Explanatory Blog Post Two

“After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State”

Marc Lynch

Marc Lynch’s (2011) article “After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab State”, analyses the role social media has played, and is yet to play, in the popular uprisings of Tunisia and Egypt. The uprisings challenge the persistence of authoritarianism in the Arab region as a whole, but despite this Lynch is clear that the role of social media is contentious at best. He touches upon the debate between enthusiasts and sceptics, but instead focuses on four ways in which new media has been utilised in Arab states. These are predominately positive, but there is acknowledgement of the ability of states to utilise new media sources as tools of oppression. It is then Lynch’s intent to encourage further research into the area; especially as the new, tumultuous environment has raised a number of questions lacking in concrete answers.

This blog post will overview the article, touching upon those points of interest to this course. It is also my intention to discuss some of Lynch’s ideas and postulations from a contemporary context.

The first section of the article contextualises the debate around the role of new media in the Arab uprisings. The protests in Tunisia (2010) and Egypt (2011) radically changed political discourse surrounding the stability of Arab regimes. Lynch acknowledges that prior to the uprisings there was a belief in the general “authoritarian persistence” (p.301) of Arab states despite numerous internal and external pressures. Persistence can be regarded as the unfaltering perpetuation of authoritarianism believed to be facilitated by things like; an inward-facing / overdeveloped military, oil and rent based economies, social / political culture, and advanced mechanisms for the suppression of dissent. This idea was reinforced by the stability of regimes in face of challenges like global democratisation movements and the establishment of news network al-Jazeera. Therefore the events in Tunisia and Egypt were unexpected, and forced a reconsideration of this theory. In particular new theories focused on the role of social media, the use of which was prevalent in both revolutions. Yet the role it played is contentious at best, and Lynch argues new media has “...reshaped the structure of political opportunity across an increasingly unified political field, but have ambiguous  effects on the specific mechanisms of authoritarian state power” (p.302). He stresses this ambiguity when analysing the ‘stylised debate’ between proponents and sceptics of new media.

The second section features the debate between enthusiasts and sceptics of new media’s role in the uprisings. The debate is framed by an introduction into the changing information environment in Arab societies since the late 1990s. The introduction of ‘old media’ (cable television, and the aforementioned al-Jazeera in 1996), can be regarded to have altered the public sphere of authoritarian regimes as it provided information channels independent of state control. However Lynch acknowledges despite inducing protests and civil unrest the effects of this media were limited, and authoritarian regimes remained persistent and quickly adapted where required (e.g. built state operated television stations). The seemingly limited effect of al-Jazeera was in part due to the continued suppression of civil society. Enthusiasts of new media (internet and smart phones, which were introduced in the early 2000s), argue they caused a second radical adaptation of the public sphere. This occurred through further dissemination of independent, democratic information which was occurring under al-Jazeera. However more importantly, they created a social realm outside of the jurisdiction of the state. In essence this new realm, radically changed the way information could be “...produced, consumed and shared” (p.303). Inevitably there are also those rightly sceptical of the new media. Who claim enthusiasts place undue faith in technologies which operate within existing power structures. The internet is just as much a vehicle for social change as it is for social repression, as states simply made it the new tool in their arsenal of surveillance and infiltration. Yet Lynch stresses that this debate has reached a pinnacle, and rather regards social media as having “...played an important role at key moments in the unfolding of those revolutionary events, but they did so within a context shaped by older media such as al-Jazeera, by political anger over heavily manipulated elections, and by material changes such as rapidly deteriorating economic situation” (p.303). He then dedicates the remainder of the article to four key ways in which this new media empirically challenges the power of Arab states.

The first of which, entitled ‘Contentious Collective Action’, focuses on how social media facilitates action against the repressive and overbearing authoritarian state. Lynch divides his argument into five sections:

Transaction Costs

New media lowers the cost of communicating and organising with similarly like-minded people. Internet and smart phones provide citizens with a semi-public sphere in which to operate before moving action to the street. In addition small protests are considerably more visible, which can help mobilise wider society. Lynch argues that new media aids contentious collective action as it challenges “...the atomization and social isolation produced by authoritarian regimes...” (p.304) by providing a less costly method of interaction.

Information Cascades

State repression can be seen to maintain a ubiquitous preference falsification among citizenry, which acts as a major obstacle to mass mobilization. In essence, individuals “...refrain from making their [anti-regime] views public out of fear of either social or official sanction” (p.304), and this can only be overcome by “breaking the wall of fear” (p.304). Lynch argues a cascade of information will occur as knowledge of small protests, disseminated by new media, mobilises a generally sympathetic public.

The Cost of Repression

The documentation of state brutality by new media and its distribution to wider public and international audiences, aids the cause of the repressed. This raises the cost of repression for authoritarian regimes, as the benefits of intimidating citizenry are often outweighed by the costs of international scrutiny. Egypt and Tunisia both suffered from this, and Lynch argues states with ties to the United States in particular, are more sensitive to documentation of their repression.

Scale and Diffusion

New media can be seen as aiding the scale and diffusion of protest movements through an “ever-more-unified Arab political space” (p.305). The ability of new media to scale up protest movements from their local roots is impressive, and Lynch compares this to the effect of a contagion. The ‘contagion effect’ encompasses the movement of uprisings independent of state borders. This has been seen in the adoption of similar techniques by protesters in Egypt following the revolutionary wave in Tunisia, and can be associated with an Arab political space previously unified by older media like al-Jazeera.

Movement Organisation

Rather than considering the benefits new media has for direct action, Lynch uses this section to consider the consequences it may have for later political organisation. He focuses on the tension between decentralised protests movements and the later inevitable transition back to normal politics. Interestingly, Egypt at present seems to reflect some of these concerns, as the initial unification in deposing Mubarak has been replaced by partisan divisions (pro/anti Morsi) which threaten to return the country to military dictatorship.

The second section is entitled ‘The Mechanisms of Repression’ and focuses on new media as yet another tool in the arsenal of state repression. Lynch argues, just like activists, authoritarian regimes have utilised the power of social media – “...Arab authoritarianism has ‘upgraded’ rather than withering away” (p.305). The original repertoire of the state for repression includes components aided by new media: things like surveillance, censorship, division of opposition, enforced social compliance, and a large security apparatus. For example, the internet is monitored, infiltrated, and disrupted by security services in many Arab states. In the Egyptian protests of 2011 the internet and mobile phone networks were simply shut down by the government in an attempt to disrupt communication. However this was ineffective, as “...politics moved onto the street, and that’s where it has stayed” (p.303). It was inevitable that the independent social realm that new media promised would be brought under some form of state control – and this seemingly occurred. Even liberal democracies engage in mass surveillance of their own citizenry as the recent revelations of Edward Snowden suggest. However in the case of Egypt and Tunisia it seems to have not mattered, as successful revolutions occurred. Lynch argues that new media instead “...creates opportunities and offers powerful tools which can shift the balance of power or determine the timing and extent of political openings” (p.306), for both the regime and activists.

The third section is linked to the previously mentioned costs of repression that new media places upon authoritarian regimes, and is entitled ‘International Attention and Alliances’. The dependence of many Arab states on international support, predominately American, places them at the whim of a “...unipolar but rapidly shifting international system” (p.306). The broadcasting of ‘on-the-ground’ footage of state repression by the media network al-Jazeera garnered substantial support for the protest movement. In Egypt international favour shifted from Murbarak to the protesters, and pressure was placed upon the regime to democratise. The images presented by al-Jazeera were carefully tailored by specialists to draw sympathy from the international community. Intriguingly, despite these images, the US has made no cuts to the aid it provides the Egyptian army. This is problematic as the army recently performed a coup d'éta, removing the civilian government which came after Murbarak. However with the 2011 uprisings the power of social media in capturing support for the protests movement is clearly demonstrated.

The final section, and perhaps most important for creating an effective democratic environment, is focused on the role social media plays in manipulating the public sphere. Importantly Lynch sees social media as having an effect over the long-term, helping “...to empower and to transform the nature of the public sphere” (p.306), in a positive way. The immediate effects of new media in aiding contentious collective action are perceived to transform into systemic changes over time. Principally Lynch sees citizens as gaining competencies (such as internet fluency) which enable them to circumvent the traditional authority of the state. The key idea that Lynch stresses, and has stressed throughout the article is that “...a new public sphere will fundamentally change the conditions of political authority” (p.307). However he acknowledges we are still uncertain of the direction of the change new media is inducing. A perceived issue is the division which could occur between those who have the knowledge and access to the internet, and those who do not. I think it is important to stress that whilst Lynch seems to have remained cynical towards those definite enthusiasts of new media, he does believe in the power it has in altering the public sphere. Yet it some respects this sphere has been changing since the presence of older media, cable television and al-Jazeera. New media can be seen as the next manifestation of this change, and is intrinsically linked to “the wave of contentious politics which rocked the Arab region in 2010-2011” (p.307).

The article provides a comprehensive overview of the use of new media in the recent Arab uprisings. Lynch retains a healthy scepticism of enthusiasts of new media, but also stresses the positive aspects it has for anti-authoritarian protesters. In his conclusion there is a stressed need for more research and theorisation by political scientists before we can attain a comprehensive picture of the role of new media. Furthermore he ends with a number of questions touched upon early in the text almost as incentive for further study. Zhou Enlai when asked of the effects of French Revolution on Western society replied, "It's too soon to tell." It is much the same with Egypt, Tunisia and the wider Arab uprisings, some of which are still embroiled in conflict. It is then with time, and further research, that the effects of new media will be better realised. 

Tim Manktelow.

300256488