Aino Rantamäki
11.6.2021

The last few weeks Finnish news has been buzzing over the so called “breakfast gate”. In the centre of the debate has been the meal benefit related to the Prime Minister’s residence. The case has been examined through the lenses of correctness, costs and tax implications, to name a few. Closer inspection of the case reveals many information related issues. What started off as a seemingly small issue, has blown up into one discussed even internationally. The case itself tells a story of trust and distrust. The unravelling of the situation, on the other hand, tells an intertwined story of uncertainty and learning, one from which information resilience can emerge and grow. Information resilience would ideally refer to the dispersal of timely and situation specific information. In reality, however, it refers more to the process of staying afloat in a sea of incomplete and ever-changing information, where waves of mis- and disinformation further muddy the waters.

 Information resilience as a phenomenon is little studied and thus also poorly understood. According to the conceptual analysis carried out by the IRWIN project, information resilience is a systemic phenomenon that manifests itself in interaction and uncertainty and is also relevant in the context of management and decision-making. Trust enhancing relationships, changes in gatekeeping and societal institutions all affect the opportunities for information resilience to emerge. When looking at information resilience, one can find many indications of the complexity of the phenomenon, the strongest links between information resilience and complexity being the themes of interaction and uncertainty.

 The first component of information resilience that speaks to its complexity, is that it emerges in the multifaceted interactions between its parts, which may result in something larger than just the sum of its parts. Although interaction is a key component within all dynamic social systems, what is of importance is not the interaction itself, but its diversity. Interaction is never one-directional, but is rather based on different vertical, horizontal and diagonal links. In decision making this means not only listening to various experts and accounting for the direct effects of the matter at hand, but also accounting for the combined and indirect effects. These multifaceted interactions are what enable the emergence of information resilience. It is therefore natural to use information resilience to study the dynamics of systems and the possibilities they create, instead of studying static situational snapshots (cf. Teisman & Klijn 2008).

Secondly, the complexity of information resilience is indicated by the significance of uncertainty. Uncertainty is seen as a constant trapeze walk on the edge of chaos. Information resilience is not only able to respond to and tolerate uncertainty, but also utilise it as a motivator for development. At its best, uncertainty can lead to the need for change and thus to learning and renewal. At its worst, it can cripple the entire system. The point of walking the line between equilibrium and chaos is that either extreme leads to the destruction of the system (Zimmerman ym. 1998). The same goes for societal debates. Total chaos and fragmentation of the conversation leads to fragmented statements without any links to each other, and thereby to the death of the conversation in its interactive sense. Likewise, full balance, or full consensus, quickly quenches the debate. When there is no longer need for argumentation, the discussion dies down. Complete equilibrium is therefore not desirable, rather, the pendulum should always be slightly swung to one side.  Without dialogue between different points of view there is no space from which information resilience can emerge.

In what way, then, does “breakfast gate” relate to information resilience? The starting point for the whole case is information about a benefit that comes with being Prime Minister. The information has been received from a seemingly trustworthy party and been used as such. What can clearly be seen, is that the interaction links in the flow of information have not been complex nor multifaceted, thus also not resulting in discussions over the value and usability of the information. Information has begun to be questioned by a third party, but without a valid dialogue, the debate has turned into a chaotic confrontation about supermarket receipts and other benefits, finally resulting in wider political disagreements. Gatekeepers have tried to manage the issue from blowing out of proportion but failed in doing so due to strictness and a lack in the transparency in their doings– leading to a complete counterreaction to that which they intended to achieve. There have also been signs of a desire to innovate the acquisition of information and updating of guidelines. Optimistically one could say that a broader and more complex dialogue to resolve the issue has already begun, as the Prime Minister's Office, for example, has begun to update the guidance on benefits based on the statements they have received. Simultaneously, a seed for information resilience may have been sown. Only time will tell how that seed starts growing.

Aino Rantamäki, Project Researcher, University of Vaasa