Although many scholars and people may have hoped for social media and cyber space to bring a brighter democratic future for the entire world, I happen to believe that the internet democratic utopian idea needs a much more cautious approach and more complex analysis. I believe these technologies are tools, which can be used to enhance freedom but also to consolidate power and influence and still must compete with long held institutions of power in many parts of the world.

Arguably Internet and the phenomenon of social media have given voices to those who would otherwise not be heard and in some cases allowed for significant mobilization in the name of democracy. The Internet and social media are undoubtedly powerful tools, which was ultimately proved in the Arab spring uprising, providing a tremendous platform for mobilization with an initially unprecedented outcome and in some countries a form of effective change.  However, the fact remains that almost four years later, Egypt has not been able to obtain the democracy it desired, even with such a profound tool and Syria, which followed in the tides of the Arab Spring continues to engage in a decimating civil war.

Like Egypt, in many parts of the world the Internet and democratic mobilization must clash with long held powers of institutions making change no quick agenda.  Russia faced a wave of protests against Vladimir Putin with little to no avail and Putin’s regime remains strong. As an article in Maclean’s magazine mentioned there is a popular widespread discontent among Russians with Putin and the government, but people feel powerless to change it and those who are leaving the country actually strengthen the regime.  In the case of Russia, social media and the Internet and mobilization can only go so far against the regime, state control and brutal crack down on protestors.

urther more those who want to consolidate and keep power, like Putin and the Kremlin understand that social media, multimedia, the internet and related integrated information technologies are tools to use at their disposal as well. As the Faris and Etling Article “Madison and the Smart Mob” states, the Kremlin deployed pro-Kremlin bloggers to debate critics of Putin, and Russia’s most popular blogging platform “Live Journal” was bought by a Putin ally. Further more the Kremlin established soviet like era “Pioneers” pro-Kremlin youth group, called Noshi (Ours) to establish a stronger public opinion amongst Russian youth and to counteract dissidence, all who are cable of deploying and using cyber technologies for their organization’s agenda.

The Internet is never a source of guarantee in fostering the growth of human rights.  The internet in Russia, which is relatively free despite state control of print media, for example, has done little to curve the culture of hate and discrimination to gays and lesbians bringing into question the ability of cyber information to improve human rights in countries that fall under authoritative regimes and have long held cultural mistrusts.  Despite access to educational resources through the Internet, some polls suggest as many as 84% of adults disapprove of homosexual relationships and laws like the “anti-gay propaganda law” pass with high favor in public opinion.

There is no doubt that in already democratic countries with rules and norms open to fair and free political process and public speech, cyber space and social media can increase democracy but for many parts of the world it is still the wild west as well as tool of power to be harnessed. It is important to remember that extremists groups and terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Al Qaeda have used cyberspace and multimedia as propaganda and public opinion weapons to win favor of people in their embattled regions. Often they use strategies which directly target youth through messages spread in rap videos and in the case of Hezbollah, online combat training games one which ended in the player receiving an award for assassinating Israel’s Prime Minister Sharon, among many other cyber tools and websites engineered to engage other segments of the population as well.

In Democratic societies money and influence can still create favor and consolidate power in cyber world where so many voices constantly stream. Companies and organizations with access to resources and educated people can still create a larger voice which might be heard over others.  Companies and social media can also buy and sell your information at will with little penalty and even private citizens can easily access the information of others even going as far as to use Google earth to actually locate an image of the home where someone lives. My thought is if private citizens are able to do this, one wonders what governments may be cable of.

It is important to remember that the Internet and cyberspace are tools, and although in some areas of the world, democracy has been positively affected by this revolution, these tools are at the disposal of anyone who has the knowledge and expertise to utilize them and can easily be misused and abused. Democratic change through cyberspace may prove to be a slow and uncertain process in many parts of the world where the mobilized numbers will still have to clash with the power and strength of long held institutions, which are also extending their reach onto cyberspace.

Cyberspace is no democratic utopia; it is simply the next frontier.