MOTION #64: THIS HOUSE BELIEVES
THE INTERNET ENCOURAGES DEMOCRACY
The internet allows anyone with access to view, create, and spread
information. However, people and governments can use that information either
for ‘good’ or ‘not so good’ purposes. The spread of information and growing
communication over the internet can promote democracy, but it can also be used
for repression. One thing that is certain is that its importance in society and
politics will continue to grow. US Senator Ted Stevens called the internet just
a “series of tubes”. There are now 2.08 billion people on the internet;
searching on Google & Yahoo; forming social networks on Facebook and
MySpace; sharing videos on YouTube; tweeting on Twitter; shopping on EBay and
Amazon; playing online games; and accessing news from around the world. The
debate on whether the internet contributes to democratization was in part
triggered by statistical research that indicates a strong correlation between
levels of internet penetration and degrees of democracy, which proponents have
argued shows that the internet can contribute to democratization. Opponents
claim this is just a result of the fact that developed regions make up for over
half of internet use. Russia and China, important members of the UN security
council, are still not liberal democracies. In the wake of the Arab Spring and
successful revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, the role of the internet in
protest and grassroots movements for democratic reform has become more evident.
A parallel debate also runs as to what type of democracy the internet might
encourage; this, however, is not included in the scope of this debate. The aim
of each side in the debate must, therefore, be to prove the effects of the
internet in the majority of cases, rather than arguing about a few ‘bunker’
states such as North Korea, which restrict freedoms across the board.
Pros
|
Cons
|
The internet promotes the free flow of information both
in and out of a country, which is essential for a truly free democracy. Media can be one of the most important factors in
democratic development. If governments successfully control the media, they
can direct information towards their constituents that casts the regime in an
undeniably good light. They can prevent news of faked elections, protests,
violence, repression, and arrest from ever reaching the people subject to
those violations. Without external sources of information people do not
question government propaganda, which decreases the likelihood that they
advocate for their civil liberties and democracy. The internet promotes the
free flow of information that leads to social consciousness and enhances
democracy. News of political corruption and scandal in China can go viral in
a matter of minutes among its 540 million internet users. Even when the
government blocks certain websites, and makes avid use of firewalls for
censorship, uploading videos to Facebook and YouTube, and posts to Twitter
can allow information to be disseminated within the country. Once information
is accessible it is almost impossible for the government to continue to
censor the internet. For example, in the most recent Egyptian protests, as
information leaked out of the country via social networking sites, cell phone
pictures and videos were shown on international news broadcasts, making it
difficult for the government to spin the situation in a positive light. The
internet provides a place to find information, and also a place to discuss
and debate it with others. The latter is the essential step to truly shifting
views. The internet promotes free media which is essential to both creating
and maintaining a functioning democracy as it promotes government
transparency.
|
Governments still successfully censor information. Take
China for example. Often the government shuts down Facebook and Twitter,
arrests bloggers, and takes down content. Terms like ‘Tiananmen Square’ and
‘Inner Mongolia’ provide no search results because of the protests that have
gone on there Governments’ ability to censor information is advancing.
Therefore the idea that the internet promotes the flow of unbiased
information is not necessarily true, which counters the claim that the
internet promotes democracy. Further, the internet is not always used for
access to Western news sources, but instead, over 500 million sites in the
indexes of search engines are pornographic. In 2003 25% of internet use was
for accessing porn. Five of the twenty most visited internet sites are
download sites for video games and porn. The internet is not largely used for
access to information, but instead other forbidden resources, and therefore
cannot be directly linked to democratic development.
|
Websites can strengthen democratic institutions. The promotion of democracy is not only about forming
new democracies; strengthening existing democratic institutions around the
globe. To do so, transparency and government-citizen communication is
necessary. Britain has set up two websites that achieve exactly that.
Writetothem.com is a website where people can figure out who their
parliamentary representatives are, and write to them about their problems in
an effort to create a stronger relationship, and channels of communication
between MPs and their constituents1. 130,000 people were using the website in
2009. Theyworkforyou.com is another website where people can find out who
their representatives are, and then read about their recent actions in
parliament. This site receives between 200,000 and 300,000 hits per month.
Elections are also strengthened by the internet. Voting can be conducted
online which makes the process easier and can reduce intimidation at the
polls. Now that politicians have websites, their policy platforms can be more
easily accessed and understood by voters. Increasing information and
communication between leaders and their constituents contributes to a more
transparent system and therefore a healthier democracy. The internet is not
only useful for promoting movements for democratic reforms in authoritarian
countries, but also for making democracy more effective in democratic
countries.
|
To use such websites governments already need to be
committed to democracy. Promoting democracy in already-democratic countries
is irrelevant. Countries that are not democratic, and seek to maintain
autocratic rule will not be impacted by the availability of those resources
and harness the internet only for continued repression.
|
The internet allows political dissidents to
communicate, organize, and grow a grassroots movement. Another extremely important requirement for successful
opposition movements advocating democratic reform is the ability to organize
mass numbers of people. It is one thing if you hate your government, but
don’t think anyone else does. It is entirely different if you can access the
thoughts of thousands of others and realize that you are in fact not alone.
Proportionally the number of people benefiting from repressive authoritative
regimes is very small in comparison to the people who are suffering.
Therefore, if the people who are hurt by the regimes realize the numbers that
they have, it spells trouble for the governments. The internet has 2 billion
users, and 950 million people have mobile broadband. Mobile phones with
pay-as-you-go access plans are more available and affordable than ever
before. Protesters do not need to own a computer: they can access social
networking and news sites from their phones. The internet means that
opposition groups don’t have to be organized under a particular leader, as
there can now be many leaders and various causes that fit under the same
umbrella and band together. These loose connections, as in Egypt, strengthen
the movement. The internet also
reduces the cost of organization, which can be the difference between success
and failure. In the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia which called for
democracy, the internet was first used to create events on Facebook to
increase the number of people aware of and attending protests. Then the
videos, photographs, and twitter posts that became available on the internet
increased the support for the movement as citizens became aware of the
violence the government was subjecting the country to. The internet allows
users to communicate, then organize demonstrations, and then grow the
movement. All of these functions of the internet are essential factors of a
grassroots push for democratic reforms.
|
The internet is only a place for coordination and
cannot replace real-life action so if people are not willing to take to the
streets, then the internet is not going to help—and even without the
internet, disgruntled masses can still make their points known, as in the
French Revolution. Egypt shut down internet and phone service during part of
the revolution, yet it continued indicating that this movement is not based
online. Therefore the internet is not necessarily the force that propels
people towards change. SMS has been a very important part of the organization
of these protests, which is entirely separate from the internet. Close to 5
billion people use cell phones and SMS, therefore the impact of the cell
phone cannot be distinguished from the internet so it is inaccurate to say
that the internet is contributing to democratization when it is very possibly
thanks to mobile phones4.
|
The internet enhances communication between countries. The internet does not only make information available
to oppressed people within a country, but also communicates that situation to
the rest of the world. People also learn about other authoritarian—and
democratic—governments around the world. For example, the internet allowed
information about Tunisia’s revolution to reach Egypt, which made it clear
that overthrowing a government was entirely possible. Information about the
actions of other countries, and their governments can lead to a push for
democratic reforms around the world. In addition, as information flows out of
a country it becomes more difficult for the globe’s powers to ignore the
events that are ensuing, and makes it more likely that they will take action.
This action can create the internal and external pressure necessary for
democratic reform as was seen in both the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.
Contact between countries can also have a more subtle impact as well. It
enhances communication between open and closed societies particularly in the
form of business, which can bring about an exchange of values. Thanks in part
to the internet; Western firms increasingly own large shares of Middle
Eastern and East Asian businesses, putting pressure on governments to remove
their economic protectionism measures and to allow greater transparency. For
example, while China is not a democracy it has made some government and
economic reforms that are on the right track.
|
For many countries, communication with outside actors
does not make any difference. Iran has some internet freedom and access to
outside information, yet president Ahmadinejad casts the West as a great evil
trying to destroy Iran's culture. The government remains a theocracy and
while there have been some protests, there are many that still support the
system of governance. Additionally, China may have made reforms, but it is
not a democracy even though they have extensive contact with the West.
Therefore, contact does not necessarily indicate that values will be adopted.
When it comes to information flowing out of oppressive countries, the
international community might make matters worse. When the West gets involved
in local movements, often it can make leaders hold a tighter grip on their
power, and turn the blame for the situation on the West leading to violence,
and hindering democratic development. This is similar to the situation in
Libya.
|
The quantity of information on
the internet, and the number of talented computer users makes it very
difficult for the government to fully censor information. The more
information there is, the harder it becomes for the government to control it.
The US is investing $19 million into researching how to break the firewalls
of China and Iran. There is plenty of easy to use software to evade
firewalls. Internet censorship can be evaded. Therefore, regimes cannot
entirely maintain control over information, and any external information can
be considered good information.
Furthermore, regimes like China
and Iran are not the only countries to “watching” their populations. Many
democracies including the US and most of Western European use digital
surveillance to safeguard their population- watch out for possible activity
that may be harmful to the state.
|
The internet can be
successfully censored so that it only promotes pro-regime propaganda. The internet is said to promote democracy based on the
claim that it leads to the free flow of information. Unfortunately, this is
false in many parts of the world. 40 countries around the globe actively
censor the internet, and 25 have blocked Google over the past few years. This
gives their governments a false legitimacy by removing material critical of
anti-democratic policies and as acting as a psychological bulwark against
discontent and dissent. The government retains the ability to control the
information that its citizens have access to and can use this power to
promote pro-regime information and prevent anti-regime, pro-democratic
content from ever seeing the light of day. The internet is a new tool, but
governments can become more sophisticated as well and harness the internet to
repress dissent. For example, China has almost no internet freedom and the
terms “Tiananmen Square” and “Inner-Mongolia” provides no search results
because protests occurred there3. Google in 2010 refused to uphold their
firewalls and were therefore no longer allowed to operate in the country. The
internet can be used by authoritarian government for enhanced media repression.
Even more concerning is corporate surveillance for
marketing purposes, which means that people are pushed certain information
from certain sources, meaning that not all voices are equally heard
online. Democracy in the online world
is not about having your voice published, but about it being seen and heard.
As a result some players can gain a lot more attention than other, even if
everyone with access can publish.
|
There are ways to make the internet affordable.
Internet cafes and purchasing multiple SIM cards and pay as you go plans for
cell phones can address the need to have a computer and therefore decrease
the cost of internet use. Further, the internet is a jumping off point. Not
every low-income person needs to have internet access but if a handful do,
then they can be part of the organization of protests and movements by taking
the information available online and disseminating it through networks of
people through SMS, calls, and word of mouth. Tunisia was not a rich country;
in fact, people were protesting the pervasive poverty. Even so, they were
able to successfully organize a revolution, with the help of the internet.
|
The digital divide
leaves the same people in places of influence and power. The internet doesn’t necessarily put power in the
hands of the vulnerable; in many places it strengthens the influence of the
traditional elite. In low-income countries the cost of broadband is 900% of
average monthly income. Most people simply cannot afford to have internet
access. Internet penetration is not up to par in low income, developing, and
traditionally non-democratic countries. For example, Africa has 15% of the
world’s population and only 5% of its internet users. There are only about
100 million internet users on the continent, which accounts for only 11% of
its population. As the lower income members of society remain unable to
afford internet access, the power that the internet boasts remains with those
who can afford it. The traditional elites are the ones that maintain the
ability to access the internet, and they can use it for their own purposes
and to strengthen their position and power – i.e. the internet may actually
increase inequalities on the ground, against democracy. The internet could play a positive role in
society, but until it is affordable, the oppressed who long for democracy
will not have the tools to advocate for it.
|
With any tool there are going to be people who misuse
it, yet cases of misuse do not outweigh times when the internet has proven to
be an important force for democracy. Internet and SMS have helped to organize
almost every uprising in the Middle East and the Orange Revolution in
Georgia1. Cases of citizen misuse are few and far between in comparison to
the change that has been made partially thanks to the internet. Further, the
internet provides tools to successfully catch the abusers and prevent
continued undemocratic actions through tracking IP addresses and other
tactics. The same goes for targeting terrorist networks.
|
Citizens often use
the internet in ways that detract from democracy. The idea that the internet promotes democracy also
operates under the assumption that the people with internet access will use
the tool for ‘good’. Yet, this is also not the case. The internet is the
primary medium of coordination for Jihadist groups looking to undermine the
few Middle-Eastern states which are in the process of transition to
democracy. In April 2007, groups of hackers (allegedly backed by the Russian
government) attacked the websites of key politicians, ministries and
utilities in Estonia in retaliation for the removal of a Soviet war memorial.
Hackers can block access, destroy content, and organize in malicious activity
as in the case of terrorism and the Estonian ‘hactivists’. Information can
also be misused.In the US, neo-Nazism has always been an issue of contention
and use the internet to further promote their viewpoints.For example, UK
animal rights activists post information about people they feel to be
targets, which can lead to intimidation. The internet can often be hijacked
for less-than-ideal purposes and therefore does not directly promote
democracy, but can be used by the people to counter reform.
Moreover, there are questions over the limits on
democratic freedoms due to the ‘corporate colonization’ o f the internet. For
a start, a lot of the ‘trusted’ news sites that users frequent for their
information simply reproduce the views of Western media corporations. And corporate social network platforms like
Facebook claim to provide for democratic interaction while undertaking
surveillance of their user information so as to produce profiles to sell
advertising, profiles that could also be used by governments.
|
Governments cannot always get away with the targeting
of internet dissidents. Bloggers are often famous and followed intently by
many people. If a popular blogger all of a sudden disappears it is more
likely to generate increased support for the blogger and the cause than lead
supporters to defect to the government. Further, the government cannot arrest
everyone, and the internet provides a tool for social movements to be
poly-centric—they have many leaders and anyone can step in.
|
The internet can be
used to quash democratic movements. The internet makes
it much easier for states to target and locate dissidents. They can be
located by their IP addresses or records kept by internet cafes. It is almost
impossible by today’s standards to remain anonymous on the internet.
Surveillance used to be the only technique for governments to track down dissidents,
however the internet has made governments’ task of quashing opposition
easier. Since 2003, 202 bloggers have been arrested around the world and 162
of the arrests were for political reasons. The government doesn’t need a true
reason because only 37 of the cases were tried in the judicial system.
Political parties, ethnic and religious groups, civil rights movements, and
leaders can all be targeted through government internet surveillance. When
the government can find the names of political dissidents and arrest them, it
makes it more difficult for successful movements to occur, because they lack
leaders and potential participants are intimidated. The internet can also be
used to reverse democratic momentum
|
0 Comments