FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION

The political situation in Iran and the role of social media in the development and perpetuation of the crisis have sparked a global debate on the emerging use, influence and power of social media. The unprecedented upheaval has left many around the world wondering as to the level of ‘dispute’ in the disputed elections. What is apparent however; is that there has been no evidence of large scale rigging. What then is the cause of all this the hullabaloo? Let’s take a closer look.

Freedom of expression – the struggle, battles and bloodshed – is finally here. The war has been won. Facebook, MySpace and twitter have arrived. We can now communicate with each other and share our views, pictures, videos, sounds and reflections with the rest of the world at the touch of a button, or a screen, or even a voice command. But with every freedom comes responsibility. What are the consequences – if any – of this ‘free media’? Let’s start with a brief examination of social networks. According to Wikipedia:

‘...social networking services allow users to create a profile for themselves, and can be broken down into two broad categories: Internal social networking (ISN); and external social networking (ESN) sites such as MySpace, Facebook, Twitter and Bebo. Both types can increase the feeling of community among people. An ISN is a closed/private community that consists of a group of people within a company, association, society, education provider and organisation or even an "invite only" group created by a user in an ESN. An ESN is open/public and available to all web users to communicate and are designed to attract advertisers.’[1]

DEVELOPMENT

In politics, the use of social media was first significantly felt during Obama’s 2008 presidential election campaign. Politics underwent a kind of irreversible revolution, where the medium for mobilisation shifted significantly towards the Internet, at least in the West. The then senator Obama had the foresight to see this opportunity and capitalise on it fully. With the co-founder of Facebook, Chris Hughes, working for him as director of online organising, he had read the moment accurately. In the 5 July 2007 issue of Time magazine Tumult K. had this to say about his campaign:

‘...It's a buzz that Obama is finding new and creative ways to fuel, adapting to a world in which the concept of community has grown to include MySpace and Facebook. No campaign has been more aggressive in tapping into social networks and leveraging the financial power of hundreds of thousands of small donors. Nor has any other campaign found such innovative ways to extend its reach by using the Internet.’[2]

It was clear that from this election things were going to change especially in political campaigns. Fast-forward to Iran, where the same tools were used to protest alleged rigged elections. The western media couldn’t get enough of the story. They generally seem to have concluded that Ahmadinejad lost the election. However, the rules of natural justice dictate that for fairness one should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. From their assumption, three issues arise which form the basis of this essay.

Consider these facts. First, usually when one loses a contest it is natural to feel cheated, especially when the contest was close. Ahmadinejad, it is reported, won by a 60 per cent margin – a relatively close margin, considering that he was a front runner predicted to win by a landslide just a few weeks prior to the election. Second, it is not natural for the winning party to protest. Third, there are approximately 23 million internet users in Iran (35 per cent of the population).[3] Naturally most of them are in the urban areas. It is reported that 70 per cent of Ahmadinejad supporters are rural folks who are mostly illiterate or semi literate, old and technically challenged.[4]

Based on these facts a clear picture emerges; this could just be a series of related and unrelated circumstances that have come together at just the right time to create a political crisis out of a fairly routine election. The conservative Iranian regime is definitely not popular among its youth. The restrictions they impose on freedoms such as internet use, mode of dressing, freedom of association among other liberties have not gone down well with the liberal youth who lean towards a more moderate society. The harassment they undergo at the hands of the Islamic militia is quite dehumanising. It is thus entirely understandable that they have revolted in this manner. Some have argued that this is much more a rebellion against the current regime than support for Mir Hossein Moussavi.

RELEVANCE TO AFRICA

In Africa, it is mostly the educated young urban individuals who have access to internet services. This group forms a minority of the population with the majority having little or no access. Young people form the core of the population (50 per cent) in most African countries, with most of them being semiliterate and those who are literate being the unemployed poor. The other half of the population comprise of the elderly, children and a small middle-aged population. Basically, what this means is that a small percentage of the population in Africa is engaging actively in daily debate that the rest of the population is not involved in. These people are actually forming their own agenda for their countries without the rest knowing. The consequences of this are clear, countries are becoming more polarised (moving in two different directions), without either side realising it. The end result of such a situation especially after an election is inevitable – disputes and conflict. For in Africa, it is an exception rather than the rule when a contestant accepts defeat, given that vote rigging does occur regularly.

According to data from internet world statistics, Africa with 14 per cent of the world population, only makes up 3.4 per cent of the total internet users.[5] Internet penetration is only 5.6 per cent compared to an average of 23.8 per cent penetration in the rest of the world. However growth in usage for the period between 2000 and 2008 has been three times that of the rest of the world at 1100 per cent. We are catching up fast. The fibre optic cable has just landed in the East African coast and it is expected that this development will accelerate growth in the information communication and technology (ICT) sector. Personal computers and mobile phones are getting cheaper, faster and more reliable. Statistics also show phenomenon growth in the use of social networking sites in Africa. For example, South Africa is among the top ten leading countries in international growth of Facebook users.[6]

This spectacular growth is in general good news for the continent. Communication is now cheaper, reliable and more efficient. In addition, business opportunities are opening up for innovative thinkers due to the increased use of ICT. However there is also a darker side to this new phenomenon. During the 2007 contested elections in Kenya, there was a temporary local news blackout in the mainstream media. Since most of the people in urban centres and conflict hot zones could not move freely they mainly communicated using their mobile phones by ‘forwarding’ messages that they had received from either family, friends or anonymously.[6] ‘Citizen journalism’ is the name of this kind of communication ‘the concept of members of the public playing an active role in the process of collecting, reporting, analyzing and disseminating news and information’.[7] Unfortunately what they were exchanging were hate messages, actually adding more wood to the fire. Currently technology is moving a step further. Individuals can now organise themselves into ISN groups that are tribal/ethnic, religious or political in nature and are exclusive. These groups provide a secure and private space for potentially negative values to foster and simmer waiting for a spark for a crisis to explode. With the kind of speed at which information moves in the web, when that spark actually comes – and it will – it’ll be too late for anyone to intervene.

It is difficult to ascertain if the people who are protesting in Iran represent the views of the majority. As demonstrated earlier in this paper, only a fraction of Iranians use the Internet regularly. In the African continent the Internet has been relatively free of interference from governments, unlike Iran, China and other countries, where bloggers and other internet users have faced persecution. This could be as a result of the poor penetration of the service. However with the rapid growth being witnessed, the full impact of social networks will be felt sooner rather than later.

Content in the social media should not be left unmonitored, it should not be left for anyone and everyone to create, develop, control all in the name of ‘citizen journalism’. This is not safe. In my opinion, ‘citizens’ are not capable of monitoring themselves without some form of authority. How possible it is to monitor social sites is a subject for another paper. Iran and China have tried censorship and failed miserably. Whatever the approach used should be broad-based and involve primarily the users themselves. However, it would be a fallacy to believe that there can be freedom without responsibility. Even the mainstream media is subject to libel and other restrictions.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS

* Paul Mwangi Maina is an intern with Fahamu’s Kenya office.
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at Pambazuka News.

NOTES
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Networking_Sites#Social
[2] Obama’s Viral market campaign Karen Tumult, Time Magazine, 5 July 2007.
[3] Internet Usage in the Middle East.
[4] Ahmadinejad will sink or swim on public appeal of his stubborn zeal, CNN 11 June 2009.
[5] Internet Usage in Africa
[6]Tech radar
[7] Sending a sort message (SMS) received in your mobile phone
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen_journalism