Posted by Senior Director Juliette Terzieff:
When Egyptians took to the streets en masse to demand reform in early 2011 an outpouring of global support erupted on the Internet. Popular social media outlets Twitter, Facebook and YouTube were lauded by the international media for their role in galvanizing international support and helping protesters sidestep government efforts to stop the protests.
The work in Egypt is hardly done. Yes, Mubarak is gone from power, but many political, judicial and economic reform challenges remain. And despite the recent conviction of a blogger to three years in prison for criticizing the powerful military, it‘s a safe bet Egyptians will continue to use ICT tools in the quest to push lasting reform.
But what of reform campaigns in other countries with repressive governments? How successful have anti-government protesters in places like Syria, Libya and Bahrain been? And to what extent are they leveraging technology to deliver their messages?
Tech-savvy, education, infrastructure and access all play a role in determining how much citizens of these countries use ICT tools to broadcast their message.
In the case of Bahrain, protesters set up public on-the-spot communications platforms to broadcast their efforts. Authorities mounted a heavy-handed violent response, physically dismantling protesters encampments. But has it silenced the debate? Has it stopped the protests? While the government’s response and events elsewhere in the region may have driven Bahrain off the top of the nightly news broadcasts activists continue to use Facebook, Twitter and other tools to push for the change they seek.
“By being one digital step behind their people (and the rest of the world) the authorities unwittingly ignited the exact national upheaval they sought to quell,” says Arran Dall, managing editor of FACT Bahrain Magazine,
Pro-reform forces in Syria continue to successfully get some information out via video and blog posts – data that has been picked up by the mainstream media – despite restrictions on Internet access. While the amount of information has been significantly less than what the world witnessed in Egypt’s case earlier this year, observers still see the power of modern communication systems playing a significant role.
Where current President Bashar Al-Assad’s father, Hafez, was able to order a violent and successful crackdown against an uprising of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1982 without fear of an immediate international response, the Internet, satellite television broadcasts and other modern capabilities make such an undertaking nearly impossible. In 1982, it was weeks before news of the crackdown publicly hit the international radar and thousands had already perished.
“That can’t happen today with videos being posted online all the time and al-Jazeera covering things. This limits Assad’s weapons, and the people know it,” Mordechai Kedar, a professor at Israel’s Bar-Ilan University told the Globe & Mail.
Assad has sought to placate protesters with a limited number of reforms in recent weeks, including the reshuffling of political powerbrokers within the ruling structure and plans to repeal emergency rule that has been in place since 1963. Few observers expect Assad’s moves will silence the protests.
In Libya, where there is relatively little access and infrastructure – and more immediate survival questions – to support the widespread use of Internet-based tools on the scale we witnessed over the last few months in other countries, there are Libyans and the diaspora keeping up a near continuous flow of information. Dozens of influential members of Twitter continue to tweet in support of #Libya, but in this case traditional media has dominated the chatter.
As we examined here shortly after Mubarak’s government fell, the Egyptian government’s attempt to shut down Internet access in a bid to sever communication lines and shield events from international observation was doomed to fail. In an increasingly interconnected world, where the possession of a cellular telephone potentially gives an individual an international platform, and both public and private actors are increasingly willing to help individuals side-step government controls, government-sanctioned censorship will ultimately prove to be a temporary measure.
And at the end of the day, technological capabilities alone do not drive revolutionary change, people do. In the case of Egypt the massive outpouring of international support on the Internet buoyed protesters across Egypt. But it was on the ground activism and a broad determination for change that drove Mubarak from power, and will be behind whatever pressure is brought to bear on future leaders.
For despotic regimes the lesson seems pretty clear. Don’t allow Internet usage to permeate society and the strength of its power to push for change can be muted. However, unless repressive leadership is prepared to confiscate every cellular telephone, destroy a country’s entire communications infrastructure and ban all traditional media from operating, the message for change will get out.







