In this globalized era, new information and communication technologies have undoubtedly altered the functioning of social movements as well as the dynamics of political change. Social media is one of the most influential global forces for social and political change with proven success in effecting localized change in different parts of the world. Billions of people all over the world are connected through various social media channels (Khondker 676). The role of the medium in facilitating political change in different parts of the world where totalitarian regimes have been the mainstay has revealed its central position in the modern world. That social media was instrumental in catalyzing the Arab Spring that started in 2010 is a manifestation of how a global technological force can be employed in effecting change at a local scale. As noted by Stepanova, social media channels such as Facebook and Twitter were instrumental in facilitating the rapid disintegration of totalitarian regimes in Tunisia and Egypt while also serving as tools for sociopolitical mobilization in Bahrain and Syria (3). It then begs the question: To what extent are global forces such as the social media, which are instruments of promoting political change at local scope, effective at transforming the cultural proclivities gravitating against democracy? By observing the trajectory of the Arab Spring in different parts of the Middle East, it becomes apparent that while social media has the capability to influence political action, it is incapable of restructuring the cultural and political proclivities that are anti-democracy as exemplified in the reemergence of new totalitarian regimes in Egypt and Tunisia and other Arab nations.

Overview of the Events Leading to the Arab Spring

The Democratic uprisings that started in 2011 in Tunisia relied significantly on social media to enhance their effectiveness in facilitating political changes throughout the Arab world. Though the changes that were triggered that time still have an effect today, the intended democratic reforms did not last as anticipated (Salanova 3). As noted by Rinnawi, the outcomes and the lasting impact of the protests triggered during the time are not certain making the issue one of the most discussed in the existing scholarship (4). Since social media played a critical role in facilitating the protests, it is necessary to assess the extent to which social media promoted the political changes and its ineffectiveness to establish lasting democratic ideals. This follows the realization that while some of the despots who had sustained their totalitarian regimes in some of the Arab nations were deposed, the intended changes in the entire system were not achieved at the end of the day. In some instances, such as in Libya, the aftermath of the resistance has been more detrimental compared to how life was during the times Muammar Gadhafi (Khondker 678).

State control over traditional media channels has been a common practice in the Arab world. Despite that the control mechanisms and censorship rules differed from one nation to the other, the patterns of control ensured that information sharing and the enactment of public discourse was kept under strict control. As noted by Mark Lynch, an expert on Arab world politics, government censorship on the traditional media channels had negatively impacted the public avenues in which political debate could be undertaken before the Arab Spring (302). For instance, the broadcast media, as well as the press, were under the direct control of the political elites and the state mechanisms leaving no space for any organized political opposition as facilitated through the media. Therefore, the context made it possible for the application of social media activism, which was already taking shape in other parts of the world.

However, the regulation of the transnational satellite broadcasting channels covering the entire Arab world introduced fresh challenges to the regimes that sought to establish total control over the media. As noted by Rinnawi, this happens to be the most pervasive challenge confronting the state dominance over the media in the recent history of the Arab world (5). However, as pointed out by Salanova, this challenge was countered remarkably through the introduction of state-sponsored transnational media capable of countering the impact of the cross-border satellite broadcasting (6). In other instances, policies and laws were enacted to restrict the ownership of satellite equipment or even the ownership of cable devices that would give them access to the international radio and TV broadcasts (Lynch 303). In Egypt, for instance, there were measures taken by the government of Mubarak to ban the ownership of cable TV equipment, which worked remarkably well for the regime (Lynch 303). However, the technological advances taking place in the global scale presented yet a different challenge for the totalitarian regimes aiming to restrict the access of political messages and interactions. As of the 2010s, social media was a force to reckon with when it comes to overcoming the censorships instituted by the totalitarian regimes throughout the Arab world.

The protests that emerged in the Arab Spring took a significantly different trajectory when compared to the shape that traditional demonstrations take. Initially, the protests lacked an organized leadership, and the use of social media was mostly favored as a result of the associated anonymity. As such, the individuals involved were hiding behind their social media accounts in the initial days (Salanova 6). However, as the protests persisted for some days, some charismatic individuals took some leadership positions especially when it came to the coordination of the protests. In most cases, such as in Tunisia, student groups took the most significant roles in this respect. As a result, the political interests that are inherent in traditional political protests in the Arab world were conspicuously missing in these protests, at least during the early days. Islamist groups, which are among the most effective political mobilization avenues in the region, were only catching up after the protests had gained traction. As noted by Stepanova, this failure to incorporate the interests of the traditional opposition groups as an aspect of the uprisings of the Arab Spring proved significantly decisive especially when it comes to the application of the emerging technologies in as mobilization tools (4). A generation of tech-savvy youths was much easier to mobilize using social media networking as opposed to an older generation of people who still perceived the traditional methods as more appropriate. Even though, the lasting impact of the protests as purely facilitated through the use of social media hints that there was an impending need for collaboration between different social and political activism tools and platforms.

The Role Played by Social Media and its Shortcomings

While social media proved to be a powerful tool for facilitating the mobilization and interactions of protestors during the Arab Spring, the technology was not part of the underlying sociopolitical and socioeconomic forces that led to the emergence of the protests. In Egypt, for instance, the ruling clique of political and social elites was increasingly losing touch with the masses reaching critical levels (Stepanova1). Experts anticipated that at some point, a major political upheaval would take place (Stepanova 1). However, the fact that the protests in Egypt came sooner than it was deemed possible highlights the catalyzing role that social media mobilization had achieved in neighboring Tunisia.A Facebook campaign dubbed “April 6 Youth Movement” organized by the opposition triggered the protests (Stepanova 5). The campaign called upon youths to resist government policies, which they responded to positively in their tens of thousands. As such, considering the nature of the role that social media tools played in the facilitation of the Arab Spring in Egypt, it is clear that it was merely meant to be a mobilization tool as opposed to something intended to instigate permanent political change.

Social media use has altered to a significant extent the expectation of the general public as to how they need to be governed as well as offered a fresh outlook into public participation in political matters. As noted by Rinnawi, expectations on the freedoms of expression and association among other tenets of democracy among the members of the public were to a significant extent altered by the mediating role of social media in enhancing information sharing and interactions (7). However, while social media tools such as Facebook have been determined to strengthen the understanding of the various tenets that are important in a democracy among the masses, it is always up to the people to decide on the approaches that they need to employ in establishing the realization of the change that they need or deem appropriate. Therefore, what happens after the social media-led protests attain their objectives of deposing despots is strongly impacted by a myriad of issues that are outside the scope of social media. Besides, as Stepanova argues, some of the new media tools including Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube have not only influenced how the Arab public is being reconfigured but also how the Arab community is being perceived in the international sphere (5). However, Lynch is keen to note that while the social media tools and platforms can play a prominent role when it comes to the coordination of activities and the mobilization of political events in the grassroots, they are not actors or drivers of the political revolutions (307). As such, there is a need for the underlying sociopolitical and socioeconomic factors that sustain unpopular political regimes of dictatorships to be explored further.

The debate surrounding the role that social media plays in effecting localized social and political change also touches on the double-edged nature of social media. While social media can be an effective tool in the hands of activists, they can also be used by repressive regimes in furthering their agenda through political manipulation (Lynch 308). In a similar way that totalitarian regimes have used traditional media channels to manipulate people politically through propaganda, emerging media such as social media can also be abused in the same manner. As such, as noted by Lynch, there is an impending need to frame the power of social media in effecting social and political change within the broader context of the power of media (308). It is from this frame of reference that the effects of politically charged social media campaigns, such as those adopted in the Arab world during the Arab Spring can be adequately evaluated.

Social media use, as well as its effect, can be interpreted differently based on the application. As such, while much has been presented regarding the effectiveness of social media platforms and tools in effecting localized political and social change, there are still some researchers who consider social media to have some debilitating effects, especially when applied in the context of forcing political change as it was the case in the Arab Spring. For instance, EvgenyMorozov presents one of the leading voices against the use of social media in facilitating the attainment of political activism in his text “The Net Delusion” (897). According to Morozov, technological advancement, such as what is manifest in the increased use of social media in political activism, does not necessarily translate into the growth of democracy (897). The double-edged nature of social media has been depicted in Morozov’s argument that social media can be a useful tool in the hands of political activists the same way that it can be in the hands of authoritarian regimes.

The central hypothesis, in this case, is that the same way that activists can use social media to effect political change, totalitarian regimes can also use it to advance their interests through monitoring, controlling, and manipulating their societies (Morozov 897). Internet control mechanisms as employed by the Arab governments in a bid to control the protests and quench them are examples of this misuse of social media by totalitarian regimes. As noted by Morozov, more sophisticated methods that are used to monitor and filter web-based content were employed during the Arab Spring and continue being used in the cases of Yemen and Syria (897).

There is a possibility that social media tools can yield outcomes that are contrary to those intended by those who use them. Kyriakopoulouterms this attribute as the “dyadic nature of social media” (18.) However, it should be noted that when they serve the intended purpose in political activism, they can be a powerful tool for opening up the possibilities of democracy by challenging the authoritarian regimes. To attain this objective, social media tools and platforms can be a source of vital information that is necessary to raise the awareness of the public resulting in the emergence of social capital. Social media do not allow for the sustainable overhaul of the structures of totalitarianism as manifest in the different states such as Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya (Rinnawi 9). This means that the positive impact of social media in this regard can be quickly overturned by the dissemination of propaganda by authoritarian regimes using the same social media tools.

Consequently, some researchers have endeavored to establish the significant weaknesses of social media. For instance, when employed by movements that lack a clear leadership structure, there may be frustrations when it comes to negotiations. This is especially when considering that the social movement that relies on social media for political mobilizations, interactions, and the dissemination of political messages usually lack the usual array of political elites present in the traditional forms of political movements (Salanova 9). As such, when it comes to the time of the actual transition into a democratic regime, it is not feasible for the social media activists to negotiate and defend their demands considering that they lack a real leadership that is necessary to table and protect their interests in the time of political negotiations (Khondker 678). Therefore, as a tool of effecting political change, social media platforms in a way inhibit the direct negotiations that are needed in the planning and execution of political change that includes the overhaul of the existing totalitarian structures.

Another shortcoming of social media as used in effecting localized political change is that the new information and communication technologies are developed in such a way that they are open and unlimited in their scope and even the accuracy of what information is being transmitted (Salanova 9). As such, with the escalation of fake news, which is also used to deliberately sway the opinions of people in pushing certain political goals, the use of social media can be problematic. Considering this regard, the same aspects of social media that are considered the core strengths of the medium can also create major problems (Lynch 309). This aspect of social media is discussed at length by Auer in his in-depth analysis of the potential of social media. The most significant challenge, in this regard, Auer considers to be the sorting of critical information which is clogged in the junk on social networks to the extent that they gain their reputation.

Despite the inefficiencies that are discussed above, the use of social media as tools of facilitating political change can introduce certain opportunities that are more valuable than accelerating social movements. These come in the form of offering upgraded forms of communication among the different stakeholders in the political activism (Salanova 28). While the totalitarian regimes can equally move with speed and adapt to the mechanisms of social media tools and strategies and counter them effectively, it can be a daunting challenge to interfere with how parties to a movement communicate to each other over the mediums as they can apply certain security measures to safeguard their communication. While the threatened regimes may view locking down the Internet to be a solution to their problems, it may result in more heated activism and opposition as well as economic losses. This aspect has been emphasized by Rinnawi, who considers the Internet, and specifically social media, to be the only remaining avenues at the disposal of the citizens of authoritarian regimes (10).  As such, while social media may have its fair share of challenges when it comes to enhancing the political objectives aimed at toppling totalitarian regimes, it still offer the most appropriate and viable avenues for doing so, especially when compared to other mediums such as the traditional media.

To conclude, the Arab Spring presents the quintessential context in which the role of information technologies, especially the social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube among others, can be interrogated. The uprisings sprouted after the totalitarian regimes across the Arab world had managed for decades to suppress political opposition through media censorship and other repressive measures. While the regimes had managed to completely control the traditional media apparatuses including the transnational media in the region, social media activism emerged to be the most appropriate alternative to fit the gap. As such, these social media tools and platforms managed to effectively overcome the challenges of media censorships sustained by the regimes. Through mobilization of protesters, facilitating their interactions, and also the dissemination of messages, the social media channels proved successful in enhancing a democratic shift in the region. However, considering the ineffectiveness of the medium in overhauling the political, social, and cultural proclivities that favor the existence and sustenance of the oppressive totalitarian or authoritarian regimes, the systems that were toppled started to reemerge. As such, considering the trajectory of the Arab Spring and its lasting impact, it is evident that social media activism misses out on enhancing the total overhaul of the existing regimes and replacing them with the desired democratic regimes. Bringing about local change using global measures may, as seen in this case, fail to address the exact causes of the problem in the local context.

Works Cited

Morozov, Evgeny. “Response to Philip N. Howard’s Review of The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom.” Perspectives on Politics,vol.9, no.4, 2011, pp. 897.

Khondker, HabibulHaque. “Role of the new media in the Arab Spring.”Globalizations, vol.8, no.5, 2011, pp. 675-679.

Kyriakopoulou, Kalliopi. “Authoritarian States and Internet Social Media: Instruments of Democratisation or Instruments of Control?.” Human Affairs,vol.21, no.1, 2011, pp. 18-26.

Lynch, Marc. “After Egypt: The Limits and Promise of Online Challenges to the Authoritarian Arab state.” Perspectives on politics, vol. 9, no.2, 2011, pp. 301-310.

Rinnawi, Khalil. Instant nationalism: McArabism, Al-Jazeera, and Transnational Media in the Arab World. University Press of America, 2006.

Salanova, Regina. “Social Media and Political Change: The Case of the 2011 Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt.” International Catalan Institute for Peace, Working Paper 2012/7 (2012).

Stepanova, Ekaterina. “The Role of Information Communication Technologies in the “Arab spring”.” Ponars Eurasia, vol.15, 2011, pp. 1-6.

Do you need high quality Custom Essay Writing Services?