Daily Times

“You will not be able to stay home, brother.

You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.

You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and skip,

Skip out for beer during commercials,

Because the revolution will not be televised.”

Every time one looks at the social
communication tools that have gained currency since the mid-2000s, especially Facebook and Twitter, which became the must-haves in the armamentarium deployed recently against several repressive regimes, it is hard not to think of Gil Scott-Heron’s above poem, sung by him to the beat of tumbadora and bongo drums. As the Arab Spring transforms into the scorching summer of death in places like Syria and Libya, the limitations of social media networks to affect political change — and the truth of Scott-Heron’s words — keep becoming clearer.

Not too long ago, social networking websites like MySpace and Facebook were places for individuals to meet, hook up and, sadly, break up too. I recall a National Public Radio (NPR) story about couples’ breakups in which texting and social media interaction played a significant part. An unsuspecting spouse did not pay much attention to their partner’s newfound interest in tech gadgetry and the extra time they were spending communicating electronically with strangers or exes. But in several studies the most significant finding was not that people were just upset with their spouse’s infidelity — they were really shocked and devastated by how stealthily social media had crept into their relationship. Many learned the hard way that affairs could now be conducted from the same house, same room and indeed the same bed without the significant other getting even a whiff of what transpired electronically. One individual told the NPR: “That is what would upset me more than anything…she was sitting right next to me, we were watching a movie and she was talking to someone else — and I had no idea.” However, the ultimate putsch in most such situations inevitably came live and not televised or broadcast on social media.

But how is this relevant to the use of social media as an agent of political change and Scott-Heron’s revolution? First and foremost is the element of surprise that took many like Hosni Mubarak off guard. Cliques like Mubarak’s had little clue about what gizmos and networks were all about, but were also unable to grasp that a nation ready to divorce the apparatchiks had discovered both a new romance and a new weapon to pursue this new flame. Regimes that were not startled, like Iran’s in 2009, were able to neutralise social media quite successfully and delay democratic change. But that element of surprise has now vanished almost across the board. Just like couples and marriage counsellors are becoming more attuned to signs of trouble and are creating safety nets and troubleshooting techniques, regimes too are adapting to what they perceive as the most dangerous characteristics of the social media: first of all, the opportunity it provides for alternative discourse and the logarithmic growth of this dissent and, secondly, the speed at which this narrative goes viral.

Wall-chalking and handbills were the political worker’s tools for the last three centuries, while the political leadership relied on pamphlets, periodicals and journals, and then on radio and tele-media, to get its message across. Rallies and marches ultimately were the avenues to get the masses out for political causes, which could be a single-point agenda or broader socio-political change and revolutions. Low-tech communication, by default, resulted in movements spanning years if not decades. But, regardless of the movement’s speed to peak, communication tools replaced neither the need for a clear political programme nor the organised political activity required to bring such a programme to fruition. Alexis de Tocqueville’s words, “The power of the periodical press is second only to that of the people,” remained true for both the political cadres and leaders.

The last several years (especially during the Arab Spring) have shown the strengths of social media but have also exposed its shortcomings as an alternative to organised political activity. Using social media networks, video websites like YouTube and blogging websites, individuals and groups have successfully countered the official narrative and have offered an alternative opinion that, in most cases, is able to sway the mainstream media favourably. Both well-designed and improvised technological tools also helped avert or delay the state’s crackdown in many cases.

However, as is becoming evident in many situations, the leaderless decentralised networks are as much a liability as strength, especially when facing the full might of a modern state. Social media inherently does not have the ability to produce a formal political programme and, indeed, an alternative leadership. In places like Saudi Arabia, where organised political activity has been virtually nonexistent, even a few thousand people signing up on Facebook protest pages is a giant leap forward. But, in countries like Pakistan, with a history of fairly robust political movements, the failure of opinion-leaders using the social media to harness the power of these avenues to firm up an alternative political discourse is rather disappointing.

In a roundabout way, the NGO-style groups and individuals that have chipped away, perhaps unknowingly, on the strength of politics since the 1980s are pursuing through social media what, prima facie, appears a political programme but, in actuality, is its exact opposite. Herein lies the paradox of depoliticised activism. Taking up individual causes and issues has been the hallmark of NGO-style activism whereas organised political forces eye the whole political system. Depoliticisation masquerading as activism is a diagnosis not to be missed because a piecemeal approach to political change has never been successful.

While the Arab world was politically empowered by social media, Twitter and Facebook have made us rather complacent and lagging behind. The Arabs went from negligible political movements to significant politicisation. Where political activists would have taken to the streets, we have morphed into slacktivists, tweeting, re-tweeting and tweeting again. For the emergence of a cogent and actionable course through dialogue on the social media, the digital divide ought to be parted; a connection must be established between keyboard ‘activism’ and the street. The present disconnect with the common man and our inability to compose a new political charter only empowers those who are licking their wounds. Political breakthroughs cannot be electronic only. As Gil Scott-Heron had concluded:

“The revolution will not be televised, will not be televised,

will not be televised, will not be televised.

The revolution will be no re-run brothers;

The revolution will be live.”

The writer can be reached at mazdaki@me.com