According to a survey published by YLE, about 40 percent of Finns would let their choice of candidate in the upcoming municipal elections be influenced by visibility on social media. The COVID-19 pandemic means that election campaigns are expected to move even more to these platforms. This genuinely worries me.

I don’t trust social media. More precisely, I don’t trust that the multinational (American) companies – which provide us with various applications for free in exchange for us producing content and giving them our data for marketing – are particularly interested in promoting democracy in Finnish municipalities.

I am especially critical of the algorithms that control who sees what, which are completely hidden from us ordinary citizens. What we have become aware of is that people live in their “bubbles,” but this is not really new. Emotion, identity, and belonging to the same group, or “bubble,” have always been factors in elections. One has the right to choose their candidate with both heart and mind in various combinations.

The fact that everyone can have their voice heard feels good until one experiences the cacophony of short, disjointed phrases, “trolling,” and hate.

The web came with a promise of “democratization.” It has become easy to spread information boundlessly quickly and advantageously. Unfortunately, hopes for a “new spring” for democracy have proven to be false. Quick and advantageous has not meant relevant and truthful. The fact that anyone can create a website or a social media profile does not mean it reaches the general public. It is still good to be a familiar name and to have the advantage of being able to spread the message of one’s candidacy with advertising. Not all profiles and pages are equally visited.

The fact that everyone can have their voice heard feels good until one experiences the cacophony of short, disjointed phrases, “trolling,” and hate. It also seems to me that content is becoming shorter and more visual. It is mostly pictures and video clips, where anything that requires more attention than a minute is considered too demanding.

Digitalization has clearly led to the impoverishment of quality journalism, especially locally.

The question is what essential information can be conveyed about complicated issues if it has to go so quickly? I miss a more analytical debate. Perhaps the COVID-19 pandemic will provide opportunities to follow debates remotely that one could not follow before. The question is how to find them if they are organized?

Digitalization has clearly led to the impoverishment of quality journalism, especially locally. A good local newspaper used to be a forum for discussion. Unfortunately, it has become too expensive to maintain news media that have good local coverage of what is happening in most of our municipalities.

Not that newspapers always reached everyone either. Not everyone had access to multiple daily newspapers, and even though almost everyone now has a smartphone in their pocket, it is not something that is evenly distributed. There is a significant difference between age groups. Young voters and older voters generally have very different media consumption.

A consequence of the impoverishment is that we who are to vote are rather served entertainment than analysis in connection with the elections. This entertainment is packaged as something related to the elections. It is characterized by focusing on a few individuals. The best example of such entertainment is the “mayoral elections” in the big cities, where the battle is fought between the top profiles of the two or three largest parties.

I am extremely dismayed when the major media houses also seem to be driving this trend.

This is directly misleading, not to call it “fake news”! According to the Municipal Act, Section 44, the mayor is elected by the council. The mayor is a trustee in the municipality and the chairman of the municipal board. We do not elect mayors this spring; we elect members of the council.

I understand that it can be tempting for the largest groups in a municipality to try to market the elections as “mayoral elections.” I am extremely dismayed when the major media houses also seem to be driving this trend. It is, of course, important who is appointed as the chairman of the municipal board, i.e., the mayor. But it is the council that is the highest decision-making body in the municipality. We are actually electing a people’s assembly to represent us as municipal residents, not a dictator for a limited time.

What is really important to you in the municipality for the next four years? The answer probably requires more than 280 characters or a picture.

For my part, I intend to completely ignore the mayoral elections! Municipalities make a lot of decisions about your, my, and our loved ones’ everyday lives. Voting is a significantly more solemn matter than giving a “thumbs up.” It is about something much more important than a moment’s feeling for a cleverly formulated tweet or a cute picture of a cat. What is really important to you in the municipality for the next four years? The answer probably requires more than 280 characters or a picture.

This article by Georg Henrik Wrede was previously published in Swedish on Kommuntorget.