I spoke to Laura Walker-Hudson who explained how simple platforms like Frontline SMS are a powerful tool in the hands of civil society to increase accountability and gain momentum for social change
The 2010 presidential elections in Colombia have been called Latin America’s first real social media campaign, and is a history of unexpected results from beginning to end.
Immensely popular (but also in some sectors hated) President Álvaro Uribe was to hand over power after two consecutive four-year periods of presidency. The candidate Juan Manuel Santos, former defense minister in Uribe’s government, was seen as his successor. It all seemed clear; Santos would continue Uribe’s legacy.
But then Antanas Mockus entered the scene. Bogotá’s former mayor, a political wild-card, known for his controversial, some would even say eccentric, methods. In 1994, when he was the principal of Colombia’s public university, he dropped his pants on stage and mooned students. As twice mayor of Bogotá he implemented “citizen culture” through pedagogic examples, such as dressing up as a super hero, and throwing a glass of water on his opponent in a debate to state an example of non-violence. He is widely recognized for his accomplishments in transforming the violent and decaying city of Bogotá to the thriving city it became, but also ridiculed among the traditional political elite for his non-conformist ways.
Who else but someone like Mockus to transform the way presidential campaigning had always been made in Colombia?
Mockus became the presidential candidate of the newly formed Green Party, which despite its name had little to do with environmental politics, a center alternative in the right-wing dominated Colombian politics.
The Green Party’s presidential campaign, called La Ola Verde (the green wave), led by Mockus, was different from earlier campaigns both in the way it was carried out and in the content of its messages – about transparency, non-violence and the sacredness of public funds.
In the first opinion polls in March, Mockus did not even reach two digits. In April, he had already surpassed 20%, and in May, Mockus and Santos were tied. This sudden rise in popularity threatened the political establishment, who thought they had the victory in their pockets, as always before.
The Green Wave campaign relied heavily on the internet, especially on Facebook, Twitter and Youtube. The Mockus fan page on Facebook had four times as many followers as the runner-up, left-wing candidate Gustavo Petro, and was the thirteenth most followed politician on the entire Facebook. Green Wave flashmobs were carried out all over the country and the videos of them spread virally online. As opposed to the traditional campaigns, then, the Green Wave had more in common with new social movements than regular party politics. Lievrouw (2011) lists the characteristics of new social movements (see p. 48-49), of which the use of media and ICTs is one:
“[…] not just as tools or channels for relaying information to participants or the wider public, but as the actual field of action where movement concerns are articulates and struggles played out.” Lievrouw, L. (2011): p. 53-54
Mockus appealed to young, educated, urban middle-class, longing for a change in Colombia’s corrupt politics. He was even called “Colombia’s Obama”, just days before the election – with allusion both to the US president’s campaign methods and his ‘Change’-slogan. However, in the first round of the presidential elections on May 30th, the results were conclusive in favor of Santos with 46.7% of the votes against runner-up Mockus with 21.5% and in the second round on June 20th between only these two candidates, Santos won a land-slide victory with 69.1% against Mockus’ 27.5%.
What happened to the Green Wave hype in Social Media?
There are several possible explanations. One, the enormous social media support was not representative for the actual voters, only for a limited privileged group of social media users*. Two, Mockus lacked the traditional political machinery that mobilize votes in poor and rural areas by handing out food, cash or inscriptions in social programs in return for votes, key in traditional Colombian politics. Three, when faced with the threat of the Green Wave, Santos campaign team launched a counter-attack, betting heavily on social media presence and including a dirt campaign of rumor-spreading against Mockus.
Expert in Colombian electoral politics and PhD María Vidart explains how social media popularity does not necessarily translate into votes:
“They are voters that act upon emotion and their votes are highly unreliable. […] Social media users participate freely and therefore nothing binds them to their candidate. Electoral bases are expected to participate out of need. Therefore, elections in Colombia are won through the kind of loyalty ties that form and the networks of favor exchange and negotiation of interest built over years between politicians and their constituencies.” Vidart, M. (2012)
This time, social media popularity was not enough reach the presidency. However, it was enough to scare the political establishment into boarding the social media campaign-train.
* According to the Ministry of Information and Communication Technologies, 80% of the population in the cities use internet, and 60% use social networks (out of these 31% has a Twitter account and 98% Facebook). However, the prevalence is very uneven between income groups and ages, where the richest and the youngest are the most frequent users.
In February last year The Economist launched an ad campaign in London Underground stations asking travelers where they stand on the issue of social media censorship. The Economist’s ‘Where do you stand?’ brand campaign was originally launched in 2010 to drive debate and discussion on key issues covered in the weekly magazine. This time it included a double-pronged approach to inspire heated debate around the question: Should social media be censored?
What do you think?
The United Nations is betting heavily on the internet as a forum for global participation in the world’s development agenda post-2015, that is, the new agenda that will set the course for the world’s development actions once the Millenium Development Goals have reached their expiry date in 2015.
This time, the idea is that citizens like me and you from all over the world participate in a global conversation on shaping the new development goals. For this, the UN has created the Global Survey for a better World, an opinion poll where people can vote for their priorities from a list of development issues. They have also created a site called The World We Want, a discussion forum to promote a global conversation on the new development agenda.
This UN initiative is without a doubt an interesting take on citizen participation in the global governance agenda. It remains to see, however, if this can promote a true global participation, and if this grassroot participation translates into real results when the agenda is finally set.
The internet and more specifically online social media have been, in recent years, increasingly held up as the world’s great leveller, allowing people to gain access to information, communicate, participate and discuss in ways and on a scale that had hitherto never been thought possible. We often hear commentators speak of geographical and socio-economic lines being crossed, new and diverse relationships and communities being formed, and even political and civic empowerment being felt by those who otherwise live their lives as marginalised members of their society, all through social media. As Ananda Mitra and Tamara Witschge put it ‘The Internet is seen as a new discursive space that allows groups normally silenced in traditional media to ‘voice themselves and thus become visible and make their presence felt’ (Reclaiming the Media, Pg. 130).
All of this is undeniably impressive and no one would dare argue against the great leaps in connectivity and access to information that these tools have made. Indeed over the years, whilst these credentials and the incredible (perhaps literally) potential of social media for reaching out and connecting people have been trumpeted by the mainstream media and commentators, so politicians, governments, development agencies, businesses, even the British Queen, have leapt on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook, in order to gain access to the limitless, open, engaged and powerful community that has been promised.
But does that community really exist, at least as the open, pluralistic, democratic space that is painted? Does social media really facilitate the forms and levels of dialogue and participation that are so often attributed to it, or is it just a case of the emperors new clothes? Continue reading
In the past couple of years happenings such as the Iran and US elections and the Arab Spring have made social media and democracy two things that rarely appear apart. The has been a lot of debates of Twitter and Facebook revolutions and which impact these new media applications have to so called traditional media such as TV or newspapers. What makes social media different from traditional journalism is that social media is based on participation and freedom of expression, it provides platforms where people with similar interests can discuss, regardless where they live. Kluitenberg (2003) writes that what defines how democratic a society is, is to which extent people freely can share, voice their opinion and discuss what is going on in society and how freely people can get together to get something done to social issues that are not the way they’re supposed to be. One could say in social media we are all journalists. Godwin and Maher are quoted in Lievrouw (2011, p. 130-132) and they have quite the opposite opinions about participatory journalism. Maher sees that what people write to different social media channels cannot produce quality, credible, reliable and consistent news and Godwin’s reply to concerns about the lack of editing and liability is that it is arrogant to think that only big institutions can provide good journalism that is vital to the democracy.
Still all of us, as users and as followers of social media, have responsibility when it comes believing everything we read. This also raises the question of self-censorship. People don’t always seem to understand that what they write to Facebook or Twitter is for everyone to see, no matter if the account is protected. There is always someone who can share or retweet your opinions.
This is not only a problem among “ordinary” citizens, politicians who are on Facebook or Twitter or have their own blog have responsibility for what they write. After the last parliament elections two years ago in Finland a populist and nationalist political party True Finns became the third largest party in the country. In the last couple of years we have experienced quite many scandals when there have been racist and otherwise degrading updates in social media made by members of the party. Many of these have later been labeled as jokes by writers but in a country where you can freely express your opinion this has raised debate on how to behave on internet. Party secretary has been explaining that these writings have nothing to do with how True Finns as a party feel about certain things and other parties have expressed strong disapproval of what have been written. This makes one wonder who differently we can interpret blog posts or Facebook updates. It has to do with media literacy what we make those: either really bad jokes which should never have been published or the absolute truth.
We can follow many politicians on Twitter and Facebook and read their blog posts and getting your message through as clear as possible in order to get the majority of public to understand it right is like walking on a tightrope. Politicians should set a good example how to behave in social media, encourage people to take part in discussions, not to turn them against each other. Actions like that can be seen as good governance and real democracy.
Here’s an interesting video about what social media can or perhaps could do. In it, Clay Shirky talks to TED.com in 2009 about the possibilities social media holds for political protest and participation. Four years later, does what he says still resonate?
On Monday this week over 87% of those who had registered to vote in Kenya stood in queues at polling stations for up to 12 hours in the baking heat to assert their democratic right. I walked around the corner from my house and my jaw dropped at the sight of the queues which stretched in both directions as far as I could see. It was an emotional moment. I am not Kenyan but I have lived here long enough to see how just the thought of democracy catalyses participation. I have also lived in Britain long enough to see how it is treated with apathy and derision.
A glance at the people in the queue was interesting not least for the demographic spread but also for the number of people glaring intently at their phones, often with tiny in-ear headphones. Mobile penetration in Kenya has risen exponentially in the last 5 years – 74% of Kenyans, 3 in 4 people, have a mobile phone. This in a country where the vast majority of people live on less than $2 a day. Data penetration is growing all the time – mobile data subscriptions account for 98% of all internet users. The mobile phone is clearly a mighty tool in the pocket of your average Kenyan.
At the last election in 2007/2008 it was used as a platform to turn people against each other. I remember receiving ‘hate’ messages which had clearly been sent in bulk. Now the hate messages have been replaced by everyone urging “chagua peace” – “choose peace”. A message which is not lost on most of the ordinary Kenyans going about their business. As the count goes on and whispers of irregularities and technical ‘failures’ and possible ‘hacking’ surface, the option to choose peace appears to be wearing thin.
Technology was to be the saviour of this election – biometric registration kits, electronic transmission direct to the electoral commission headquarters, instant provisional results beamed across all tv and radio networks. Instead returning officers were brought by all means of transportation from all 290 consitutencies with a confirmation of a manual count as the technology was left gathering dust in the polling centres. Kenyans were sold a pup. By taking out the potential for malfeasance by reducing the human contact with the ballot, we forgot the important role human interaction plays in this process or what Michael Krona referred to in his lecture as the “significance of human participation”. Seduced as we are by the obvious advantage of technology to help rule out human error, we forgot the essentially participatory nature at the heart of democracy. Continue reading
In just a few days time 14 million people in my adopted home of Kenya will go to the polls. These elections are remarkable on a number of levels: they are the first polls since independence in which Kenyans can vote for a number of elected officers from President to Women’s Representative; they are the first under a new constitution which offers more devolved power sharing and they are the first to have national televised debates. For those in Western democracies the latter is nothing new. To the average Kenyan this is a milestone in the democratic process and a sign of how far governance has evolved. For the first time all 8 presidential candidates faced questioning from moderators and members of the public on the same platform.
Good governance is measured by a level of transparency and accountability. Advances in technology and social media participation particularly in the developing world are often seen as a crucial tool in extending democratic space, increasing transparency and promoting accountability. However the corollary of this argument is that there becomes what Lievrouw refers to as a blurring of the distinction between the ‘material’ and ‘symbolic’ use of the technology. Put another way, “use of new media might in fact constitute movements and actions in themselves” (Lievrouw 2011: 157). Are we in danger then of assuming that the deployment of social media platforms in election campaigns or as part of social movements are by definition relevant because they are innovative? Is the impact and significance of ‘old media’ in the form of a television debate for example, neatly juxtaposed with our embrace of ‘technological determinism’?