Chapter 2: Literature Review 2.

1 Introduction to Literature Review Today, in the 21st century, 2 billion people have access to the Internet. The internet today is a platform used for a variety of activities: political, economic and social. It can be said that the internet is an extension of civil society. Digital tools are increasingly used for cross-border communication, launch cyber attacks, topple dictatorships and possibly strengthen others. This is especially evident in the recent Middle East revolutions, where increased literacy and education levels, as well as the idea of democracy, are factors causing the people to turn to the Internet as a platform to overthrow the authoritarian regimes. This literature review explores the factors that cause the people to use the Internet as a platform to organise the revolution, as well as the effectiveness of the Internet as a political tool. 2.2 Factors causing the people to organise revolutions There are a few factors that affect the decision of the people in the Middle East to organise revolutions, namely: poverty rates, literacy rates, government corruption rankings, youth unemployment rates and unrest index. The general lifestyles of the people are heavily shaped based on these factors. Poverty rates, youth unemployment rates determine the unrest index, government corruption rankings determine the level of corruption of the government (and thereby the dissent towards the government), and the literacy rates determine whether the people decide to use technology (namely, the Internet) as a tool to spread democracy within the country and overthrow the regimes. 2.2.1 Poverty rates There is a direct correlation between poverty rates and happiness as shown in the studies of Pew and Gallup. A generally richer country means that the population will have access to better healthcare and education, both of which are factors that determine the standards of living of the people. A study by Pew Research Centre (2007) showed that "GDP growth is tied to rising levels of personal well-being" and that "There is a strong correlation between wealth and personal satisfaction, and citizens of wealthy countries do give their current lives higher ratings". Without a good standard of living, it will cause dissent towards the government.

2.2.2 Literacy rates An increase in literacy rates means that the people are able to express their opinions towards the government more openly, expressively and freely. This also means that the people will look towards alternative perspectives around the world (such as the idea of democracy as compared to that of dictatorship) and are more technologically advanced, henceforth affecting the decision to use tools like the Internet to co-ordinate uprisings and revolutions. Ulefelder (2011) noted that "rebellions are more likely to occur in countries with higher literacy rates". 2.2.3 Government corruption levels Corrupt governments tend to embezzle money and make political decisions to further their own agenda, having insignificant impacts in terms of improving the welfare of the people. Florida (2010) noted that "Corrupt nations tend to have low levels of happiness and life satisfaction" and that "Corrupt nations are more likely to be intolerant; their citizens not only must endure lower material living standards but lower levels of happiness and life satisfaction." 2.2.4 Youth unemployment rates Youths form the next generation of the population. High youth unemployment rates will lead to anger and frustration towards the government, which potentially may lead to protests given the vast amount of technological resources available. Taylor (2008) noted that "the young find it harder than before to secure and hold good quality jobs that have a future", placing their future in uncertain hands. Not being financially stable affects the happiness levels of the people, and this dissent towards the government which builds up will eventually lead to protests. 2.3 Effectiveness of the Internet in spreading democracy There are two sides of the argument: those that state that the Internet is effective as a tool to spread democracy and those that think otherwise. In both arguments raised by Morozov and Bremmer, they state that techno-optimists are excessively obsessed with the benefits of the Internet and fail to see the contrasting side in which there exists people with evil intentions. Morozov and Bremmer feel that the Internet is a value neutral tool, and that by utilising it, it is a form of freedom but not necessarily promoting

freedom. Morozov states that by placing powerful democracy tools in the hands of weak states, they will backfire and have adverse effects on the people instead. However, in arguments raised by Kristof, Kouchner and Clinton, they state that internet freedom within closed societies and in authoritarian regimes plays a pivotal role in ensuring that the government becomes more transparent and accountable for their acts. 2.3.1 The Internet is able to spread democracy Some researchers feel that through the use of the Internet, it allows for the freedom of speech and expression, which is usually restricted under the authoritarian regimes in Middle East countries. In an article written by Nicholas D. Kristof (2009) titled "Tear Down This Cyberwall", he argues that internet freedom broadens the minds of people inside closed societies, and provides them with many different perspectives towards their government. He also argues that because of this, "it does make a difference when people inside closed regimes get access to information which is why dictatorships make such efforts to block comprehensive Internet access." The accessibility of the internet inside authoritarian states allow for citizens to have a differing view from the government's propaganda. Bernard Kouchner (2010), former French minister of Foreign and European Affairs, notes that "The Internet is above all the most fantastic means of breaking down the walls that close us off from one another. For the oppressed peoples of the world, the Internet provides power beyond their wildest hopes. It is increasingly difficult to hide a public protest, an act of repression or a violation of human rights. In authoritarian and repressive countries, mobile telephones and the Internet have given citizens a critical means of expression, despite all the restrictions." Kouchner acknowledges that even with all the possible negative effects that come along with freedom of expression on the internet, it has allowed people living in closed societies and authoritarian regimes some extent of freedom to express their opinions without being arrested or prosecuted. In an article published by the United States Secretary of State, Hilary Rodham Clinton (2010), titled "Remarks on Internet Freedom", she notes that "Even in authoritarian countries, information networks are helping people discover new facts and making governments more accountable" and that "Information freedom supports the peace and security that provides a

foundation for global progress". Through allowing people to have access to information networks, they can generate ideas and helps encourage creativity and entrepreneurship. This is essential in the 21st century in order for societies to grow stronger and to forward the economy. Essentially, these people feel that the Internet is a platform to freely express opinions and ideas which would be restricted in dictatorships. However, they do not necessarily acknowledge that utilising the Internet is a form of democracy. The following articles attempt to explain the reasons as to why the Internet is purely a value neutral tool, and not one that promotes democracy. 2.3.2 The Internet is unable to spread democracy In a research book titled "The Net Delusion - How Not To Liberate The World" written by Evgeny Morozov (2011), he argues that "the techno-utopianists are limited in their vision is that in this great mass of Internet users all capable of great things in the name of democracy, they see only a mirror image of themselves: progressive, philanthropic, cosmopolitan. They don't see the neo-Nazis, pedophiles, or genocidal maniacs who have networked, grown and prospered on the Internet". More importantly, the issue of powerful gadgets in weak states is also raised. Morozov (2011) noted that "All the recent chatter about how the Internet is breaking down institutions, barriers, and intermediaries can make us oblivious to the fact that strong and well-functioning institutions, especially governments, are essential to the preservation of freedom. Even if we assume that the Internet may facilitate the toppling of authoritarian regimes, it does not necessarily follow that it would also facilitate the consolidation of democracy." The main point of his argument is that the Internet, despite being able to topple dictatorships, does not mean that democracy and freedom is instantaneously spread throughout the country. The government holds great power in the role of spreading freedom and democracy in any country, and without the government, the concepts of freedom and democracy cannot thrive. The findings of Morozov demonstrate the presence of harmful effects that come along with internet freedom, and criticises the assumption made by many that internet freedom is able to easily spread democracy within authoritarian regimes.

Next, in an article written by Ian Bremmer (2010) titled "Democracy in Cyberspace: What Information Technology Can and Cannot Do", he argues that "techno-optimists appear to ignore the fact that these tools are value neutral; there is nothing inherently pro-democratic about them. To use them is to exercise a form of freedom, but it is not necessarily a freedom that promotes the freedom of others." Bremmer (2010) noted that "Only in democracies -- the Philippines, Ukraine, Lebanon, and Colombia -- did these communications weapons accomplish an immediate objective. In Myanmar, Zimbabwe, and Iran, they managed to embarrass the government but not to remove it from power. There is no direct or explicit evidence that shows that the internet advocates freedom. Rather, it is more justified to say that the Internet is a value neutral tool. Bremmer (2010) comes to the conclusion that "The result will be a world that has not one Internet but a set of interlinked intranets closely monitored by various governments. The Internet is not about to disappear, but the prediction that a single Internet could accommodate both the West and the evolving demands of authoritarian states was never realistic. American and European users will access the same Internet as before, but the Chinese government has already made clear its intention to declare sovereignty over an Internet of its own. Other authoritarian states have every incentive to follow its lead." The findings of Bremmer demonstrate how the vast majority of internet users do not have spreading democracy through the internet as one of their main ambitions, and that authoritarian regimes could potentially "declare sovereignty over an Internet of [their] own".