Path to Power: 2024 - Democracy Disrupted?
Digital technologies allow political players to circumvent traditional media processes, including scrutiny, transparency, regulation, and censorship. These new technologies allow much more direct control of the narrative either speaking directly to their supporters or to select partisan outlets that speak to these specific populations.
In countries with low levels of press freedom or substantive attacks on a free press, digital technologies serve as a tool for circumventing state censorship and repression, often aiding grassroots activism. In contrast, illiberal actors in countries with high levels of press freedom co-opt narratives of censorship or bias to position themselves as victims, while facing fewer structural barriers.
In environments where press freedom and protection are robust, citizens can access a plurality of political perspectives and scrutinize government actions, whereas in the absence of press freedom, technology becomes an essential tool for ensuring that public debate and dissent can still thrive, even under oppressive conditions.
The ruling FRELIMO party has significant control over traditional media so press freedom is more restricted than in other contexts. However, Mondlane’s independent movement – and VM7 personal branding – resonated on social media, and coupled with the rapid adoption of social media by citizens alongside his own popularity growing, bypassed state censorship and organize political activism. For instance, social media platforms like Facebook and WhatsApp have been crucial for spreading information about government corruption and rallying protests, especially in rural areas where state-run media is less influential, and Mondlane’s live-streams on YouTube and Facebook Live were popular means by which he developed a supporter base and projected a sense of authenticity and trust.
In the context of Georgia’s highly polarised but mostly pluralistic traditional media and open internet governance, there has generally been strong access to a variety of views within the country. However, the pre-election arrest of media-monitors as well as the over 70 documented cases of attacks on journalists and expanding arrests for online speech, has seen anxiety expand around declining press freedoms. As a reaction, social media and encrypted messenger apps have become the main means of communication amongst grassroots and civil society activists.
Despite having a relatively free press, populist politicians like Malema and Zuma often accuse the media of bias and distortion, particularly when they criticize his party’s radical rhetoric on land redistribution and nationalization. Malema frequently claims that the press, especially outlets like the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), misrepresents the EFF’s positions to protect the interests of elites. This narrative is especially potent among his supporters, who view the media as complicit in maintaining the status quo. While South Africa has a vibrant and independent media landscape, these accusations help to strengthen Malema’s populist appeal, framing him and his party as victims of an unfair system. This rhetorical technique has also recently adopted by Zuma’s allies in the MK Party.
In his victory speech in the 2018 election, López Obrador, spoke out in gratitude to social media platforms saying they played an important role in disseminating his narrative particularity to middle-class young voters and propelling him to power. During his tenure, López Obrador constantly attacked mainstream media, particularly in his morning press conferences, as being conservative and serving the elites against the interests of the people. In one press conference, he publicly disclosed the salary of a prominent right-wing journalist who had written many investigative reports on López Obrador.
Just before he left office, López Obrador gathered journalists from what he called the alternative and independent media that had supported him and MORENA. This highlights his lack of support for a robust press that serves as a check on state power and his tendency to use new, disruptive media to advance his political narrative. Although early in her tenure, Sheinbaum seems to have taken a different route to dealing with difficult press reporting. In the wake of a New York Times video purportedly showing someone making fentanyl in Mexico, she brought in a scientist to argue that this could not possibly be the case. It remains to be seen if this strategy of countering negative reporting with science and evidence will be successful, as it has limited empirical support.
During Pakistan’s 2024 general elections, the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party used artificial intelligence to replicate the voice of its incarcerated leader, Imran Khan. By employing AI voice cloning tools, PTI created audio messages based on scripts provided through Khan’s legal representatives, which were then synchronized with archival visuals. The party disclosed its use of AI through watermarks on campaign material, demonstrating transparency.
This innovative approach allowed PTI to maintain Khan’s presence in the campaign, reinforcing its image as technologically advanced and appealing to younger, tech-savvy voters. While ethical concerns arose about AI-generated content, the party’s transparency helped address skepticism. This adaptation showcased how technology can be used to navigate political challenges under state repression. In Pakistan, where press freedom is constrained, PTI’s use of AI demonstrates how innovation can circumvent restrictions, enabling political expression and grassroots mobilization.
Trump’s narrative of media bias and censorship remains a central part of his campaign strategy. He continues to claim that mainstream outlets like CNN and The New York Times are part of a coordinated effort to suppress conservative viewpoints and spread fake news. Trump frames himself as a victim of a media conspiracy designed to undermine his political influence. This narrative of victimhood is amplified through his use of alternative platforms like Truth Social, enabling him to bypass traditional media, even though the US has a highly free press that allows for diverse perspectives and fact-checking.
Farage’s Reform and Tory ring-wing backbenchers frequently claim that the BBC and other mainstream outlets unfairly target them and argue that the media is part of a “liberal establishment” that suppresses conservative views (GB News, 2024). Despite the UK’s robust press freedoms, these narratives of victimhood help to rally their supporters by portraying themselves as the true defenders of free speech, even though they are not subject to significant media censorship. Farage is one of the record appearance-holders on BBC Question Time, arguably the most popular political discussion programme in the country.
Modi illustrates how digital technologies enable political actors to navigate and exploit changing media landscapes and levels of press freedom. Before his ascent to power in 2014, Modi positioned himself as an outsider to India’s mainstream media, particularly the English language press, which had traditionally aligned itself with established national political elites. India’s press freedom was relatively robust, and traditional media outlets held significant sway over public narratives. They bypassed these structures by leveraging digital platforms to speak directly to voters and consolidating support among urban, middle-class Indians and young voters seeking change. For instance, his #ChaiPeCharcha initiative invited citizens to participate in online political discussions.
After Modi took power, the media environment in India changed significantly, with press freedom declining amid increasing government control (Reporters without Borders, 2024). Independent journalists and critical outlets faced intimidation, financial pressures, and declining access to government officials. Prominent newspapers and television networks often adopted government-friendly stances, sidelining dissenting voices. This decline created a vacuum that filled by digital platforms, which became critical spaces for alternative perspectives. Opposition politicians, activists, and independent journalists used these platforms to challenge the government narratives, e.g., the spread of videos exposing instances of communal violence, use of these platforms by alternative media, and hashtags like #NotInMyName, which became rallying points for citizens protesting against religious intolerance.
having lost two elections as an outsider firebrand populist, inciting protests against Widodo’s government when previously denied power, Subianto’s victory in 2024 can be attributed to a strategic rebrand using digital technologies to overhaul his image of a controversial former military general in traditional media and replacing with a “cuddly grandpa” image targeting the youth vote (Susilo et al, 2024) on social media. Gemoy, a colloquial Indonesian term for cute or adorable, became central to his strategy of appealing to young voters. On TikTok, Subianto’s campaign crafted a lighthearted and approachable image; an animated avatar of
Subianto as a cheerful, grandfatherly figure was widely circulated, dancing and engaging in playful activities. This content, often humorous and aligned with Indonesia’s vibrant online culture, helped to project a softer and more relatable persona.
His involvement in human rights abuses during the Suharto era, including allegations of abducting pro-democracy activists, remains a sensitive issue among older generations. However, for younger voters—who may have limited exposure to these historical events due to gaps in education and media coverage—this past holds less significance. The gemoy branding effectively disarmed opposition, presenting Subianto as benign and even charming. This strategic use of digital platforms allowed him to reshape public perception, leveraging the fast-paced and ephemeral nature of social media to dominate the narrative. His success demonstrates how social media can be used to erase or obscure contentious histories, especially among unfamiliar audiences. The emphasis on relatability and entertainment over substantive policy discussions reflects a growing trend of personality-driven politics, where a leader’s charisma and digital savviness often overshadow deeper questions of character.