Manufactured doubt

Public confusion can become a potent political weapon. Christopher Walker, writing in the Journal of Democracy in 2018, calls this kind of influence “sharp power.” He uses the term mainly to describe how authoritarian states project manipulative influence into democracies.

Unlike soft power, which attracts, sharp power manipulates. It penetrates the media and information ecosystem, distorts public conversation, and in so doing weakens democratic institutions by making citizens doubt what is real, what is legitimate, and whom to trust.

This is how I see what is happening now in the country’s political scene, particularly the recent Senate reorganization issue. It is not just about two camps fighting over the Senate presidency. To me, how we handle this moment is a test of whether we still know how to protect institutions when they are placed under deliberate confusion. This fog machine now throws smoke over quorum, leadership, rules, legitimacy, impeachment, and even the basic ability of the Senate to function.

The goal, apparently, is to make the Senate look illegitimate and the impeachment process look rigged before it even begins. By the time the impeachment trial starts, the public is already being conditioned to doubt the process, doubt the rules, and doubt the result.

In Walker’s framework, sharp power works by exploiting the openness of democratic societies. Democracies allow speech, criticism, dissent, media scrutiny, and public debate. These are essential features of a free society, but they can also be turned against the system when bad-faith actors flood public discourse with manipulation, disinformation, and emotional triggers.

Because democracies are naturally vulnerable to such attacks, they cannot afford to be naïve. They should be able to tell the difference between dissent and sabotage. Not every critic of government, for example, is an enemy. But political actors who deliberately paralyze institutions, online networks that manufacture doubt to undermine a constitutional process, timed cyber intrusions, website hacks, and anonymous propaganda that deepen public distrust are no longer engaged in politics as usual.

This is why the recent Supreme Court action on the Tayam petition must be understood with care. The dismissal of the petition should not be twisted into a ruling that the court rejected the Senate leadership change that elected Senator Sherwin Gatchalian as Senate president pro tempore and acting Senate president.

The court dismissed the petition for lack of legal standing. It did not issue a sweeping ruling on the merits of the quorum question. And just as important, it did not disturb the leadership change. It did not nullify what happened. It did not stop the Senate from proceeding under its present leadership.

In a constitutional democracy, institutions must continue to function unless a proper authority says otherwise. The Senate cannot be held hostage every time a faction refuses to accept defeat. The country cannot wait for every Facebook argument to be settled before government is allowed to function.

Those who disagree with the leadership of Senator Sherwin Gatchalian may avail themselves of the proper legal remedies. But unless and until a competent authority sets aside the Senate reorganization, we should respect the processes that keep our institutions functioning.

As we await the start of the impeachment trial of the vice president, the people must be protected from manipulation. They must not be conditioned to reject the process before it even begins.

Those aligned with the Duterte camp have every right to defend their side. They have every right to criticize the administration. They have every right to argue against impeachment.

But no faction has the right to wreck public trust in the Senate simply to protect one political camp from accountability.