Popular protests in Northern Africa have attracted a lot of media attention in the last two months and I would like to bring your attention on one particular aspect of its coverage by western media. Repeatedly, journalists have referred to a “facebook revolution” or “twitter protesters” to describe what was happening in Tunisia and Egypt. In my opinion, this insistence on the predominance of Facebook and Twitter reflects western obsession, first with itself, and second with our scientific-technical complex, as if technology were always a source of progress.
Even though accurate and posed media coverage is always available, as it was the case with Egypt and Tunisia popular mobilization, a large part of media coverage has emphasized clichés and insisted on the importance of Facebook and Twitter. Basically, the argument goes that some young people, frustrated by Mubarak’s and Ben Ali’s corrupted regimes, started facebook pages about getting mobilized and spread the word on Twitter, then ten of thousands of people gathered in the streets. For example, transforming a Google employee (Wael Ghonim) into a star of the “facebook revolution” is part of this trend. Sometimes journalists do not directly say that Facebook or Twitter were causes of the revolution, but the argument is generally implicit, first a facebook page, second thousands of people in the street demonstrating, as if there were a direct, automatic correlation between the two.
Of course, I am not arguing that social medias do not have any impact and that they did not play a role in forcing those two dictators out. Internet in general, or specific elements such as Facebook or Twitter, can certainly help mobilize citizens, just as they can help doing business or organize political campaign. However, they remain tools; they are not causes of political or social phenomena. In a recent conference about social unrest in Northern Africa, a well respect Argentinean intellectual described Twitter as a very efficient phone, nothing more…. I would not go that far, but I strongly believe its role in Egypt and Tunisia has been overestimated.
The most important concern with this type of media coverage is to transform a specific technology into a cause, as if the technology in itself engendered a “revolution”. If you want to make the argument, then a better access to information and facilitated communication did help considerably to mobilize and organize protesters. However, television (such as Al Jazeera), radio, internet in general, cell phones must be considered as a “package”, which contributes to making people aware of other protesters and what was happening. But again, that does not explain why these mobilizations happen at these particular moments and times.
The other problem with a supposed “facebook revolution” comes from internet access. In Tunisia, the site internetworldstats.com estimates that in a population of 10.2 millions, 3.6 enjoy access to internet; so about 34% of the population. In Egypt, it only gets to 21%. We probably have to lower this number when political unrest started, since theses statistics regroup access at home, at work, or in internet cafés, the last two being far less available when repression begins. Furthermore, the Egyptian government was quick to block access to internet as soon as the 28th of January, a few days after mobilization started. It is probable that cell phones played a bigger role than Facebook or Twitter, especially once manifestations had started; nobody talks about the “nokia revolution”… If you wonder, only 5.5% of Libyans are internet users.
Making such historical events about Facebook or Twitter has two important implications. First, it displaces the debate away from real, more complex issues. If we try to understand the structural causes of these popular uprising, we inevitably start talking about corruption and authoritarian regimes. If we look even deeper we begin to see economic distress. Both Tunisia and Egypt face severe poverty and unemployment issues. As we all know, Ben Ali and Mubarak were geopolitical allies of Western Powers, but they also followed their economic precepts. Under Ben Ali, Tunisia followed the IMF’s recommendations and implemented neoliberal reforms, which ended up failing the Tunisian population. Moreover, food prices were only seldomly mention in mainstream media, even though they played a major role in fomenting a sense of injustice and push many poor people to join protesters. I doubt that someone worried about bread prices spend of lot time on facebook…
In my opinion, the emphasis on Facebook and Twitter in the media coverage shows our obsession to make every world event about us. Egyptians and Tunisians could not simply have used the tools at their dispositions to fight political and economic injustice, no, in reality they want to be exactly like us and they could do it because they finally got what we have: Facebook. It seems to me very sad that we have to simplify to this extent important events to interest people and make them feel good about themselves (or our society). Calling these events a “Facebook revolution” is as ridiculous as to call the French Revolution the “pamphlet revolution” or the Cuban revolution the “radio revolution”.
Hi Martin,
There is an interesting talk about this exact topic that if you haven’t seen or heard, you should. It is part of the RSA Animate series. The speaker discusses the recent emphasis on the internet as a revolutionary tool being misleading and in some cases just wrong. I’d love to hear what you think of it. Check it out at…
Jere
Martin.
I might share this on Facebook and Twitter. Is that okay? Or will it start a revolution?
John, be careful, facebook is powerful, you might end up overthrowing some Central America President.
Jere, thanks a lot for the link, I will check it out. I might put comments up only in a few days, I will be in a no internet place for a few days.
Jere, I could finally get back online and see the video. It summarizes very well the issue. It made me think about 2 different issues. First, Internet access might actually play a bigger role in “emerging” or young democracy, where formal institutions do defend democratic principles, but where a “democratic culture” has not yet fully emerged. Argentina, where I live, is a good example of that. Social Movements, small citizens groups use the Internet and clearly benefices from it, in terms of mobilization, organization and sometimes financing. In my opinion, in this scenario, internet does help in the construction of a diverse civil society. The other point that the video inspired in me, is the Orwelian spectra of a virtual big brother. Internet, cell phones, and other devise do represent a threat to individual liberties, but also can potentially be used to control populations or activists. I`m not sure how that will play out in the future, but it is a discussion not very present in public debates.
thanks again for the link, I thought it was very persuasive.