Democracy and Social Media
April 20, 2011 Leave a Comment
Recently we as a country saw some unprecedented action around Anti-corruption movement lead by Anna Hazare. This movement was as much in the ether as on the real ground. Ultimately the “civil society” won the day and managed to get some unprecedented concessions from the Government of India. What comes out of the movement and whether India improves its ranking on the Corruption Index is yet to be seen.
However, Anna and his movement got huge recognition and response from the online community. Facebook Fan Page India Against Corruption moved from a few thousand likes to a few hundred thousand likes in a matter of days. And these were not idol click of a button LIKES, but interaction happened. It was almost as if floodgates were opened on a famine stricken area.While the Administrator was interested in only one way posting and not conversation as is the spirit of Social Media – the do’s and don’ts of the Administrator can be discussed in another post. Each entry from the administrator got instant responses by hundreds.
Detractors of the Movement were quick to dismiss the support as armchair critics and the so called educated minority. They were quick to state that “JAN ANDOLAN” are on the streets through demonstrations and sit ins (dharnas) and not by click of a button. One commentator went on to state that the support is only to fill the void created by the culmination of cricket world cup and for some it is so in to talk about “ills of the society”. Examples were cited from Gandhi’s and JP’s movements from the last century.
Efforts were being made to discredit the movement by saying how many of these people will come to the streets if Government was to use force and that is how this people’s movement cannot be compared to Tahrir Square or other populist risings. Excuse me, don’t we claim to be a functioning democracy and don’t people have a right to speak their minds in one and why compare to a movement which was to overthrow a regime wherein the movement in India was not for any such cause.
Simplest definition of Democracy is “By the people, For the people and Of the People” and Not by the street, of the street and for the street. Agreed majority of India is not using internet and as per the last count Indians on Internet are approximately around 100 M out of a total of 1.2 Billion thus making it around 1% penetration. But does the fact that online population is a minority, its views are not to be heard ? The fact that these people are using internet does not disenfranchise them or does it ? Or it does, as they have the power to take informed decision and can not be swayed by caste, religion, money or the pretty boy image of a leader ? Or is this dismissal attributed that neither can you teargas, water canon or shoot online protestor.
On the other hand, is it not that times have changed. Would we dismiss mobile telephony because previous century was used to snail mail and inland letters and postcards and that was the mode of communication. Or would we dismiss mobile telephony and like to go back to the pigeons. Was that not a compulsion of the times and technical advancement from those days, in modern days one would possibly be put behind bars for cruelty to animals.
Village as a unit has always had its chaupal or village square as the connect point. Friends to meet, justice delivery, social interaction leading to matrimonial alliances, help and advise on disease, purchase or any other matter were sought and delivered through the Chaupal. And why not, for a common villager his universe was around the village and extended to villages which were around 50kms radius. We need not go back more then two generations to find out that majority let alone travelling across nations would not even have traversed the boundaries of their birth district.
Cut to the present times, travelling across India is par for the course for the educated and the social circle of influence for them if it does not traverse the globe at least touches different states in India. Imagine for this mobile population, what would constitute their Chaupal ? Their aspirations are on a larger scale, their advisors are diverse and need for them to keep in touch is no longer a shout across the garden. Social Media has done the Chaupal to the global villager, he can now connect with his friends, advisors, consultants and at times with foes transcending the geographical boundaries. And no wonder, he is also using this same medium to express, share and seek political views. Why should he step out on the streets to share his anger, discontent and frustrations about a system gone rotten, when he can do the same, with the help of technology from his home/office? We again come to the point – Democracy is about people and not about the medium. It is now for the political class to choose whether their democracy and participation is about people or about street. I, for one would be very uncomfortable with the educated on the streets because you know what brain always scores over brawn. Revenge of the nerd may transcend the peaceful coexistence which seem to have prevailed after the skirmish.

