Political Disinformation on the Net and the Risk to Democracy

The essay aims at analyzing the relationship between the changes of political information,disseminated through the net,and the dangers to democracy.In particular,three topics will be addressed:the change of ways of making political information on the net;the new characteristics of political information disseminated on the net and the risk for democracy;the need to combat political disinformation on the net through adequate regulation.In this regard,the paper analyzes the measures adopted in some European countries,such as France,Germany,and Spain,aimed at countering disinformation online and fake news,especially in the field of political information,and the action started by the European Union for this purpose.The measures adopted by some European countries are aimed at:repressing the disinformation and fake news;providing transparency obligations for providers;promoting media literacy programs.Instead,the European Union preferred to resort to self-regulation by providers.In fact,although the European Union can adopt a regulation containing specific obligations for providers,for the moment it has provided for the adoption of a Code of good practice to combat disinformation which is not binding on them.In this regard,the paper analyzes the possible measures that States and European Union could introduce in order to combat the phenomenon of political disinformation able to influence the voters and condition the electoral competitions.Finally,the paper focuses on the effectiveness of these measures and their limits.

Informal Networks of Power and Control of Deviation in Post-Soviet Non-Democracies

Informal networks, practices and institutions may be observed in many different social contexts, particularly in politics. In certain political regimes, certain forms of informality are to be expected and are also tolerated more than in others. Political informality in Eastern Europe may be presented on an axis with two poles, with many variants or combinations of informality and formality between them. These positions also allow the identification of specific regime types and legal systems. This chapter seeks to contextualize the distinction between the formal and the informal and to relate it to types of political regime, the principal focus resting on informal politics. Specific political contexts may produce practices of informality that have become so generalised that they can be described as cultures of informality. The interesting question is： to what extent are specific forms of informal structures more resilient in particular regime types than in others？ Particularly looking at some of the more-or-less autocratic Euroasiatic states, one can easily recognize that the very purpose of informal politics and institutions is to restrict or eliminate political competition. Forms and meanings of what is informal and formal change the further one moves eastwards. Formal rules are and may be used together with informal institutions to control society. All this points to specific cultures of informality that can be observed, as well as different cultures of trust and distrust. On the other hand, such cultures of informality have to be considered in the context of specific political systems, together with their regimes （the concrete configurations of political power） and their organisations. This paper looks particularly at hybrid non-democracies and suggests one might consider them, in the perspective ofNiklas Luhmann＇s system theory, as parasites of functional differentiation.