Social media, participatory democracy and the movement for political and social change: Lessons for Zimbabwe?

The phenomenon of social media has, in many ways enhanced participatory democracy. It has also revolutionized political social change processes globally. In what follows an attempt will be made to demonstrate how social media platforms such as Face book, Twitter , MySpace, YouTube and mobile telephony offer opportunities for democratization, political and social change. It will be argued, however, that these potentials are by no means universal. In this paper I attempt a comparative analysis of the varying degrees to which the phenomenon of social media can be harnessed for democratic, social and/or political change. Specific reference will be made to the case of Zimbabwe and cross references made to some developed and developing countries to illustrate the varying potentials for political and social change inherent in social media. The phenomenon of social media According to Mernit (2011) social media encapsulates internet based tools and services that allow people who use them to create and share information through social networking sites (SNSs). Boyd and Ellison (2007:211) define (SNSs) as web based services that allow individuals to: Construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and view and traverse their list connections and those made by others within the system. Boyd and Ellison (2007) further contend that SNSs have the unique characteristic that they not only allow users to meet strangers but also enable them to articulate and make visible their social networks hence their potential for political and democratic change. Such is the transformative power of social media that they can capacitate citizens to co-create political and social change movements. The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia, the Tahrir (Liberation) Square Revolution in Egypt (February 2011) and the Facebook Revolution in Moldova in 2009 all provide important lessons for the movement for democratic and political change in Zimbabwe. The digital tsunami referred to by Lambert (2006) cited by Lundby (2008:2) has enabled citizens to co-create political and social movements through such platforms as Face book, Tweeter, MySpace and weblogs. The multifaceted nature of social media makes it a powerful
1

of

socio-political interactive platform reminiscent of Habermas idea of the public sphere (Habermas: 1989). SNSs have also afforded citizens the opportunity to engage each other in the market place of ideas (Entman: 1989). This is the hallmark of democracy. In arguing the case for the democratization potential of social media, however , one should be mindful of the fact that this potential cannot be replicated and discussed across country boundaries (Oates and Gibson, 2006:2). This observation lends credence, as will be demonstrated in this article, to the argument that social media offer varying potentials for democratization, social and political change. The mediatisation of democracy The term democracy means different things to different people. It is a very controversial term. For purposes of this discussion, I have adopted former American President Abraham Lincolns definition. Lincoln defined democracy as the rule of the people, for the people by the people. I remain mindful, however, of the fact that democracy cannot mean whatever we choose it to mean (Keane 1991:168). It suffices to say that democracy entails, inter-alia, citizen participation in relevant processes of the government of ones country, regular free and fair elections, respect for human rights and the rule of law as well as accountability of public officials (Sen 1999:9, Dahl 1989: 221). It is instructive to note that the digital revolution and the attendant social media platforms have, in many ways, enhanced the realization of these basic tenets of democracy. However, as said before, it is of vital importance to note that the political and social impact of social media can hardly be overemphasized. The concept of mediatisation (Hjarvard: 105) partly informs my contention that social media can be appropriated as vehicles, not only of democratic but also social and political change. According to Hjarvard the mediatisation of culture and society conceives the media as part of, rather than as separate from, cultural and other social institutions. The omnipresence of the media and, by extension, the proliferation of social media platforms today, means that the question of self- representation has become central in socio-political discourses. In both social and cultural terms, social media, it can be argued, affords people the opportunity to represent self. To illustrate this point I will make reference to the transformative power of digital story narratives (Lambert: 2006) and the opportunities for self- representation inherent in social media platforms (Ellison and Gibbs: 2006).

Opportunities and challenges for democratization inherent in social media Ndlela (2009:225) argues that SNSs permeate every facet of human life. Their transformative power in health, education and communication cannot be underestimated. Social media have engendered a network society which allows for a differently constructed discursive space hence their potential for social and political change. Ronning (2009:47-49) contends that the media, among other things, provides citizens with different viewpoints and opinions about how society should be developed and acknowledge that there is no one view that is superior to the others. It is against this background that the role of social media in enhancing democracy will be analyzed. The right to freedom of expression and media freedom are fundamental human rights whose protection guarantees a democratic society. However, as Sen (1999:7) observes, it can be argued that freedom of expression and indeed human rights are not enjoyed equally in every society. This is why it is important to note that social media offer different potentials for democratization. The Norwegian media system, for example provides for a plurality and diversity of voices in which social media platforms have taken center stage (Dahl: 1989). In consequence thereof, Norway is one of the most vibrant social democracies in the world. The election campaign of President Barrack Obama of the United States also gives testimony to the fact that social media can be harnessed to enhance democracy. Obama had more than thirty million fans on Facebook and Twitter who were able to participate in his yes we can presidential campaign thereby enhancing democracy. In fact the Obama victory has been regarded as a victory for SNSs. Obamas A more Perfect Union speech, in which he addressed racial differences in America was one of the most viewed videos on YouTube. The political and social implications of this cannot be overlooked. Social media connected real people, with real enthusiasm, in real time and gave them an easy way to show their support for change. According to one online source, the Obama campaign slogan, Change we can believe in could, in retrospect, have been change we can be part of (online source). This is so because democracy thrives, as scholars on the subject are generally agreed, on an informed citizenry capable of participating effectively in public debate (Ronning: 2009 Keane: 1991, Liechtenberg: 1995). Be that as it may, it can be argued that the extent to which social media platforms offer or have offered potentials for democratization in developing countries like Tunisia, Egypt and Zimbabwe, is a matter for debate.

It is indeed true that where there has been closure of the democratic space as in Tunisia, Egypt and Zimbabwe, citizens have turned to social media as alternatives to the traditional media. According to Chadwick (2006: 7) it is relatively difficult for governments to regulate and control internet access and content. Even though some alleged authoritarian systems such as in China and Singapore have managed to control internet access, it is generally difficult for governments to prevent people from accessing material available online (Chadwick: 2006, Fromkin: 2003). The Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia and the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt are illustrative of this increasing potential for political and democratic change engendered by social media. Mernit, cited by Bohler-Muller and van der Merwe (online) refer to a phenomenon called livestreaming. This refers to the ongoing and uninterrupted broadcasting of information and events through the asset of digital media in real time. Twitter uses tools known as tweets which provided an effective platform for the organization and coordination of the Jasmine and Tahrir Square revolutions (ibid). The former was triggered by a street vendor who had set himself ablaze in protest against police brutality. It is important to note that, in a sense, the Jasmine Revolution was neither a Face book nor Twitter revolution because, as Muller and van der Merwe argue, this platform merely provided the communication tools for the revolution. It gave people the space and the public forum to express themselves and air their views about government maladministration and corruption. The mediatisation of the crisis in Tunisia witnessed the online and offline worlds interacting with each other. As Hjarvard (2008:105-6) notes, the media has become inextricably intertwined with the political, social and cultural conditions within which it is produced. Howard (2011) cited by Bohler and van der Merwe (ibid) interviewed a Tunisian participant in the revolution who isolated the different roles played by social media in the protests as follows: Grassroots mobilization, organizing the rise of civil society and active citizenship, the role of being a counter rumor of propaganda tools and helping people analyze statements released by government. Social media therefore provided opportunities for participatory democracy in Tunisia by helping citizens co-create a socio-political movement that led to the collapse of the Ben Ali dictatorship. Similarly the Tahrir Square protests in Egypt had all the hallmarks of the digital media revolution: from Al-Jazeeras deep coverage to citizen journalists posting photos,
4

videos or blogs on Facebook to enable people to have a vivid picture of what was happening (Bohler-Muller and van der Merwe (online). In spite of the Mubarak administrations attempts to block Facebook and Twitter, people managed to access the services through mobile phones. They also turned to third party applications like Hootsuite and Tweetback to tweet (ibid). Similarly, when the government confiscated video cameras reporters and protesters turned to social media. For example, they used applications on their mobile phones to record audio and post it to Twitter. Google also created the Speak to Tweet service which made it near impossible for the Mubarak dictatorship to control the flow of information and stymie the wave of democratization in Egypt. The political power of social media was also at play in the so called Twitter revolution in Moldova in April 2009 following a disputed election. As a result of the digital media aided protests citizens were able to force a recount of the votes. The post- Mubarak social media scene in Egypt is also interesting in that the same tools that were used to co-create the revolution were used to rally citizens behind the eighteen days project in Egypt (online source). The facebook generation in Egypt witnessed it (the revolution), recorded it and they also had to contribute to the eighteen days in Egypt project, a crowd-sourced interactive documentary of the events in Egypt from January 25 to February. It is apparent, in the Tunisian, Egyptian and Moldova cases that social media gives a voice to the people and provides them with a forum akin to the Habermasian public sphere which, it can be argued, is the hallmark of participatory democracy. Questions can be asked, however, about whether or not the winds of Facebook and Twitter enabled democratic change that swept across North Africa are a harbinger to the same in Southern Africa in general and in Zimbabwe, in particular. The case of Zimbabwe The case of Zimbabwe illustrates the limited potential, at least in the foreseeable future, social media have for democratization. The Zimbabwe media environment is like a political minefield. There are a plethora of media and security laws that militate against citizen participation in relevant democratic processes. The most notorious of these laws are the curiously named Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act (AIPPA) and the Interception of Communications Act (ICA). Under ICA for example, Internet Service Providers have an obligation to intercept clients information and accounts while AIPPA

criminalizes the journalism profession through stringent requirements for registration and operations of media houses (MISA, 2012).

Meanwhile the pro-democracy citizens, driven out of the country by these harsh media laws have resorted to using alternative media platforms in the fight against the oppressive Mugabe establishment albeit with varying degrees of success. Moyo (2006:81) observes that Zimbabwes restricted public sphere has spawned a multiplicity of alternative public spheres that enable citizens to voice their concerns. One such platform is the blogosphere. The blogging phenomenon has become one of the fastest growing forms of online communication with increasing potential for the enhancement of citizen participation in public life (Reese, et.al:2007). Web-based personal logs, also called weblogs or simply blogs, are online postings of comments by citizens, groups and news professionals outside of the normal venues provided by the mainstream news organizations.(ibid, p. 96). It is particularly those blogs concerned with public affairs that have begun to offer a glimmer of hope to the movement for democratic change in Zimbabwe as will be illustrated below. According to Reese, et.al. (2007:97), the concept of blogosphere recalls the public sphere idea of Habermas, a mediated space and visible forum for public voices. What makes blogs a particularly powerful tool and conduit for political and social change is their diversity in terms of their focus on personal thoughts and commentary on public and social issues. On the whole, communication scholars are generally agreed that blogs offer an interactive communication forum for alternative voices muted by the mainstream media (Blood, 2003:62, Lasia, 2002:72). This public space has been dominated, in Zimbabwe, by the countrys diasporic community and locally based social commentators unable to find their voice in the largely state controlled public media. I will argue that the phenomenon of the blogosphere has indeed circumvented the restrictive media environment in Zimbabwe. However, I will also demonstrate that, unlike in Egypt, Moldova or Tunisia, the opportunities for democratization and social change presented by the blogosphere in Zimbabwe are limited. Two weblogs, namely http://www.sokwanele.com/thisiszimbabwe/ and

http:www.kubatanablogs.net, have been especially instrumental in providing a forum for interactive mediation of the Zimbabwe crisis. The former is the brainchild of a civic group,
6

Zvakwana/Sokwanele, literally enough is enough (a reference to the fact that the Zimbabwean populace will no longer take the Mugabe dictatorship lying down) (Ndlela: 2009). A cursory glance at this blogs homepage shows that it is a civic action support initiative that calls for supporters of all pro-democracy political parties and civil society organizations, to stand up and fight for democracy (see Sokwanele homepage). The latter blog, Kubatana(vernacular for joining hands in a show of unity), is an online community of Zimbabwean activists in which participants share comments , analyse and share thoughts about social and political justice in Zimbabwe. This is the whole idea of Habermas (1989)s concept of the public sphere which partly underpins this paper. Kubatana also extends beyond the web by sending mobile text messages to subscribers. Consequently citizens have been capacitated to tell and share stories of life and death in a country in which the mainstream media has been systematically gagged (http://www.news24.com). Kubatanas sister website, (http://www.kubatana.net) is more revealing about the potential for democratization and social change in Zimbabwe provided by this online activism. Its mission statement: harnessing the democratic potential of e-mail and the internet in Zimbabwe, is instructive. It is a crying testimony to Rees, et.al (2007:100) contention that the phenomenon of the blogosphere constitutes the new public arena with significant potential for democratization, political and social change. Sadly, for Zimbabwean democracy, the alternative media seem pre-occupied with framing narratives in particular ways, in ways that reflect the polarization of the Zimbabwe media. For example, the majority of the blogs appear to hear no evil and speak no evil about the main opposition political party, the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) led by Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai. Perhaps it is understandable given the Mugabe administrations penchant for repression which has stirred up the majority Zimbabweans against it even if it means being uncritically supportive of, as it were, the lesser of the two evils, namely the MDC. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter offer varying potentials for democratization, social and cultural change in Zimbabwe. According to John Mokwetsi, a leading Zimbabwean journalist and blogger, a new breed of techno-savvy politicians with Facebook pages has emerged. Prime minister, Morgan Tsvangirai, for example has a fan page (Newsday, Feb. 14 2011). The Parliament Forum (PMF), to which this writer subscribes on Facebook is a forum on which citizens engage legislators on important socio-political matters affecting the country. The potential for enhancing democracy is inescapable but the question
7

to ask is: can this potential be equated to that offered by the social media that mediatised the Jasmine and Tahrir Square revolutions in North Africa? Can Zimbabweans expect their own Facebook or Twitter Revolution? In the immediate aftermath of the political protests in North Africa, one Vikas Mavhudzi made history by becoming Zimbabwes first Facebook arrest. On February 13, he posted the following comment on Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirais Facebook page: I am overwhelmed; I dont know what to say Mr. PM. What happened in Egypt is sending shockwaves to dictators around the world. No weapon but unity of purpose worth emulating, hey.(Cited by C.K Biriwasha: 2011). A Facebook user informed the police about the comment who found the comment on Mavhudzis mobile phone, which he had used to post the message. He was charged with advocating or attempting to take-over government by unconstitutional means. After being held for more than 35 days, he was eventually put on bail and released. Biriwasha contends that the governments response to Mavhudzi suggests that it is taking no chances on social networking sites but argues that this may signal a new role for social media in Zimbabwes politics . As shown above, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter helped to mediate the political protests in North Africa. Many experts believe that democracy in the 21st century will increasingly depend on access to the internet and technology (Thumim 2008, p.101). As a result, oppressive governments like that in Zimbabwe have become suspicious of new media technology. Interestingly, however, one should avoid overstating social medias potential for transforming governance in Zimbabwe (Biriwasha, 2011). While it is true that social media websites offer a low-cost and relatively low-risk way for citizens to engage in protest, Zimbabwes technological infrastructure is not sufficiently developed to enable social media with a wide reach, enabling activists to mobilize a mass public. From a technological standpoint, Zimbabwe is currently estimated to be five years behind other countries in the region. The digital divide has rendered the potential for democratization lesser in Zimbabwe than it is in North Africa. Furthermore, the question is not only about accessibility to the internet based communication tools but also about the digital literacy and the extent of internet
8

penetration(Thumim, 2008: 102). The greater the percentage of penetration the more opportunities for democratization and social change. The table below shows African countries with the largest number of Facebook and internet users: (Adapted from:
http://www.sinotechblog.com.cn/index.php/component/content/article/56-- opinion/598--the--worldwide--status--of--social--networks--notes--and-- statistics--on--the--internationalisation--of--social--media, cited by BohlerMuller and van der Merwe,opcit).

The table above shows that Zimbabwe is invisible in terms of internet penetration and I argue that it may be early days yet to start celebrating the potential for democratization, social and cultural change that social media has wielded in North Africa for example. According to the World Bank, only around 1.5 million Zimbabweans 12 percent of the population can claim they have some kind of internet access (Biriwasha, op.cit). Internet literacy is limited, as is web content that relates specifically to Zimbabwe. Access to the internet, moreover, is largely an urban phenomenon. Yet, most city dwellers can only use computers at their workplace, restricting their ability to engage in personal activity online (ibid). Added to this, is the now perennial crisis of power outages caused by years of mismanagement at the state controlled Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority (ZESA). This writers own neighborhood, for example, gets electricity only twice a week outside the peak periods. The paradox is that it is such issues that citizens should voice their concerns about through social media yet issues

of availability of power, access to internet based communications and digital literacy militate against such expressions. Granted, mobile internet access is beginning to make a difference with the recently launched fibre optic connectivity but for a country experiencing exponential unemployment, the cost of hand-held devices and web access remains an obstacle to greater growth (ibid). It can be argued that in the future, the internet, and thus social media, are likely to play a greater role in Zimbabwes politics and culture as it is expected that the nation will have ubiquitous connectivity and low-cost access to data by 2014(ibid). New opportunities are thus likely to emerge for the countrys movement for democratic change and participatory democracy. Conversely, it can be argued that against the backdrop of increasing access to technology, the Mugabe administration is likely to impose even more watertight gags on the social media platforms. The ICA is already in place and more can be done to cut off communication services. There is the precedent of the governments ability to use Chinese made equipment to jam SW Radio, a diasporic Zimbabwean online radio station. As Biriwasha (ibid) observes, the arrest of Mavhudzi showed not only that the government is prepared to quash dissent on social networks; it also proved that technologies like the internet and mobile phones are useful for snooping on citizens. Such is the ambivalent potential for social media in the democratisation process that it is a truism to say that these platforms offer different potentials. Governments can interfere with websites and e-mails. They even possess the power to switch off the internet, as happened briefly in Egypt before the collapse of the Mubarak regime. Citing the The New York Times which reported that governments in North Africa used communications technology to track down activists by hacking Facebook accounts and turn private mobile phones into furtive listening devices, Biriwasha argues that the fear of reprisal in Zimbabwe is palpable. He further asserts that the crucial issue for democratic change is whether people dare to speak up. In Zimbabwe citizens may shy away from using social media for protest purposes because they think they may be under surveillance. The memory of brutal violence during the various election campaigns of 2008 is still very much alive. Unless such fears are overcome, there will be no democratic change (Biriwasha,ibid). Biriwasha sums up the opportunity offered by social media in effecting democratic and social change in Zimbabwe by saying:

10

To complicate matters in Zimbabwe, leaders in the pro-democracy movement have not always been adept at providing clear positions and leadership. Tsvangirai promised democratic change when he was running against President Robert Mugabe in 2008. Mugabe only prevailed in office because he unleashed unprecedented violence, and afterwards an odd coalition of the adversaries was formed, brokered by other African leaders. It is not a good omen that Mavhudzi ran into trouble because he posted a message on Tsvangirais Facebook page. This is, after all, the leader who says he is the alternative to the autocrat. Sometime, in the not too distant future, social media tools like Facebook could facilitate spaces for people to openly express themselves in defiance of censorship, circumventing both state-owned and privately owned media. The tech-savvy younger generation could play a leading role. But we are not there yet. So far, the internet poses no real challenge to the status quo. It has not changed habits and patterns of news consumption and information sharing (Biriwasha, ibid). The above citation paints to a not so gloomy picture of the potential for social media to play a role in the process of democratisation in Zimbabwe. What is clear however, is that this opportunity is incomparable to that in countries with a much larger internet penetration than Zimbabwe (see table above). Digital story telling in the new media provides some of the most critical opportunities for selrepresentation with important socio-cultural effects (Lundby, 2008: 12). As a communicative genre, digital stories help people get a voice and are therefore related to social media. According to Lambert(2006), the Director of the Centre for Digital Storytelling in Berkerley, California, cited by Lundby(2008:2) digital stories are three to five minute movies consisting of the authors images and video which are coordinated by their own voice overs. These are first person narratives/ stories told in the personal voices of their creators(www.storycenter.org). According to Lundby(?) the production process of digital stories take the form of the story circle in which story tellers come up with a group script. The finished stories are then shared by the creators in a final presentation. It is important to note that the me focus in digital stories means that everyone has a story to tell and tthe sharing of these stories makes it an interactive process with an immense transformative potential. Lundby extensively quotes Lambert(2006) narrative: who says of the transformative power of

11

We need to listen deeply to each others stories, the moments of life experience, and change that from the resonant values that define who we are. By listening really well, we can open ourselves up to new perspectives. This quotation sheds light not only on the socio- cultural transformative power of digital stories but also shows that digital story telling goes beyond individual expression (Watkins and Russo (SC p.269). Some of the socio-cultral issues to which digital story telling is applied are youth programmes, organisational stories, health and human services, disability and higher education curricula(Lundby:2008 ). For example, in schools digital stories as a project were implemented in Norway at Bjorndal school in Oslo in connection with aglobal project named Space2Ccre8.(ibid?). Their potential as a cultural transformative tool can be seen in that they can be harnessed in cultural institutions to bring organisations together with communities of interest in co-creative systems(Russo and Watkins, Sc p.13). No less important, digital story telling is used as Participatory Public History in an Australian project in Brisbane ( Burgess and Klaebe Sc,p 155). Such a public history project, according to Burgess and Klaebe(ibid: 165) intergrates digital story telling with oral history attracting public and community engagement. Lundby (2008: 1) notes that the phenomenon of digital story telling has proliferated and flourished on social networking sites but remains largely a western media practice. Its democratic potential is immense even though it is a relatively small scale media practice. Another opportunity for social and cultural change provided by social media lies in online dating profiles(Ellison et.al, 2007:449). Online dating has become a popular tool for initiating romantic relationships. As Ellison et.al argue, the creation of relationships,especially romantic ones, is a basic human drive with important impilcations for life satsfaction and general wellbeing(ibid). Through such social networking sites like LinkedIn and Netlog, for example people can now date online by creating profiles and initiating contact with others. The social implications are of critical importance to note here. Ellison,et. al have done research on the self-representation and deception that is rife in online dating. Their research focused on four popular online daing sites in the United States of America namely: Match.com/MSN Match.com, Yahoo personals, American Singles and Webdate(ibid.) . The study revealed that there was widespread deception in online dating . For example, eighty one percent of the respondents lied on at least one of the variables such as weight, height and age.
12

It can be concluded that social media indeed offer opportunities for democratisation, social and cultural change. As seen above, however, these potentials are by no means the same everywhere. While opportunities for political, social and cultural change abound for developed countries like Norway, America and Australia, the same cannot be said of developing countries for whom social media offer ambivalent potentials. As shown by the cases of the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the movement for democratic change in Zimbabwe, it is safe to conclude that the same social media platforms that mediated the revolutions and the socio-political movements, could be used to thwart democratic processes. Lastly the network society that social media platforms inhabit is characterised by a divide that imposes varying degrees of potentials.

13