Abstract
With elections coming up in three of the big G20 democracies in the next few months – India, Indonesia and Brazil – will the tussle for power mean the neglect of free speech and other human rights? Or will new governments, and more debate, mean a chance for progress?
These questions are more important than ever, now that the credibility of the US and UK as defenders of freedom of expression has been undermined by the revelations of mass surveillance of electronic communications around the world by the US National Security Agency (NSA) and the UK Government Communications Headquarters. Democratic countries are in the majority in the G20 – but it’s vital they all stand up for free speech in a tougher and more consistent manner.
President Dilma Rousseff has made a strong stand against the impact and implications of the NSA’s intrusive surveillance on countries around the world including Brazil
In these three big and increasingly influential democracies, there are both positive and negative signs. India’s general election comes first in May, with Indonesia’s presidential election due in July, and Brazil facing presidential and congressional elections in early October. Robust and vibrant debates and campaigns can be expected.
But corruption remains a big problem. All three countries are at middle levels in Transparency International’s annual corruption perceptions index – with India and Indonesia at a level of 36 and 32 (where 100 counts as transparent and 1 as not transparent) and Brazil a bit ahead at 42.
Corruption undermines democratic processes and can also drive censorship. Demands to remove politically sensitive remarks and criticism from the internet are a serious problem in all three countries, particularly in India and Indonesia. In Brazil, Google’s top executive in the country was arrested in 2012 for refusing to take down a YouTube video that included criticism of a local candidate at a mayoral election.
At the same time, social media use is proliferating in all three countries, and as smartphone prices fall and access widens, internet usage is on a sharply upward trend. In India, the main political parties all have social media communication strategies for their election campaigns for the first time. Some hope that this will encourage a more open attitude to social media by India’s political elites, whoever wins the election. Others see this as wishful thinking.
Certainly, India’s laws (similar to equally negative UK ones) that criminalise “grossly harmful” or “harassing” language on social media and make internet service providers remove content within 36 hours of complaints, must change. But attempts to amend internet technology rules have stalled in India’s Senate.
Sensitivity to religious offence and criticism also often drive censorship and attacks on free speech in India and Indonesia, and to a lesser extent in Brazil, with religious minorities in Indonesia facing major human rights abuses, including suppression of free expression.
All three countries have the opportunity to make a major contribution to international digital freedom debates. Brazil is particularly interesting here, and President Dilma Rousseff has made a strong stand against the impact and implications of the NSA’s intrusive surveillance on countries around the world including Brazil. And, with the Marco Civil bill, Brazil has developed – but is yet to pass – some of the most progressive digital legislation yet.
But there are risks too. Rousseff has called for legislation to force local hosting of local content by the big internet giants. This is perhaps understandable in response to the NSA revelations – but it would also drive fragmentation of the internet, and be only too welcome as a model for control in countries such as Iran and China.
Elections in these three major democracies present a moment where free speech – for politicians, citizens and the media – is vital and often inspiring. The challenge, not only in the elections, but afterwards, is for these democracies to show they will defend and promote free speech at home and internationally once in power.