Slashdot Mirror
The Net — Democratic Panacea Or Autocratic Tool?
Alex writes "On April 6, 10,000 protesters organized in Moldova against the nation's Communist leadership by utilizing new media like Twitter and Facebook, demonstrating the ever-increasing potential of the Internet as a democratic and liberating tool. But in the current Boston Review, Evgeny Morozov critiques the view that the internet will inevitably democratize autocratic regimes like China, Russia and Iran. He argues that the Net's democratic effects are not inherent, and that autocratic regimes have been successful in controlling electronic media to disseminate their ideology. Will the net ultimately spread American democracy, or just American entertainment?"
Some of us have our own democratic systems not based on the US.
In Moldova, the web (Twitter, etc.) was outside the government's control, hence the citizens control the net. In China, Russia and Iran the net is well inside the government's control. Hence the net (and the government behind it) controls the citizens.
This is why the copyright debate is so important. Who gives a s**t about Mickey Mouse and who watches of doesn't watch him? The real game is who controls what gets seen, heard and written over the Internet. Copyright is just the government's cover and the RIAA-government relationship is a convenient symbiosis.
Though not from Russia, I travel there several times a year for fieldwork, from Saint Petersburg to western Siberia. Yes, the country can be fairly described autocratic. Voices for reform are regularly beaten under the unders of Kremlin-appointed governors, the late Soviet-era practice of putting dissidents in psychiatric hospitals has resumed, the national media is almost entirely under the control of Putin. Then there have been the killings of the greatest critics of Putin, such as Anna Politkovskaya. Every time I go there, the situation seems ever worse than before.
The net has the potential to be a near indestructible tool for democracy and free exchange of information if, and only if, full anonymity were possible.
And that is why this aspect of the net is seen as the ultimate danger to authoritarians, and so no effort is to be spared to destroy any attempts at fully anonymous net. And so enter the "save the children" crusaders and witch-hunters, who somehow, strangely, rather then focus on abused children seem to focus on thought crimes which, also incidentally, require wholesale removal of anonymity from the net to "stop" ...
Combine this with efforts at whipping up frothing-at-the-snout frenzy and moral panic amongst the general population and the author of the article is right: the net will slowly but surely become the tool of power holders.
Of course there are all sorts of other excuses (like libel etc) why the net has to become non-anonymous, all of them bogus in light of what is being lost versus what is being gained. But then again that is the point, as the "cost" to the ruling elites everywhere is frightening.
Perhaps they will import Australian democracy - after all, even America copied our practice of voting by secret ballot.
I am anarch of all I survey.
America must get over the ideology of spreading American democracy around the world. While it's wonderful as a system, imposing it on other nations is often counterproductive, and nary worth the American blood and treasure used to achieve it.
Rigged voting machines, lying government, involved in wars all over the globe under false pretense, constant and flagrant erosion of our rights yada yada yada thank god for america.
I thought it was a Corporatocracy, based on the ample evidence that just about everyone in Washington is bought by one corporation or the other with campaign donations and backroom deals.
I know Americans get to vote every now and then, but a substantial portion of the results are suitably processed by unverifiable digital "voting systems" to ensure that the people won't accidentally vote wrong. Not that it matters much as both US parties are essentially the same.
America has just spent the last 5 years torturing people and invading a country against international law with American soldiers massacring its population with impunity. It's a terrible role model for democracy.
Is American the best kind of Democracy we can come up with? I'd at least hope for one where lobbying isn't a full time job, where how much money you doesn't matter when running for office, and where every vote counts. Not one where 51% is just as good as 100% (state level).
We are all God's parents.
This is just to hype twitter.
The problem is the security forces are all over twitter, facebook.
Read up on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
They where using 'online' to co ordinate national strikes back in the 1980's.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
You know, the most influential (and richest) industries of the country are controlled by families who had relations with Putin or KGB/army in the 90s. Putin designed his Deputy Prime Minister to become the presidential candidate , Putin left the presidence to become Prime Minister, the former Putin's Prime Minister now is Deputy Prime Minister...
Yes, it sounds like an autocracy.
Ha! You mean the one we can witness in Iraq and Afghanistan at this very moment?
The Bush administration's rendition (torture) policy, and Obama's approval and continuation of it? The unconstitutional wiretapping of US citizens? Attack wars on sovereign nations for oil and political dominance? The notion of the executive branch being untouchable by any law?
Wow, I cerainly hope the net is not about spreading that ideology.
You can consider it autocratic. Presidential and parlamentary elections are faked on regular basis, governors are installed from Kremlin (elections were abolished not so long ago), courts are funded from city budgets and judges are installed by the president and the parliament majority, so called "United Russia" has Putin as the leader. So there is no de facto separation of powers, the president and prime minister decide. :-)
Oh, and journalists and bloggers are killed and imprisoned for their opinions. We also have the infamous "282 article" in criminal codex which de facto forbids any criticism of state. So yes, Russia may be considered autocratic if not "Soviet" again
That simply depends on how you define "modern" and "democracy". Great Britain had a functional democracy long before the United States of America.
Syllable : It's an Operating System
Same democracy that granted the colonies taxation without representation? It might have been functioning, but apparently not very well.
But deep down, the United States of America is a republic rather than a democracy. Its federal levels shows exactly this. Notice how citizens do not vote directly for president?
Sure, that seems unfair, and at worst, 50% of a state's votes can be disregarded because the other half won, and winner takes all. But the electoral college is a method of protecting state's rights. If not, then all candidates should do was campaign in New York and California. I mean, the USA could easily disregard the states down to region level, but then they really won't be the USA any more.
I am no way saying that American democracy is perfect, but the most reason why two parties are the only actual choices is because of voters being stupid and not trying to vote for third parties, I mean, for real, voting for them.
But I will take back that America was the first modern democracy, but it was one of the first. And it is probably the only one with the formula the American system uses.
Clicked pie.