Explanatory Blog Post 2

In the reading, ‘After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State,’ Marc Lynch talks about the effect media has on political protest in Arab states.

Firstly, Lynch uses Egypt in 2011 as an example of media being prominent in the formation of political activity and protests. The planned protest on Facebook caused a massive, society-wide mobilization which drove Mubarek and his regime away from power. However, only two years later the President who was appointed as a result of the protests in 2011, resigned from office. This reveals that social media can spread messages of disapproval concerning a regime but when it comes to implementing a new and people-approved regime the protests can only go so far. Lynch puts the increasing political action through the media to a global trend towards democratization and demands for democracy from within and abroad. This demand for democracy and the introduction of globalisation contributes to the effect the media has in terms of political protest, as Lynch explains later in the passage.

Lynch focuses on the four pathways to change which attempt to explain the way new media can be seen as challenging the power of Arab states. The first pathway is titled, contentious collective action and describes the way in which the media can contribute to collective action being taken. Lynch firstly talks about how collective action through the media, can lower the costs in terms of lowering risk of exposure by sharing their beliefs in a “semi-public setting”. Lynch says that by using these social media outlets, the issue surrounding atomization and social isolation is overcome. People who are scared of the consequences of speaking out against a regime feel a sense of secrecy and security through social media. Therefore sites such as Facebook and Twitter encourage political action to occur in states which enforce political conformity and silence. Examples include Bahrain where internet forums were used by protesters expressing their anger surrounding the manipulation of elections and the clampdown of activists. These cyber protests are often limited to the internet and often do not result in extensive political protest because of the fear surrounding authoritarian regimes. However, this ideas was challenged during January 2011, in Egypt. When the Egyptian regime shut down the internet in January 2011 to try and attempt to stop the widespread criticism of the government the protests moved onto the streets of Cairo, rather than being abandoned and staying online.

The mechanisms of repression are the second pathway mentioned by Lynch which can be considered to upgrade Arab authoritarianism. The way in which states have responded to the increase in media associated political action are technical and selective. States such as China have placed limitations on what websites the public can go on. Only recently has the Chinese government lifted the ban on foreign ‘politically sensitive’ websites and this only applies in the state of Shanghai. (Link) Facebook can be used as a way of displaying people’s political affiliations thus spreading the support for a political party. However this information can be used by regimes to identify opponents to a regime, such as Iran in 2009. Only a few weeks ago did Iran open up the access to Twitter and Facebook since 2009, which was greeted with many tweets and updates. (Link) Media, specifically social media, can be used by the protesters to ignite popular support for their political stance, but this opens the possibility of being found out by authoritarian regimes.

Lynch, attributes a new kind of Arab public sphere to the Al-Jazeera television network. Al Jazeera was the first to fuel “political protest movements, which used the Qatari television station to spread their messages to break through domestic censorship, and to protect themselves from the worst of regime repression.” Al Jazeera was also the broadcaster who aired Osama bin Laden’s 9/11 confession video in 2004. International attention and alliances is the third pathway, and describes how the media can influence international attitudes and attention towards a particular country. During the conflict in Libya, the American attitude changed when images surfaced on Al Jazeera of violence occurring in the country. This change in attitude helped to reveal the importance of the issue in Libya, in terms of American and International politics.

The last pathway is the Public Sphere. According to Lynch the role the internet played in the 2011 Egyptian uprisings will in the longer term “empower and transform the nature of the public sphere in authoritarian Arab societies.” This transformation of the public sphere will encourage transparency in societies ravaged by authority. The media drives a new information environment. This environment demands for accountability and transparency and citizenship long denied by the authoritarian Arab state can be effectively pressed. The youth of today, are becoming more internet savvy. Evading firewalls and bans on Bluetooth are becoming common knowledge within the Arab youth. This illustrates the changing nature of evading state control over communication and information.

Although Lynch identifies the four pathways as ways in which the media is challenging authoritarian ism he plays down the effect the media has on the political stage. Lynch explains that it is all well having social-media-based forms of political organization, but without party elites major weaknesses appear when the “time comes for negotiating the terms of democratic transition and especially for dealing with the enormous challenge of governing in the wake of a change of regime.” The events in Egypt are a perfect example of this. Once Mubarek had gone the army came in and asserted authoritarian rule on the Egyptian people, just like Mubarek. Lynch still suggests that “there is a strong correlation and environmental case to be made that this new information environment empowers political and social activism.” The new social media environment empowers individuals to coordinate, communicate, and circumvent state censorship and repression to fundamentally shift the balance of social power away from authoritarian states or hierarchies of any kind.

Overall the author believes that the media does have a small influence when it comes to political change, but no wholesale differences such as a change in regime are a result of media impact. According to Lynch, the purpose of using the media would be to shatter the ability of regimes to control the flow of information, opinions, images and ideas. However restrictions and censorship are placed on media when the power of the regime is threatened, revealing just how authoritarian a state is.

In my opinion, the impact of media is reliant on the idea of globalisation. Youtube allows political messages to spread and expose the dictatorial nature of an authoritarian regime. Youtube brings the world closer together, and a video from one side of the world can be seen on the other side of the world at any time. International media outlets often gain information regarding authoritarian regimes from videos of violence uploaded to Youtube. Videos placed on Youtube can therefore ignite international attention, and action by the international community can be forthcoming. Whether the international community acts is an entirely different topic. What can be guaranteed is that the new information environment brings with it an increasing difficulty for regimes to limit and censor the amount of information attributed to their dictatorial regimes. The ways in which regimes censor this information are becoming more intelligent and devious. Who is going to win the technology race is an interesting issue.

However, I agree with Lynch when he raises the point about the people having a very limited influence when it comes to significant change in a country surrounded by authoritarianism. Once political change is accomplished then the people of a country are highly unlikely to implement complete reform, because they are just that, people. They hold no power in countries which are encircled by an autocratic society. The media can challenge the way in which an authoritarian Arab state operates, but this is the limit of its influence.