The rise of social media has brought families closer together, increased international advocacy and transformed democracies. Particularly, social media has increased the way in which the masses lobby their government for better living conditions. U.S.
The Arab world used social media to put pressure on the government and to demand the quality of life they believe they should be afforded. Within only a few days, these people took the international stage and changed the course of history. Not only did social media help them to organize, but it also created a mechanism that allowed the entire world to witness one of the greatest examples of how technology can bring about significant change to a place that was thought to be stagnant and unsusceptible to change. While the change happened instantaneously, some would argue that things happened too fast. I am not at all inferring that the goals of these protests have been met or that true democracy has been realized. I’m just offering my own belief that real change does not happen instantly, but is a patient and gradual process.
Most mass protests that have occurred in the world demanded substantial time before the end goal was met. Additionally, there are several components of mass protest that must be achieved in order to execute an organized protest. I think the speed of direct action should never be substituted for the substance of direct action. Through the use of social media, one should never neglect the other components that make a successful lobbying campaign.
The Arab Spring has included a great deal of human suffering. If human beings suffer, it should be done in a way that has clear objectives and is done purposefully. The goal of social media is not to solve all problems, but to play a significant role in bringing about change. I respect the efforts of those that engaged in their protest, but I hope they never forget the value of human interaction if human suffering is involved.
When dealing with issues such as revolutions, is there ever a perfect time line?
ReplyDeleteMubarak of Egypt has been in office since 1981, and Gaddafi since 1969, I would argue this change was not instantaneous but a social shift that was a long time coming.
I do not discount the huge influence the internet has had on transparency, and helping create this social shift. Since 1967 Egypt was run under "Emergency Law" where rights were limited and censorship allowed, and perhaps in 1967 it may have worked effectively-but since the advent of the Internet censorship is ineffective.
It is also important to recognize the domino affect the Tunisian revolution had on other Middle Eastern countries' revolutions--something which would not have as great of an effect without the internet. I would argue that social media is never a hindrance to advocacy, but merely an instrument directed by the will of the people.