At the dawn of the internet there was much talk about the radical changes it would bring to our world, including in public and political life. Numerous manifestos were written, ambitious conferences were held. Then the enthusiasm subsided, because, although the internet did change our lives, these changes were hardly reflected in politics. However, recently political observers have again begun to talk about the miracles of the internet. These talks are prompted by two interconnected phenomena — the internet phenomenon of “social networks” and the application of this phenomenon during the North African and Middle Eastern revolutions.
Usually, when people talk about the application of “internet technologies,” they mean the purely technical side of things and the opportunities it provides. For example, a politician or a party can create their own website, and anyone who wishes can admire it. Theoretically, if lucky, this person may even “ask a question through the internet” and, if completely lucky, may even receive an answer. Forums, “Google Groups,” and “wiki processes” help organize discussions of various issues and even collaboratively develop documents. The internet also simplifies financing political campaigns. Ron Paul, being a presidential candidate in 2008, raised 4.2 million dollars in one day through the internet. Well, everyone has heard of email and some have even used it.
This is one side of the problem, which is what supporters of various kinds of electric governments mean when they talk about their electric democracy. Their ideal is as follows: there is a government whose activities are transparent and accessible through the internet, and there are citizens who very conveniently, virtually without leaving home, pay taxes to the government. This is a typical approach to technological changes, when they are considered primarily as a way to simplify and improve existing procedures and practices.
However, it sometimes happens that technological changes alter the very essence of what is happening. It seems that in our case this is indeed so — we are living through a political revolution, a revolution in the method of political action. Let’s put it this way: the “engine” in the political system is currently changing.
Interestingly, people usually notice only the most obvious sides of this process. For example, those who say that social networks make it easier for the government to collect data about individuals and thereby facilitate control over specific persons or groups are absolutely right. This capability really exists and it, as they say, “stares you in the face.” Less obvious is the fact that such control, even though it may still ruin the lives of more than one person, is no longer able to accomplish its intended task. Individual persons and organizations have already ceased to be a problem for states, although various intelligence agencies seem to be the last to understand this. The real problem for states is becoming… the problems of states.
This is connected with the fact that the very method of political action is changing. Until recently, the subject of political action was an organization — a party, a public organization, a secret society, a terrorist cell. An organization actualized a particular problem or group of problems, or an ideology (that is, a general approach to solving problems). The tasks and methods of solving them also varied across organizations; however, they were all united by some common properties. The main property is that to raise and resolve an issue, an ordinary person needs either to interact with already existing organizations or to create their own. In any case, when a person decides to dedicate some time to solving issues that concern them, they are forced to interact with other people through a hierarchy (even if invisible from the outside) and existing procedures. It is precisely the fact that hierarchies and procedures also depend on people that makes organizations vulnerable to manipulation and control.
Everyone who has ever created organizations well knows their shortcomings. Organizations, once created, begin to live their own lives. “Killing” an organization is very difficult, and often practically impossible. Inside an organization, intrigue inevitably arises, a struggle for power, fuhrers appear. Provocateurs can be planted in an organization that can then dismantle it, that is, cause the organization to stop fighting for its previously declared goals. Finally, one can intimidate or simply physically eliminate the leaders of organizations dangerous to the government.
However, the most important shortcoming of organizations is the phenomenon that the author of these lines calls “grandmotherization.” The phenomenon of grandmotherization is clearly visible in the example of political parties. It begins when someone raises the question about grandmothers. This question usually sounds like “what will grandmothers think about this” or “all this is correct, but grandmothers will not vote for it.” If one does not immediately publicly hang the person who raised this question, then from the moment it is uttered, irreversible changes (grandmotherization) begin in the party, which inevitably lead to its complete degradation and disappearance from the market. If one hangs such a person immediately, irreversible changes still occur (the poison of grandmotherization quickly penetrates the brain), but somewhat later. Interestingly, radicalism is also grandmotherization, but only in the “opposite direction.”
In practice, this means that practical issues around which organizations arise are, due to the very specifics of organizations, over time distorted, mythologized, and become susceptible to manipulation. In the world of political organizations, the little boy from Andersen’s fairy tale cannot simply say “but the king is naked!” He will not be heard. To be heard, he will have to create an organization. Well, and then academic debates with the authorities will begin on the topic “what is naked and does it seem so to us.”
The existence of the internet, as I already said, leads to the fact that the problems of states become the problems of states, not the people and organizations who ask the wrong questions. This happens because a problem that has been talked about to death and absolutely mythologized can, thanks to the internet, suddenly arise from the ashes in all its glory and again begin to burn with righteous anger. This has already happened, for example, with the issues of state finances, the banking and monetary system. Having been pushed to the political margins and handed over to people with reputations as urban crazies, the criticism of the existing order in this sphere suddenly turned (speaking of developed countries) into a political program supported by many people.
The internet can be viewed as a set of spontaneously arising and disappearing orders of varying degrees of complexity and “manifestation.” These are the same organizations, only significantly more complex. I will immediately say that I am not against traditional organizations as such — they, of course, will exist and will play a useful role. In this case, I am saying that the existence of the internet allows the little boy to say what he sees, and should he rashly enter into an academic debate with the authorities, another little boy will always be found. And most importantly, it is impossible to predict from where, how, and in what manner he will appear and what exactly he will do. It is impossible to predict exactly how all the others will behave. These features of the internet manifested after the appearance of social networks. Just as law institutionalizes activity in the market, a social network institutionalizes activity on the internet — that is, gives it a new quality that allows better achievement of one’s goals.
As a result, we see how old schemes of state operation are losing their effectiveness. For example, government propaganda on the internet is simply impossible. It is ridiculous and ineffective. We see how Ron Paul’s “money bomb” destroyed another familiar and effective tactic — the tactic of silence. After the success of Paul’s campaign to raise funds through the internet and appeals to voters through YouTube, mainstream media could no longer ignore him.
True, for now we are at the very beginning of the revolutionary process. Many have not yet realized the changes. For example, Ukrainians persistently drag their beloved fuhrership into the internet, trying to create the same old organizations, but “on the basis of the internet.” And, of course, no internet will magically replace the absence of content. Yes, with the help of the internet one can overcome official media’s ignoring. However, to do this, one still needs to first be Ron Paul, to have firm convictions and the experience of a congressman.