The Internet and International RelationsThe Democratic Nature of Social Media

Presentation by David Quinn

Introduction

“Information technology

(IT) has become an

essential tool for the

global circulation of

power, waging of war, and

imagining of peace”

Der Derian (2003)

Examples

The Philippines | 2002

• Protests by text messages to

mobilize & coordinate their

action

• TXT MSG traffic doubled to

over 70 million a day*

• Intensity of the protests forced

the Supreme Court to declare

the presidency void

*(NP Action, 2005).

Ukraine | (2004)

• Text messages played a role in coordinating youngUkrainians in their ‘Orange Revolution’

• Internet was used to recruit volunteers, organisecampaigns, raise funds, report breaking news

• Protests led to a re-vote

• Role of social media as a

communication tool in

coordinating andpublicizing

mass protests

• Twitter provided up-to-the-minute updates from thestreet level

• Global media forced to relyon Twitter feeds

• Viral videos - Death ofIranian woman caught oncamera phone spread

Iran | (2009)

CNN

• Government succeeded in imposing

restrictions on Internet use and TXT MSG

• Twitter proved virtually impervious

Iran | (2009)

In less than a month ‘tweets’ about

the elections from approximately

480,000 users

State Department

• Impact of Twitter widelyheralded as victory fordemocracy

• Real impact on internationalrelations is still far fromunderstood

• Longer term impact less clear

Questioning

the Hype

Did Twitter fundamentally alter the

future of Iran?

or

Did it merely serve to function as a lot

of digital hot air?

Assessing the Democratic Nature

of the Internet & New Media

Deeply embedded ideological belief:

– Regan (1989): “the Goliath oftotalitarianism will be brought downby the David of the microchip”

– Barlow (1996): “act of nature…where all may enterwithout privilege or prejudice according by race,economic power, military force, or station of birth.”

– Hattotuwa (2009): “technologies that work in concert toempower communities to better engage withgovernance and democracy”

Democratic Nature of the Internet

Democratization of the Media

• Decentralization of the media

• Media culture from passive to active

participation

• Increased transparency of information

• Questions over accuracy of information

Democratization of Power

• It diffuses and redistributes power and points ofcentralization.

• Cannot direct one another by force

• Challenges traditional power of governments andstates.

• Enables different actors to produce deep globaleffects.

Make Poverty History campaign

Democratization of Extremism

• Concerns about destabilizing externalities.

• Sunstein (2001) - Personalization of the Internet:

“breeding ground for extremism”.

However….

• Etling et al. (2009) -infrastructure forexpressing minoritypoints of view.

• Beckman Centre forInternet and Society(2009) - “Very littlesupport for terrorismor violent jihad in theArabic blogosphereand quite a lot ofconcern”.

Empirical Work

Best and Wade (2005)

• Measure the global effect of the Internet ondemocracy over the period 1992 to 2002.

• Internet penetration explains “more variation inthe democratic development within a countrythan does literacy rates and some of thegeographic regions”.

• But…acknowledge the degree to which theInternet affects a nation is likely to be subject toa large number of variables.

Limitations of the Internet &

Social Media on Democracy

Limitations in the Digital Divide

• 1.6 billion Internet

users worldwide.

• 70% live in the 24

richest countries.

• Developing countries

account for just 13.2%

• Half of all web pages in English

…but potential for expansion

• Mobile phones are criticalelement in the disseminationof information globally

• Mobile phone subscribers

• are increasing globally

• By 2011, it is estimated thatthere will be another billionmobile phone owners

• One Laptop Per Child(www.laptop.org)

Limitations

“For all their promise, there are

sharp limits on what Twitter and

other Web tools such as

Facebook and blogs can do for

citizens in authoritarian

societies...no amount of

Twittering forced Iran’s leaders to

change course.”

John Palfrey et al. (2009:1)

1. Information hard to distil

2. Governments can limitaccess to the Internet whenthreatened

3. The demographics of onlinecommunities

4. Authoritarian regimes canalso commandeer theInternet for their own means

However, the Twittering

continues…

Conclusions

• This points towards an efficacy of the Internet

• Fear of larger economic and politicalconsequences = prevention of furthercensorship

• Iran, Ukraine and the Philippines highlight theability of the Internet to be forefront of globalpolitical change,

Conclusions

• Internet = powerful tool for fostering

democracy and development.

• Policy makers should not ‘organise’ or

‘control’ the Internet, but instead ensure

that people have the access and training

to effectively participate online.