Colombia The use of social media in democratic spaces: a double-edged sword

Diana Dajer

“We invite the communities to cease their activities”, stated the Autodefensas Gaitanistas dc Colombia, a Colombian criminal gang, in voice notes and flyers distributed via WhatsApp and other social media channels (Revista Semana 2016a). The group was announcing an armed strike in several municipalities of Antioquia, Cordoba and Sucre by the end of March of 2016. The information spread quickly. During the days of the strike, the threatened towns seemed abandoned due to fear of retaliation from the armed group (Verdad Abierta 2016; El Espectador 2016). Since then, in many affected municipalities, the police have created alliances with civilians to use social media and mobile phones to enhance an early warning system to fight criminal groups (Caracol Radio 2016; Canal Monteria Digital 2017); this has allowed the authorities, for instance, to tackle false rumours of a new armed strike, spread via WhatsApp audios in August of 2016 (de Pablos 2016).

The world is flooded with news of how social media is being used in conflict- affected areas, for better or worse. Colombia is not an exception. By January of 2019, Colombia had an internet penetration of 68%, with an equal percentage of social media users who spent an average of three and a half hours per day in platforms such as YouTube, Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Twitter (Kemp 2019). Information and disinformation spread through these channels has helped shape many views, emotions, narratives and decisions about pivotal internal political processes, such as the armed conflict, peace negotiations with armed groups and elections.

As the use of social media rises, so do the studies about its negative and positive impact on diverse democratic scenarios. For instance, at a global level, specialised research has analysed issues as varied as the spread of viral extremist disinformation on Instagram (Lorenz 2019), user interaction with electoral junk news in Facebook and Twitter (Marchal et al. 2019), the impact ofYouTube’s algorithm on radicalisation (Roose 2019; Fisher and Taub 2019) and the use of social media channels to support collective action in authoritarian countries (Lynch, Freelon, and Aday 2017). In Colombia, there is also a growing literature on the influence of the use of platforms such as WhatsApp (Cortes and Pcnarredonda 2018), Facebook (Acosta 2012) and Twitter (Marin and Quintero 2018) on different internal political processes. Still, social media platforms move much faster than the scholarship produced, and there is plenty to learn and analyse about their effects on democracy.

This chapter aims to contribute to the cited scholarship by analysing both crosscutting and distinct pearls and pitfalls of the use of social media in three specific democratic spaces in Colombia. The three cases are characteristic of mechanisms for, respectively, direct democracy, representative democracy and citizen and political participation in public matters. The first case is the 2016 plebiscite to endorse a peace agreement between the Colombian Government and the FARC- EP guerrilla. The second case examines the 2018 presidential elections in Colombia. The last case explores the threats and crimes against social leaders since the peace agreement was signed. Based on the cases examined, the brief draws recommendations for conflict transformation in future similar Colombian democratic scenarios that may face analogous situations or even hazards yet to come.

As a methodological approach, the brief uses qualitative and quantitative data to examine the following overarching question in the three cases: What are the opportunities and challenges of the use of social media in the democratic spaces under examination? Primary and secondary documental data and social media records and statistics were analysed to answer the central query. Likewise, the preliminary results of the case studies and recommendations were discussed in a workshop held in Bogota in August of 2019, with the support of Policentrico and the Open Society Foundations. The participants gave valuable insights to complement the initial findings with collaborative critical perspectives that are included in this final version of the brief.

Given that internet penetration is limited in certain municipalities of Colombia and to specific socio-economic sectors, especially in rural areas of the country, the analysis in this brief cannot be generalised to the areas and populations where there is a digital divide. Furthermore, more quantitative and qualitative studies, among others, of social media sentiment analysis, the spread of junk news and polarisation, are needed to understand the scope and range of how the use of specific social media platforms shaped democratic decision-making processes in the cases analysed. Hence, this brief only envisions to depict preliminary exploratory results to trigger a conversation and discuss possible recommendations.

The chapter is structured in three sections. This introductory section that portrays the context, policy problem addressed, objective and methodological approach. The chapter then explores the influence of social media use in Colombian democratic spaces by analysing three case studies including the 2016 plebiscite, the 2018 presidential elections and the threats against those leaders that signed the Colombian peace agreement. The third section includes a set of actionable policy recommendations for future cases.

Although the three cases have distinct dynamics and characteristics, there are three cross-cutting elements found in all of them. Identifying these patterns could contribute to devising future policies, strategies and recommendations to tackle the risks and capitalise on the beneficial effects of social media. All three are interrelated. First, in all the cases social media helped to trigger and shape emotions of citizens with an influence on their decisions. Second, in the three cases, information and disinformation, spread through social media platforms, appeared to affect the political choices made by many citizens. Third, in the three events, online political polarisation was influenced by filter bubbles and echo chambers that fed polarisation.

Each of the following three case studies describes the unit of analysis, examining the social media platforms used and how they were used, and analyses the positive and negative effects of the use of social media in the events observed.