And you thought your mom had to much control over your life

“Smart Dictators Don’t Quash the Internet” 

The internet has become a hot topic lately in the discussion of spreading democracy in authoritarian regimes. Many would argue that the internet is fundamental in the downfall of dictators and the institution of democracy in these states. However I would argue that the internet is not good or bad; it is not a force for freedom or tyranny, the internet is what its users make of it. The internet itself is simply a tool to be utilized. In order to deal with the internet and the problems it has brought forth it seems like there are only a few options available to the regimes; ignoring it, quashing it or shutting it down, or utilizing it for the regimes purposes.

Quashing the internet seems to have had the opposite effect I assumed it would have had. For example in Egypt the government thought that by turning the internet off they would stop the gaining of support against them. I also believed that if a government turned off internet access it would effectively stop communication among dissenters and put an end to protests. Instead it only strengthened the support and demonstrated the ineptitude of said government. “Only after the online movement had gained an impressive offline momentum in Tahrir Square did Mr. Mubarak's associates choose to switch off the Internet for a few days, further revealing their incompetence” (Morozov). I think it is important to note that the ineptitude of the government is in the fact that they dismissed the importance of the internet to begin with and never took advantage of what it could do for them. “It's not that the Egyptian regime lost the online battle. They simply never entered it to begin with. It wasn't the Internet that destroyed Mr. Mubarak—it was Mr. Mubarak's ignorance of the Internet that destroyed Mr. Mubarak” (Morozov). Not only did the government wait too long to act but when it did its methods were ignorant and misguided.

Morozov suggests that through experiences such as the one in Egypt regimes may be coming to understand that they can use the internet for their own purposes instead of having it used against them. “Instead of trying to suppress online conversation, they reached out to the outraged netizens, inviting them to apply to become members of a commission to investigate the circumstances of Mr. Li's death” (Morozov). The regimes have had to acknowledge that the internet is being used as a means of promoting their downfall. If they are to survive the latest wave of unrest in their countries, they will have to employ methods to combat it rather than simply ignore it and hope it doesn’t topple them. Clever regimes such as the one mentioned above are taking advantage and embracing the internet with relative success.

By recognizing that the internet being used as a tool against them means that it can also be used as a tool for them, the regimes have taken several steps to utilize it in their fight to save their power bases. Governments can use Facebook and Twitter to identify dissenters. “Now that the ban has been lifted, the general population will flock to Facebook and expose themselves to the attention of the authorities” (Morozov). For Example during uprising in Tehran, the Iranian government was able to use uploaded photos on social media sites to identify individuals who participated in protests and demonstrations. The government took those photos and they circulated them on government run news sites and identified the faces of people they didn't know, they then asked the people to send in the names of the individuals indicated. The dissenters were then prosecuted and imprisoned. Now while I don’t condone oppression, I think that the way the regimes have utilized the internet is pretty ingenious. To take your enemy’s weapon and turn it against them in an effective manner is the very definition of resourceful and goes to show that things are not always what they might seem.

One of the most sophisticated regimes that have managed to neutralize the use of the internet for the potential growth of democracy is Russia. “Judging by the relative success of Moscow and Beijing in taming the democratic potential of the Web, it seems dictators learn fast and are perfectly capable of mastering the Internet” (Morozov). In the case of Russia the government can contain websites without having to block or censor them in a way that is outdated. They instead use far more sophisticated and less visible tactics that are harder to link to the government themselves. An example of a tactic they use to shut down sites they do not approve of is the hacking of websites or cyber-attacks. This frequently used tactic is quite effective and results in the site simply not functioning. Many times the site operators don’t even know the reason their site stopped functioning.

Quashing the internet seems to be a tactic that is no longer effective. The internet is here and simply ignoring it, especially if your opposition is utilizing it, highlights the ineffectiveness and ignorance of a government. Taking it away only serves to drive people to want it more. The old saying goes “if you can beat ‘em, join ‘em.” If quashing the internet makes you look incompetent and makes people want it more then taking it and using it to the advantage of your cause seems like the next logical step. The internet is simply a tool. Taking something that has been touted as the tool of your demise and turning it against your opposition in an effective manner is just plain smart and resourceful.
Works Cited

Morozov, Evgeny. "Smart Dictators don't quash the internet." Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 12/13 (2012/2013): 92-92.

what is democracy and who says

What is democracy and who says is the question i had to ask myself when writing this paper. You would think that the promotion of democracy would be a no brainier but i found the act of promotion to be quite tricky.

Should the international community promote democracy in authoritarian states?

Several major challenges in implementing democracy lie in the inappropriate and inadequate international approach in how democracy development is supported. The way that international support is given is not always compatible with the fundamental values of democracy itself. The way to determine if the approach was appropriate and adequate is to ask a few simple questions. Are the mechanisms used and procedures that were followed democratic? Does the process through which international support is delivered have as its ultimate goal in a democratic outcome or is support given for selfish reasons? If the Answer to these questions is no then the support for democracy is likely to become problematic.

Using force is very often counter-productive and inconsistent with the values of democracy. Democracy promotion is often confused with regime change, and even with military force to remove a regime. Such an approach has played into the hands of those who are resisting necessary democratic reforms by playing up sentiments against perceived foreign intrusion in violation of the sovereignty of their countries. 

Democracy promotion is often seen to be done for selfish reasons and is often accompanied by what many consider to be double standards since only what we call unfriendly regimes are targeted while friendly tyrants are treated much more leniently. For example Syngman Rhee of South Korea, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Saddam Hussein of Iraq are but a few of the dictators that have either been given military or monetary aid, or directly been put in power by the United States. The article “what democracy is…and is not” states “like all regimes, democracies depend upon the presence of rulers. What distinguishes democratic rulers from nondemocratic ones are the norms that condition how the former come to power and the practices that hold them accountable for their actions” There is no democracy in placing someone into power, by doing so the procedures that were used were not democratic and seen as hypocritical. Such practices in the conduct of international cooperation by established democracies are giving democracy and democracy support a bad name.

I believe that democracy should be promoted and is important to the future. Democracy does not come by itself and it cannot be imported from abroad, let alone be implanted by outside military force. It has to grow from within countries by gradually institutionalizing and creating political processes and spreading universal values such as respect for diversity, human rights, justice, freedom, that are essential to democracy and it growth. A good example of this is brought forth in the article "Why Middle Eastern Studies Missed the Arab Spring." “When given real electoral choices, Arabs turned out to vote in large numbers.” “We also understood that Arabs did not passively accept authoritarian rule.” “A preliminary review of the unfolding revolts suggests that two factors drive how Arab militaries react to public unrest; the social composition of both the regime and its military and the level of institutionalization and professionalism in the army itself.” The desire for change is already there and will be acted upon gradually there is no need for other countries to step in and force the issue. If and only if the people rise up and ask for help, then outside forces should intervene accordingly.

The advancement of democracy is not only a goal all its own, but it is also linked to peace building, by practicing the resolution of conflicts non-violently, to the consolidation of all human rights, through the application of the rule of law and social justice, and to economic growth and development.








Schmitter, Philippe C... "What Democracy Is...and Is Not." Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 12/13. Ed. Fiona Yap. McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.


Gause III, F. Gregory. "Why Middle Eastern Studies Missed the Arab Spring." Annual Editions: Comparative Politics 12/13. Ed. Fiona Yap. McGraw-Hill, 2012. Print.