Direct democracy or digital mob?

A spectre is haunting Eurasia - the spectre of activism. As cyberage sets in, the mentality of old Eurasia grapples to grasp the power of the people when politics enters a new age and arena. Is this truly the case or are we but suffering from the same delusions as we tend to when lured by novelties, choosing the complex over simplicity, iPhone and 3G over pencil and paper?

Paraphrasing the 1848 Communist Manifesto may seem out of place addressing the dramatic changes that our Eurasian continent has undergone over the last decades. In essence though, it illustrates the difficulties of the old political and economic establishment to come to terms with new rules of the game, where citizens enjoy and use ever expanding tools of empowerment, where the Great Communicator is not necessarily the President, but the People. It is a transformation from "we are the people" to "who are the people?".

What this people is, still remains to be determined. Is it a demos - people - without krateion - rule? An unruly crowd with its own heterogeneous interests that only seldom forms into a concrete political agenda, but still looms large influencing and potentially discapacitating policy goals and implementation of elected officials? Is it an anonymous and shrouded rule that manages both people and politicians with no saying who is in charge?

198 methods of nonviolent action is a "dummies' guide to revolution," applied to all popular uprisings forming a tattered trace of coloured revolutions in Eastern Europe over the last decade: Slovakia, Croatia, Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine... Today, such approaches for achieving peaceful change are so integrated in our mindset of popular action, that we seldom stop to reflect upon if they are righteous or represent the will of the people. Furthermore, the very same mechanisms have found their way into Internet activism, as Gandhi goes web 2.0, as the Mandelas and Sakharovs of our age increasingly turn up from out of cyberspace.

We take these thruths to be self-evident and hail the principles and mechanisms of coloured revolution as singularly in the service of democracy. However, if we think revolution, we must also think reaction. Confronted by external change, Russia by no means was or could be ignorant of this, as stability was the name of the game both to preserve power and protect people from a return to the upheavals and chaos of the 1990s. Nashi became the recipe for reaction, to support and not subvert an authoritarian regime. As also Gargantua went web 2.0, we witnessed cyberwars waged against Estonia in 2007 and Georgia in 2008. This Russian experiment has now come to an end, and Nashi put in mothballs, as Kremlin seeks new venues of state-directed instead of state-inspired web activism.

Why? What have the Russians realized that the west fails to understand? The answer may be the difficulty of controlling the digital mob. As each and everyone can turn a cyberwarrior or warmonger on one's own, such spontaneity is destined to conflict with the interests of authoritarian government. Directing the webcrowds in the spirit of Gustave Le Bon has proven an overwhelming task in the 21st century, as rulers realize the risk of spiralling into new nights of broken glass. Whereas methods may work in concrete operative and tactical contexts - by blogs, twitter, and other social media - it has proven much more complex and difficult to achieve any strategic and tenuous goals.

The Georgian example also illustrates a paradox if regarded from the perspective of information operations, viz. info warfare. Whereas aerial superiority is deemed the key to victory in modern warfare, the winner may quickly turn loser in the information battlefield. The cyberattacks on Georgia in 2008 gave Russia near total dominance in the information field. However, it also raised the temperature of the Russian information flow for it to boil over into increasingly unreasonable and uncorroborated accusations of Georgian war crimes and even genocide on South Ossetians. In one blow, Russia lost its credibility. At the same time, it gave the Georgian government an information monopoly to send its message, its truth, and its propaganda, as most alternative information sources had been taken out. The exception was bloggers, acting eyewitnesses directly from the hotbeds of battle.

So, have all the powers of old media and politics entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre? Realising its potential, will social media be seen as a friend or foe by forces of traditional society? What it takes to turn the tide and surf the waves of Internet activism is a combination of factors: Understanding of areas, countries, or regions of concern with comprehension of mechanisms such as Gandhi goes web 2.0 and the digital mob. A growing but still too small number of journalists and politicians are getting the message and have started developing such competence, but in the heat of battle, during drastic developments, the question is if this competence may be applied to account for what goes on in the online political arena - with direct or indirect influence on the flow of events - and act or report accordingly.

As trivial a statement as it may seem, the Internet is what you make of it. Friend or foe dichotomies lead nowhere, and seeing Internet as a threat by repetitious rantings about cybercrime and pornography degrade the very thought of human interaction - whether on the web or in real life. Statements saying cybercrime exceeds international drugs' trade, or that a majority of Internet usage relates to pornography (in reality 10-25%), just bring out hysteria about something that for most people has no connection whatsoever to either crime or sex, but for whom interaction by social media has become a part of everyday life, including the potential to actively influence one's life and society by the use of the web.

For people, raising their voices and exerting influence, is not essentially a matter of being online or not. It is true, that social media facilitate social and political interaction, when applied to that purpose. Still, it is the same logics and tactics that are seen IRL political and societal interaction. Age-old methods of political action - whether Gandhi's application of ahimsa to non-violent change or Hitlerite seduction of the crowd inspired by Le Bon - are as integrated into web activism as they are into general political action. The choice - as always with phenomena rightly or wrongly deemed as new - stands between embracing or vilifying web activism. Is standing apart, studiously neutral, the road ahead when cyberspace - for good or evil - becomes but another arena for government of the people, by the people, for the people? Is it a choice between greater direct democracy or the digital mob, or will we simply have to live with both?

Russia Silences its Free Voices?

Will the Kremlin's grip on Russian freedom of speech tighten further? This fear has grown stronger in recent days, as president Putin this week decided to merge two state agencies responsible for media and communication. The new superauthority may pose a serious threat to both independent media and a free blogosphere in Russia. The agency will both control the media and the technical means for delivering it.

On 12 March, president Putin signed a decree "On a Federal Monitoring Service in the sphere of mass media, communications, and protection of the cultural heritage." Accordingly, agencies responsible for monitoring media, Rosokhrankultura, and communications, Rossvyaznadzor, are to be merged. The new agency will thus be given the powers to comprehensively monitor both printed and Internet media, increasing possibilities for sanctions against the whole spectre of media coverage. This includes not only electronic media but also the Russian blogosphere, e.g. by keeping records on and intervening against oppositional bloggers.

As it already is, the position of Russian regular media is precarious to say the least. Except murders and mysterious deaths of critical journalists on what must now be regarded a regular basis, it has become everyday business for Russian government and financial interests to impose pressure on various media to sack journalists that will not go with the stream. For example, in 2004, Raf Shakirov was sacked from Izvestiya due to his coverage of Beslan, and last year Gazeta.ru got an official warning for writing about the Danish Mohammed drawings. These are also some of the voices who have now protested against Putin's new decree.

What is most worrisome with the new agency is that it possesses all means necessary to suppress the freedom of speech exercised in printed media and on the Internet. Thus, the agency will issue and revoke licences for both media publication and technology. Furthermore, the agency will have the resources to also monitor all forms of media, providing it with the tools necessary to quickly intervene whenever information is deemed "unfit" for public consumption.

All in all, this means that previous restrictions on printed and televised media now will be extended to all forms of online media, including the blogosphere. With these powers, the agency may close down servers hosting "inappropriate material," trace individual users - read bloggers - and bring charges against people exercising their freedom of speech, if it contradicts the interests of state.

As traditional media in Russia has been increasingly curtailed in its freedoms during the Putin presidency, the demand for alternative media has drastically increased. Here, the blogosphere has offered the forum for the free exchange of thought and ideas no longer granted the official media. Today, the Russian blogger community is the second largest on the American blog provider LiveJournal, or Живой Журнал (ЖЖ), as it is commonly referred to by Russian bloggers.

Internet has offered people an alternative arena to freely express the diversity of views we normally associate with exercising the unalienable rights of modern society. Now, the Russian government once more turns against the very same constitutional principles that it is set to uphold. In such a Russia, Big Brother watches you: War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. The question for the future is: Who will first shout "Down with big brother!"

Estonia's e-voting Elections

As Estonia is approaching parliamentary elections on Sunday 4 March, it is becoming the first country in the world to use electronic voting over the Internet in national elections. Since the web ballots opened this Monday, more than three percent of the electorate have cast their votes using the Internet. Although this is not more than some 30,000 voters, the introduction of web voting in national elections must be considered a great success.

Estonia is not new to electronic voting. The first proposals were raised already in 2001, but then the President vetoed the decision. Thus, it was not until the 2005 local elections that the system was put to the test. Then, not more than 9,000 people used the Internet for voting. Now, when three days remain till the elections, more than three times the number of voters have chosen electronic voting. For practical reasons though, voting was limited to 26-28 February, presumably coinciding with the time allowed for general preliminary voting. Of these votes, the electronic ones constituted some 19%, which is an impressive figure.

What about practicalities then? It is really quite simple. You need access to the web, a national identification card, and a card reader the cost of 6-7 euro. Then you are set to vote. As many Estonians already are used to filing their income tax declarations in this way, many voters already have everything needed for casting their votes on the Internet.

Then, what if you regret your choice come election day? The principle is simple. Electronic votes are considered preliminary votes, and you simply go to your polling station, withdraw your preliminary - electronic - vote and then cast your vote as usual. It is as easy as that. The question is how many people actually will do that. Experiences of preliminary voting show that only a fraction of votes cast ahead of elections are altered on election day. So, as the system will work nicely when a solid majority is expected, it will probably be questioned when it comes to close elections. Also, as with all preliminary procedures of this kind, allegations of election fraud might possibly be raised. Still, Estonians trust their preliminary voting system - electronic or not.

So, why is it that a small country on the Baltic Sea becomes the first country in the world to allow electronic voting in national elections? Estonia is considered the world's most web-dense country. For young people, using the Internet for daily chores has become a habit. As for e-voting, this is also the group expected to use this opportunity the most - at least judging from the 2005 local elections, when most e-voters were under the age of 35. Whether e-voting will influence election results remains to be seen. The election campaign remains very tough until the last moment, and one should not preclude the possibility that e-voters might miss out on political events in the days remaining till the Sunday elections.