tunchsyn

Social Networking: The Prospects of Change

=”458″ />

The power of social networking challenges states’ dominance in many realms. Interconnectedness among people over the globe via transnational networks; local, regional and international organizations, civil societies, and human rights formations; and international actors not only makes states vulnerable to listening to its subjects but also rises pressure on governments for policy and sometimes systematical changes.

touchgraph_photos1

The pressure is in general of two forms: One is either people using social networking to come together and form unity to ask for change; or two is in the form of connecting networks and establishing a network advocacy within and beyond national borders to create the channels demanding policy changes. And, a newly rising form is fundraising which brings fore invisible human problems and with an advocacy helps to alleviate human suffering in far corners. Kony 2012is perfect example of how social networking advocacy helps reduce some of the human…

View original post 197 more words

Arab Spring and Social Network: A Spark of Change

The world witnessed rising of people in North Africa and Middle East against decades long brutal ruling systems. With the putting fire on him to protest government brutality, a young Tunisian street vendor named Mohamed Bouazizi erupted not only the fire in him but also fire of all people who were in destitute in the hands of their oppressive governments. Tunisian spring evoked other people in the Muslim world who had been under more or less same circumstances, and the result: Arab Spring.

These Arab uprisings were challenging their regimes and asking for revolutionary changes. They were popular uprisings, and leaderless in some parts of Arab world. People, albeit resisted with brutality of their regime forces, organized, came together and used social networks (mainly Facebook and Twitter) to stand against their oppressors.

Transnational Advocacy Network and Boomerang Effect; How Do They Work?

” />

Social media enabled people to freely engage in interactions. They share information, call for gathering, and campaign for the issues they feel strongly about. In addition, via social media they advocate at domestic level with local groups, foundations, media, onions, NGOs, human rights groups, in short, any formations that might be of assistance to their cause. Keck and Sikkink (1999) state that these networks most commonly form to address issues of violence to vulnerable people and gross inequality of legal opportunity. However, domestic advocacy may not always yield positive results or simply may not be strong enough to transform policies of government with which they are not happy.

Seeing inefficiency of domestic activism, people may try to create a transnational networking, through which they can advocate and pressure for policy changes. Keck and Sikkink – in their article named Transnational Advocacy Networks in International and Regional Politics – argue that transnational advocacy networks appear most likely to emerge around those issues where:

Channels between domestic groups and their governments are hampered or severed where such channels are ineffective for resolving a conflict;
Activists or political entrepreneurs believe that networking will further their missions and campaigns, and actively promote them;
International conferences and other forms of contacts create arenas for forming and strengthening networks. P. 93

These transnational networks work by engaging “information politics”, “symbolic politics”, “leverage politics”, and “accountability politics” (Keck&Sikkink, 1999, p. 200).

advocacyh-copy

The above mapping shows a simple and general outlook of how networking and advocacy work. When a government oppresses a group or a government policy has specific undesirable implications for a concerned group, they first try to establish a social networking to further information sharing and activate people for support or movement. If does not yield positive results or lead to policy changes, they go to domestic advocacy by operating local structures at their disposal. This might have a direct result; but this is not usually relevant especially if the government in undemocratic. And then, they form a transnational advocacy by interacting local, regional and international tools that can ask and powerful enough to ask for policy amendment or change – as United Nations or some other important transnational organizations do.

Bloomberg Effect

boomerang_effect

Keck&Sikkink say in their book – Activists Beyond Borders – that “[w]hen the channels between the state and its domestic actors are blocked, the boomerang pattern of influence characteristic of transnational networks may occur: domestic NGOs bypass their state and directly search out international allies to try to bring pressure on their states from outside” (1999, p. 13).

This figure shows a basic trend of both what is Boomerang Effect and how does it work. The group in State A appeals to first NGOs and in collaboration with them (and sometimes NGOs by themselves may want to go on some specific matters) and appeals to NGOs of another country (sometimes through individual social networking to citizens of that state or people all over the globe) and transnational NGOs that then pressure on the government to change on that specific matter.

Social Networking: The Prospects of Change

=”458″ />

touchgraph_photos1

The pressure is in general of two forms: One is either people using social networking to come together and form unity to ask for change; or two is in the form of connecting networks and establishing a network advocacy within and beyond national borders to create the channels demanding policy changes. And, a newly rising form is fundraising which brings fore invisible human problems and with an advocacy helps to alleviate human suffering in far corners. Kony 2012 is perfect example of how social networking advocacy helps reduce some of the human problems in such far reach and neglected by world.

However this post will remain with two pre-mentioned categories – utilizing social network either to create a flow support among people to stand against government wrongdoings or to generate a transnational advocacy to force governments for policy change.

Keck&Sikkink (1998), in their prominent book – Activists Beyond Borders – argue that through networking, “individuals and groups may influence not only the preferences of their own states via representation, but also the preferences of individuals and groups elsewhere, and even of states elsewhere, through a combination of persuasion, socialization, and pressure.” (p. 214)

With Arab Spring in most parts of Middle East and North Africa, Gezi Protests in Turkey, Iranian protestors during Iranian presidential election, Honk Hong uprising, Environment movement in New York this year (2014), it reached pure-water clarity that social media and networking is quite instrumental – albeit some places with direct consequences (Example is toppling down of some brutal rulers in Middle East and North Africa; Turkish government policy change after the protests) and effective but ancillary influence upon parties that the movements aimed at.

Reference: Keck and Sikkink. 1998. Activists beyond borders. Ithaca: Cornell University Press

A Perspective on Evolution of Power Equation between States and People; The Rising Power of Interconnectedness

The global order has entered a new phase in history with the dissolution of Soviet Union – a critical shift from bipolar world order to capitalist domination. This shift enabled formations of new nation states, particularly in the former Soviet area. Liberal ideology and its economic aspect of capitalism has deepened all over the globe, influenced ideological, social, economic, and cultural life in most parts.

In addition to global expansion and rooting of capitalist system, the after-1990s-period witnessed a boom in technology. Technological advancement enabled more integration, an integration that perverts national boundaries and transcends over them.

These two inestimable forces have shifted the world and humanity into areas (of top of which was high integration) that had never been taken. While in the first stages of ideological systematization and expanding technological tools it was the power holders – as clear from the name too (power-holders) – who utilized these tools to consolidate their status and interests, which most of time have not been in compliance with the people’s interests that they were supposed to serve. They have been able to do that, as they have been solo performers of superstructure. Therefore, it can be said that peoples, groups or individuals who were oppressed before by their regime found themselves into a more difficult as now it has become harder for them to stand against oppressing mechanism and easier for the same mechanism to suppress. Giving an example might make it clearer: it was easier for the 1990s States to suppress a democratic protest with high brutality and in their media, as a part of superstructure, to show civilian protestors as terrorist or anarchist (used in very negative notation to mean someone who is against ‘good order. This was quite easy at areas where strong nongovernmental local, regional or international organizations, civil societies or human rights groups were not strong enough or available at all.

Hopefully, diversification of media and rising of nontraditional media, social media, and availability of technology (with cheap and affordable products) to masses have changed dynamics at people’s benefit. The realm of social media where government control is not as easy as before, considering also rising of powerful institutions, NGOs and human rights groups specifically at international level. Their power to utilize mechanisms to directly or usually indirectly influence governments has sided with people, an effective component empowering people against states in power equation. The United Nations – albeit with some frauds – has been an influential actor upon governments. Moreover, interconnectedness also aroused states to concern more on their fame and legitimacy in the eyes of international community. This was, maybe, a critical point in the shift as well.

Now, any group being oppressed by the regime has the power to challenge corrupt systems. Arab Spring has shown the power of people once again when they employed interconnectedness, technology and social networking creatively to stand against decades-long autocracies, tyrants, and totalitarianisms.