My research project at a glance (original) (raw)
2018, Annual reception 2018 booklet
Democracy does not disappear in a day. However, it can erode slowly fading from sight like a dissolving sandcastle. This what has happened to democracy in Russia and Belarus over the past twenty years. In the age of fake news, political polarisation and Donald Trump, other countries that we call democracies are at risk of repeating this fate. How can active citizens resist the erosion of democracy? My answer comes from the case studies of Russia and Belarus, where censorship, governmental propaganda and networks of bots have been part of everyday life for many years. I study how political activists in these two countries fight for democratic freedoms using social media. I travelled across Russia and Belarus to meet activists, to talk to them and to see their work and life. I also collected and analysed the textual and visual materials created by them. I did this to understand how activists overcome obstacles imposed by the state and large media corporations: how they disseminate information, unite their followers and organise protests. I focus on such cases as the anti-corruption campaign of Alexei Navalny in Russia and the anti-tax campaign in Belarus. My study identifies several pro-democracy practices that are potentially successful in the digital age: • Firstly, political activists need to constantly develop their creative skills and communication competencies. • Secondly, they need to stay in touch with their audience both when they are campaigning and when there is no ongoing activity. • Thirdly, activists should try to stay one step ahead of the government, learning how to use new technologies before the governmental propaganda machine tackles those technologies. These, along with other approaches and practices, help activists in non-democratic countries to engage with people and to generate hope for the future. These practices also might aid active citizens in their resistance to the erosion of democracy in any other place.
Related papers
In democratic political regimes, media have prolongedly been identifying flaws of the system and fostering active participation of citizens. Authoritarian governments—on the contrary—have been using the same communication means for the purposes of propaganda distribution and minimisation of public disagreements. However, the ability of media to influence social and political life in both regime types has been arguably increasing with the development of new technologies. This essay attempts to confirm the aforementioned argument and claims that new media indeed generate greater public activism. Firstly, the paper provides definitions of the potentially vague terms ‘new media’ and ‘political activism’ to eliminate the possibility of the research misinterpretation. Secondly, it inspects the confronting theoretical models which underpin the considered discussion. Thirdly, this essay introduces the case studies of the 2011 protests ‘For Fair Elections’ and 2017 anti-corruption demonstrations in Russia to illustrate by their examples in what ways new media can increase political activism. Fourthly, the essay considers the two major limitations of the Russian new media in generating political activism, which are their generally low popularity and disproportion in the age of the followers. Finally, the conclusive paragraph summarises the conducted analysis and provides recommendations for the further research.
In the recent years, discourse on internet’s democratic potential to spark revolutions in authoritarian states has flourished in academia and other public spheres, yielding contradicting school of thoughts. Partisan scholars and analysts simply categorized themselves into two contesting groups- techno-optimist and techno-pessimist generally talking past each other. (Megenta, 2001) Techno-Optimists who advocate internet’s democratic potential generalizes that network of diverse groups cannot be sustained without the presence of digital communication channels that facilitate information exchange on the common cause to abound. Certainly, the scale of protest at the global level is impossible without a platform facilitating global participation and communication. Thus, internet in its democratic and decentralized form is deemed to foster diversity and global scale of a protest in a highly economic fashion. (McAdm, Tarrow, and Tilly, 2001) Too, there lies strongly a voice of dissent in the sea of optimism eulogizing the new opportunity. The critics generally argue that the web acts as a boon for the bullies especially when they also learn to take advantage of the digital platform for their own interests. Techno-pessimists who are sceptical of the digital civic participation further opine the ability of the democratic platform to backfire. For instance, the internet might take away the power from the authoritarian regime, however without confirming its transfer to a pro-democratic group. (Morozov, 2009) “A movement that does not make into the media is non-existent.”(Rucht, forthcoming, cited in Bennett,2003,p.17) Starkingly emphasizing the importance of media in movements, the essay not only examines the positive role of new media- INTERNET- in galvanizing social and political mobilizations but also evaluates the new opportunity in terms of its caveats.
Democracy Promotion in the Age of Social Media:
The potential that Social Digital Media (SDM) have to support and promote democracy is attracting growing interest from researchers and policy-makers. However, the debate on this issue is controversial. The prominent role played by SDM in the popular uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East has led to the coining of the catchphrase “Social Media Revolution”. Yet critics argue that some Western policy-makers may be hamstrung by a cyber-utopian view that regards the Internet as inherently pro-democratic. The undifferentiated call for “Internet freedom” that results from such cyber-utopism is a dangerous one. Rather than that, policy makers should start out by asking how SDM can be used to sideline existing policies on democracy assistance in a given country and let the answer to that question shape their strategic choices. Any serious debate on the promise of SDM to aid democracy promotion must consider that different types of SDM vary in their specific characteristics and that such variation translates into different opportunities and risks depending on the political context in which they are employed.
Politics and Society in Belarus, 2016
This article is based on research of political participation practices of Belarusian political and social activists who employed Internet platforms such as social networks or websites in their campaigns. With the proliferation of the Internet, more hopes for significant improvement of political participation opportunities were laid upon new tools of communication in countries like Belarus. Social networks and other Internet platforms attracted attention as tools that can promote public campaigns under the conditions of restricted freedoms and media sphere. The article draws on a qualitative case study of seven civic campaigns and groups that were active in 2011-2013 in Belarus. The data for the research was collected through interviews with leaders of those campaigns. The article suggests that those Belarusian Internet activists who actively employed Internet platforms were able to widen opportunities for the political engagement of citizens. Activists followed main trends that are used among digital political practitioners around the globe. However, some problematic features of the Belarusian political and media systems such as control and persecution of the political actors or Internet censorship did not allow activists to use the potential of Internet platforms to the fullest. Moreover, the list of domains of public policy that could be appealed by activists were restricted by unspoken rules.
How Freedom is Won: From Civic Resistance to Durable Democracy
2005
In recent months, the worldwide struggle for democracy has gained increased prominence in international affairs. In late March 2005, mass demonstrations helped topple Kyrgyzstan’s authoritarian president. On March 14, approximately one million Lebanese took to the streets in a remarkable display of nonviolent civic power to press for democracy and demand an end to Syria’s military presence in their country.
Democracy promotion in the age of social media: risks and opportunities
The potential that Social Digital Media (SDM) have to support and promote democracy is attracting growing interest from researchers and policy-makers. However, the debate on this issue is controversial. The prominent role played by SDM in the popular uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East has led to the coining of the catchphrase “Social Media Revolution”. Yet critics argue that some Western policy-makers may be hamstrung by a cyber-utopian view that regards the Internet as inherently pro-democratic. The undifferentiated call for “Internet freedom” that results from such cyber-utopism is a dangerous one. Rather than that, policy makers should start out by asking how SDM can be used to sideline existing policies on democracy assistance in a given country and let the answer to that question shape their strategic choices. Any serious debate on the promise of SDM to aid democracy promotion must consider that different types of SDM vary in their specific characteristics and that such variation translates into different opportunities and risks depending on the political context in which they are employed.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.