Use Internet to bring democracy to China and Iran? Not Yet!

It seems that the Iranian regime has indeed started blocking the access to Gmail on the eve of the Islamic Revolution’s anniversary, the most important day in Iran’s political calendar. Twitter and other social networking sites are still accessible right now, but they are equally fragile as Gmail. This only strengthens my belief that internet’s influence on democratization is minimal in the most oppressive countries.

Advocates believe that because the use of internet is assumedly anonymous and ubiquitous, it can spread information more freely and safely, which enables people to reveal the misconducts of the governments and increase the influence of opposition forces, domestic and foreign. They also start to emphasize its ability to help organize massive protests after the prominent Green Movement in Iran.

True, the internet is playing a positive role in some countries. For example in Ukraine, its role in uncovering the frauds during the 2004 election was significant, if not indispensable, to the final success of the color revolution. But it has only achieved modest successes in countries where the government is far from omnipotent. Strong opposition movements already existed and the ruling regime didn’t have the total control over all the government resources.

Some people also regard the Green Movement in Iran and the Saffron Revolution in Myanmar as examples of successful influence of internet. But the failure to shake the regimes and the result of more restrictive internet access can hardly second their points.

Can the internet alone achieve, or even stimulate the democratization process in the most oppressive countries? The answer is no.

Firstly, the chaotic opposition voices cannot match the well-organized response from the most oppressive governments. The advantage of the internet is that it bestows chances to everybody to make their voice heard, but that is also its disadvantage, in that there are simply too many of them. In the most oppressive countries, there are generally lacks of strong opposition core. Thousands of anonymous dissidents can send their anti-government messages out, but this only puzzles the people more, who wonder which one to listen to. On the contrary, the government has the benefit of staying in the open. Its supporters know who their leader is (Chinese Communist Party in China), where to listen to their direction (People’s Daily), and moreover, money-coveting people can be legally employed to flood the internet with pro-government statements (50-cent party).

Secondly, the most oppressive governments have total control over the internet access. However mobile and anonymous the internet service is, it still heavily relies on resources provided and controlled by the governments, no matter whether it is through the land line, wireless or even the 3G service. Radio and TV signals can be sent from abroad, which means to block them requires the installation of intercepting and disrupting facilities. In the case of Internet, it is no harder. The experts deployed by the government have learned to establish a system to filter and restrict what the people can see. Even when there is a unified powerful opposition movement, the government has always had the “North Korea solution” – the option to shut down the internet in its entirety.

Thirdly, the most oppressive governments have the determination to do whatever necessary to maintain their power. For leaders in the democracies, losing power just means 5 years in the opposition benches. For leaders in weak autocracies, losing power probably means personal notoriety and the end of their political careers. But for leaders in the most oppressive regime, losing power can mean criminal prosecution and retribution, which means they will fall from controlling everything to even not controlling over their own lives (example of Nicolae Ceauşescu in Romania). Thus, they will undoubtedly do whatever possible to keep them in power. Shutting down the internet must be one of first steps, however high the cost it would be.

But how can we explain internet’s seemingly growing influence in Iran? The answer is not complicated. The internet is new to everyone, and the role of the social networking sites was especially unprecedented. The Iranian regime was also in the learning process. Their recent actions actually show that they are getting more and more confident.

But does it mean we should simply give up? No. Just as the VOA didn’t stop broadcasting even though its signals were blocked, the efforts to using internet to stimulate the democratization in the most oppressive countries shouldn’t stop. It may make little difference today, but we will certainly be ready when there are internal changes in those countries in the future. At the same time, we should also remember that placing too much hope on it will only bring about disappointments and unnecessary loss.