26^th Session of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities – 25 to 27 March 2014 – Chamber of Local Authorities

Digital media and urban mobilisation

Statement by Jan HANRATH, Fellow, University of Duiburg-Essen, Germany

Check against delivery

1.       Introduction

There have been many examples of political mobilization, protest and even revolution around the world in the recent years. Increasingly digital media, like the internet in general, or more specifically new social media like Facebook, Twitter & Co, seem to play a decisive role in theses political situations and for bringing masses to the streets. In particular in urban contexts the importance of digital media has been emphasized.

Often the so called Arab Spring is mentioned as the example par excellence for mobilization via new social media: In the successful protests in Tunisia and Egypt, but also in countries such as Bahrain, Yemen and Syria, economically and socially disadvantaged and weak sectors of society protested alongside intellectuals, civil servants, old and new middle classes, members of the business community and trade unions. Urban and rural communities, women and men, young and old were all represented, as were the right and left of the political spectrum and religious and secular movements. The use of the new media appeared to play a particularly significant role in organizing the protests and bringing them to the world's attention.

Before Arab Spring: Iran (“Twitter-Revolution”), Pakistan (Lawyers movement), other countries like Myanmar, Belarus.

After Arab Spring: Turkey (Gezi protests), Ukraine, a number of European cities and anti-austerity protests, riots in Great Britain in 2011 also: Occupy movement

But we have to be careful when we consider the role of digital media in political mobilization: Especially from Western side there exists a whole lot of wishful thinking which leads to an overemphasizing the role of social media. In many cases traditional, face-to-face communication was and still is more important. (e.g. Iran, Egypt especially in the beginning…)

It seems though that the role of digital media is growing and protesters and movements increasingly make use of them in creative ways.

2.       General remarks on Web 2.0

•        Developments of the internet, the rise of social media as such, different form of social media and their characteristics etc.

•        The change from one-to-many communication to many-to-many communication, interactive formats, convergence of all previously known formats into a hypermedium…

•        Generally, though, hypotheses that the Internet automatically facilitates political mobilization and promotes democracy, fall short of the mark. The same applies to technology-indifferent positions which regard the Internet as merely a new (mass) medium which leaves the business of politics essentially unchanged.

•        Web 2.0 in particular is not just a new social and political arena; new forms of political culture are clearly also emerging here, reshaping the political space in relation to the usual dichotomies of public vs. private, institutional vs. civil society, professional vs. grassroots politics/volunteering etc. and thus increasing the significance of what is, from a professional political perspective, the "prepolitical space" (not organized political sphere, parties etc.).

•        Nevertheless the question remains what the internet’s evolution into Web 2.0 means exactly for political communication and participation, and what has actually changed…

•        The discussion reflects arguments that have been related to the internet in general: “Internet enthusiast” (new age of political mobilization, new agora, catalyst maybe even the cause of social and political change) and “Internet sceptics” (Morozov, negative aspects, overestimation of political effects, Slacktivism / increasing lazyness)

•        Some evidence for both positions can be found in the recent upheavals in North Africa and the Middle East, but also in the protests in Turkey and the recent events in Ukraine…

•        The protest movements in the Middle East are also a good example of how the new media are being used, not only by protesters. They also show that the use of these media is fraught with risks. Regimes have a wealth of opportunities to limit the use of the new media, at the very least.

3.       Digital media and political mobilization

To most observers, it seems obvious that these new media have played a role in the organization and reporting of the uprisings and protests. However, their precise role and significance in the events as they unfolded are unclear and contentious

So it’s necessary to have a closer look to the role NSM can play in political mobilization – and how it has done so in fact.

Based on the observations on the use of new media by the protest movements around the world and the regimes' reactions to these technologies, I would like to discuss their potential significance for political mobilization and protest in more general terms. The impact of the new media on politics can be better understood through a framework that considers five levels of analysis:

•        Promoting individual learning processes

•        Changing relations between different groups

•        Impact on collective action

•        Creating external attention

•        Changing policies of regimes under pressure

4.       How and where does the internet (Facebook, Twitter & Co) play a role in political mobilization?

4.1.    Promoting individual learning processes

•        new media can affect political mobilization and protest via their effect on individuals who either actively participate in or are exposed to such communication flows.

•        Developing new competencies, increasing self-confidence and widening individuals’ scope for action => More participation in real-world politics, “climbing the commitment ladder”

•        On the other hand, new media could make citizens more passive. Morozov calls this type of pseudoactivism “slacktivism”, a form of “feel-good” activism which has little social or political effect.

•        New information available to individuals, but also selection processes

4.2.    Changing relations between different groups

•        New media may reshape discussions and debates within and across groups in a society, changing intergroup relationships and attitudes. Optimists see the Internet as generating positive connections, spreading information, and proliferating points of contact across political, sectarian, or geographic divides.

•        Putnam’s bridging capital; Granovetter’s weak ties

•        Danger of polarization, people seek like-minded people and bias-confirming information

•        Important to note that the context matters (social, cultural etc.), access to internet (“digital divide”), freedom of speech, social norms and pressure

4.3.    Impact on collective action

•        One of the most important aspects. New social media’s potential for individuals and groups to organize, protest, mobilize support or take other forms of collective action.

•        Reduction of transaction costs for organizing collective action, by facilitating communication and coordination across both physical and social distance.

•        Social networking sites such as Facebook make it easier than before for like-minded individuals to make contact with each other.

•        This counteracts the fragmentation and social isolation which typically exist in authoritarian regimes and which act as a mechanism for enforcing political conformity and silencing dissenting views.

The networked nature of social media may undermine hierarchical, top-down movements and generate new forms of “flat” social movements.

•        Loosing fear to protest; ability to identify allies and like-minded people in society. “Information cascades”

•        But: Collective action and attempts at mobilization are not necessarily bound to positively connoted content (hate speech, pro-violence campaigns, extremists etc.)

4.4.    Creating external attention

•        important role in the regional and global dissemination of information about current events and developments at the local level.

•        With Twitterfeeds and status messages on Facebook, these events can be followed as they unfold, on any computer or mobile phone worldwide.

The traditional media outside the country concerned also rely on the Internet as a source of up-to-date information.

•        Sometimes new social media more important for creating external attention than for political mobilization on the ground (e.g. Iran)

4.5.    Changing policies of regimes under pressure

It would be wrong to assume that only anti-regime protesters and pro-democracy movements benefit from the new technologies.

Authoritarian regimes are also using the new technologies for their own purposes. Regimes have a wealth of opportunity to control and censor.

•        Blocking web sites, filtering search terms

•        Switching off providers and proxy servers

•        Providing non-political entertainment sites to divert attention

•        Regimes’ own online activism

•        Collecting personal data in order to target and pressurise

•        Direct action against bloggers and Internet activists

The Arab Spring gave a lot of examples (e.g. Mubarak trying to shut down the whole internet), Iran continuously censors the internet in a very sophisticated way, the recent attempts by Erdogan in Turkey to silence dissent and deny freedom of speech by shutting down Twitter and censoring parts of the internet…

5.       New media between opportunities and risks

The new media are in an ongoing state of tension: On the one hand, they offer democratizing, emancipatory and mobilizing potential; on the other, they open the way for repression and surveillance.

In addition, various risks arise from the profit-oriented nature of these media. Notwithstanding all the benefits afforded by networking and the exchange of information via web sites like Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, generating value-added for the provider is, ultimately, a primary element of their raison d’être.

The virtual space occupied by the new media cannot serve as a genuine substitute for civil society. Digital communications alone are not enough to build a sustainable civil society. The offline world is still the primary arena.

Nonetheless, online media enable protest movements and uprisings to benefit from worldwide networking while reducing the transaction costs of collective action.

There is no an either-or situation – online activism vs. traditional activism. What we are witnessing instead is the “digitally enhanced” activism of a political opposition which is willing to engage with the described dialectic – subversion, control and market logic – that is generated by the new media.

Mass mobilization, uprisings and regime change need historic escalations, courageous actors and society’s willingness to take action; they take place not in some imagined virtual space but are very real events which play out in streets and public spaces. A revolution’s success is decided not on the Internet but – as has always been the case – in struggles for power and compromises between old and new elites.

The ambivalence surrounding the new media must therefore be taken into account by activists, policy-makers and media alike – avoiding any euphoric celebration of a “new era” of Internet revolutions, but also without rejecting, out of hand, the opportunities afforded by these technologies.