Open Networks, Closed Regimes by Shanti Kalathil and Taylor Boas - Essay Example

Book Review of “Open Networks, Closed Regimes” The book d “Open Networks, Closed Regimes” by Shanti Kalathil and Taylor Boas examines Internet use in six countries – China, Vietnam, Burma, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. The objective of the book is to examine whether there is a causal link between information technology and the spread of democracy in the world. The authors have focused upon four areas in examining Internet use – civil, political, economic and international. Civil use comprises the use of the net by members of the public and the authors examine the extent to which public chat discourses reflects anti-Government. They also examined Governmental use of the electronic medium, while economically, they examined Internet use by domestic entrepreneurs. Lastly, they also examine the impact of informational technology from the perspective of how the use of the worldwide web outside the borders of a particular country could impact upon the internal political stability of these countries. The authors have concluded that the impact of the Internet is ambiguous, because in some countries authoritarian regimes have actually been able to cement their position, while in others the Internet has not made much of a difference. As a result they found no evidence to support the contention that the Internet threatens authoritarian regimes. The central thesis of the book is clearly stated at the very outset, as follows: “There is now a widespread belief in the policy world that the Internet poses an insurmountable threat to authoritarian rule.” (Kalathil and Taylor, 3 ). The authors set out to examine the veracity of this assumption and state clearly that “we seek to critically examine the impact of the Internet in authoritarian regimes.” Thus, on this basis, the thesis is clearly laid out as being the answer to the question of whether the Internet indeed poses a threat to authoritarian regimes and promotes the forces of democratization. This is also the sub title of the book. In order to address the thesis, the authors have explored patterns and content of Internet use in six countries with authoritarian regimes. In examining the patterns of Internet use and the levels of control or blocking imposed by the States in question, the authors have arrived at the conclusion that the so called threat to authoritarian regimes posed by the Internet is ambiguous, because the extent of its effect is also dependent upon various social and political factors and players. In some instances, authoritarian regimes were actually able to use the Internet to entrench themselves more firmly in their positions among members of the public, while in other cases, there is no discernible political effect that can be attributed to the Internet. Authoritarian regimes with a history of strict regulation, have demonstrated a similar regulation of the ICT medium as well, so that users mainly use the Internet for shopping, gaming or pornographic activity rather than political causes. The authors have done quite a thorough study because they have examined Internet use and patterns in four separate areas – civil, State, economic and international and have therefore examined the problem thoroughly. However, one of the problems in the conclusions reached is the inclusion of a limited number of countries and the exclusion of countries such as Malaysia where the Internet has made a significant impact and which should have been included in the study. Another limitation in the research of the authors is that they could have performed a more exhaustive research of differential definitions of the Internet in different constituencies within all the countries. Therefore a greater level of micro studies would have been helpful in a more thorough analysis of the thesis question. Furthermore, the authors have also overstated their skepticism of the democratization thesis, especially since the time factor could play a role in bringing about changes even in the authoritarian countries they surveyed. Other aspects the authors have tackled only in a peripheral way is the other factors that could account for the results they have arrived at. For example, technology ha snot spread that far, except in the developed countries. The use of the Internet is expensive, which automatically restricts access only to a few users in the developing world. Moreover, regulation of the Internet is not as difficult an exercise as was once thought, so it is not that difficult for authoritarian regimes to filter out or block certain political websites. Lastly, with improving economic situations in several authoritarian countries, especially China, people are more interested in making money off the Net than in using it to access foreign political sites or seek freedom. The authors provide ample evidence to support their thesis and their position that the so called threat to authoritarian regimes posed by the Internet is an ambiguous one. In the case of China, they found that the Government does use fire-walling to block access to politically sensitive websites. However, this fire-walling is used in conjunction with policing, threats and arrests in order to regulate and monitor Internet use, so that Chinese citizens do not make much effort to seek out politically sensitive websites that might threaten the regimes in power. The State is also using the Internet to improve communications between citizens and the local Government. While businesses in China mostly comprise western educated people, they nevertheless need to maintain good relations with the Government and therefore regulate their own use of the Internet and the content of their websites. Therefore, on the whole, the Chinese Government has been successful in guiding use. In the case of Cuba, users are forces to connect to a national intranet rather than the world wide web and as a result, they are able to effectively control and regulate online content by simply blocking off non supportive websites. The authors have therefore concluded that the spread of the Internet has been largely beneficial for Cuba’s authoritarian regime. But in the case of Singapore, they point out that the per capita income is almost as high as the United States and there is easy Internet access, but despite the repressive Government, the citizens are more focused on money making, thereby resulting in little, if any, political impact in terms of freedom struggles or encouraging a push towards democracy. Vietnam’s Communist party wants to maintain tight political control, but its internet approach is haphazard and it is trying to emulate the example of India in promoting software development within its country. Burma has limited the use of the Internet within its borders and the authors have focused more on the international impact of external pressure on the regime. In the United Arab Emirates, individual access to the Internet is filtered through use of a proxy server, while businesses use leased lines and have unfettered access. Saudi Arabia has adopted a policy whereby it restricts Internet content such as pornography, and also blocks off any criticism of the royal family. Egypt has not restricted Internet content to any substantial extent, as a result of which some extremist political propaganda is being disseminated through chat rooms. On this basis therefore, the authors have supported their findings that the impact of the Internet is ambiguous and no clear answer can be derived, since the situation is different in different countries with differing extents and modes of regulation and filtering the Internet. Their evidence is well presented and debated, especially in the context of its thesis argument that the Internet poses a potent threat to the authoritarian regimes of the world, which the authors did not find to be the case in every country. Moreover, the fact that they have analyzed Internet use from four different angles is also helpful in providing a more cohesive argument. However, despite the fact that the authors have presented their thesis well, there does appear to be element of bias that has crept into their research. There appears to be a predisposition on the part of the authors to reject the notion that the Internet brings about democratization and is a threat to authoritarian factors. They have consistently argued throughout their book against the kind of blind optimism in western countries that supports the position that the Internet could spread the winds of freedom all over the world. Another significant drawback in the book appears to be the inadequate coverage of email use and filtering in these countries, since the authors have largely focused upon access to websites. This could be an undermining factor that fails to heed the importance of email communications through which a great deal of propaganda is spread and which may not be as easy to block as specific websites. In conclusion, this is a well written, well researched and well analyzed book. The authors have provided a wealth of technical and detailed information about the individual countries they have examined. It is a must read for students of communications and technology, and is an eye opener for the general public as well. However, the question that must be posed is whether the book covers a realistic time frame to assess the impact of the Internet. Given the fact that the cost of equipment and service is still very high in most countries, there is low access by Africans, Hispanics and other poorer sections of the developing world that would be more concerned with democracy and the benefits it offers. While Internet access is still largely confined to the wealthy and the upper middle class to whom democracy and its beneficial effects would not be such a vital issue, it is likely that the results that would be obtained would not offer great support for the spread of freedom. Hence, it appears premature to arrive at conclusions about the potential impact of this technology. Reference: * Kalathil, Shanti and Boas, Taylor, 2003. “Open Networks, closed regimes: The impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule.” Carnegie Endowment for International peace Read More