February 10th, 2012
12:02 PM ET

Can dictators survive new media?

Editor's Note: Soner Cagaptay is a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a GPS contributor. You can find all his blog posts here. The views expressed in this article are solely those of Soner Cagaptay.

By Soner Cagaptay – Special to CNN

The Arab uprisings suggest that recently developed “protest technology,” from cell phone cameras to social media, are changing the way people behave under dictatorships and authoritarian regimes.

Prior to the rise of “protest technology,” individuals had to endure under the tyranny of authoritarian regimes because there were few tools available to organize the masses without evading detection. Quite simply: the average citizen lacked the necessary instruments to outsmart their rulers. Autocratic regimes possessed the capabilities to swiftly crack down on dissidents before their ideas could evolve into a network of mass movement. 

This allowed despots free rein to exercise their unchecked powers. Elections were frequently rigged and stolen, any opposition was suppressed, and massacres were committed against groups of people deemed enemies of the state. Whistleblowers who bore witness to these crimes lacked the technology to broadcast their stories to the rest of the world in hopes of humanitarian intervention.

Take Bosnia for instance. In 1995, the nationalist Serb militia and the Yugoslav National Army (JNA) started indiscriminately killing thousands of Bosniacs in Srebrenica, Bosnia on July 11. The outside world, however, only heard reports of a massacre being committed much later in the week, as the JNA and Serb militia were nearly done with their crimes, killing over 8,000 people.

The technologies of today, which we take for granted, such as camera phones, wireless connections, and social networks, allow crimes committed by governments to be reported as they take place, literally. This is akin to a social revolution: citizens of authoritarian regimes and their oppressors are now on more level footing, for the first time ever.

The Syrian uprising is a case in point. In 1982, when Bashar al-Assad’s father killed tens of thousands of his own citizens in Hama, Syrians in other towns were clueless that such a massacre was taking place.

Today, all Syrians are witnessing al-Assad’s brutality daily and are taking to the streets to protest. This is due to the Internet and new communication technologies, which provide a social and political space of mobilization - a space that even al-Assad cannot control. New “protest technology," such as a simple cell phone, allows each demonstrator to become an empowered reporter, broadcasting videos, images, and narratives of al-Assad’s crackdowns to people across the globe.

Al-Assad will fall because his oppression, broadcasted in real time on virtually every news media outlet, will draw the ire of the outside world, leading to intervention. More importantly, similar to the fate of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, Syrians will topple their dictator thanks to the use of new technologies.

It will become increasingly difficult for dictators to carry out massacres and other crimes against humanity as well. Historically speaking, the stark power asymmetry between the oppressor and the victim has paved the way for massacres. Previously, victims found themselves entirely powerless to challenge their dehumanization and ensuing persecution by their oppressors or call for outside help. “Protest technologies” could alleviate part of this problem by empowering the persecuted. People targeted for massacre can now spread their call for outside help faster, making a stronger plea for humanitarian intervention.

In other words, there is no more “to-be-judged-in-posterity” immunity for al-Assad or other dictators, save perhaps North Korea, which forces its citizens to live in a pre-“protest technology” age (Pyongyang bans internet and cell phones except for use by the privileged few).

“Protest technology” will not only shed light on very public crimes such as massacres but also affect leaders who are accused of rigging elections. The Russian leader Vladimir Putin faced surprisingly large-scale unrest following the 2011 legislative elections. Common citizens made use of Internet, social media, and cell phones to document electoral fraud in real time - a first in Russia.

Putin’s next test is surviving the March presidential elections. Other leaders who rig elections - not just Putin - from the presidents of the Central Asian republics to Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus, need to take notice: in the “protest technology” age, when each citizen plays the role of an elections monitor, massive electoral fraud is going to become increasingly difficult.

In 1517, when Martin Luther took advantage of the then newly available printing press to have his theses disseminated all over Europe, his use of this new technology forever changed the way Europeans view the world.  “Protest technology” could be a similar, revolutionary step, shaping social behavior in authoritarian regimes.

Of course, the autocrats could quickly learn how to manipulate these new technologies, turning them at times into instruments of social control. Even then, however, the relationship between citizens of authoritarian regimes and their oppressors appears to have changed, and there is no going back.

The views expressed in this article are solely those of Soner Cagaptay.

Post by:
Topics: Syria • Technology

soundoff (6 Responses)
  1. j. von hettlingen

    True, social media can mobilise the masses quickly and reach the outside world within seconds. The Arab Spring and the Occupy Wall Street movements are a striking evidence for their efficiency. Still we can learn from history that behind every successful revolution there was always a strong leader and an ideologue. The same applies to a military coup, which would only work if it were carried out by a shrewd officier who has support of the army. Today's social media enable a grassroots movement to spread, because it activates the herd mentality of the masses, which are -often – leaderless.

    February 11, 2012 at 5:33 am | Reply
  2. Sinan

    Soney Cagaptay is a neo-con hack, working for the AIPAC-founded WINEP. John Mearsheimer, a University of Chicago political science professor, and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, describe WINEP as "part of the core" of the Israel lobby in the United States. Discussing the group in their book, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, Mearsheimer and Walt write: "Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a 'balanced and realistic' perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda... Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks."

    February 11, 2012 at 5:59 pm | Reply
  3. Joey Only

    Can a rigged 2012 election survive new media?

    February 23, 2012 at 6:32 pm | Reply
  4. robles

    I think that all of you should know who Rami Abdulrahman and Mousab Azzawi are. because it are the guys from whom most of the American news channels are getting their news about Syria.( cnn. fox news,nbc act.)these so call news channel should be ashamed of them self and apologize to the American people and the world. S.O.H.R. pair of clowns trying to destroy a nation

    February 26, 2012 at 8:52 pm | Reply

Post a comment


 

CNN welcomes a lively and courteous discussion as long as you follow the Rules of Conduct set forth in our Terms of Service. Comments are not pre-screened before they post. You agree that anything you post may be used, along with your name and profile picture, in accordance with our Privacy Policy and the license you have granted pursuant to our Terms of Service.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,795 other followers