I think it's hard to disprove the effect of social media in the Arab Spring revolts. In many countries where freedom of speech was limited and mobilization efforts were really only safe underground, Twitter and Facebook provided a way for activists to get in contact with the public and the world in a quick and efficient manner. Also, things like tweets and facebook posts can be up for anyone to see, making communication efficient and widespread. For example, the protests in Tahrir Square were incredibly well-planned: there were men and women doing security checks on all of the protesters in the square to ensure everyone's safety. If social media were not present during the uprisings in the MENA region, I doubt there would have been people doing security checks on all of the protesters. The people would have to rely more on a he-said she-said method of communication. Although this form of communication can work, details will be lost as the message spreads, leading to confusion and disorganization.
While I think social media was helpful in the proliferation and ultimate success of many of the Arab Spring uprisings, I don't think it was at all necessary in their success. I think any social movement can be successful if there are cracks within the ranks of the government because widespread popular protest can break them open. Look at any social movement in the past, like the Civil Rights Movement or even the French Revolution. Certainly, neither of those movements used social media as a tool of protest, yet they both are renowned in history. People don't need to have cell phones or internet to make a difference, they just need to get mad, and then get even with their governments.
No comments:
Post a Comment