar said protests were unconstitutional. But what about protests to restore Constitution?

Let’s first parse what Ambedkar had warned against in his final speech to the Constituent Assembly in November 1949: “We must…hold fast to constitutional methods of achieving our social and economic objectives. It means we must abandon the bloody methods of revolution. It means that we must abandon the method of civil disobedience, non-cooperation, and satyagraha. When there was no way left for constitutional methods for achieving economic and social objectives, there was a great deal of justification for unconstitutional methods. But where constitutional methods are open, there can be no justification for these unconstitutional methods. These methods are nothing but the Grammar of Anarchy and the sooner they are abandoned, the better for us.” (Emphasis mine.)The key sentence in this important paragraph is the one where he points out that when there is no way left for constitutional methods, public protests are justified. After the Supreme Court repeatedly failed to uphold basic fundamental rights and balance the Narendra Modi government’s overreach, there is a question mark on whether there is any way left for constitutional methods. The religion-based criteria in the CAA is unconstitutional. When citizens wanted to protest against the bill, many state governments imposed prohibitory orders under Section 144 of the IPC and arrested protesters. Internet access was shut down in many places across the country. In some places, police action was blatantly unconstitutional.Read more

Why missed call democracy is a bad idea

The Narendra Modi-led government launched a ‘missed call campaign’ on January 3, 2019, asking people to give a missed call at a number to register their support for the controversial Citizenship (Amendment) Act. Home Minister Amit Shah has claimed that 52,72,000 missed calls have been received from verifiable phone numbers.

What has been happening in the background since the launch of the campaign is a reflection of the state of affairs in the country. Ever since the campaign started, Twitter has been abuzz with misleading tweets asking people to call the number by promising ‘job offers’, ‘free Netflix subscription’, ‘romantic dates with women in the area’, and so forth. Tweets such as ‘Akele ho? Mujhse dosti karoge?’ (Feeling lonely? Want to be friends?) by a Twitter account with 16k followers, Prime Minister Modi being one amongst them, point to a much larger misinformation campaign presumably by the IT-cell of the ruling party. A counter-campaign was also launched soliciting missed calls to demonstrate opposition to CAA and NRC.

Where’s my number?

In the age of surveillance capitalism, any entity, especially the government, running a campaign to garner support using phone numbers opens up private individuals to grave risks. The people who are calling the toll-free number have no information on whether their numbers would be stored in a database, shared with third parties, and/or used for a future campaign by the government. First-principles of privacy dictates that data collected should be proportionate to the legitimate aim and limited purpose that is being pursued. Furthermore, the data principal should provide informed consent to the collection of data.

There seem to be no means for citizens to determine if the government is storing their data, and no process to get their records deleted if they wish to. Repurposing the potential database to micro-target during election campaigns is a severe threat that emerges from this exercise. People who called the number are either staunch supporters of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) or vulnerable youth who fell into the honeytrap while looking for jobs, subscription TV, or romantic partners. Given that the government now potentially has access to members of its core voter base as well as gullible people at the margins, it can push information and opinions that favour its ideology. Alternatively, participants in the counter-campaign can be categorised as anti-establishment voices. This narrative dominance, empowered by personalisation algorithms, can result in the formation of filter bubbles where people are isolated from conflicting viewpoints, reinforcing their existing beliefs.

The design of the missed call campaign itself is flawed. An honestly designed campaign would have provided options to vote either for or against an option. The absence of a way to express an opposing view reduces it to an exercise in confirmation bias. The missed call mechanism is also susceptible to manipulation. It is unclear whether these are features or bugs. While 52 lakh may seem like a sizable number, it is a drop in the ocean in a country of more than 130 crore people. In fact, the number is less than 3 per cent of the total BJP membership of 18 crore people.

Why referendums fail

If this approach to engage with citizens is legitimised, it opens the door to use it every time there is a risk of backlash over a government decision. Even before Brexit became the poster-child for failed referendums, political theorists had advised against them. When asked about the best time to use referendums, Michael Marsh, a political scientist at Trinity College, Dublin was quoted as saying ‘almost never’.

In Democracy for Realists, political scientists Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels, lament the idea that the ‘only possible cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy. They cite a body of research that concludes that citizens often do not have the necessary knowledge, nor the inclination to acquire it when it comes to voting on nuanced issues. Decisions are often made on short-term considerations like personal tax saving or reduction in government expenditure without an analysis of anticipated unintended consequences. Additionally, there is a tendency for referendum processes to be captured by certain interest groups and typically decided in favour of whichever has deeper pockets. Low-effort voting methods, such as online voting and missed calls, are likely to be overused. This will result in desensitisation of the public, exacerbating all the shortcomings of referendums.

The use of missed calls to vindicate its stand on contentious issues, by a democratically elected government, is not only ineffectual, but it also exposes unsuspecting individuals to severe risks. Employing systems without basic privacy considerations, clear purpose limitations, and straightforward redressal mechanisms, can lead to misuse in the future and undermine the democratic ethos of the nation.

(Utkarsh Narain and Prateek Waghre are research analysts at The Takshashila Institution)

This article was originally published in Deccan Herald