The Arab world is ablaze, people’s power is at its height and the firm grips of dictators and authoritarian regimes in the region have been severely compromised: Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, Tunisia’s ruler, was ousted on 14 January and Hosni Mubarak, Egypt’s ruler of the past 30 years, resigned on 11 February. There is massive public pressure on Muammar Gadaffi, Libya’s leader, to resign and violence escalates while he is clinging to power. Up-to-the-minute news and information on these and other events in North Africa and the Middle East is just a mouse-click away, as is access to blogs and social media sites that comment and organise around these events - I discovered Mubarak’s resignation via Facebook. My ‘friends’ and ‘friends of friends’ on the social networking site had been furiously debating, posting links, organising protests outside embassies and enthusiastically predicting the future course of events and implications of the uprisings since the uprising began in Tunisia in December 2010.

For protestors in these countries, social media have proven indispensible tools for information dissemination and for organising protests, as well as an invaluable communication tool to reach others outside the region. The spread of anti-authoritarian sentiment and the success of wide-scale pro-democracy protests have been “pigeon-holed as a ‘Twitter Revolution’ or a ‘WikiLeaks revolution,’” posits John Naughton.⁽²⁾ Some have asserted that social media has become the most powerful tool for the realisation of democracy and consequently suggested that the social networking site, Twitter, be nominated for the next Nobel Peace Prize. However, for others, the case has either been overstated or, at worst, become an easy tool for surveillance, intimidation, control and propaganda in the hands of tyrannical regimes. There are even those who view the Internet as an impediment to democracy.

This CAI paper explores the democratic potential and constraints of social media. The role of social media as a facilitator of protest, with a specific focus on recent events in North Africa and the Middle East are discussed. In conclusion, the potential for similar types of revolt further south is briefly highlighted.

The Internet, democracy and human rights

On 21 January 2010, Hilary Clinton delivered a seminal speech specifically focusing on Internet freedom. In her speech, Clinton pointed out the importance of social media and asserted that “We need to put these tools in the hands of people around the world who will use them to advance democracy and human rights.”⁽³⁾ More recently, Google’s Wael Ghonim, the man accredited with spearheading the Egyptian pro-democracy protests, said that “If you want to liberate a society, just give them the Internet. If you want to have a free society, just give them the Internet,”⁽⁴⁾ whilst Clinton again urged leaders, “not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including social media.”⁽⁵⁾ Journalism professor George Brock points out that there has been “a social media revolt, both in the mobilisation of middle-class intellectuals via Facebook and Twitter and in the gathering and distribution of detailed information about what was happening on the ground.”⁽⁶⁾ Evidently social media has played an important role in the current pro-democracy protests and revolutions in the Arab world. However, John Naughton warns that the role of social media is often exaggerated: “The story is always the same: something unexpected happens in the real world; journalists notice that some of the people involved are users of the web/cell phones/Facebook/Twitter (delete as appropriate); the unexpected is then labelled “the Facebook/Twitter/Smartphone (delete as appropriate) revolution/protest/ demonstration/election.”⁽⁷⁾

Have ‘cyber optimists’ failed to critically examine the potential of social media and the Internet to foster revolutionary and/or democratic goals? Some pertinent issues warrant critical analysis.

‘Twitter revolution’ or simply a useful tool?

Western journalists have been quick to label the role of social media in uprisings in the Arab World as ‘critical,’ but the case seems to have been overstated, to the extent that the uprisings in the region are seemingly wholly attributed to social media companies.⁽⁸⁾ In reality, roughly one quarter of Egyptians go online. Protests have “grown the old-fashioned way: by leaflets and spontaneous amalgamation,” argues David Kravets.⁽⁹⁾ The same is probably true of Libya, where only 5.5 % of the country is online.

Others have pointed out that it is important to acknowledge that, at their core, protests are not about Twitter or Facebook, but about real discontent with social, economic and political issues. The protests in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya are in response to “dictators who’ve held power – and clamped down on their people – for decades”⁽¹⁰⁾ and related issues like poverty. Whilst communication tools remain extremely useful during times of revolution, this is nothing new. “Don’t confuse tools with root causes, or means with ends,”⁽¹¹⁾ warned one commentator, whilst another pointed out that “140 characters have never brought down a dictator.”⁽¹²⁾

The African north-south divide

Medard Mulangala Lwakabwanga discusses whether the ‘Facebook Revolution’ could indeed spread to other parts of Africa, given that the continent (especially sub-Saharan Africa) seems to be “fertile ground” for pro-democratic, anti-authoritarian uprisings. “There is no other region on Earth where so many leaders have outstayed their welcome and hold on to power through the most dubious of political mandates.”⁽¹³⁾

However, the ‘information gap’ between the north and south of the continent remains. In Egypt and Tunisia, between a quarter and third of people are regularly online,^(14,15) but the picture doesn’t look so promising further south. According to Lwakabwanga, excluding some of the more well-developed southern African states aside (such as South Africa, Kenya and Ghana), the rest of Sub-Saharan Africa lacks the Internet infrastructure and access available in other parts of the world.⁽¹⁶⁾ In fact, the author considers the cell-phone as a potentially more efficient mechanism than the Internet for organisation and dissemination of information in Africa. More people have access to cell phones than to internet services in most African countries, yet in places like the Congo, only 14% have cellphones.⁽¹⁷⁾ If it is true that social media played a pivotal role in northern African uprisings, this is less likely to be the case further south.

Governments and social media

In his book The net delusion: How not to liberate people, Evgeny Morozov insists that the group he terms ‘cyber utopians’ have only recognised the ‘populist view’ of the Internet, which sees social media tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, as empowering tools for the disenfranchised.⁽¹⁸⁾ For Morozov, this one-sided view fails to acknowledge how different stakeholders use social media to advance their causes.⁽¹⁹⁾ In Morozov’s words, he is a “cyber-skeptic” because “the Internet is heavily employed to strangle democracy.”⁽²⁰⁾

As protests escalated in the Arab World, government attempts to halt them were initiated. Newspapers reported how internet access, social networking sites specifically, had been cut by governments. Howver, Morozov argues that the Egyptian government was not very adept or aware of the power of social media and of mechanisms for suppressing it, which cannot be said of repressive regimes like China and Russia, who employ more sophisticated methods of control and use the Internet to achieve their own (often less than democratic) agendas. “If these regimes do survive, I think we should expect they will not be as carefree about the Internet as they have been in the past,”⁽²¹⁾ Morozov states.

In the ‘Internet age’, governments attempt to control their citizens through interfering with digital communications or limiting them.⁽²²⁾ Morozov explains that internet censorship by governments has become more sophisticated. For example, instead of blanket bans, banning can now be ‘customised,’ so that governments can ban only those who present a (real or perceived) threat to the regime. As governments become more sophisticated and adept at pre-empting unrest and protest, their clampdowns could reduce the potential of social media.

Spyware is becoming increasingly more sophisticated, and allows governments to effectively utilise the Internet to monitor the activities of activists.⁽²³⁾ It is easy for governments to keep abreast of topics of discussion, groups of individuals joining specific groups, photographs of dissidents, biographical data etc, through social networking sites. For example, Facebook disallows the use of pseudonyms ⁽²⁴⁾ because false names make it hard to sell advertising.⁽²⁵⁾ However, this means activists on Facebook are an easy target of governmental surveillance and control. Governments even use the Internet to spread propaganda. For example, the Chinese government guides ‘online public opinion’ through training and paying bloggers to disseminate information and then to monitor online discussions on the topic.⁽²⁶⁾

The owners of social media: allies or foes?

Businesses are easily considered apolitical, but technology companies have become central to a much politicised issue.⁽²⁷⁾ Jacob Weisberg, describes Google as an exemplary case in his article ‘Tech Revolutionaries.’⁽²⁸⁾ The company’s slogan is ‘Don’t be Evil’ and Google has consistently acted accordingly, sacrificing profits where they feel necessary. Google pulled out of China because of increasing pressure for censorship by the Chinese government.⁽²⁹⁾ Amid the Mubarak regime’s efforts at censorship, the company “developed a workaround that allowed users to send Twitter messages over phone lines. Google and Facebook are currently in talks with Twitter about buying the micro-blogging phenomenon.⁽³⁰⁾ YouTube, owned by Google, also created a hub to promote videos from protestors in Tahir square.”⁽³¹⁾ Twitter’s core value is freedom of expression ⁽³²⁾ and the company has developed tools that allow users to evade censorship and, in relation to the recent protests, released a statement confirming their commitment to freedom of expression stating, in an official Tweet that “almost every country in the world agrees that freedom of expression is a human right” and that they “keep the information flowing irrespective … of content.”⁽³³⁾

Google and Twitter are exceptions to the norm that social media companies are unlikely to resist governmental demands in order to remain true to their ultimate goal: profit. Contrary to the case of Google and Twitter, Facebook is believed to be more profit driven. “It is difficult to imagine Facebook – or most other technology companies, for that matter – passing up a major business opportunity because of concerns about human rights,” Weisberg points out. “Facebook’s overriding objective is the much more typical one of expanding its market while avoiding bad PR and staying out of trouble with governments that set the rules.” ⁽³⁴⁾ During the Egyptian protests, Vodafone complied with government instructions and suspended their services, stating on their website that they were “obliged to comply” with the demands.⁽³⁵⁾

Concluding remarks

Social media tools are undisputedly important to revolutions everywhere, but revolutions will continue without these tools, too. Easy access to information, videos, photographs and commentary on developments in the region contributed much to the downfall of the Mubarak regime, but it was not a ‘Twitter Revolution.’ Like other revolutions before it, it was the result of discontent and citizens’ pressure on government through protest and action on the ground. Mounting dissatisfaction with authoritarianism, price-increases, poverty and inequality caused the recent revolutions in the Arab World. Social media has been an extremely effective tool for information sharing throughout, but only about one third or less of the populations in question used it.

However, we must practice caution amidst the ‘cyber-optimism’ out there. Social media are not only used by pro-democracy agents. These tools are also available to governments and other agencies for less democratic purposes, such as dissemination of propaganda, censorship and surveillance. It is therefore the user and not the tool that will determine the value of social media in the process of democratisation.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Carrie Byrne through Consultancy Africa Intelligence’s Rights in Focus Unit (rights.focus@consultancyafrica.com).
(2) John Naughton, ‘Another Facebook revolution: Why are we so surprised?’, Mail & Guardian Online, 23 January 2011, http://www.mg.co.za.
(3) Morozov, E., 2011. The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin. p.34.
(4) John D. Sutter, ‘When the Internet actually helps dictators’, CNN, 22 February 2011, http://edition.cnn.com.
(5) ‘US, in shift, bluntly urges Mubarak to reform’, Jordan Times, 27 January 2011, http://www.jordantimes.com.
(6) John Naughton, ‘Another Facebook revolution: Why are we so surprised?’, Mail & Guardian Online, 23 January 2011, http://www.mg.co.za.
(7) Ibid.
(8) Jillian York, ‘Blood, sweat and tear gas’, The European, 5 February 2011, http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com.
(9) David Kravets, ‘What’s fueling Mideast protests? It’s more than Twitter’, Wired, 27 January 2011, http://www.wired.com.
(10) Ibid.
(11) Ibid.
(12) Jillian York, ‘Blood, sweat and tear gas’, The European, 5 February 2011, http://www.theeuropean-magazine.com.
(13) Medard Mulangala Lwakabwanga, ‘Africa beware, there are forces other than Facebook’, Mail & Guardian Online, 25 February 2011,http://www.mg.co.za/.
(14) Michael Theodoulou, ‘Twitter and Facebook are the new weapons of Middle East protest’, The National, 28 January 2011 http://www.thenational.ae.
(15) ‘Tunisia: What was the real role of the Internet in the Jasmine Revolution?’ Information Policy, 18 January 2011, http://www.i-policy.org.
(16) Medard Mulangala Lwakabwanga, ‘Africa beware, there are forces other than Facebook’, Mail & Guardian Online, 25 February 2011, http://www.mg.co.za.
(17) Ibid.
(18) Morozov, E., 2011. The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin.
(19) Ibid.
(20) Amy Mollett, ‘Book review: The net delusion: How the Internet causes problems for democracy and why we should all be cyber-sceptics’, 22 February 2011, British Politics and Policy at LSE, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk.
(21) John D. Sutter, ‘When the Internet actually helps dictators’, CNN, 22 February 2011, http://edition.cnn.com.
(22) Matt Richtel, ‘Egypt cuts off most Internet and cell service’, The New York Times, 28 January 2011, http://www.nytimes.com.
(23) Morozov, E., 2011. The net delusion: How not to liberate the world. London: Penguin. Page?
(24) John D. Sutter, ‘When the Internet actually helps dictators’, CNN, 22 February 2011, http://edition.cnn.com.
(25) Ibid.
(26) Ibid.
(27) Jacob Weisberg, ‘The Arab revolt shows that Google’s and Twitter’s corporate values are better than Facebook’s’, Tech Revolutionaries, 28 January 2011, http://gyrovague.wordpress.com.
(28) Ibid.
(29) Ibid.
(30) ‘Who will own Twitter – Google or Facebook?’, 10 February 2011, Dailybhaskar, http://daily.bhaskar.com.
(31) Ibid.
(32) Ibid.
(33) Twitter Blog, ‘The tweets must flow’, 28 January 2011, http://blog.twitter.com.
(34) Jacob Weisberg, ‘The Arab revolt shows that Google’s and Twitter’s corporate values are better than Facebook’s’, Tech Revolutionaries, 28 January 2011, http://gyrovague.wordpress.com.
(35) Matt Richtel, ‘Egypt cuts off most Internet and cell service’, The New York Times, 28 January 2011, http://www.nytimes.com.

Written by Carrie Byrne ⁽¹⁾