Just before the GE08, several political parties gave their comments on whether the Internet would be all that effective in their campaigning efforts. Amongst others were Parti Sosialis Malaysia’s Nik Nazmi, PKR’s Tian Chua, Johor UMNO MP blogger Dato’ Sharir Abdul Samad, political analyst Bunn Nagara (Bunn Sri Na Nakhorn) and The Star’s Dato’ Wong Chun Wai.
Except for Tian Chua, the rest did not believe that the Internet would have all that much impact, except in the urban areas of some five states. I am sure they would beg to differ after GE13.
Yes, the Internet allows like-minded people to share their views with each other, but without ground, face-to-face, I still don’t believe that it is all that effective in bringing about ‘UBAH’.
Political chatter on the Internet today is no different from coffee shop talk (in the days before the Internet) where the rumour mill reveals things the authorities (and the mainstream media) try to suppress.
But just as pro-opposition people gravitate to sites like Malaysiakini, The Malaysian Insider, Free Malaysia Today, Malaysia-Chronicle and pro-opposition bloggers, pro-BN readers also gravitate to Mahathir’s blog, Najib’s blog, Rocky’s Bru, OutSyed The Box, Just Read, Stop The Lies, Big Cat, Big Dog, and the many more Malay-language blogs.
As Spencer Chapman described the jungle as being neutral in his book on communist insurgency, likewise the Internet is neutral as well.
Overseas experience has also begun to show that the Internet is not all that effective in bringing about political change, contrary to what was originally believed.
Liberal democracy activist Evgeny Morozov once believed in that notion but has now turned against it; and explains how it strengthens rather than weakens dictatorships.
(Background: Evgeny Morozov worked for a Soros-backed NGO in Belarus and he had authority to disburse funds to NGOS in his region. At the time he and his NGO comrades believed the spread of the Internet would being down dictatorships or authoritarian governments but he later he realised that was not so, based upon his practical experience.)
Not long ago, the authorities tried to suppress such dissidence on the Internet, but now they have found ways to use it to their own advantage; finding it easier to identify who the dissidents are and their associations.
Morozov makes a very pertinent point – that civil libertarians focus a lot on opposition to the kind of authoritarian world of brutal oppression and control as portrayed by George Orwell in his book ‘1984’; but tend to ignore the more subtle form of soft control through distraction and the encouragement of indulgence and hedonism as described by Aldous Huxley – in his book ‘Brave New World’, where people are kept happily hedonistic and contented by distractions and drugs.
The cyber utopianism Morozov speaks about reminds me of Utopian notions popular among the 60’s hippies who believed themselves to be vanguard of a social and political change in consciousness – which would lead to a peaceful brotherhood among mankind.
Quite a number of them also believed that if everyone smoked marijuana/ganja, there would be world peace, no war and no racism.
I liked to believe that too at the time but look around the world some 50 years later – is this true or is the world quite the opposite of that now?
IT BYTES BACK! says: Will the Internet really ‘UBAH’ what people want? Political parties are like brands, and digital marketing expert Jason Falls of Social Media Explorer has said, “… at some point the pendulum will swing back and people will realise it’s the offline, face-to-face relationships that are meaningful. Brands that find ways to move their online (weak tie) communities offline (strong tie) – are the ones that will win in the long run.”
