On
this post I will discuss the idea that information systems in international
affairs are changing the nature of governance, specifically focusing in the
concept of discoverability on a long tail. My argument is that in spite of the
increase on the access to production and reception of knowledge, Information
Communication Technologies (ICTs) are not able to allow coordination fully
independent from the state. However, it is necessary to recognize that ICTs
have the power to generate significant changes in the way people handle with their
needs and demand rights and services. In
order to achieve my objective, first I will shortly provide some insights about
the nature of electronically enabled collaboration, followed by practical cases
on this area. I will conclude with recommendations about how states in general should
deal with this new paradigm, as well as with questions to be discussed by the
participants of our blog.
Chris Anderson popularized the idea of
long tail in an October 2004 Wired magazine article, arguing that products in
low demand or that have a low sales volume can collectively make up a market
share that rivals or exceeds the relatively few current bestsellers and
blockbusters, if the store or distribution channel is large enough. This can be
visually represented in the graphic below, where the horizontal axis represents
“products” and the vertical axis represents “sales”.
One
aspect that is extremely important to strategies based in the concept of long
tail is the possibility to tag information, organizing online content in a way
that facilitate the identification of common interests and the discover of
related subjects, the “discoverability phenomenon”.
Since our purpose here is not to discuss
marketing strategies but how ICTs can have relevant impact in governance, it is
time to link the long tail with the effects related to the participation of new
actors that until less than two decades ago were not able to make their
opinions matters. Considering that the costs of coordination typically
associated to institutions severely decreased, we can think that our axis
”products” can also be considered as ”players” in the market of social needs,
at the same time that the axis “sales” can be considered as “demands”. The
players in the yellow area can be as significant as the
products/players in the left side, the “mainstream” part that usually get the
attention and is able to overcome the barriers of coordination. Now, if the
barriers of coordination are not that strong, alternative points of view and
demands that usually would be ignored are easily articulated, achieving
legitimacy and effective capability to produce actions in order to achieve
objectives.
There are two interesting examples of
the effects of ICTs in the field of governance.
Perhaps one of the first movements using ICT activism as a tool for
social change was initiated by the Zapatistas in the Mexican state of Chiapas,
Mexico. The poorest region of the country, with low levels of social
development, it was neglected by the authorities during the neoliberal euphoria
of the 90’s. However, it was the beginning of the internet in 1994, and the
group noted that although poor the access to the global network was possible
even to that small association. Shortly
speaking, the movement started to spread their ideas concerning the
inequalities related to globalization, proposing solutions and serious
questioning the government capability to handle with social demands. These
ideas were spread through a network of blogs around the world, related by links
associated by subjects in common. Also, mainstream media like CNN and The New
York Times, writers like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky, as well as the musical
group Rage Against the Machine started to support that “curious movement”, making
the Zapatistas a fashionable cause. As a result, the government was obligated
to negotiate with the so-called terrorists and the problems faced by the
Chiapas population were exposed to the entire international community
(Gelsomino, 2010).
Another interesting event occurred in
Chile, 2011. Traditionally presented as an example for Latin America due to
neoliberal politics adopted during the dictatorship of Pinochet, Chile faced
several demonstrations against its current educational system, based on private
institutions. Initially the mainstream media treated as any other protest in
the region. But things started to change when the leaders of the movement used
Twitter for mobilization. Noting the effectiveness of the tool to achieve
people, the government also started to tweet over the situation. The issue was
that the Executive Secretary of the Government tweeted that “kill the bitch,
puppies die”, referring to the leader of the movement Camila Vallejo. This
disastrous comment resulted on several critics even in the conservative media,
and the students discovered how to demonstrate the intransigency of the
government at the same time that new supporters joined the movement after the
information shared online, with massive march (100,000 marchers in August) and
the offer of relevant proposals for ending conflict.
In my opinion is clear that we are
facing an age characterized by the democratization of knowledge and states must
to be prepared to interact with social actors in this new context. That said,
it is strongly recommendable to consider ICTs as new tools that adequately
managed can offer an in depth understanding of needs in a society. This does
not mean that states should feel threatened by ICTs: they should try to
understand its logic in order to accomplish with social demands.
I just would like to conclude with two
questions over our subject. How can we review our traditional idea of state in
light of ICTs? It is possible for social movements to achieve their objectives
without any relation with states?
