In countries where democracy is absent or practiced in a limited manner, social media plays a crucial role as a medium for expression.
Numerous movements have been organized around social media. In the Arab world, social media was a key instrument in sparking the ‘Arab Spring’, which challenged the foundations of autocratic regimes.
Recently, social media also played a significant role in ending the 15-year long autocratic rule in Bangladesh. Due to government surveillance of traditional media, protesters chose social media as their platform for announcing programs and communicating.
Therefore, many believe that social media is one of the primary mediums for expression, freedom of speech, and voicing public demands, thereby fostering democracy. However, Seba Ganitsski argues that it can also be a tool for autocrats. In a published research paper, they demonstrated that social media is used as a crucial tool to stabilize autocrats, dictators, and authoritarian rulers.
In countries like Bangladesh, Turkey, Hungary, and Poland, we’ve observed the persistence of authoritarian rule. The rulers in these nations have strategically leveraged social media to further their interests. Typically, in authoritarian regimes, traditional avenues for free expression are suppressed.
Particularly, opposition political parties and ordinary citizens are unable to freely express their opinions on various issues. However, social media has provided people with an alternative platform to criticize the government.
While this process allows people to voice their grievances on various matters, studies have shown that ultimately, it’s the government that benefits. Analyses have revealed that when social media is abuzz with demands, the government often takes some measures. They even resolve some issues quickly.
As a result, public opinion sways in favor of governments that might otherwise lack popular support. People feel satisfied, believing that the government is listening to them. The government then exploits this to perpetuate its rule.
Studies have shown that while social media was instrumental in fostering democracy during the Arab Spring, it is now being used as a tool by autocrats.
It is commonly believed that autocrats suppress the free flow of information to control society and the populace. However, studies have shown that autocrats employ a different strategy to utilize social media for their governance. They have demonstrated that authoritarian regimes in countries like Russia, China, and the Middle East employ four primary methods to leverage social media for the longevity of their rule. Several trends can be observed in this context.
First, social media is the safest and easiest way for dictators to gauge public anger and public preferences on various issues.
In autocratic regimes, the lack of freedom of expression and suppression of dissent results in dictators not knowing the public’s thoughts.
Also, in such a system of government, the ruler does not understand when the silent people will protest because of the people’s views and opinions being manipulated or manipulated.
Social media helps a dictator know the views of the people in this matter. In an interview given to The People’s Daily, then Chinese President Hu Jintao said, “The Internet is an important medium for understanding people’s concerns.”
In addition, Putin’s government monitors the Internet to gauge the views of the general public in Russia. In this way, social media helps dictators to know the true views of the people and potentially unstable conditions.
Second, social media is an important means of evaluating the effectiveness of government officials and representatives at the local level. Generally officials at the local level are not accountable to the local people.
Apart from this, the central government is not fully informed about the work, performance and popularity of local officials and local representatives. Local representatives (officials and public representatives) carry out their work without any accountability due to the absence of free speech and free elections.
As a result, there is a risk of increased corruption at the local level and the creation of discontent among the people, which may question the legitimacy of the government as a whole.
Public exposure of local issues on social media creates an opportunity to hold these local officials accountable to the public and their superiors.
Corruption prevention and problem solving at the local level in turn renders the central government more responsive and responsive, which ultimately increases the effectiveness and legitimacy of the central government to the people.
Third, social media is an effective means for rulers to reach their supporters. Just as opposition parties mobilize protestors, rulers use social media to mobilize their supporters and coalitions and influence the general public with patriotism.
There are some rulers (such as in Russia and China) who remain in power without popular support and legitimacy. These rulers try to increase popularity by talking against superpowers along with economic development, patriotism, nationalism etc.
In this case, they make maximum use of social media. These rulers keep in touch with their supporters through social media. In 2011, Putin said the Internet was an important means of growing supporters.
Fourthly, social media is an easy way to create ‘discourse’ or ‘narrative’ among people about any topic. Usually dictatorial or autocratic governments use the mass media (TV, radio and newspapers) to campaign on their behalf.
Social media has added a new dimension to this. The ruling government has effectively used social media to campaign for them.
Governments can use social media to specifically and subtly create a ‘narrative’ in their favour. They are usually used by the ruling party before and after elections.
So the question arises—will social media really play a role in the future of democracy? Ganitsky has shown that, in fact, social media will ultimately help authoritarian regimes.
Although social media played a major role in the fall of dictator Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, authoritarian rule has reasserted itself.
The current authoritarian government tries its best to manipulate social media in their favor. Turkey has long been marked by the persistence of authoritarian regimes. In these countries, social media helps generate massive support for the ruling party.
In real terms, today’s autocrats are much more adaptable to different problems and challenges.
Autocrats’ vigilant stance on social media will therefore increase the threat to democracy. These characteristics are observed not only in authoritarian states but also in many countries with mixed democracies.
Although rulers in these countries initially monitor social media, they do not shut down social media for long periods of time; Rather, rulers determine their strategies from social media content and public response, which helps to perpetuate their rule.
