Alternative politics and liberation technologies – Can civil societies leverage digital technology?
The term ‘civil society’ has been a trending component within the sociopolitical arena. While consisting of social institutions which are often branded as being apolitical with varying degrees of voluntarism, self-governance, and not-for-profit operation strategies (Salamon et al., 2004), they often find themselves tangled up in sociopolitical echo chambers. Although many institutions such as churches, social clubs or charities etc. may fall under this category, the main focus of this article is on the non-governmental and or non-profit organisations. Whether it is a matter of demystifying and or challenging social structures, these civil societies organisations (CSO’s) have served as public arenas within which views are formed, produced and shared. In an exceedingly globalised world, how is this made possible? Is the work of civil societies even important? How can their work be amplified? For the most part in as much as this ‘third sector’ – independent with expansive social ties and public engagement, provides an underlying social fabric to address issues that have not been satisfactory handled by the government, its activities can sometimes be obstructed by state organisations. This is troublesome especially considering they function as bridging structures between governments and civilians. In the contemporary world, digital technologies have come to enable a new global civil society that is difficult for governments to regulate. Additionally, they also provide quick and affordable ways to have political discussions. All these efforts contribute to what is termed – digital democracy.
In Africa, a continent facing challenges with democracy, such as unconstitutional changes in government and the shrinking of civic space, despite strong public support for democratic principles, the work of CSO’s plays a huge part in necessitating and nudging dialogue and potential activism around these issues. Their core mandate therefore has been to amplify the voices of civilians to the relevant structures and possibly echo democratic and human rights related issues. In an exceedingly globalised world, democracy and democratization in contemporary times has shifted and paid a lot of attention to the role played by information and communication technologies (ICT). The ICT infrastructure not only has an “impact on the opportunity structures for political change and the range of possible outcomes, but the technologies themselves support new forums for political discussion and are themselves politicized media” (Howard 2010, 132). Digitalization and virtualization instances have come to impact socioeconomic, political, cultural environments in significant ways (Blühdorn amd Butziaff, 2020). With the rise of populism and ICT infrastructural development a wave of politicization has triggered new claims of empowerment (ibid.369). The digital space has become a focal point for activism and social action. While the internet facilitates spaces for online engagement and interaction, it also enables the development of new tools that can help people or groups wield ‘power’.
Leveraging digital technology
Digital technologies have revolutionised democracy imaginaries and contributed to what is known as digital democracy. Digital democracy relates to a sociotechnical system that uses digital technology to enable and enhance government and political practices (Fischli and Muldoon, 2024). Through it, collective power has been built through facilitated citizen participation which essentially has impacted political institutions. Digital technology has significantly influenced democratic processed through shaping campaign strategies, polarizing the public opinion and necessitating political mobilization (Giladi, 2016). Research shows that through its tools, new participatory processes have been enabled contributing to a broader organisation and mobilisation of political communities (Rahman, 2017: 751). Additionally, it has also helped amplify citizens voices around key issues (Pena-Lopez, 2017). This shows how it can be used to legitimise existing institutions while in contrast enabling conversations of how to change them. Digital technology can thus be heralded as being either a destroyer or ultimate harbinger of democracy (Fischli and Muldoon, 2024).
Through the use of digital media, it therefore appears that on one hand citizens are empowered through demonstrated movements such as the #RejectFinanceBill2024 – a youth led protest that swept Kenya in 2024 following the much-touted tax-rising policies and #EndBadGovernance – a youth led protest in Nigeria addressing the governance challenges. On the other hand, digital media is instrumental in inciting destructive behaviours which border tendencies of populism and polarization (Engesser et al., 2017). Essentially political leaders may use or avoid the use of digital media depending on political context (Lorenz-Spreen, 2023). This is seen in the instances where some leaders use digital media to undermine democracy and civil society through targeted messaging that disinforms and foments polarization, on the other hand some leaders may ban its use altogether or implement digital surveillance as seen in most cases in Africa e.g. Egypt and Uganda where leaders implemented social media bans particularly during the election period. We therefore see how digital democracy has been related to the implementation of e-governance (Bastik, 2017), e-voting (Lorenz-Spreen et al., 2023) and social movements (Pavan and Felcetti, 2019; Storer and Rodriguez, 2020). CSO’s contribution therefore rests on the latter. In their quest of activism – raising awareness, mobilization – social movements and education – virtual events they can leverage digital technology. They have the potential to create more trust in public institutions, engage citizens in participatory action, and enhance the quality of democratic decision making. Digital technology therefore enhances how CSO’s organize themselves locally, regionally and globally, however the perception of access and ethical uses of digital technology must still be questioned.
Challenges in Africa
For feminist and communication theorists, the idea of technology being strategically used to reinforce oppressive ideas has not changed. According to Megiddo (2019) in as much as social media and internet have revolutionized activism, they have come to be a pending target of governments, obstructing the very activism that empowered many marginalised voices. Although CSO’s have facilitated citizen participation and advocated for the empowerment of marginalised groups through pushing for accountability and transparency from governments, they have experienced challenges. The digital divide is no exception. In spaces with digital access, there are added layers of complexity which include the rise of strongman syndrome and corruption which has subsequently led to the rise of digital surveillance, social media bans[1], and digital weaponization – in the instances of hate speech during electioneering campaigns[2]. The strongman syndrome has been quite an interesting turn of politics within the 21st century. Characterized by democratically elected leaders with autocratic leadership styles, it has been legitimated and sustained by the suppression of media, digital surveillance and weaponization. Politics of this nature indicate the failure of democratic institutions which calls on activists. In a continent where such politics may be evident it may be difficult to carry out CSO missions directed at human right activism.
In conclusion it is needless to say the use of digital technology while appropriate for purporting digital democracy may sometimes be restrained by government structures. Some may even question if we are really liberated by the use of digital technology. In a continent with rising trends of strongman syndrome digital media may appear inadequate. Although virtual spaces may provide a new dignity to the rise of democracy, it is still vulnerable to manipulation. There are indications of control by elites which negatively affects democracy. Despite this however, civil society must not rest and continue to amplify their voices through the use of digital technology. This would help counter the disinformation and misinformation tactics employed by strongman in sustaining their hold on nations. Democracy requires active and constant participation.
Thelma Nyarhi is a Researcher at Democracy Development Program and writes in her own capacity.
References
Bastick, Z., 2017. Digital limits of government: the failure of e-democracy. Beyond bureaucracy: Towards sustainable governance informatisation, pp.3-14.
Blühdorn, I. and Butzlaff, F., 2020. Democratization beyond the post-democratic turn: towards a research agenda on new conceptions of citizen participation. Democratization, 27(3), pp.369-388.
Engesser, S., Ernst, N., Esser, F. and Büchel, F., 2017. Populism and social media: How politicians spread a fragmented ideology. Information, communication & society, 20(8), pp.1109-1126.
Fischli, R. and Muldoon, J., 2024. Empowering digital democracy. Perspectives on Politics, 22(3), pp.819-835.
Howard, P.N., 2010. The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam. Oxford University Press.
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S. and Hertwig, R., 2023. A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy. Nature human behaviour, 7(1), pp.74-101.
Megiddo, T., 2019. Online activism, digital domination, and the rule of trolls: Mapping and theorizing technological oppression by government. Colum. J. Transnat'l L., 58, p.394.
Pavan, E. and Felicetti, A., 2019. Digital media and knowledge production within social movements: Insights from the transition movement in Italy. Social Media+ Society, 5(4), p.2056305119889671.
Peña-López, I., 2017. Participation in Spanish Municipalities: The Makings of a Network of Open cities. ICTlogy, March 2016, 162.
Rahman, K.S., 2017. From Civic Tech to Civic Capacity: The Case of Citizen Audits. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(3), pp.751-757.
Rasaq, A., Udende, P., Ibrahim, A. and Oba, L.A., 2017. Media, politics, and hate speech: A critical discourse analysis. E-Academia Journal, 6(1).
Salamon, L.M., Sokolowski, S.W. and List, R., 2004. Global civil society (Vol. 2). Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian.
Storer, H. L. and Rodriguez, M. (2020) ‘#Mapping a movement: social media, feminist hashtags, and movement building in the digital age’, Journal of Community Practice, 28(2), pp. 160–176. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2020.1757541.
[1] The forceful effort of regulating social media platforms through restricted access by state governments contravenes the international human rights standards of freedom of speech
[2] Rasaq et al. 2017 argue that the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) versus All Progressive Congress (APC) hate-filled campaign rhetoric of 2015, was one of the factors that brought the former President, Muhammadu Buhari, to power.
