Since September 19, thousands of Burmese protesters have poured on to the streets of Rangoon to demand freedom from military rule. On September 26, the Burmese military government responded with violence. Thousands of protestors have since been seized and taken away. Yesterday, campaigners in 30 cities around the world showed solidarity by organizing local demonstrations against the bloody crackdown on anti-government protests.
Like most advocacy movements today, Burmese activists are harnessing the Web to reduce isolation, build far-flung networks, and co-ordinate for collective action. So far, iron-fisted government control over telecommunications has not prevented individuals from posting numerous grainy, and sometimes gory, videos on YouTube. Organizations like Witness have traveled deep into the jungles of eastern Burma to document the military’s persistent attacks on ethnic minorities (see below). Meanwhile, grassroots media outlets such as Indymedia.org has become a rallying point for bloggers who upload photos and provide a running commentary on news and events on the ground. Even Jim Carey has weighed in with an appeal to YouTube viewers to contact the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.
As recent events illustrate, resistance movements operating in Burma have traditionally been constrained by strictly controlled communication channels, the threat of military violence, and unassailable state legal and political frameworks. But in many cases, activists who have fled repressive regimes have equipped themselves with the education and technological sophistication needed to foment political instability back home. With the support of established NGOs, political bodies and citizens in the West, exiled activists have raised their issues higher on the international agenda. Yet another sign that power is migrating to organizations and individuals who are skilled at developing networks and using them to enhance their ability to organize and exchange information.
Anthony, you note “Yet another sign that power is migrating to organizations and individuals who are skilled at developing networks and using them to enhance their ability to organize and exchange information.”
But does this shift, now enabled by technology, actually produce results? Networked diasporas and exiled activists and leaders have long fought from abroad to help those back home (i.e. Iraquis in London, Zimbabweans throughout the UK, Afghans in the US) but the results of their efforts pale in comparison to home-grown efforts for reform and change such as those in the Phillipines to oust Estrada or in the Ukraine that brought Yushenko to power.
These latter cases relied on technology but rather primitive applications to organize rallies, etc. And perhaps more importantly, these countries lacked the political and geo-political strength to crack down on protestors.
Burma, as you note is backed by China, and is under little pressure to implement real change. As Mao once noted, “reform will happen as one crosses the river, one pebble at a time.”
So does the advent of digitally-enabled, cross-border networks actually empower domestic movements? Or is change simply a question of geo-politics?
Technology and the US election I've written several times about the impact of social networks on this year's US Presidential election - see here and here. And let's be honest, the use of such networks and new web 2.0 technologies has been dominated by Obama. He’s embraced social networks like no other candidate in an attempt to connect with [...]
Anthony, you note “Yet another sign that power is migrating to organizations and individuals who are skilled at developing networks and using them to enhance their ability to organize and exchange information.”
But does this shift, now enabled by technology, actually produce results? Networked diasporas and exiled activists and leaders have long fought from abroad to help those back home (i.e. Iraquis in London, Zimbabweans throughout the UK, Afghans in the US) but the results of their efforts pale in comparison to home-grown efforts for reform and change such as those in the Phillipines to oust Estrada or in the Ukraine that brought Yushenko to power.
These latter cases relied on technology but rather primitive applications to organize rallies, etc. And perhaps more importantly, these countries lacked the political and geo-political strength to crack down on protestors.
Burma, as you note is backed by China, and is under little pressure to implement real change. As Mao once noted, “reform will happen as one crosses the river, one pebble at a time.”
So does the advent of digitally-enabled, cross-border networks actually empower domestic movements? Or is change simply a question of geo-politics?
Comment by Dan Herman - October 10, 2007 10:21 am