Another alarming sign, perhaps the most disturbing, is the invisible manipulation of the behavior, attitudes and decisions of millions of people. A paradigmatic case that illustrates this phenomenon is that of Cambridge Analytica.
This scandal revealed how it is possible to influence the lives of individuals and entire nations through propaganda networks: influencing political campaigns, managing social engineering techniques and even deploying it as computer warfare.
Cambridge Analytica was a U.S. subsidiary of the British Strategic Communications Laboratories — specializing in psychological operations — and founded in 2013 with a $15 million investment from billionaire Robert Mercer, a hedge fund manager and prominent Republican Party donor. Its board of directors included his daughter, Rebekah Mercer, and Steve Bannon, who would later become the key strategist for Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and his senior advisor after victory. Bannon, an avowed ideologue, had expressed his intention to transform the state into the bedrock of the so-called “Movement,” a project for a global resurgence of the populist right. This plan was directly linked to “alternative facts,” a term that gained notoriety during the Trump campaign and encapsulated the core of “post-truth”: the deliberate distortion of reality to manipulate beliefs and emotions, thus shaping public opinion and social attitudes. Coincidence? Hardly.
All of this was underpinned by the big data economy, the mainstay of the modern internet. Cambridge Analytica used data analytics to design campaigns — for both brands and politicians — aimed at “changing audience behavior.” They segmented the population and sent personalized messages on topics that mattered to them, using specific language and accompanying it with carefully selected images to capture their attention and engage them emotionally.
According to investigations by the British Parliament, former employees of the company revealed that Cambridge Analytica intervened in:
44 political campaigns in the United States in 2014
The campaign of PRO (Propuesta Republicana), Mauricio Macri’s party, in Argentina’s presidential elections in 2015
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign in 2016
The Brexit campaign for the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union.
The company went so far as to boast that it possessed 5,000 specific insights (data) on every U.S. voter. They claimed that, through “psychographic” analysis — classifying the population according to psychological variables such as lifestyle, interests and opinions — they could determine each individual’s personality and send them messages designed to influence their behavior. This data was collected from 87 million Facebook users through an application called Thisisyourdigitallife, which offered personality tests. In 2014, 87 million was a considerable number; today, with the exponential growth of platforms such as Facebook, X, Instagram and TikTok, that number would be at least sixty-fold. The top five social networks alone have more than 5 billion monthly active users.
Christopher Wylie, a former employee turned whistleblower, summed it up bluntly: “If you start warping voters’ perceptions without their consent or knowledge, you violate their autonomy to make free decisions, because they’re voting based on things they think are real, but aren’t necessarily real.”
Although Cambridge Analytica “officially” shut down in 2018 in the wake of the scandal, its practices persist in other similar companies.
The signs are also evident in cases such as the Panama Papers, which revealed how illicit wealth is managed and illegally obtained funds are hidden by politicians, corrupt military officers, drug traffickers, and seemingly respectable figures who evade taxes. This leak of 11.5 million documents, published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) with the help of 370 journalists from 76 countries, was no accident. It was probably driven by rivals seeking to weaken opponents, but it had a greater impact: it undermined the belief that adherence to justice and legal frameworks was a reliable standard. This event exposed the fallibility of the foundations on which that belief rested. It exposed the cracks in the ethical foundation of the democratic system, demonstrating that its integrity was more fragile than had been assumed.
Another critical sign that erodes morale and confidence in institutions and democracy is corruption.
This manifests itself in multiple forms: a government official who awards contracts of national interest in exchange for personal benefits; bribes to security or customs agents to facilitate illegal activities (drug trafficking or smuggling); political leaders who divert public resources or sell privileged information to enrich themselves, or to benefit their family or associates; judges who twist justice in favor of those who pay; or those that influence for money, peddling to image launder oppressive regimes.
When these activities come to light and the perception is that certain individuals are above the law, the initial scandal gives way to normalization. Corruption infiltrates at all levels, from paying a bureaucrat to expedite a procedure to massive schemes that bleed entire nations. This phenomenon destroys faith in the rule of law, institutions and authorities, corroding the social structure. It corrodes everything.
Notable examples of corruption include the case of Odebrecht, the largest Latin American construction company that weaved a web of bribes for almost US$350 million in Brazil, US$100 million in Venezuela and smaller sums in countries such as the Dominican Republic, Panama, Argentina, Ecuador, Peru, Guatemala, Colombia and Mexico. These schemes involved presidents and officials, exposing the misuse of resources, clientelism and influence peddling.
This case also revealed that corruption is one of the main causes of the permanent economic, political and social crisis that extends from Mexico to Argentina and has a decisive impact on the population, generating poverty, inadequate health services, insufficient electricity and water shortages, inefficient educational systems and, in general, limiting development. It also perpetuates the permanent instability of the regional political configuration, since holding political office is a very lucrative activity. This is essentially the driving force behind the efforts of so many individuals to gain access to power, govern and remain in power for as long as possible. It could not be otherwise, as it assures politicians the accumulation of significant personal wealth. Consequently, engaging in politics seems to be a dishonest business venture.
The Qatargate 2022 case, on the other hand, shook Europe. Belgian police arrested Eva Kaili, vice president of the European Parliament, and others for accepting bribes from Qatar to influence political decisions and improve the image of certain countries. The leaked documents revealed attempts to manipulate the European Union’s democratic processes, including efforts to silence critics. Morocco was also singled out for bribing MEPs. In previous years nearly a quarter of the 704 MEPs were implicated in money laundering or criminal activity, evidence of “serious foreign interference” in European democracy.
There are lesser cases — but no less relevant — that illustrate how prominent democratic figures align themselves with authoritarian regimes and accept bribes for personal gain. José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, former Spanish president and leader of the Spanish Socialist Workers Party (PSOE), was widely regarded as a representative figure of democracy. However, he has engaged in “advisory” and lobbying activities for the Venezuelan dictatorship, attempting to mediate, image launder, and influence European nations to support the Venezuelan authoritarian regime.
Gerhard Schröder, former German Chancellor, in 2017 was appointed chairman of the board of directors of Rosneft and Gazprom, Russian state-owned oil and gas companies, for a hefty sum of euros to defend Russia’s interests in Europe. In 2022, Schröder resigned from his functions in both companies due to mounting pressure from the German Parliament (Bundestag), which revoked certain privileges previously associated with his former position. In addition, the German Social Democratic Party (SPD) had considered expelling Schröder from its membership, although no such action was taken in the end.
As an additional observation, albeit a marginal one, it is pertinent to point out that corruption within the Roman Catholic Church was a pivotal factor in Martin Luther’s rebellion and the subsequent establishment of Protestantism. Luther’s position was marked by its critical and dissident character, reflecting profound discontent with the corruption that had taken hold of the Vatican.
Another sign: a very significant event that provoked widespread discontent affecting millions of people was the 2008 financial crisis, which blew up in 2007 under Bush and was inherited by Obama. This issue was so complex that I had to ask a friend, Frank, who is very knowledgeable about financial matters, to explain it to me. He outlined the key factors and their implications, but added that he could sum it up in one word: deregulation. In other words, the removal of restrictions.
The disaster began with the creation of CDS (credit default swaps) by J.P. Morgan in 1994, an “insurance” against defaults that became a systemic risk. In 1999, Fannie Mae (Federal National Mortgage Association) relaxed lending requirements, encouraging lending to people with lower credit scores. In 2000, the Federal Reserve lowered interest rates eleven times, creating an easy but unsustainable credit environment. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) allowed large banks to leverage themselves without limit, driving giants such as Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley to ratios of 30 to 1.
All of this led to rapidly escalating housing prices and rising interest rates after the initial issuance of the mortgage loans. As interest rates rose, mortgage payments became unaffordable for many individuals. The housing bubble burst in 2006, causing a significant decline in home sales and home prices. This led to the collapse of the U.S. subprime mortgage industry and a series of events, including the failure of more than twenty-five subprime lending companies.
The bankruptcy of these companies and the subsequent rejection of their assets by investors led to a rapid decline in the value of so-called toxic assets (CDS). This triggered a liquidity crisis that culminated in the collapse of the entire financial system and a global recession. The United States, the European Union, Australia, Canada and Japan were among the countries most affected.
The U.S. government bailout saved 44 banking and financial institutions, bought toxic assets, stopped foreclosures, regulated the banking system, and strengthened the economy. But the damage was already done. Six million families suffered foreclosures, unemployment rose, many people became bankrupt and homeless, suicides occurred and many small businesses went bankrupt. Millions of people lost faith in institutions and the system, feeling that those responsible were not being punished. This affected perhaps the most emblematic aspect of democracy: limiting the arbitrary exercise of power and subordinating it to well-defined laws. It showed once again that money and power are above the law and that there are two categories of people: those at the top, a small privileged group that does what it wants, and those at the bottom, who pay the consequences.
A study by political scientists from Princeton and Northwestern Universities concluded that the U.S. financial oligarchy, following the 2008 crisis, strengthened its dominance over the economy and political decisions, relegating the average citizen. The study also noted that the political system does not prioritize the average citizen and, while maintaining democratic features such as elections and freedom of speech, political decisions are disproportionately influenced by economic elites.
These are some examples that shake and shudder the core of the common citizen, the one who day after day gets up to work hard, struggling to satisfy even his most basic needs. These events, loaded with crudeness and injustice, plunge him into an overwhelming desolation and fill him with disenchantment, eroding his faith in the institutions that claim to represent him. Thus, that same individual, overwhelmed by feeling betrayed and deceived, ends up being fertile ground for the germ of distrust, an ideal breeding ground for opportunistic leaders. These self-proclaimed saviors emerge with promises of radical transformation, offering a change of system that, under the guise of redemption, ends up suffocating democracy to make way for a new order, as uncertain as it is ominous.
It is undeniable that the adversaries of democracy are shrewdly exploiting every fissure, every inherent weakness of the system, and will persist in their efforts to manipulate the masses for the ultimate purpose of establishing an alternative model of government, one that will allow them to exercise power at their absolute convenience, what some call the New World Order. This project, in all likelihood, will initially enjoy the passive acquiescence and even the approval of a people who, without realizing it, are being subtly conditioned to embrace this political drift. In this scenario, democracy, today the target of controversy, biting criticism and relentless attacks, could face its definitive extinction, eclipsed by a citizenry that, without full awareness, paves the way to its own destiny. This is not inevitable; it depends on the collective will to resist or succumb.
©Noris Roberts
