In the week after the Dutch general election, everyone‘s attention has shifted towards Mark Rutte and his coalition-building efforts. However, an equally important process was taking place right before the election and the European leaders should take note.
When the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica data scandal broke out in March 2018, both governments and citizens were left speechless by the sheer magnitude of the privacy violation. By one estimation, the firm ended up collecting data of some 87 million people.
Some of the data was later used as a part of Donald Trump’s successful presidential campaign in 2016. The company utilised psychographic profiles of the users based on their Facebook activity and micro-targeted the electorate with tailored messages across multiple social media platforms. Special emphasis was put on the swing-states.
The EU is doing what the EU does best?
Cambridge Analytica also played a minor role in the UKIP Brexit campaign and had its eyes on the Romanian 2016 election campaign. And while most of the European Union’s 27 members remained unaffected by the activities of the British data company, anxiety about online election manipulation has been steadily rising.
All these events caused widespread uneasiness about the future of digital platforms, privacy protection and most importantly – the very idea of the democratic process in the online era. Soon enough, terms like micro-targeting, troll farms or ad transparency became a regular part of public debate. A pressing question came into the spotlight: How do we protect democratic processes against modern digital threats?
The EU response was hardly a surprise. The bloc simply set out to do what it does best and came up with a new legislative package on digital space. Regulating what online platforms can and cannot do when it comes to user data, online advertisement and disinformation is by far the most sensible approach.
Simultaneously, the law-making process comes with an inherent design flaw – it requires years of time and tons of compromise. At the same time, smaller members of the bloc are not expected to push their own policy to curb digital giants. They are only expected to contribute to the wider European process.
The Dutch approach
The lack of individual action is understandable. A country is not an interesting market for digital giants unless it’s big. It’s much more sensible for smaller and medium-sized countries to cooperate and put pressure on companies collectively.
On the other hand, legislative action must not be the only remedy. This is when the Netherlands comes into play. In the weeks leading up to the March 17 general election, the running parties agreed to sign a Code of Conduct with major digital platforms, pledging to refrain from all types of unfair political competition online.
This made practices like voter suppression, micro-targeting, foreign campaign funding and utilising bots and trolls universally unacceptable. Additionally, the parties committed to increase transparency of the whole process by publishing political ads in an online register and addressing disinformation on a designated website.
A non-binding bond
Crucially, the most compelling aspect of the Dutch agreement is that it has no legal implications. In other words, the document takes on a form of a goodwill gesture rather than a legally binding contract. And though this may manifest itself as a major limit of the whole Code, it is what makes it ingenious.
The five-page long agreement does not need to define any penalties for not complying with its provisions. It employs simple logic. If a party refuses to sign the Code, it will be looked upon with a degree of suspicion. This means that everybody will be eager to take part.
Subsequently, the topic gets into the spotlight – after all, it is not common to see the whole political spectrum agreeing on something. Spotlighting the topic means that any transgression against the Code is instantly punishable by public disapproval – and no political party enjoys such ordeal, especially with an election looming.
Politicians’ attitudes towards the Code may be understood in two ways. Either the parties accepted the outlined reality and refused to become outsiders, or, from an idealistic perspective, appreciated the gravity of the situation and went on to promote transparency of the electoral process.
A lesson to learn
No matter the motivation, the Dutch political elite has succeeded to push forward a fundamentally important topic. Additionally, the approach has helped to prevent most forms of online election manipulation and secure the legitimacy of the democratic process.
Of course, the Code of Conduct approach to political campaigning is not universally applicable in all EU states. After all, the degree of political culture varies significantly across the bloc. Expecting similar cross-party agreements to take place in some of the CEE countries seems to be, at least for now, a naïve proposition.
On the other hand, the coming months will see legislative and presidential elections taking place across the continent. Most notably German and French, but also Czech, Bulgarian and other leaders should therefore consider replicating the Dutch out-of-the-box approach.
Work on a comprehensive digital policy is well underway, and its delivery is crucial for the future of digital platforms. In the meantime, European leaders should consider utilising political consensus to increase transparency and legitimacy of the democratic system.