Wireless Telecommunications Allow Opposition Groups to Organize Beyond the Control of Authoritarian Governments
By Daniel Hollingsworth
March 20, 2008 | Printer Friendly

An online essay by Garrett Jones of the Foreign Policy Research Institute (www.fpri.org) entitled “The Revolution Will be Brought to You by Text Messaging” examines the impact that wireless telecommunications advances are having on the ability of authoritarian governments to control access to information crucial to their grip on power.  Recent events in Burma, Kenya, and Tibet highlight the increasing role that such technology has in facilitating the organization of opposition groups in ways that transcend the ability of governments to control the flow of information.

Jones finds that a crucial difference between traditional communications and wireless technology is that the government can no longer isolate its control solely on civilian access.  The effectiveness of the Burmese opposition in disseminating its message and sending video to the international audience prompted the junta to temporarily shut down all wireless communications.  However, “the government was forced to restore service, as the shutdown incapacitated government forces as much as [it did] the opposition.”  Jones adds that he is not aware of any attempt by an authoritarian government to develop a separate wireless infrastructure that is only accessible by the government or to impose significant restrictions on intra-country operability of the wireless network.

Another characteristic of wireless technology that places it beyond the watchful eye of the government is the low cost of establishing the wireless presence in a country.  Jones writes that the exorbitant costs of installing and maintaining phone lines in third world countries, combined with the centralized control by government of the communications infrastructure, means that widespread access to affordable and reliable means of communication is simply not prevalent. 

Meanwhile, television in authoritarian countries normally has been limited to a single state-owned channel; radio was similarly limited except for the wealthy few who could access shortwave broadcasts of the BBC, Voice of America, or other broadcasters; and newspapers, which typically are more informative with respect to international events, could easily and quickly be shut down by the government.  “This technological bottleneck led to a situation where government could control to a substantial degree what the local population knew of events in the world at large and from relatively inaccessible parts of their own country… The ‘facts’ were what the government said they were.”

Kenya provides a perfect example of how this situation has changed through wireless technology.  Jones writes that “many Kenyans rely on their cell phone as their primary internet access device and link to the World Wide Web… The technical competence of most incumbent politicians is low, their primary concern being revenue and funding.  The result is a free-for-all for providers on the services they offer, and the long-term impact of these services in the political arena is little understood, much less constrained by the government.”  When the Kenyan government chose to ban live radio and TV during the recent post-election crisis, the move was ineffective, as “the connected parts of the population simply switched to international news sources and live blogging to follow breaking events in their own country.”

The aid that wireless technology provides in the organizational capabilities of the opposition may be even more important than gaining access to outside sources of information.  Governments seeking to monitor the activities of their citizens now find this task much more challenging.  “Rather than thousands of individuals who were well documented by their landline telephone accounts, an authoritarian government is now looking at millions of individuals with no fixed location or identifiable characteristics.” 

Jones contends that this crucial point counters the argument that the Chinese “Great Fire Wall” limiting access to selected international internet sites is a case of effective government control over new technology.  He writes that while it may be effective in its goals, the fire wall is aimed at the wrong activity.  “The threat of wireless and internet communication to an authoritarian government is not by their contaminating the local citizens to seditious foreign ideas; it is that they establish an efficient means by which the local population can organize in opposition to the government.”  Because China also maintains its official intra-country communications through the civilian network, the government is unable to shutdown internal wireless communications without losing its own capabilities.  Jones writes that “China is facing a telecommunications crisis of its own making within the next six to eight months” with the Beijing Summer Olympics approaching.  The recently demonstrated ability of Tibetan opposition organizations to promote their views will likely only be the beginning of such activity, and if others harness the power of wireless telecommunications, the Chinese government could struggle to maintain its control over dissent with the full attention of the international community.

Source:

Foreign Policy Research Institute: The Revolution Will be Brought to You by Text Messaging