Oxford Union Debate:”This House believes that the Internet is the greatest force for Democratisation in the World”
10 Comments Published by tobias.escher May 18th, 2007 in *OIINEWS, political participation18th May 2007, 8.30pm, the Oxford Union debates the following motion:
“This House believes that the Internet is the greatest force for democratization in the World”
(for some background on the event see my earlier post)
supporting the motion:
- Alex Campbell (from Oxford)
- Jimbo Wales
- Ron Deibert
- Bo Aung Din
opposing the motion:
- Andrew Goodman (from Oxford)
- Jonathan Zittrain
- Robert Amsterdam
- John Palfrey
(for a bit more info on the speakers see OII Events).
Below follows a summary of the whole discussion. Of course, despite my best efforts some of the brilliant rhetoric gets lost but fear no more: the debate will be on the Web soon on http://webcast.oii.ox.ac.uk.
8.40pm:
ok, its starting off with the Union (which is basically a club of Oxford students that are willing to pay £180 for life membership) discussing some of its internal business: Just try to stay serious and not start laughing as it seems to be an opportunity for the (wannabe) upper class to play politics, discussing with a serious face and with British manners speed dating, free ice cream and stripping.
8.50pm:
Eventually, the public debate is opened. Alex Campbell, a Union member who is apparently trained in debating, made the motion and introduced the speakers (frankly admitting that he got all his information from Wikipedia). His reasons for the motion:
- Internet introduced democratic concepts: freedom of speech, freedom of press, more difficult to suppress information
- it incubates democratic values by using the technology; more difficult for governments to divide its own people (divide and conquer)
- helps mobilizing and organizing resistance
- what other forces are out there? UN, weapons, etc don’t work
Andrew Goldman (Oxford) opposes because
- Internet is used for suppression, it’s a weapon in the hands of states, because they can control what people do on the Internet; much easier to track and watch people
- filtering distorts what people see online and consider as being free information
- software and computers can be used as weapons, by states but also by terrorists
- Internet can influence elections, e.g. by DDoS attacks on opposition websites; this kind of tempering is much less obvious than traditional tempering that can be noticed by international observes
- Internet in developing countries is diverting resources from more important developing projects
Ron Deibert made a great defence of the Internet:
- it is a force of democracy, but only for a particular type of democracy: mass participatory democracy.
- He admits that it has not not only good effects (e.g. celebrities, plagiarism, terrorism, etc). However, the best case for Internet as a democratizing force is to look at the forces that despise democracy and who all feel threatened by the Internet. This is because it threatens protected spheres of knowledge.
He quotes an example from Burma: who owns a laptop can go to jail for 15 years, because for fear of the Internet. - State filtering is proof of the force of Internet because regimes feel threatened
- Internet can also give citizens the power to fight their regimes; he is the prime example because the small software tool he is developing threatens “The Great Firewall of China”
John Palfrey even managed to top Ron Deibert’s already brilliant rhetoric performance:
He thinks that only geeks might use the Internet in favour of democracy: “geeks are a force for democracy”. However, he believes that
- Internet and participatory activities are not used by the masses
- the way people use the Internet is not in favor of democracy: “the Internet is for porn” (ok, and entertainment)
- the way it is used just reinforces established institutions: it is used in traditional ways (leftwing, rightwing etc); he quotes Sunstein’s republic.com: while we can all speak up nobody listens; what is more, censorship is steadily increasing: “the Internet is a tool for tyrants”
- Internet is no force but a bunch of wires, the greatest force are the people, not the network, “the network is stupid”
Q&A from the floor:
it got rather silly with the first questions:
opposition: photos of Union officer wrestling naked could only leak to newspapers because of the Internet
support: allows people to see things they could not see otherwise, it provides every single detail of your life
opposition: Internet is just a neutral tool, it depends on what people make out of it
support (by Peter Gabriel – yes, it’s him. This can only happen to you in Oxford…): he knows from his own work that Internet gives disadvantaged and oppressed people a forum to voice their opinion
10pm:
support (by Bo Aung Din): his party has used the Internet as a force for good because it enables them to work, enables access and dissemination of information; in the case of Burma (Myanmar) for example, only on the Internet one can find information about resistance to the dictatorship but not on mainstream media; his party uses Internet deliberately to put forward their political views and could gain much support;
(While his cause is worthy, he tremendously overruns his time limit reading out his prepared statement.)
10.15pm
This has to be noted separately: The president of the house has just fully disqualified himself by thanking the speaker from Burma that “he came all the way from the jungle in Thailand”.
opposition (Robert Amsterdam, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s laywer, again a person well versed in rhetoric): Internet is tremendously dangerous, outrageous that companies can make money by supporting government oppression, by handing over people to the authorities (e.g. 14 bloggers arrested in May 2007), it is not the Internet, it is the rule of law that protects people; “How much democracy has occurred in China since so many people have computers?”, with Internet less hope for democracy in China than before because it petrifies people; people don’t talk to each other
support (Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia): people use Wikipedia to graduate in school and University; despite all the threats, the activists are still doing it because despite all its dangers the Internet is still the most effective tool for democratization;KJ (a Taiwanese girl) is helping mainland Chinese Wikipedians to circumvent censorship
ok, we are well 2 hours in the debate and so far we haven’t seen any female members voicing an opinion…
opposition (Jonathan Zittrain, professor at the Oxford Internet Institute, who again delivered a brilliant speech): notes agreement that the Internet is the greatest force for something in the World, but for what?; essence of democracy is the vote but this is not the point of the Internet which does not follow the binary logic of yes or no, good or bad etc.; it works rather like the IETF: rough consensus and running code; “Wikipedia works in practice but not in theory”; e.g. Wikipedia is not a democracy but still it works because you can fork it at any time; “Internet can be the greatest force for community, even for humanity, but not for democracy”: it is much better than a democracy in which you can only vote from time to time; therefore he urges to vote no
10.50pm
Well, that was fun. Still not sure whether the motion has passed
11.30pm
Ok, now it is official: The Internet is not the greatest force for democracy in the world (folks at the simultaneous Personal Democracy Forum would probably beg to differ). Apparently the closest vote this year so far, the “ayes” get around 80 votes, the “noes” got more than a hundred.
10 Responses to “Oxford Union Debate:”This House believes that the Internet is the greatest force for Democratisation in the World””
- 1 Pingback on May 19th, 2007 at 1:31 am
- 2 Trackback on May 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm
- 3 Pingback on May 30th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
- 4 Pingback on May 31st, 2007 at 11:01 pm
- 5 Pingback on Sep 20th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
- 6 Pingback on Nov 8th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Leave a Reply
Search
About
Since October 2006 I am both a DPhil student as well as a research assistant at the Oxford Internet Institute and here I share with the accidental reader my musings on different aspects of the Internet and society. Feel free to comment or simply ignore :-)
-----------------------------------
Tobias Escher
Oxford Internet Institute
1 St. Giles
Oxford OX1 3JS
firstname.lastname@oii.ox.ac.uk
+44 (0)1865 287210
Dear friends, just one point if I may The absence of a picture of Bo Aung din?
I did accompany the chairman to the debate, and a fine performance it was by all, its a shame we lost the vote, but the PDP is still moving forward because of the internmet. thanks
regards
peter
Peter,
thanks for your comment. You are right, a picture of Bo Aung Din is missing because he stood a bit too far away for my awful mobile camera. Anyway, I know there were plenty of people taking pictures, so maybe someone can offer a good shot?
I sincerely hope this contribution is not too drawn out, but it does I’m sure have a direct bearing with some force behind it, and will hopefully be a learning curve to some.
UK.org.
A voice for Burma:
Comment:
24 May 2007
HOW THE INTERNET HAS CHANGED THE COURSE OF EVENYS IN BURMA:
18th May 2007, Oxford University UK, a debate on whether the internet has the power to democratise, or, bring about the reverse?
The very fact ‘Chairman’ Bo Aung Din; the Parliamentary Democracy Party (Burma) was an invited speaker at the worlds most prestigious debating arena, does in its self play witness to the power of the internet toward informing people of the truth, who otherwise would have to depend on the conventional media machine along with its misinformation and contorted interpretations.
The PDP, being the largest active opposition party struggling for democracy in Burma, has been, since its re-emergence, kept out of the worlds media for reasons we can only guess, though mostly accurate guesses, which would probably be odds on. However; we will not go into that this time around as we all know the answer.
The internet, has allowed a free for all open platform. It has opened the door, to what was, a locked and unreachable cubicle, where questioning the deceitful, debating the suspicious, was impossible. In Burma’s case, the military regime prevents the use of the internet unless it is strictly under their control, the penalty for misuse under their terms, can mean a period of long and arduous imprisonment or even death. Under similar terms, the world’s media chose to block out all other opposition to the military regime other than the NLD, with Suu Kyi at its head. The last, has in effect, prevented democracy from taking root, the very thing the so called ‘free press of the free world’ is supposed to stand for? It also sends the message that had the NLD taken office that all opposition would be ignored, even persecuted?
The impact of this politically motivated act, has allowed the suffering to continue for an extra 17 years after a failed election, without a hint of progress, quite the opposite in fact.
The ‘PDP’ had a duty to the people to make changes; it has by using the internet!
After numerous attempts to persuade the media to give other opposition parties a platform, and, after being advised to leave politics by the British Foreign office, (for a British representative to advise a Burmese democratic political opposition leader, to stand away from the politics of his own country, is an outrageous, bigoted and inflammatory remark, and speaks volumes about how policy of one country attempts to control life and death in another!) No doubt the excuse will be that it was for the good of Burma, even perhaps the world? But of course the truth is very different! Certain people have now started to choke on those words because they totally misread the character of; ‘Chairman’ Bo Aung Din, (PDP Burma) and were completely ignorant of his past!
The internet was chosen by; ‘Chairman’ Bo Aung Din, (PDP (Burma) together with its central committee, as the platform in which to promote the party and its policies. Already, the internet had provided a platform for open debate among Burma exiles and foreign Burma watchers alike.
Unfortunately, fear of standing out against the regime or the NLD, NCGUB, together with its henchman Sein Win, was still holding back true feelings held by many. Until that was; the PDP paved the way by speaking the truth and confronting those who were profiting from Burma’s dilemma and holding back progress toward democracy. It opened all the flood gates. Today, open debate on the internet, covering Burma’s situation is probably undertaken more so than any other political bench in the world today! Only the internet could have provided such a tremendous opportunity to promote what the world’s media blocked out! For a people who felt trapped and were forced to submit to indoctrination imposed by the worlds media are now beginning to brush aside the blanket of obscurity and see things as they really are, and more importantly, are acting accordingly!
Because of the internet, the PDP has been able to reach the world, as well as the people of Burma. It has helped, no; it has changed, the way people previously perceived freedom of speech, and the impact it has on world events. It will invariably change the political course of all powers, whether tyrannical or democratised?
Those who control the internet or more so the satellites which allow it to function, could simply shut it down, the same way they could shut down the mobile phone system. They prefer however; too monitor what goes on. Who cares? What the internet does besides allowing an information highway as it’s termed, is for those who would normally stay silent, to speak out. This works to benefit those who monitor and those who offer information and of course, those who seek it. It does not matter if the authorities watch and listen, so long as those seeking information receive it. The watchers cannot inflict their authority on millions of people, and if they remove the leading voices, the information highway will still continue to grow.
At a guess, the military for example, are probably years, even decades, technically more advanced, than any other part of society, if they’re not, we are in trouble. So let them watch & listen.
The world is moving toward a time where every individual, wants his/her say, compared to the Britain of yesteryear as an example, where a democratic people voted as their parents did, without ever really knowing what it is exactly, that they are voting for!
Today’s politicians have to consider this phenomenon. No more can they calculate votes by simply counting on the ‘workingman’s’ inherited support, nor indeed the other side of the coin.
The British people have for countless decades, been individually minded in private, always voicing their opinions, but have ‘mob’ tendencies, when ever called upon to vote. They do not want to be labelled as outcasts in their communities, or worst still, to be called a snob. “Why did you vote Labour then” one would ask, “well, I can’t betray my father, or my social standing, can I?
It works the same way in all areas of our society, or at least it used too!
The internet is changing attitudes with far reaching consequences for the way our world perceives democracy. The attitude of; present day democracies, (democracies said with tongue in cheek) ‘this is good for us, but you can’t have it just yet because your demise is our reward and comfort’, is fast disappearing with the aid of the internet!
The rapid change in both; outside & inside attitudes towards Burma’s situation and the pace in which the ‘Parliamentary Democracy Party’ has changed the way the whole political spectrum is now viewed, is proof of how the Internet is a force for democratisation!
UK.org
Jonathan was partially right when he said ” the Internet can be the greatest force for community, even for humanity”. But I beg to disagree when he said ” not for democracy”.
Democracy is not merely about voting. It is also for consensus, and choices, and I say, free will.
The Internet creates perceptions and therefore influences opinions that create choices and consensus. Without it, especially at this time and age, democracy cannot flourish.
If it can be the greatest force for humanity, it can be for democracy. After all humanity and community are bedrock of democracy.
I am for the affirmative.