402+Group+report-E-activism

= =
 * Internet technologies: tools for empowering large groups of citizens, or strengthening the power of the established elite? **

This paper discusses the question of whether Internet technologies will empower more people to take part in decision-making, or if the established elite will be strengthened by increased opportunity to control people and information? While optimists have faith that Internet will inspire and facilitate more democratic behavior among citizens, and thus weaken elite and dictatorial governments, skeptics regard this as naive and not representing the reality. Applying examples such as the 2011 “Twitter/Facebook Revolution” in Egypt and the 2007 Saffron Revolution in Burma, this paper argues that while the elite indeed might use Internet as a tool to control the people and information, Internet also lend itself very difficult to control, and often result in strengthened democracy. Still, a central argument is that the impact and quality of being an e-activist is context-specific. The impact of Internet technologies on empowerment of more people in the upcoming years will therefore be highly interesting to follow.
 * Abstract **

**1. Introduction ** The use of Internet provides societies with several opportunities for transformation. Changes occur in countries where governments control and constrain the freedom of expression as well as in more democratic countries, in that Internet can be a tool for strengthening democracy and government accountability, human rights activism and civil practices (Haider, 2011, p.1). The potential of using Internet as a tool for supporting democracy is clearly evident in insurgent movements such as the recent uprising in Egypt that led the resignation of President Mubarak. On the other hand, the political elite have gained control over the social media in many countries, some supporting the democratic practice, others to silent the people’s voice. As such, this paper will discuss whether Internet technologies will empower more people to take part in decision being made, or if the established elite will be strengthened by increased opportunity to control people and information? **2. Theoretical Framework: Mass-Mobilization Perspective ** The potential of Internet technologies to empower citizens’ participation in decision-making has wide theoretical support (Haider, 2011, p.3). Robert Faris and Bruce Etling highlight examples indicating devolution of power from government to citizens. With Internet technologies, “anyone can be a pundit, a reporter, or a political organizer using tools such as text messages, e-mails, wikis, blogs, video, and websites” (Faris and Etling, 2008, p.67). The cost of distributing information is significantly reduced. Jonathan Zittrain highlights how such changes make possible an unprecedented ability to monitor and publicize activities of governments (cited in Faris and Etling, 2008, p.67). It is increasingly difficult for governments to hide or manipulate information, acting non-consistent with citizens’ interests (Haider, 2011, p.2). A further innovation is the ability to organize online and via cell phones (Faris and Etling, 2008, p.69). Disparate groups can be united with low cost, as Internet and mobile communication tools enable citizens to interact- facilitating social movements (Haider, 2011, p.1). Networked public spheres provide platforms for discussion and deliberation, which are central in well-functioning democracies (Faris and Etling, 2008, pp.69-70).

**2.1. The Potential of Internet Technology to Empower Citizen Participation** The above suggests that Internet indeed can promote mass-mobilization and citizen participation in decision-making. Social media is considered to contribute to democratic processes, especially to government accountability, human rights activism, and development of civil society and practices of citizenship (Haider, 2011, p.1). Recent social trends, such as the 2011 uprising in Egypt (the “Wiki/Twitter Revolution”), seem to support this stance. Huma Haider states:

“In Egypt, the April 6 movement, which relies on Facebook and other social media tools, has provided a structure for a new generation of Egyptians to assemble virtually and communicate about their grievances. They fall outside of the small, traditional group of activists and opinion-makers in the country and represent a new form of civil society organization” (2011, p.3). Egyptian bloggers where central in publicizing human rights violations and documenting government excesses. Activists applied Internet technologies to mobilize as a response to economic, social and political grievances. The result was a toppled Mubarak-regime (Haider, 2011, pp.4-5). Online distributed videos where central in bringing people to the streets and encouraging them to fight for their rights. Further, e.g. Twitter provided a platform for discussion and deliberation- creating a vibrant civil society. The 2007 Saffron Revolution in Burma, however, did not lead to such evident results (Chowdhury, 2008, p14). Still, it can be argued that it is too early to decide the quality and impact of these activist initiatives. The potential of e-activism is not only the possibility to topple regimes. E-activism may also promote government accountability and support civil society (Haider, 2011, p.5). It is argued that in Burma the government “exercised restraint in the use of force against civilian protesters because of the Internet and international media attention” (Chowdhury, 2008, p.14). In Burma, social medias distributed reports of the country’s events to the international society. As Chowdhury states: “In a tightly controlled media environment…citizen journalists are able to report on government actions and provide a measure accountability that would not otherwise occur" (2008, p.14). Even the most authoritarian regimes are sensitive to international public opinion (Chowdhury, 2008, p.14). The above suggests that Internet technologies indeed can empower people to take part in decision-making. In Egypt, Internet technologies facilitated mass-mobilization, which resulted in a toppled Mubarak-regime. The Saffron Revolution indicates that Internet may increase accountability and transparency (Chowdhury, 2008, pp.8-14). This indicates that Internet technologies have lead to individuals “wielding the considerable power of information previously held only by governments and large media companies” (Faris and Etling, 2008, pp.67-68). Alongside its importance for mass mobilization, the Internet has the potential to strengthen the power of the established elite to control people and information. Sharp (2010, p.3) observes that governments have deliberately weakened, subordinated and controlled society to an extent that it is unable to work to achieve freedom. The Internet is one of the tools used to achieve this. Haider (2011, p.7) notes that regimes use social media including Internet and mobile technologies for their benefit- to support their position against mass protests. This is done in different ways ranging from surveillance to disinformation.
 * 3. Theoretical Framework: Elite Perspective **


 * 3.1. The Potential of Internet Technology to Promote the Established Elite **
 * Surveillance ** : Just as the ability to freely communicate empowers citizens, the ability to monitor, to invade the citizens' privacy, gives the state (elite) the power to control citizens. Through surveillance, governments are increasingly tracking down individuals that promote protests against them. For example in Kenya after the 2008 election violence, contact information of people who allegedly promoted violence was available to the government (Goldstein and Rotich, 2008, p.4). This implies that the Internet is not immune to laws of the land such as those concerning defamation, official secrets and sedition. Using such laws the elites have in some cases successfully controlled what the masses say and do on the Internet. The Saffron Revolution in Burma is evidence of this since Chowdhury (2008, p.9) observes that the people are generally terrified about writing against the government on the Internet due to the numerous cases of arrest and torture.


 * Disinformation: ** The elites extensively use this option to support their position in order to get around disruptions. Internet can be used as a tool to confuse and eventually control citizens. They employ people to debate any critical comments that may arise. In Russia for example, pro-Kremlin bloggers were deployed to engage and debate those who are critical of the Putin-Medvedev government (Faris and Etling, 2008, p.80). Similarly, during the Kenya violence, the government sent out messages encouraging peace and calm (Goldstein and Rotich, 2008, p. 5), and in Malaysia, independent bloggers are noted to be proxies of established ruling political forces (Cherian, 2007, p.908).

Worth noting, is that the elites might be at an advantage in this techniques since, unlike the masses in many developing countries, Internet is more accessible to them and they have what it takes to participate effectively. Ott and Rosser (2000, p.143) note that use of the Internet not only requires basic literacy, but also the ability to interact with analysts and writers among others. This is a lacking ingredient among the masses in many developing countries. Often, governments monopolize web-based bulletin boards, especially those that require personal invitation or registration. To participate one must register and also contribute in an approved manner, or else he/she is removed.In both Egypt and Burma the governments shut down the Internet as a way of controlling their population (Chowdhury, 2008, p.8; Haider, 2011, p.7).

Using various techniques, including the Internet, many governments have inflicted fear and a habit to obey in its citizens, increasing its control over them and the information accessible to them. While Sharp (2008, p.3) notes that people empowerment requires that they overcome fear and the habit of obedience, this seems far from reality in many countries with undemocratic regimes. Therefore, Internet technologies might provide strong tools for promoting the established elite to control people and information.


 * __4. Comparing Mass-Mobilization and Elite-Control Perspective__**

Internet technologies work in mysterious ways and do not support either mass-mobilization or elite control in a way that outcompete the other. As mentioned Internet technology has made it possible for people to communicate with others, also across country borders, in faster and more widespread ways than ever before. Demonstrations and campaigns can be arranged and organized both nationally and across the globe, as the Internet allows ordinary citizens to become creators of content online, instead of merely consumers of information (Chowdhury, 2008, p.8).

Optimists have faith that Internet will inspire and facilitate more democratic behavior among citizens and thus weaken elite and dictatorial governments; on the other hand the skeptics argue that this is naive and not representative of reality. “Although there is a positive correlation between measures of democracy and Internet diffusion in many countries, there is still no convincing evidence that there is any causal relation between the two” (Chowdhury, 2008, p.12). Some argue that Internet has made it more difficult for authoritarian regimes to suppress democratic aspirations, while others claim that despite Internet's possibilities and its role, governments are still in control over its use and the access to it (Chowdhury, 2008, p.12).

In considering whether the Internet is a tool for empowering large groups of people or strengthening the established elite, one cannot avoid the issue of Internet accessibility. Faris and Etling (2008, p.80) observe that it is available to both those who seek to expand representative democracy and those who seek to gain and consolidate power- the elite. Its impact therefore depends on who can best utilize it. The economic, social and political contexts are elements that influence the use of ICT and affect its results. Haider notes that social media is not available for marginalized groups, and thus online activism is more likely to be exercised by those with sufficient resources (Haider, 2011, p.8). She also highlights how new technologies actually might make citizens more passive “by leading them to confuse online rhetoric with substantial political action, diverting their attention away from productive activities” (Aday, as cited in Haider, 2011, p.5). Despite the increased participation that is facilitated through Internet technologies, this might not necessarily translate into street action, which is more effective for the success of a protest movement and for affecting decision-making (Haider, 2011, p.5). An important question is thus whether Internet technologies in reality weaken participation by making it shallower, instead of empowering people to take part in decision-making. This introduces the issue of weak-ties characterizing online communication versus strong-ties developed through face-to-face interaction (Haider, 2011, p.5), as well as the contextual elements. As mentioned in Sharp many governments have deliberately weakened, subordinated and controlled the society to an extent that it is unable to work together to achieve freedom. As a result the people are weak and incapable of resistance. For people to put up such resistance, they need to overcome fear and the habit of obedience (Sharp, 2008, p.3). Also Chowdhury writes that cyber activism inside a country becomes difficult with high levels of fear (Chowdhury, 2008, p.9). Though, as argued by Howard (as cited in Haider, 2011, p.5) “while democratic transitions are not caused by new information technologies, transition is no longer possible without them”.

However nebulous; the effects of Internet are evident in both Burma in 2007 and Egypt 2011 (Chowdhury, 2008, p.14; Haider, 2011, p.5). The external reaction and the greater attention gathered from social movements are important, as “international solidarity and political sympathy can in turn create new opportunities to generate power internally” (Haider, 2011, pp.2, 7). These cases illustrate how "the Internet does not lend itself easily to control" (Chowdhury, 2008, p.9). Even though the governments tried to shut down the Internet, the people managed to find new solutions to "get around the disruption" showing how significant results might be achieved using Internet technologies (Haider, 2011, p.7). It can certainly be argued that the use of Internet technologies has potential to empower more people to take part in decision-making, and to strengthen democracy through increased government accountability, human rights activism and strengthened civil society. Egypt’s “Twitter/Wiki Revolution” and Burma’s Saffron Revolution have served as illustrations of the possible impact and quality of e-activism. Even though the Saffron Revolution often has been regarded a failure as it not resulted in a toppled regime, this paper has argued that the Internet still had a positive impact leading to increased accountability and respect for human rights. Nevertheless, much indicates that also the established political elite might be strengthened through the Internet, by an increased opportunity to control people and information. Often governments have controlled social media to protect their regimes. In many developing countries, lack of Internet access among the people is problematic. An important question is also whether Internet technologies actually lead to more shallow participation. The cases of this paper suggest that the potential impact and quality of Internet as a tool for people’s empowerment are context-specific. Still, recent revolutions are evidence that Internet technologies not lend themselves easily to control. Thus, the future development of Internet as a tool for people empowerment will be highly interesting to follow.
 * 5. Conclusion **


 * References**:

Cherian, G. (2007). Media in Malaysia: Zone of Contention. //Democratization,//Vol.14, No.5, pp. 893-910. Retrieved on March 3rd, 2012, from: [] Chowdhury, M. (2008). The Role of the Internet in Burma's Saffron Revolution. //Internet & Democracy Case Study Series, The Berkman Center for Internet and Society//, pp. 1-17. Faris, R. and Etling, B. (2008). Madison and the Smart Mod: The Promise and Limitations of the Internet for Democracy. //The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, Vol. 32, No. 2//, pp. 65-85. Goldstein, J. and Rotich, J. (2008). Digitally Networked Technology in Kenya’s 2007–2008 Post-Election Crisis//. Internet and Democracy Case Study Series, Harvard University,// pp.1-10. Retrieved on March 10th, 2012, from: [] Haider, H. (2011). Helpdesk Research Report: Social Media and Reform Networks, Protests, Social Movements and Coalitions. //GSDRC (Governance and Social Development Research Centre)//, pp. 1-11. <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">Ott, D. and Rosser, M. (2000). The Electronic Republic? The Role of the Internet in Promoting Democracy in Africa. //Democratization//, Vol.7, No.1, pp. 137-156. Retrieved on March 3rd, 2012, from: [] <span style="display: block; font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif; font-size: 16px; text-align: justify;">Sharp, G. (2010). From Dictatorship to Democracy: A Conceptual Framework for Liberation. 4th edition. //The Albert Einstein Institution, USA//. Retrieved on March 12th, 2012, from: []