Online Reporter
Gibson Nyikadzino
Zimpapers Politics Hub
WARS, by nature, experience a certain procedure of tectonic decentralisation necessitated by the passage of time.
Today, globalisation accompanied by revolutionary technological capabilities, has changed the face of war from the traditional forms of military confrontation to the more modern non-combat forms of warfare.
In the age of artificial intelligence (AI), deep fakes and highly sophisticated networks that threaten states, the 21st century now requires a strategic understanding of both low-risk and high-risk conflicts against vicious adversaries who are either state or non-state actors.
With global information networking at an unprecedented level, there exists a strong need for states to develop approaches that allow for strategic decisions to be made to the benefit of their respective nations.
As these changes occur, transforming how the security architecture of a country should be modified, there is a correlation that high-level decision-makers be closely connected with security personnel to able to apply systematic approaches to enhance security.
A key subject that comes to mind in this categorisation is social media.
In his speech at the 45th Independence Day celebrations in Gokwe, President Mnangagwa had this to say about social media: “All patriotic Zimbabweans are reminded of the need to guard against the dangers of social media, which is increasingly being used as a tool to cause discord and raise false alarms.”
President Mnangagwa’s sentiments on social media are not in isolation. They resonate with the concerns of the security arms of the state to ensure national stability, and also of many states, both developed and developing.
In May 2020 when protests broke out in the United States over the murder of a black man, George Floyd, by a white police officer, then US national security adviser Robert O’Brien referred to Zimbabwe and China as “foreign adversaries” using social media to stoke unrest and “sow discord”, without citing any evidence.
To deal with the social media amplified violent protests, nearly 62 000 American reserve soldiers were activated in two dozen states to potentially confront and quell the violent protests. Last year, Britain experienced far-right riots that rocked the nation augmented by social media, prompting Prime Minister Keir Starmer to say that a “standing army” of specialist police would be set up to deal with rioting.
In Zimbabwe, there have been systematic attempts to do the same using social media starting in April 2016; August 2018; January 2019 and most recently in March this year.
These instances of violent protests serve as a wake-up call. The rise of far-right extremism is not an abstract issue. It has real consequences for communities, individuals and the fabric of society. It is now an established fact that social media platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Telegram and TikTok can be utilised by various actors, including activists, radical groups, and foreign elements, to influence and shape public opinion, incite violence, and destabilise governments.
This is done by the sharing the ideas of a “network society” and “networked public”.
When social media platforms are used with intent to potentially threaten national security stability in the name of the right to democratic protest, the only legitimate response to such actions are informed in the security dimension or frame.
The security dimensions warranting responses to those threats are made possible because social media platforms are now part of a new networked sphere that is changing the dynamics of government-citizen interaction on the cyber space. More investments need to be done in this category.
Facebook, X or other social media platforms are now popular for spreading messages which threaten national security in multiple ways. The rapid dissemination of information, both factual and disinformation, can manipulate public opinion.
The use of social media to organise unsanctioned protests implies that the security establishment deems such to be dangerous.
Social media platforms’ ability to spread fake news seeks to undermine national security by creating panic or distrust of the government on the part of the public. Bots, trolls and ghost accounts are used to mask the faces of those manipulating of public consciousness and undermining national trust by spreading extremist ideologies.
The cyber space today now constitutes a platform of modern warfare and conflict, either informational or psychological. This explains why developed nations like the USA are talking of the four-dimensional superiority. They want to dominate on land, in the air, at sea and in space, including the cyber sphere.
This makes cyberspace a new domain of conflict; hence, when states detect national security threats and calls for instability, their reactions are informed by the desire to keep and maintain a central authority within the jurisdiction of their boundaries.
So, how the Zimbabwean security and political establishment react to address modern warfare concerns that are exhibited on social media use or abuse is key. Security, it should be known, supersedes democracy!
Should governments therefore be concerned about the use of misuse of social media within their jurisdictions? Yes.
Like other countries, Zimbabwe needs to increase its surveillance capabilities in the face of unchecked misinformation, providing radical and militant groups with a wider reach to spread their false narratives.
Without effective moderation of social media platforms, dangerous rhetoric will thrive, directly impacting real-world violence and affecting the national security structure of Zimbabwe.
The internet, the computers, and the social media platforms that it connects are present everywhere in the world today, at every level and in every facet of modern society.
These networked systems have opened new developmental doors, but also have seen a proliferation of security challenges largely premised on the existence of the internet.
Dealing with the proliferation of these threats is one that is to be informed by a renaissance of strategic thinking and action. Doing so means there is need for greater intellectual guidance in understanding the essence of the dimensions of modern warfare as a whole and for finding nationally oriented strategic answers in the 21st century.
It is possible that threat actors can utilise social platforms for psychological warfare, social engineering, intelligence collection, cyber operations, and the intentionality of social media can be exploited by non-state actors for cyber warfare.
There are more positives that social media platforms can be used for responsibly. Whenever they are used to call for insurrection, an overthrow of the government, or any form of uprising, that ceases to become a democratic right, but an act of sedition.
