the arab spring, social media and democracy

7/29/2019 The Arab Spring, Social Media and Democracy

1/17

Nygaard 1Gabrielle Nygaard

MSCM 345

Final project

The Arab Spring, Social Media and Democracy

The yet ongoing uprisings that started around late 2010 in Tunisia known as the Arab

Spring have been coined Facebook and Twitter revolutions for the pioneering, if overstated,

role of social media. Social media is generally considered to be any web-based or mobile

communications technology that allows the creation and exchange of user-generated content

(Dewey, Kaden, Marks, Matsushima & Zhu, 2012, p.3). Facebook, the social networking site,

and Twitter, the microblogging site, are the two most recognized platforms both worldwide and

within the Arab Spring. These technologies that allow for widespread citizen participation in

discourse have been hypothesized to be democratizing. The Arab Spring, in which social media

was used for informational, organizational and motivational purposes by activists pursuing more

democratic political systems, is oft cited as a case in point. However, a factor often overlooked is

that the governments targeted by these movements utilized the same technologies to stifle and

counter such voices to varying degrees of success, thus throwing the viability of such a

classification into question. Via a literature review, this proposition as well as counterarguments

will be considered against the unique features of social media as framed by the Arab Spring.

Egalitarianism and civic participation

Social media is interactive and, unlike many other mass communication mediums, allows

for not only unlimited consumption but creation of content by all parties. Without space or other

constrictions, all voices may be published and potentially heard. This quality is believed to

promote civic participation and democracy by constituting a forum in which all sides have the


2/17

Nygaard 2opportunity to be represented and for their views to be disseminated and regarded. Manuel

Castells network theory notes that this egalitarian nature of online communication is one

characteristic of social networks that is valuable for political activism (Storck, 2011, p. 17).

Democracy is often considered a political realization of egalitarianism, and the nature of

social media has been defined similarly. The ability to participate in political discourse supplied

by social media is argued to promote not just civic engagement generally but democratic systems

of governance because its organization fosters democratic values. Says Hilbert (2007),

democracy is the opposite of coercion of power. Less coercion of one person over

another leads to more equal standing among citizens, and therefore equal participation in

the formation of the common will is seen as positive and more power relations among

people as negative. (p. 7)

The many-to-many organization of social media, as opposed to mass medias traditional one-to-

many format, appears to cohere with these sentiments as it puts all users on a level playing field

and facilitates such formation of common will. Such qualities are factors that have led to

recognition of the technology as democratizing.

Unregulated sphere

Furthermore, social media is considered an alternative sphere because it constitutes a

realm in which discourse and even dissent can occur unregulated and uncensored by groups in

power. This serves informational and organizational purposes in political mobilization efforts, as

groups theoretically have access to and can publicize information that might otherwise be

suppressed. Such possibilities appear distinctly opposed to the principles and stability of

autocratic rule. Acknowledges Shirky (2011), communicative freedom is good for political

freedom.


3/17

Nygaard 3The unregulated sphere social media currently constitutes is one hard for regimes to exert

control over, and as such allegedly more suited to utilization by citizens, who can voice diverse

and even dissenting views that might otherwise be quashed, than by established authority. In the

Egyptian uprising, citizen journalism via social media allowed those directly involved in protest

activities to shape their own narrative (Storck, 2011, p. 27). The magnitude of social media in

comparison to other channels also provides for this; 1,000 Twitter users are more difficult to

exercise control over than 10 newspapers. Likewise, established authority may see losses in

influence for similar reasons in these media; an officials tweets may be lost in the sea of content

created by citizen users.

Although social media is generally unregulated, a crucial factor to consider is who

controls social media as a channel. Currently, key platforms including Facebook and Twitter lie

in the hands of private companies whose conduct can determine the parameters users worldwide

must work within (Joseph, 2012, p. 151). Joseph (2012) raises the question,

What social or human rights responsibilities do these entities have to their users? Is it

appropriate to place any faith in them as facilitators and guardians of a revolution? What

if they oppose a progressive, democratic revolution? After all, the status quo often suits

big business. (p. 176)

Thus, although it is not the government, those who preside over these media are nevertheless

self-interested parties which may pose a threat to activists ability to utilize social media.

Although these companies generally originate from democratic societies, their loyalties do not

necessarily lie with such causes elsewhere (although this has generally been the case so far); they

also originate from capitalist societies, and profit may be their priority. When governments

request these companies to limit their services or censor content, the continued viability of social


4/17

Nygaard 4media as a tool for political activism is at the mercy of those who control the channels. Hence the

mobilization opportunities of social media depend on such decisions of individuals. In the words

of Gillespie (2012), Despite [Twitters] nominal (and in practice substantive) commitment to

protecting speech, they are a private provider, that retains the rights and responsibilities to curate

their user content according to rules they choose.

Anti-hierarchical

Movements fostered on social media, especially Twitter, have been said to have less

clearly defined leaders than movements fostered in other realms, perhaps because of the

previously discussed egalitarian nature of these media that gives all parties opportunity for

participation and all content equal space, or perhaps arising out of a conscious decision by

activists to utilize the unique possibilities the structure of such social media allows for.

Regardless, this tendency against hierarchal structure, beyond being recognized as a

primer for democratic values, has been said to be beneficial to the democratizing causes of the

Arab Spring. Howard et al. (2011) explain, For the most partthe political uprising was

leaderless so there was no long-standing revolutionary figurehead, traditional opposition leader,

or charismatic speechmaker who could be arrested (p. 9). Because the leadership of these causes

is often less distinct, identifying the head of the snake in effort to kill the body becomes

challenging. However, social media revolutionaries can achieve fame; for example, Wael

Ghonmim who started as an unknown online activist but reached celebrity, honorary leader

status via Facebook, was indeed arrested, demonstrating that movements fostered on social

media are not completely immune to hierarchy.

Reach


5/17

Nygaard 5The reach of social media, potentially universal and currently spanning many corners of

the globe, allows for wide dispersal of knowledge and diversity of opinion. The worldwide reach

of social media postings from one uprising have been said to be contagious, acting to encourage

similar motions in other states or areas. In addition, parties beyond the nation in which an

uprising occurs can, as a result of social media or through it, provide support to these causes. For

example, in the case of Tunisia, Outside the country, the hacker communities of Anonymous

and Telecomix helped cripple government operations with their Operation Tunisiac denial-of-

service attacks, and by building software activists used to get around state firewalls (Howard et

al., 2011, p. 8). Social medias capability to spread messages on a global scale can engender the

support of outside forces. Although cases of this thus far often exhibit individuals from

democratic societies aiding dissenters in the pursuit of democracy, this ideology is not embedded

into the medium, as for example Facebook pages disparaging activists have been used to

engender support in the opposite direction.

Encouragement of expression and proliferation of viewpoints

Social media is believed to promote freedom of expression and varied opinion. The

multiple viewpoints it facilitates, by providing a wealth of voices beyond those mainstream or

mandated, are central to deliberative forms of democracy. Although room for varying

perspectives is key to democracy, it can also pose challenges. Brisson and Lee (2011) note,

This explosion of voices and perspectives in Egypt is undoubtedly a positive force Yet

it remains unclear to what extent the numerous and divergent channels will contribute

value to a national dialogue. Many are likely to just add noise. The challenge faced by

media policymakers in Egypt is a sharpened version of one that societies are facing all


6/17

Nygaard 6over the world. In the age of new media, how can a country develop an inclusive,

constructive discourse on national issues? (p. 17)

A proliferation of voices in not necessarily constructive, and can in fact result in noise

that detriments progress and delays consensus, especially in nations starting from scratch such as

those that successfully overthrew their governments in the course of the Arab Spring. Dewey et

al. (2012) write, increased access to online information by the public, combined with the often

unregulated ability to publish a wide variety of information, can actually lead to an oversupply of

confusing, inaccurate and distracting information (p. 10). Thus the nature of social media may

not necessarily lend itself to the realization of effective democracy or any form of government,

but rather to the dethroning of an undesirable one that is already in power.

Galvanization

Social media is an active media, calling upon the individual to engage and search for

information as opposed to simply delivering it as is the case with other mass media forms. As

such, it has been argued to be inherently more galvanizing and encouraging of participation in

discourse, and by extension civic matters including protests.

One explanation for this may be a positive feedback; the ability to produce and consume

political content, independent of social elites, is important because the public sense of shared

grievances and potential for change can develop rapidly (Howard et al., 2011, p. 23). But this

activation does not equate with predetermined social or political outcomes, warns Joseph

(2012), social media increases participation; but greater participation does not necessarily lead

to democracy and pluralism. It depends on the values people bring to the table (p. 174). Again,

social media shows itself to be apt to support social mobilization more generally, unspecific of

underlying sentiments.


7/17

Nygaard 7Sense of community

Social media gives divergent views space they may not garner elsewhere. This provides

an outlet for minority voices and the opportunity to challenge monopolies whereas other media

may not offer the same leverage or may be controlled by an authoritarian rule that would not

allow such views to be disseminated. Moreover, this facet of social media can alleviate

reluctance to participate in political activities by breaking the psychological barrier of fear. This

is achieved by providing a sense of community even to those of minority opinions as they are

able to connect with and view likeminded perspectives. This combats the spiral of silence that

may be a factor in regimes ability to persist. Write Zhuo, Wellman and Yu (2011), In a

repressive society, there are dangers that each person fearfully thinks that he or she stands alone.

Social media helped to build a sense of community and minimize this feeling of isolation (p. 8).

This effect may create a positive feedback, as seen by Storck (2011):

Once individuals found out that other people would be protesting, they were more likely

to join themselves. Eventually, a tipping point occurs, when the protest or activity

becomes self-reinforcing, and increases without further direct organization or action by

the leadership. (p. 26)

This ability to connect distant parties and provide a sense of unity is vital in social

medias usefulness as a social mobilization tool. Storck (2011) summarizes that empirical

evidence shows a significant increase in use of social media for social/civil mobilization in the

Arab world in early 2011, a shift which did not cause the subsequent revolutions, but nonetheless

played a crucial role in them by gathering real time information and facilitating physically

distant and socially diverse relationships (p. 7).


8/17

Nygaard 8The anonymity the Internet offers is another factor in conquering barriers of fear to

achieve participation. Storck (2011) warns that although it allows previously unheard

individuals to express their dissent without fear of authoritative backlash, there is also the

possibility for abuse of this anonymity, such as cases of false accounts (p. 31). These can range

from purely those sensationalistic, to even government plants looking to undermine or counter

the sentiments of vocal opposition.

Attitude about authority

Social media has been suggested to promote a certain attitude about authority that favors

democracy and egalitarianism. Both the Internet generally and social media have been argued to

encourage a disregard for the long chain of authority, for established hierarchies that used to

structure decision making (Hofheinz, 2011, p. 1425). This attitude would logically result in

democratic views, or at least positions opposed to authoritarian rule. Explains Hofheinz (2011),

The attitude coming to expression there is one of no longer unquestioningly accepting

what authorities decide, but checking for oneself, coming to ones own conclusions,

making ones own decisions. And this attitude is fostered by the structure of interaction

on the Internet. (p. 1426)

According to Hilbert (2007), democracy is based on the principle of self-determination which

asserts that the individual is the most appropriate party to determine their future (p. 15). The

structure of the Internet and social media appear to promote such principles, and thus transitively

may be seen to lean towards democratization inherently.

Scholars such as Zhuo, Wellman and Yu (2011) see changes in some of the post-uprising

nations that seem to reflect shifts to the types of organization mirroring that of social media:


9/17

Nygaard 9The ways in which the revolt played out more subtly suggest that, much like Western

societies, parts of Egyptian society are transforming away from traditional groups and

towards more loosely structured networked individualism. There is less group

controland more autonomyin networked societies. (p. 6)

Social media: Speed, size and success packaged

As indicated, social media makes for potentially vast, quick, and weighty movements,

qualities that culminate in a bigger threat to established authorities (Hofheinz, 2011, p. 1428).

Social media is painted as a juggernaut force, if appropriately orchestrated.

The size and speed of communications are reflected in the impressive escalation of Arab

Spring movements following key events. Although the underlying values had long been

incubating, social media is said to have accelerated, facilitated and made large contributions to

the overall success of the uprisings. In an exceptionally swift case, Egyptian activists unseated

Mubarak in a mere 18 days, which Storck (2011) attributes to the efficient use of social media

networks as a form of organizational infrastructure, as

Egyptian activists were able to successfully play off the strengths of the social

networking capabilities of Facebook and Twitter by capitalizing on their many-to-many

communication capabilities and the speed with which information can be transferred and

spread, an inherent characteristic to any digital media. (p. 25)

However, these same factors may, instead of benefiting, harm such movements. Scholars

have suggested that it is possible for these movements to move too fast; Joseph (2012) writes,

The conversations arising from newly available information might not have been

sufficiently mature or sophisticated to establish a properly functioning public sphere or

civil society. Perhaps the resultant loose networks moved prematurely towards


10/17

Nygaard 10galvanization and organization. As Morozovput it, [j]ust because you can mobilize a

hundred million people on Twitter . . . does not mean that you should; it may only make

it harder to accomplish more strategic objectives at some point in the future. Perhaps

there is a danger that the authoritarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt will be replaced by

failed States. (p. 187)

Joseph (2012) qualifies this by noting that It is patronizing to assume, however, that the Arab

world is not ready for democracy, or that it is better for them to remain perpetually under the

thumb of stagnant, autocratic, brutal, and corrupt regimes (p. 187). Rather, this observation

points more to the challenges any nation faces after overthrowing established leadership, and

suggests these issues might be magnified by the speed with which this was accomplished in

some Arab Spring states. This further identifies social medias adeptness for deposing as

opposed to instating political institutions of any sort.

Caveats: Government utilization of social media

A primary objection to the suggestion that social media is democratizing is that a

government can attempt to censor, control access, or use it to mislead or spread their own

ideology. Some, such as Evgeny Morozov, even believe that social media help dictators more

than it does protestors; Morozov is quoted by Dewey et al. (2012) as suggesting that

The Iranian government and its hard-line supporters used mobile and Internet technology

all too astutely against the protesters. Gleaning information from Facebook, they sent

threatening messages to Iranians living abroad, text-messaged Iranians to stay home and

avoid the protests, and urged pious Iranians to fight back online. (p. 14)

This is just one example of how these tools can be wielded to resist democracy. Further cases

include Egyptian Facebook pages acting as virtual lynch mobs that deterred anti-government


11/17

Nygaard 11activities through public shaming (Howard et al., 2011, p. 16). The case of Bahrain encapsulates

the government mirroring the exact techniques of dissidents against them, and serves as a

cautionary tale for social media activists; write Dewey et al. (2012),

In Bahrain, the adeptness of the government at using social media sites to track down

dissidents highlights the ways in which social media can be a double-edged sword.

Protestors utilized Facebook in order to reach wide audiences and transmit information at

rapid speeds. The government similarly capitalized on this feature to locate targets more

quickly than would have been possible with traditional media. (p. 22)

Backfiring

Although activists must be aware of the risk of social media use being turned against

them, governments face similar chances for attempts to stifle dissent having the opposite effect.

Suppressive efforts have been seen to backfire in the Arab Spring. In the case of the Egyptian

governments shut-down of the Internet, Howard et al. (2011) say,

taking down pieces of the nations information infrastructure crippled government

agencies. The people most affected were middle-class Egyptians, who were cut off from

Internet service at home. Some people apparently stayed there, isolated and uncertain

about the status of their friends and family. But in the absence of information about the

crisis, others took to the streets. Mubaraks move to shut off the protestors may have

bolstered their ranks as people filled the streets to find out what was happening. (p. 16)

Additionally, activists anticipated the block and were able to make provisions and continue

organizing despite it (Storck, 2011, p. 23). Although attempting to silence dissent through

control of media or efforts to track down and arrest specific protesters can serve to stifle certain

voices, and may instill fear and promote silence, there is also potential that this will further


12/17

Nygaard 12invigorate the public. In this distinction, the will of the people, the historical context and climate

of the situation rather than nature of the medium are key.

Digital divide

The digital divide may also pose a roadblock to social medias realization as an inclusive

and democratic tool. Although the Arab region has experienced the highest rates of technology

adoption amongst all developing nations over the last ten years, the demographics using social

media are skewed young and educated, neither representative of the whole population nor

universally available as of yet (Storck, 2011, p. 14). Compounding this, says Storck, (2011),

[A] highly ambivalent and complex relationship between media and governments has

developed, in which Arab autocracies have encouraged Internet penetration in the name

of economic development, while simultaneously attempting to maintain control over the

spread of information and media sources. (p.16)

But in spite of such complications, both access and use of these technology continue to spread

across the population; the digital divide may yet be bridged, and, as above outlined, autocracies

have had difficulty managing these technologies.

Conclusion: Neither democratizing nor autocrazing

The upshot of the examination of these key points about the nature of the technology, as

demonstrated in the Arab Spring, is that social media is not inherently democratizing but neutral,

and its use depends on the purposes of the people employing it. It can be used to liberate or

oppress. The use of social media tools does not have a single preordained outcome, assesses

Shirky (2011), addressing the Do digital tools enhance democracy? question by saying they

probably do not hurt in the short run and might help in the long runand that they have the

most dramatic effects in states where a public sphere already constrains the actions of the


13/17

Nygaard 13government. To say that social media caused the movements of the Arab Spring invokes

technological determinism and a narrow view. Social media alone did not catalyze the Arab

Spring, but appears to have encouraged, hastened, and undoubtedly facilitated it. The myriad

other contextual factors at play, including the important roles of history and the will of the

people, were so influential in the fueling of these revolutions that that it has been argued that

with or without social media, they would have occurred (and been successful) eventually. Social

media only accelerated the more or less inevitable, arguably strengthened it, and further shaped it.

From this review of the various features of social media, it does seem to be a tool that

structurally lends itself more to the purposes of the many over the few, but that is not to say

regimes cannot emerge as the more successful force when the public takes to mobilization efforts

online. Authoritarian governments can and have imposed sanctions on and wielded social media

for their own ends, including to befuddle their citizenries and suppress dissent.

Considering such factors, rather than democratizing, social media arrive as more suited to

felling a regime than to establishing a new form of government, especially one hinging on

consensus. Indeed, these aspects prove social media a powerful tool for anti-government activists.

But these tools may also be put to use to preserve autocracies. The individual nations of the Arab

Spring can serve not only as inspiration for other uprisings, as appears to have been the case, but

as case studies to authorities to learn how to cope with these threats. Social media thus presents

not a panacea but a double-edged sword to democratic movements.

Key factors that are not internal to social media but affect their function in social

mobilizations include the will of the people and who controls the medium. Indeed, As an

amplifier of human intent, technology will only be as effective as the offline social networks it is

built upon, and only as good as human intent is able to direct it (Brisson and Lee, 2011, p. 31).


14/17

Nygaard 14Moreover, those who govern social media and have the capability to regulate it must be at least

permissive of their causes; activists can perhaps only expect social media companies to do the

right thing to the extent that such activism does not conflict with their commercial goals

(Joseph, 2012, p. 186).

As argued by Storck (2011), the Internet is not a deterministic one-directional force for

either global liberation or oppression but one that can and has allowed all these forces to

flourish. Storck emphasizes the dangers of overgeneralization in pointing out that

though Tunisian and Egyptian activists were seemingly able to exploit the benefits of

social networking to great success, in other Arab states, such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia,

protesters who tried to replicate strategies used in Egypt were quickly crushed by state-

led security forces. (p. 36)

According to Dewey et al. (2012), U.S. presidents from Reagan to Obama have argued

that the long-term survival of authoritarian states depends on their ability to control the flow of

ideas and information within and across their borders (p. 29). As such, it can be tempting to

conclude that because social media seem to democratize the flow of ideas and information, they

are politically democratizing; however, it does not follow that the culmination of an open flow of

information is always democratic sentiments, much less governance. Perhaps the flaw in the

social media is democratizing line of thought is the assumption that democracy is the only

logical and universally most favorable system. Instead of pinning social media as the harbinger

of democracy, it may be more useful to note its potential as a disrupterof regimes. Storck (2011)

reminds, though the Internet may possess enormous liberating potential, it is harnessing this

potential and translating it into political reality that proves itself to be far harder to accomplish

(p. 38). Echo Dewey et al., the lack of substantial democratic change in Iran hints that the mere


15/17

Nygaard 15dissemination of a message does not automatically result in tangible change, i.e. democratization

(2012, p. 14). In fact, there are certain potential roadblocks to achieving consensus it presents.

Thus the role of social media in future stages for the nations of the Arab Spring may be as crucial

as that behind in shaping political outcomes, be it to help or hurt democratizing efforts.

Questions that now must be considered include, given these circumstances, what

provisions can be made to ensure the availability of social media as a tool to oppressed peoples?

What are the implications of these media being controlled by private companies? What will

social medias role be in establishing new political organizations post-uprising?

For centuries, the importance of expression of opinion as a vital safeguard against the

despotic use of state power (Thompson, 2011, p. 99) has been recognized, and successive new

communication technologies have been prematurely hailed as great liberating forces only for

their dark sides to later become apparent. New media conducive to fostering participation can

indeed increase [freedoms] such as access to information, and the freedom of citizens to

converse with one another, says Shirky (2011), just as the printing press, the postal service, the

telegraph, and the telephone did before. Perhaps the missing ingredient needed to understand

the nature of social media, still in its infancy as a mass media, is retrospect.


16/17

Nygaard 16References

Brisson, Z., & Lee, P. (2011). Egypt: From Revolutions to Institutions.Reboot. Retrieved from

http://thereboot.org/wp-content/Egypt/Reboot-Egypt-From-Revolutions-To-

Institutions.pdf

Dewey, T., Kaden, J., Marks, M., Matsushima, S., & Zhu, B. (2012). The Impact of Social

Media on Social Unrest in the Arab Spring.Defense Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from

http://publicpolicy.stanford.edu/system/files/SocialMedia_FINAL%2020%20Mar.pdf

Gillespie, T. (2012, July 31). Is Twitter us or them? [Web log post]. Retrieved from

http://culturedigitally.org/2012/07/is_twitter_us_or_them/

Hilbert, M. (2007).Digital Processes and Democratic Theory: Dynamics, risk and opportunities

when democratic institutions meet digital information and communication technologies .

Retrieved from http://www.martinhilbert.net/DigitalDemocracy-eBook.pdf

Hofheinz, A. (2011). Nextopia? Beyond Revolution 2.0.International Journal of

Communication, 5, 14171434. Retrieved from

http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/1186/629

Howard, P., Duffy, A., Freelon, D., Hussain, M., Mari, W., & Mazaid, M. (2011). Opening

Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media During the Arab Spring?Project on

Information Technology and Political Islam. Retrieved from

http://www.library.cornell.edu/colldev/mideast/Role%20of%20Social%20Media%20Dur

ing%20the%20Arab%20Spring.pdf

Joseph, S. (2012). Social Media, Political Change, and Human Rights.Boston College

International and Comparative Law Review, 35(1), 145-188. Retrieved from

http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol35/iss1/3


17/17

Nygaard 17Shirky, C. (2011). The Political Power of Social Media. Foreign Affairs, 90(1), 28-41.

Storck, M. (2011). The Role of Social Media in Political Mobilisation: a Case Study of the

January 2011 Egyptian Uprising.Institute for Cultural Diplomacy. Retrieved from

http://www.culturaldiplomacy.org/culturaldiplomacynews/content/articles/participantpap

ers/2012-02-bifef/The_Role_of_Social_Media_in_Political_Mobilisation_-

_Madeline_Storck.pdf

Thompson, J. (2011). The trade in news. In D. Crowley & P. Heyer (Eds.), Communication in

history: Technology, culture, society (6, pp. 95-100). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Zhuo, X., Wellman, B., & Yu, J. (2011, July/September). Egypt: The First Internet

Revolt? Peace Magazine, 6-10. Retrieved from

http://homes.chass.utoronto.ca/~wellman/publications/egypt/PMag-1107-Egypt-

offprint.pdf

the arab spring, social media and democracy

Documents