Elections Interference: A Double-Edged Sword of Democratic Ideals
Commonly perceived as a unilateral action undertaken by foreign entities against the U.S. democratic process, elections interference is, in reality, a two-way street where all nations engage in some form of influence over electoral outcomes. This article explores the historical context and contemporary practices of election interference, focusing on the United States' role in the global arena.
Historical Precedents and Contemporaneous Practices
According to Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, Russia's involvement in the 2016 U.S. presidential election has drawn significant attention. However, the New York Times and The Economist point out that the U.S. government has a long history of such interference. Former CIA operations chief Steven L. Hall, who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the CIA, stated that the U.S. 'absolutely' has carried out election influence operations historically, suggesting that such activities are not unique to Russia but are part of a broader historical pattern.
Loch K. Johnson, the dean of American intelligence scholars from the University of Georgia, explains that U.S. interference in elections dates back to the creation of the CIA in 1947. Historically, these operations involved various methods such as posters, pamphlets, mailers, banners, and even the use of cash. The U.S. even used methods such as planting false information in foreign newspapers and offering financial incentives to candidates.
Examples of U.S. Interference
The United States has engaged in covert actions, including overthrowing democratically elected leaders. For example, in the 1950s, the U.S. CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mohammad Mossadegh, and in the 1960s, it supported violent coups in several countries. Some cases included helping to assassinate leaders, supporting brutal anti-Communist governments in Latin America, Africa, and Asia.
Contemporary Context
Recent electoral interference cases often involve the use of social media. For instance, in 2016, there were concerns over Russian efforts to sway voters through social media platforms. However, the nature of such interference is not limited to one nation. The author argues that the U.S. has the largest arsenal of interference tools, often camouflaged under the rhetoric of democracy and freedom. This has led to perceived double standards, much like the so-called 'sanctimonious two-faced speeches' given in Washington D.C. by political leaders.
Implications for Future Elections
Given the context, it is unlikely that Russia will significantly interfere in the 2020 U.S. elections. The U.S. government's response to the 2016 incident suggests that the potential for significant misconduct outweighs the gains from minimal intervention. Moreover, the author suggests that the true nature of the U.S. intervention is to manipulate voter perceptions, using techniques such as Facebook advertising.
Conclusion
The article concludes by emphasizing the hypocritical stance of the U.S. government when it comes to democratic ideals. While the U.S. has a long history of interfering in elections, its actions are often justified under the guise of protecting democratic values. The author suggests that this dual narrative highlights the challenges of maintaining genuine democratic processes in a world where all nations engage in some form of electoral interference.