AI and Social Media: Reshaping the Electoral Landscape

In a digital age where political campaigns increasingly leverage technology, artificial intelligence and social media are reshaping election landscapes across Asia, according to experts from five countries who recently gathered for a virtual roundtable discussion.

The forum, organized by the Asian Media Information and Communication Centre (Amic) and Chulalongkorn University’s Faculty of Communication Arts in partnership with UNESCO and the Asian Network for Free Elections (Anfrel), examined how these tools are being deployed in electoral processes throughout the region.

With the United Nations designating 2024 as a “super year for elections” with 72 countries heading to the polls—including 20 in Asia—the timing of this analysis proves particularly relevant. Additional elections held in 2025 and more scheduled for 2026 have kept these issues at the forefront of regional political discourse.

Dr. Wijayanto of Indonesia’s Universitas Diponegoro highlighted how candidates are using AI to craft entirely new public personas. He cited a prominent Indonesian candidate who leveraged AI to rebrand himself as a “gemoy” or cute grandpa, demonstrating how technology can transform image without necessarily adding substance to campaigns.

“Candidates and political parties rely on entertainment,” Wijayanto noted, describing how some politicians have used AI “to dance themselves to victory.” His observations point to a troubling trend where style increasingly supersedes substance, while fake social media accounts and cyber troops simultaneously spread hate speech.

In Japan, Dean Muneo Kaigo of the University of Tsukuba observed that candidates routinely hire public relations companies and social media influencers to establish “genuine connections” with voters. While acknowledging that digital technologies can support free elections, Kaigo warned about their role in spreading misinformation and creating filter bubbles that reinforce polarization.

University of the Philippines journalism professor Dr. Danilo A. Arao offered a more critical perspective, arguing that digital tools primarily benefit “the rich and powerful” who use them to “maximize their foothold on power.” He characterized social media as “riddled with disinformation, lies, and conspiracy theories” that can be weaponized through practices like red-tagging of opponents.

Anfrel’s John Reiner Antiquerra reported disturbing trends including the creation of false narratives through pseudo web pages of political parties. He pointed to particularly concerning examples from Sri Lanka, where AI-generated homophobic campaign messages targeted minority communities.

In Thailand, Chulalongkorn University professor emeritus Dr. Pirongrong Ramasoota described the political environment as marked by “turbulence,” noting that “social media algorithms, AI analytics, and digital fandoms” have become decisive factors in electoral outcomes. She also highlighted the emergence of “Do-It-Yourself political campaigning” facilitated by accessible digital tools.

Dr. S M Shameem Reza of Bangladesh’s University of Dhaka raised concerns about “information asymmetry,” warning that AI could widen the gap between those with access to accurate information and those without.

The regulatory landscape across the region varies significantly. Japan has implemented strict regulations with light enforcement through its Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, with the Public Offices Election Law currently under revision. The Japan Platform Distribution Act aims to address defamation and harmful content online, while Social Media Regulation requires platforms to act quickly against illegal content.

The Philippines has established more explicit guidelines through Commission on Election Resolution 11064, which addresses digital campaigning and prohibits misinformation. Indonesia had no specific AI regulations during its June 2025 election but plans to implement new guidelines before the 2029 electoral cycle. Thailand and Bangladesh have limited regulations specifically addressing AI in elections.

The question of who should regulate these technologies remains contentious. Ramasoota cautioned that “more regulations may mean more government involvement,” suggesting instead that “good regulations come from public participation” rather than top-down approaches. Professor Arao advocated for self-regulation as the preferred mechanism, warning that government regulation risks controlling media “to fit official narratives.”

Participants proposed several solutions, including voluntary labeling of AI materials, prohibiting deepfakes, strengthening independent fact-checking, and enhancing media literacy. Dr. Reza specifically recommended leveraging AI in fact-checking efforts and encouraging more active participation from media organizations and civil society groups.

As the region continues to navigate these complex issues, the experts emphasized that free and fair elections depend on combating disinformation, misinformation, and hate speech—making it imperative that truth remains a paramount value in democratic processes.