THE commands and deals Musk is said to have reached in private with friends on the right in order to unseat Sir Keir Starmer from Number 10 are an unneeded shock to the conscience. Discussion of conspiring with right-wing proxies to bring down an elected government should make us take a breath rather than being simply appalled by its audacity but also by what it means for democracy as a whole. This isn’t just a story of one man’s political aspirations; this is the tale of unbridled power that reconditions social media for pure greed and the urgent need for reform. Musk, the billionaire head of Tesla and SpaceX, has recently emerged as a divisive figure on global affairs. His interest in British affairs over the last six months-including vocally criticizing, one day, Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government-was already in and of itself a dangerous precedent. Musk’s apparent desire to bolster the right-wing populist Reform UK party to force Starmer out of office is a chilling example of how wealth and influence can be used to circumvent democratic norms.
The UK parliamentary system, though robust, is not impervious to external pressures. Prime Ministers derive their legitimacy from leading the party with the most MPs. Historically, leaders like Tony Blair and Boris Johnson have seen their premierships cut short, not by external forces, but by internal party dynamics and public opinion. Musk’s interference seeks to undermine this system, leveraging his global influence to destabilise a government elected by the people. Elon Musk, owner of the platform X, recently made controversial remarks labelling Pakistan a “rogue nation” while endorsing claims from Indian sources accusing Pakistani communities of involvement in UK-based rape gangs. This narrative appears to have originated from Indian accounts, including individuals linked to X’s content moderation team who double as journalists. The accusations, amplified by Musk, align with broader market-oriented priorities of X favouring India while neglecting nuanced realities in Pakistan.
While Pakistan faces challenges, blanket statements from a global platform owner like Musk are not only irresponsible but undermine the platform’s impartiality. Such rhetoric reflects X’s increasing influence in shaping narratives, particularly in geopolitically sensitive contexts like Pakistan. The platform’s alignment with Indian narratives, driven by commercial interests in a larger market, raises critical questions about fairness, neutrality, and interference in other nations’ affairs. Musk’s remarks also hint at broader interference, extending to British politics, where narratives targeting Pakistani communities could exacerbate divisions. This incident underscores the potential misuse of platforms like X in manipulating global discourse and influencing public opinion under the guise of free speech, while catering to strategic economic and political interests.
At the heart of Musk’s influence lies his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter). With millions of followers and a penchant for inflammatory rhetoric, Musk wields X as both a megaphone and a cudgel. His recent demands for a national inquiry into historic grooming cases, coupled with baseless accusations against Starmer, exemplify the reckless use of this platform to shape narratives and erode trust in public institutions. This unchecked power raises critical questions about the role of social media in modern democracies. Unlike traditional media sources, X interfaces operate without oversight or censorship by customary, rather stringent activities of arrogant people. Musk, the indy-millonaire, is now a hot-headed sensationalist in regard to many global affairs. His interest in British affairs over the last six months-including vocally criticizing, one day, Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour government-was already in and of itself a dangerous precedent.
Some observers argue it is time for social media to be subject to the same rules and legal, ethical standards as traditional media. Therefore, platforms like X must respect local sovereign, domestic laws and be accountable for the material they have hosted and amplified. Allowing these platforms to operate without oversight is tantamount to endorsing anarchy in the information age. The damage caused by unregulated social media extends beyond political interference. It inculcates a culture of misinformation, polarisation and mistrust and its consequences are as long-lasting as they are calamitous. Musk’s behaviour is an examination of how unrestricted powers may be capable of undermining democracies, subduing extremists and eroding public trust.
Elon Musk’s behaviour is a reflection of a more important problem: the widespread influence of tech’s tycoons over global politics. With others among tech’s elite now following his path, the once chaotic and indiscriminate future of politics and media seemed infinitely more self-defeating. If left unchecked, this trend threatens to upend democratic systems, replacing accountability with autocracy. Given the problem at hand, the government must step up and act decisively. Social media for under existing laws, bringing strict criminal penalties for non-compliance, must be dealt with by the governments. Also, the international cooperation is very much needed to come up with one single law observing equal protocol for all digital platforms so that no person or corporation can overshadow or obtain overwhelming influence.
Critics have cloaked Musk with the label of lunatic-a man whose erratic behaviour and roaring ambition pose a clear and present danger. While such characterizations may prove an exaggeration, there exists a basic truth: Musk’s unfettered power is dangerous. His influences stretch beyond the digital realm and spill over into politics, economics and public discourse. The long-lasting damage he is causing is not accidental; it is pure intention.
History has made it clear that power concentrated in a few hands, if unregulated, will lead to ruination. Musk may not end with a pretty situation, but before that, there will be massive collateral damage. Democracies cannot afford the luxury of passivity when confronted with such threats. Musk’s meddling with British politics has fired a shot of alarm. It exposes democratic crevices amid the digital age, fending for urgent assistance. The X platform has to be brought to account and the negatives of tech billionaires must be reminded that there is no place for selective law in society.
In its task of continuing its existence into the future, democracy must navigate the challenges of the 21st century headlong-clashing with the Elon Musks so that no man-wealthy or otherwise [however rich he may be]- would stand against the will of the people. Not to do so would be a gross dereliction of duty to the spirit and even hard-earned lessons taught by the principles of which society was founded on.
—The writer is contributing columnist.
