DEMOCRACY’S
FOURTH WAVE?
Digital Media andthe Arab Spring
Philip N. Howard andMuzammil M. Hussain

Democracy’s Fourth Wave?

Oxford Studies in Digital Politics
Series Editor: Andrew Chadwick, Royal Holloway, University of London
The Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Information
Technology and Political Islam
Philip N. Howard
News on the Internet: Information and Citizenship in the 21st Century
David Tewksbury and Jason Rittenberg
The MoveOn Effect: The Unexpected Transformation of American
Political Advocacy
David Karpf
Taking Our Country Back: The Crafting of Networked Politics fromHoward Dean to Barack Obama
Daniel Kreiss
Revolution Stalled: The Political Limits of the Internet in the Post-Soviet Sphere
Sarah Oates

Democracy’s
Fourth Wave?
DIGITAL ME DI A AND TH E A RA B S P RI NG

P H I L I P N . H O WA R D
andMUZAMMIL M. HUSSAIN

1

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford.
It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research,scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Oxford New York
Auckland Cape Town Dar es Salaam Hong Kong Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Nairobi
New Delhi Shanghai Taipei Toronto
With offices inArgentina Austria Brazil Chile Czech Republic France Greece
Guatemala Hungary Italy Japan Poland Portugal Singapore
South Korea Switzerland Thailand Turkey Ukraine Vietnam
Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Pressin the UK and certain other countries.
Published in the United States of America by
Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016© Oxford University Press 2013

Subject to the exception immediately following, all rights are reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission from Oxford University Press, Inc.
Oxford University Press, Inc. has made portions of the book available under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommerical-No Derivative Works License Version 3.0 (by-nc-nd-sa); these chapters can be accessed through the author’s
website at http://www.pitpi.org.
Subject to this exception, all rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system,or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as
expressly permitted by law, by license, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reproduction rights organization.
Inquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford
University Press, at the address above.
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Howard, Philip N.
Democracy’s fourth wave? Digital media and the Arab Spring / Philip N. Howard and Muzammil M. Hussain.
p. cm.—(Oxford studies in digital politics)
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-0-19-993697-7 (pbk. : alk. paper)—ISBN 978-0-19-993695-3 (hardcover : alk. paper) 1. Arab Spring,
2010– 2. Information technology—Political aspects—Arab countries 3. Internet—Political aspects—Arab countries.
4. Internet—Social aspects—Arab countries. 5. Revolutions—Arab countries—History—21st century.
6. Arab countries—Politics and government—21st century. I. Hussain, Muzammil M. II. Title.
JQ1850.A91H68 2012
909′.097492708312—dc23
2012023604

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Printed in the United States of America
on acid-free paper

This book is dedicated to those who led and sacrificed for popular democracy.

Contents

List of Figures ix
List of Tables xi
Acknowledgments

Introduction

xiii

3

1. Digital Media and the Arab Spring17

2. The Recent History of Digital Media and Dissent

35

3. Information Infrastructure and the Organization of Protest
4. Authoritarian Responses and Consequences

69

5. Al Jazeera, Social Media, and Digital Journalism

89

Conclusion: Digital Media and the Rhythms of Social Change
Notes 127
References 133
Index 141

47

103

List of Figures

1.1.

Four Dictators—Ben Ali, Saleh, Gaddafi, and Mubarak—before theArab Spring. 24
3.1. Percentage of Tunisian Blogs with Posts on Politics, by
Keyword. 51
3.2. Number of Tweets in the Region Using Hashtags for Neighboring
Countries. 54
3.3. Pre-Uprising Structure and Content of Egypt’s Online Political
Sphere, November 2010. 59
3.4. Post-Uprising Structure and Content of Egypt’s Online Political
Sphere, May 2011.
60
4.1. Number of Major Incidents of State Intervention in Digital Networks,
by Regime Type, 1995–2011. 78
C.1. Mobile Charging Station in Tahrir Square.
122ix

List of Tables

I.1.

Popular Protests for Democracy in North Africa and the Middle East,
2012, with Minor Political Outcomes6
I.2. Popular Protests for Democracy in North Africa and the Middle East,
2012, with Major Political Outcomes8
2.1. The Comparative Context of Digital Media in North Africa and the
Middle East
42
3.1. Online Structure of Egyptian Political Parties, Before and After
Revolution
57
4.1. How Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Incidents byRegime Type 77
4.2. Why Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Incidents byRegime Type 80
C.1. Two Parsimonious Models Explaining Regime Fragility
114
C.2. Parsimonious Causal Solution Explaining Social Movement
Success 115

xiAcknowledgments

We have received many different kinds of support for this work. This material
is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation underGrant No. 1144286, “RAPID—Social Computing and Political Transition in
Tunisia,” and Grant No. 0713074, “Human Centered Computing: Information Access, Field Innovation, and Mobile Phone Technologies in Developing
Countries.” Additional support for case study research came from the US
Institutes of Peace under Grant No. 212 11F, “Digital Media, Civic Engagement, and Non-Violent Conflict.” Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or
recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do
not necessarily reflect the views of either the National Science Foundation or
US Institutes of Peace. Support for Hussain’s fieldwork in Beirut was provided
by the Department of Communication at the University of Washington. Support for fieldwork by Howard, Hussain, and other graduate research assistantsin Baku, Beirut, Cairo, Gaza, Istanbul, London, Sana’a, and Tunis was provided by the National Science Foundation. This research was conducted withthe approval of the university’s Human Subjects Division under Applications#32381 and #41115. Within our department, our hardworking chairs Jerry
Baldasty and David Domke supported this research through travel funding,coaching on grant writing, and permission to arrange teaching quarters conveniently. A fellowship from Princeton University’s Center for Information
Technology Policy supported Howard’s work on this manuscript.
Some of the material in Chapter 1 has appeared in “The Role of DigitalMedia” Journal of Democracy 22, no. 3 (Howard and Hussain 2011).1 Some of
the material in Chapter 2 appeared as “Opening Closed Regimes: Civil Society, Information Infrastructure, and Political Islam” in Comparing Digital
Politics: Citizen Attitudes and Political Engagement, edited by Eva Anduiza,
xiii

xiv

Ack n owl edg ments

Michael Jensen, and Laia Jorba (Hussain and Howard 2012). Some of the data
used in Chapter 4 were also used in “When Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks?” Communication Review 14, no. 2, co-authored with Sheetal
Agarwal (Howard, Agarwal, and Hussain 2011). For research assistance, weare grateful to Deen Freelon and Marwa Maziad. For helpful comments andfeedback through the writing of this project, Hussain thanks the organizers oftalks and workshops by the University of Wisconsin’s School of Journalism
and Mass Communication, the University of Louisville’s Center for Asian Democracy, Uppsala University’s Department of Informatics and Media, Harvard and MIT’s Truthiness in Digital Media Symposium, and the International
Affairs Program at the Lebanese American University. Hussain is grateful for
conversations with al-Husein Madhany (Brookings Institution and Doha Network’s New Media working group), Jordan Robinson (Silicon Valley Community Foundation), and Farha Tahir (Center for Strategic and International
Studies). For helpful comments and feedback, Howard thanks the organizers
of talks and workshops by the Freie Universitat Berlin, Radcliffe Institute,
Stanford University, and the US Institutes of Peace. Howard is grateful for collegial conversations with Lance Bennett, Dan Chirot, Larry Diamond, Kirsten
Foot, Steve Livingston, Joel Migdal, Malcolm Parks, and Gregor Walter-Drop.
Howard is also grateful for other conversations with Gina Neff.
The cover photograph was taken on Thursday, 10 February 2011, approximately 100 meters north of the Tahrir Square roundabout, the day President Mubarak enraged Egyptians by publicly refusing to step down. In
response, thousands of young people began rapidly organizing for Friday, 11
February 2011, or the infamous “Friday of Departure” that ended with
Mubarak’s resignation at 6 pm. This image speaks vividly to the intellectual
themes of this book, but it also depicts the very real individuals who braved
and sacrificed for more. For this photograph, we are grateful to Mr. Alisdare
Hickson who endured harassment and detainment along with hundreds
more. It is because of these individuals, documenting governmental brutalities and repression directly and intimately, that we have rich stories of victories to celebrate, losses to mourn, and lessons to glean. We have dedicatedthis book to them.
Philip N. Howard,
Princeton, New Jersey, United States
Muzammil M. Hussain,
Tunis, Tunisia

Democracy’s Fourth Wave?

Introduction

During the Arab Spring, four of the world’s most recalcitrant dictators—Zine
el Abadine Ben Ali of Tunisia, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Ali Abdullah Salehof Yemen, and Hosni Mubarak of Egypt—fell after decades in power. Each lost
power after unparalleled levels of social protest—and sometimes armed
conflict—called for an end to their tough regimes. The “Arab Spring” is whatmany international commentators are calling the cascading popular democracy movements that began in Tunisia, inspired Egypt, and consequently animated other movements across the region. Several autocrats have had todismiss their cabinets. Discontent has cascaded over transnational networks
of family and friends to Algeria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Yemen. Several countries remain in crisis, and in most of these countries it is not clear if the populardemand for change will result in new sustainable political institutions. Social
protests in the Arab world have spread across North Africa and the Middle
East, largely because digital media allowed communities to realize that theyshared grievances and because they nurtured transportable strategies for mobilizing against dictators. But the early months of the Arab Spring were notabout traditional political actors such as unions, political parties, or radical
fundamentalists. These protests drew out networks of people, many of whom
had not been as successful at political organization before: young entrepreneurs, government workers, women’s groups, and the urban middle class.
Ben Ali ruled Tunisia for 20 years, Mubarak reigned in Egypt for 30 years,
and Gaddafi held Libya in a tight grip for 40 years. Yet their bravest challengers
were 20- and 30-year-olds without ideological baggage, violent intentions, or
clear leadership. The groups that initiated and sustained protests had few
meaningful experiences with public deliberation or voting and little experience with successful protests. However, these young activists were politicallydisciplined, pragmatic, and collaborative. Where do young people who grow3

4

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

up in entrenched authoritarian regimes develop political aspirations? How dothey learn about political life in other countries where faith and freedom coexist?
The internet, mobile phones, and social networking applications havetransformed politics across North Africa and the Middle East. By contextualizing and periodizing the past decade of Arab media systems and information
infrastructure development, we can understand how, why, and to what effectthis transformation occurred. The contemporary political uses of digital media
and information-communication technologies did not erupt in a vacuum.
Local and international civil society actors learned to leverage social media
while autocratic regimes nurtured information management strategies to control and co-opt these social movements. Digital media use by multiple political actors and interests continue to shape emerging Arab media systems.
Where is social change possible through new communication networks?
How have social movements operated across global contexts since the growthof digital media? Since the third wave of democratization, there are few regionswith developing societies that remain non-democratic. These include thepost-Soviet sphere, some cases in East and Southeast Asia, sub-Saharan Africa,
and the Arab Middle East and North Africa. All of these regions have also
consistently experienced economic liberalization and adoption of new information infrastructure, both of which have further globalized their societies’interactions with the rest of the world. Of the four regions with persistently
non-democratic regimes, the Arab World has the largest number, with thegreatest diversity in political culture, media systems, and socioeconomic
makeup. What has made possible the rapid mobilization and collective protest
action we have witnessed recently? In what ways have ICTs become integrated
across the Arab World into the daily lives of its constituents? What role haveregimes played in controlling, facilitating, or co-opting new information infrastructures? Last, what role did existing media systems, particularly broadcast
networks, serve in connecting and transporting local images and discourses tothe rest of the world?

Civil Society Online
Civil society actors have flourished online, largely because much of the internet’s infrastructure is independent of state control. Civil society is often
defined as a self-generating and self-supporting community of people who

I n t rodu ct ion

5share a normative order and volunteer to organize political, economic, or cultural activities that are independent of the state (Diamond 1994). Civil society groups are a crucial part of all democracies, concerned with public affairs
yet autonomous from state bureaucracies so that government policy itself—
and government corruption—fall within their purview. Civil society is constituted by a plurality of groups representing diverse perspectives and promoting
those perspectives through communications media and cultural institutions.
Moreover, a key tenet of the shared normative order is that no one group canclaim to represent the whole of society, and that society is best served by amultitude of groups that contribute in different ways to the dissemination andexchange of information about public policy options and national development goals (Diamond 1994).
The importance of the internet for contemporary Arab civil society actors
can be attributed to two factors: first, many groups were pushed online because
other forms of political communication were inaccessible. Television commercials for advertising to the public were prohibitively expensive and regulated by the state. Radio commercials and newspaper ads were still beyond thebudgets of most small civic groups and also similarly regulated by the state.
The well-monitored broadcast media were a means by which the state andmainstream political parties regulated discourse. Second, the internet allowed
for content to be hosted on servers beyond the control of state censors andafforded anonymity to those who advanced political criticism. During timesof crisis, when physical spaces for public conversation and debate closed
down, the internet provided virtual spaces for political communication.
Over the last decade, civil society organizations have been pulled online
because of the internet’s expanding user base and changing demographics of
the internet-using population. In part, this was a function of falling costs: inthe year 2000, the average resident of Cairo would have spent a quarter of hisor her daily income on an hour of internet access at a cyber cafe. By 2010,
around 5 percent of the average daily income would buy an hour of access at
an internet access point (Howard and World Information Access Project2007). In Egypt, civil society leaders have used the internet to reach out toforeign and domestic publics, build linkages with like-minded groups, raise
funds from group membership, activate support in times of crisis, and provide
social services. They also use the internet as a tool for critiquing the government and offering policy alternatives.
Even though a relatively small portion of the general population inthese countries has internet access, the portion that is online is politically

6

Ruler

Abdelaziz BouteflikaIsmaël Omar Guelleh

Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad

Nouri al-Maliki

Michel Sulayman

Mohamed Ould
Abdel Aziz

Algeria

Djibouti

Iran

Iraq

LebanonMauritania

2

3

5

6

12

12

Years of Rule

Small

Moderate

Small

Large

Small

Moderate

Wired Civil
Society

20

30

20

26

21

28

Median Ageof the Population

50 casualties or fewer; 50+ arrested, no significant
political victories

50 casualties or fewer; major resignations of opposition
leaders led to governmental collapse

50 casualties or fewer, Prime Minister al-Maliki threatened to dismiss poorly performing ministries and holdprovincial elections in near future (two years)

50 casualties or fewer; 1,500+ arrests; no significant
victories for opposition, government increased digital
media censorship (Live, Google, Yahoo, Skype, Mozilla,
and others)

50 casualties or fewer; 300 leaders arrested; election
monitors expelled, opposition leaders arrested, no
significant victories

50 casualties or fewer; two-decade state of emergency
liftedLevels of Protest for Popular Democracy
and Political Outcomes

Popular Protests for Democracy in North Africa and the Middle East, 2012, with Minor Political OutcomesCountry

Table I.1

7

Ismail Haniya (prime
minister); Mahmoud
Abbas (president)*

Emir Hamad bin
Khalifa Al Thani

Sharif Sheikh Ahmed

Omar al-BashirBashar Al-Assad

Khalifa bin Zayid
Al-Nuhayyan

Palestinian
Territories

Qatar

Somalia

Sudan

Syria

UAE

7

11

18

2

16

5

41

Source: News Reports during the Arab Spring protests

Qaboos bin Said Al
Said

Oman

Moderate

Large

Large

Moderate

Small

Large

Moderate

30

22

19

18

31

18

24

5 reform activists arrested, then pardoned

Massive casualties [7,000+], massive injuries [15,000+],
massive arrests [70,000+]; emergency law lifted,
Supreme State Security Court abolished, tax cuts made,Kurds offered citizenship1 death, 70+ arrested, 20+ injuries; president announced
that he will not run for 2015 election

No significant protests

No significant protests; Emir announced elections for
Shura Council

50 casualties or fewer; hundreds injured; major protests[30,000+], Palestine applied for statehood with UN

50 casualties or fewer; 150+ arrested; cabinet reshuffled;
increases in student allowances, unemployment benefits,
and retirement pensions

8

Ruler

Hamad bin Isa Al
Khalifa

Abdullah II bin
al-Hussein

Sheikh Sabah
al-Ahmed al-Jabr alSabah

Mohammed VI

Abdullah bin Abd
al-Aziz Al Saud

BahrainJordanKuwaitMoroccoSaudi
Arabia

6

12

5

12

12

Years of Rule

Moderate

Large

Small

Large

Moderate

Wired Civil
Society

25

27

30

22

31

Median Age of
the Population

4,000+ protestors offline, 25,000+ online; Low casualties[0–50], 150+ arrests; $90 billion+ announced for public,
women to have right to vote in 2015 municipal elections

Low casualties [0–50], 150+ injured; commission
established to draft new constitution, prime minister given
power over cabinet, parliamentary elections held

50,000+ protestors; $3,500+ per citizen with free food grantfor one year

Major protests [8,000+], some injuries [50–100];
dismissal and replacement of cabinet, $500 million in pricecuts and salary increases, Public Gatherings Law reformed
to allow unrestricted freedom of expression

Major protests [200,000+] and casualties [50–100],
thousands of layoffs, arrests, and instances of torture;
major increase in social spending ($2,500+ per family),major suppression of opposition

Levels of Protest for Popular Democracy and
Political Outcomes

Popular Protests for Democracy in North Africa and the Middle East, 2012, with Major Political OutcomesCountry

Table I.2

9

Hosni Mubarak*

Moammar Gaddafi

Zine el Abidine Ben
Ali

Ali Abdallah Salih*

Libya

Tunisia

Yemen

Bashar Al-Assad

Egypt

Regime Collapse

Syria

21

24

42

30

11

Small

Large

Small

Large

Large

18

30

25

24

22

Major casualties [1,800+], injuries [1,000+], and arrests[1,000+]; major resignations from ruling party andgovernment

Moderate casualties [200+] and injuries [100+]; ouster of
Ben Ali and prime minister, former ruling party disbanded,
political prisoners released, democratic elections held

Civil war and major casualties [7,000+]; eight months ofcivil war; overthrow of Gaddafi government

10 million+ protestors; major casualties [1,000+], 6,500+
injured, 12,000+ arrested; ouster and prosecution of
Mubarak and resignations of prime ministers Nazif andShafik, dissolution of parliament, disbanding of state
security services and former ruling party

Massive casualties [7,000+], massive injuries [15,000+],
massive arrests [70,000+]; emergency law lifted, SupremeState Security Court abolished, tax cuts made, Kurds
offered citizenship; over a year of civil war

10

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

significant. Internet users are very often a developing country’s wealthy
and educated elites. They tend to be younger and live in capital cities andurban areas, and they tend to be among the most politically active. So theclients for civil society organizations, whether those organizations arefaith-based, service oriented, or policy focused, are also potential members and supporters of civic agendas. The proliferation of consumer electronics has made it possible for civic leaders to reach new audiences, but
this trend has also empowered local civil society “startups” to launch both
small, permanent civic organizations and local, issue-specific campaigns.
For example, online civil society was vibrant but constrained in Egypt, but
growing and co-opted in Saudi Arabia.

Comparing Experiences across the Arab Spring
A focused, comparative analysis must take care to define the cases that are in
the comparative set and to explain why some are out. In this cross-case, eventdriven analysis, we look at the role of digital media in popular movements for
democracy that have posed significant challenges to authoritarian rule inNorth Africa and the Middle East since early 2011. Indeed, we argue that thecomparative method is the best approach to understanding the diverse, but
still shared, experiences that Arab communities in the region have had withdigital media and political change.
Activists around the world saw the creative ways in which protesters inNorth Africa and the Middle East used digital media, and other researchers
have posited links between that region and subsequent protests in Spain, theUnited Kingdom, China, and elsewhere, including the global “Occupy” movement. So it is plausible that activist strategies and inspirations resonatedbeyond North Africa and the Middle East. But for the purpose of this comparative work we exclude these cases and focus on the Arab countries in North
Africa and the Middle East. Tables I.1 and I.2 identify the countries studied inforthcoming chapters, with details about social movement activities. They areorganized by their political outcomes.
Within these countries are a common set of languages, similar if not shared
media systems, consistently authoritarian regimes, and rapidly increasinglevels of technology diffusion. Palestinian frustration was directed at Israel,
not the territorial government. Qatar had no major protests, but the government made concessions preemptively. The political opposition in Iran didI n t rodu ct ion

11mobilize during the Arab Spring, but with less success than achieved during
election protests in the summer of 2009. Despite the obvious diversity ofthese countries, three attributes make all 23 countries a useful comparison set:most of the countries have been slow to democratize, compared to the rest of
the developing world; most of these countries have more rapid rates of technology diffusion than the rest of the world; and social elites in nearly all thesecountries use technologies to censor political culture and manage information
flows in ways not often tolerated in the rest of the developing world, but withvarying sophistication and success.
Furthermore, there are several modular political phenomena across nations with significant Arab populations: political action is largely based on
the emulation of successful examples from others. This occurs through policy
imitation and coordination among several Arab countries, especially withregard to telecommunications standards, technology-led economic development, and internet censorship. For several decades, interior ministers of Arabcountries have held an annual conference to discuss successful ways of securing their regimes, and in recent years their agenda has extended to the best
ways of handling media and internet censorship. But such imitation also occurs among communities of social elites and the leadership of democratization movements. As will be demonstrated in the chapters ahead, ruling elites
learn about and imitate the successful strategies of their autocratic neighbors.
At the same time, successful democratization strategies are sometimes transported into the collective action strategies of movements in other countries.
Through regionalized processes of elite learning and defection, Arab countries seem to democratize in similar ways, not necessarily following the recipes for democratization that have been followed in other regions and atother time periods. Across many Arab countries, democratization movements appear to be learning to use information-communication technologies
from each other, linking up to share experiences, and transporting successfulorganizational strategies. Yet these modular political phenomena are not justfound among social movements: state bureaucracies learn censorship strategies from each other, political parties in Arab countries learn how to use
ICT’s from sympathetic parties in other countries, and part-time and fulltime journalists learn new online research and publishing strategies fromeach other.
Second, many Arab countries have shared technology diffusion patterns
and similar systems of political communication, which are together distinct
from those in other developing countries. Holding economic wealth constant,

12

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Arab countries have among the highest rates of technology adoption in thedeveloping world. Moreover, many Arab governments have responded to the
new information technologies in consistent ways: censorship strategies havebeen developed with similar objectives of cultural control, internet service
providers are held legally responsible for the content that flows over their networks, and government agencies work aggressively to support (often“Islamic”) cultural content online. There are, of course, interesting differencesamong the countries that may account for why digital media were importantfor political mobilization in some places and not others. Some of these countries have significant fuel economies, others do not (rentier states have long
been shown to easily subsidize massive welfare and state security organizations to serve regime interests). Some have high levels of digital media use,others do not. The character of authoritarian regimes also varies, with constitutional monarchies, secular regimes, and states with so little capacity to
govern that they are not even very good at being authoritarian.

Causality and Context
In a sense, all methods are comparative. Research that involves large
numbers of cases often involves statistical manipulations that are designed
to reduce the number of explanatory variables while expanding the population of cases explained. Even individual country case studies involve some
general comparisons to neighboring countries or earlier time periods, or
involve setting the particular case into sharp relief against global trends. We
do not believe it is useful to compare the Arab Spring to the French Revolution or Russian Revolution. Instead, we seek to compare social movement
activities and political outcomes within the region, within the current temporalities of technological and technocratic change. In comparative communication research, our goal is to examine media systems, technology
diffusion patterns, the political economy of news, journalism cultures, andtechnology and telecommunications policy (including engineering standards and intellectual property law). The goal of this book is not a general
introduction to the Arab Spring, and readers looking for such an introduction might turn to the collection of essays printed by the Council on Foreign Relations or Marc Lynch’s well-considered The Arab Uprising (Council
on Foreign Relations 2011; Lynch 2012). Our book takes a focused look at
the role of digital media during the Arab Spring. But making digital media

I n t rodu ct ion

13

the entry point for an investigation of the causes of the Arab Spring does notmean that we are only interested in the internet, or mobile phones. In fact,studying the media has come to mean understanding a wide range of technological affordances, telecommunications policies, and cultures of use.
Our definition of digital media is a deliberately extensive one: digital media
consist of (a) the information infrastructure and tools used to produce anddistribute content that has individual value but reflects shared values;(b) the content that takes the digital form of personal messages, news, andideas, that becomes cultural products; and (c) the people, organizations,and industries that produce and consume both the tools and the content(Howard and Parks 2012).
The tendency among pundits and the popular press is either to make strong
arguments about how digital media “caused” the Arab Spring or to dismiss
even the possibility of such a causal role with passing reference to the difficultyof agreeing on what causality means. Some argue that information technologies may have had a role but that there were more important singular factors
at play. We believe—and this is the reason for this study—that it makes more
sense to look for combinations of causal factors. Sometimes researchers callthese conjoined causal explanations, and they allow for both the preservationof some nuance specific to particular cases and the ability to generalize about
a causal recipe that may be transportable to other cases. Our goal is not one
explanation but a few parsimonious explanations that cover the most cases in
the most sensible ways. We are less interested in the philosophical debate
about the nature of causality and more interested in the social consequencesof technology use that can be observed by studying a few cases in deep ways.
We seek to understand the context of political mobilization in a relatively
small set of countries in recent years, and we have relatively nuanced researchquestions. We do not seek to understand whether technology diffusion causes
democratization, because there are some obvious differences in country contexts and a range of political outcomes from the Arab Spring. But when did
digital media become an important means of social mobilization, and when
did digital media use have political consequences? In other words, when weredigital media one of the conjoined causal combinations of factors that
explained political outcomes, and when were they irrelevant? It may be thatthe causal combinations vary by country but that the one consistent component is digital media. We address this specific question at length in the conclusion, but after developing our framework and perspective in the preceding
chapters.

14

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Outline of the Book
Our argument proceeds by reviewing what we already know about digital
media and social change. Chapter 1 sets the stage for the Arab Spring and provides a narrative that connects online with offline actions, describes practicesof technology use and digital storytelling that have diffused across the region,and demonstrates how key political events had technological components andhow important technological interventions had political consequences. We
also provide a sequence of events during the Arab Spring, highlighting thesignificant moments at which digital media had a role in the evolution of therevolutions. The goal of this chapter is not to provide the definitive history ofthese events but to offer a “media history” of the events. Understanding thetimeline of events through the lens of digital media is an important first step,and in subsequent chapters we refer to this timeline to demonstrate the larger
mechanics of protest organization, regime response, and the political economy
of news.
Chapter 2 privileges the stories of civic leaders, bold activists, and regular
citizens who risked much to contest authoritarian rule in their respective
countries. This chapter celebrates the creative work of small groups of techsavvy protesters who managed to have a significant impact on the opportunity
structure for opposition leaders. But it also critiques their work, identifying
some of their failures, uncertain successes, and problematic outcomes.
Chapter 3 works to tell the longer history of digital media and dissent.
Many of the countries in this region are notable for not having, in decades, alarge public mobilization for democratic change. But these countries have all
had political activists and opposition groups. The Arab Spring was not theirfirst attempt at mobilization, nor was it their first attempt to use digital media
to awaken public sentiments. But in the spirit of technologically based innovation, many of these contemporary successes were beta versions of past failures
and lessons learned. The Arab Spring may have been their most successful effort to date to use digital media to rally public support, but this chapter serves
to set the context preceding the events of early 2011—especially also to highlight how strategies and challenges may evolve in the future.
Subsequently, Chapter 4 investigates the response of authoritarian regimes.
During the heady weeks of protest, authoritarian governments responded
sometimes with concessions, and then sometimes with violent crackdowns.
But every single government that faced public protest, regardless of regime
type, had some kind of digital-response strategy. There was a range ofI n t rodu ct ion

15

responses, some more sophisticated than others, and we explore which, towhat effect, and why.
Chapter 5 is about Al Jazeera and the changing political economy of news
in the region. Social media and consumer electronics have wrought havoc onnews markets, and indeed the relationship between news consumer and news
producer is now blurred. Al Jazeera became one of the most innovative news
agencies during the Arab Spring, using social media to disseminate fresh content to the rest of the world and bringing feedback from outsiders to desperate
activists. This chapter demonstrates how, at key moments, the social media
strategy of Al Jazeera not only raised its profile as a credible news organization
but also increased its clout as a political actor in the domestic game of opinion
formation in several parts of the region.
The final chapter offers a conservative list of the conclusions we can makeabout the role of digital media in the Arab Spring, bolstered by a fuzzy-set
analysis of the causes and consequences, successes and failures of national uprisings. The Western news media played up technology use in reporting fromthe region. Bloggers and tech-savvy activists promoted their role in leading
popular protest, perhaps obscuring the traditional methods and structures ofprotest that were at work. But what are the most reasonable things we canconclude by comparing popular protest movements from this moment acrossseveral countries? In which countries did digital media have a role in the success of social movement mobilization, and in which countries were social
movements successful but not really as a result of technology diffusion? We
conclude that certain recipes strongly corroborate the technological conditions under which regimes sustained their durability, particularly their level ofcensorship sophistication, as well as the presence of key technology factorsthat assisted the interests of social movements, especially access to mobile
telephony.

1
Digital Media and the Arab Spring

It has been 15 years since the last “wave” of democratization. Between 1989
and 1995, many remnants of the Soviet Union and failed authoritarianregimes in other parts of the world turned themselves into variously functional electoral democracies. By 2010, roughly three in every five states
held some democratic form (Diamond 2009). Certainly there were also
large, important countries that made few efforts at democratization, strategically important states run by hereditary rulers, and other states that
seemed to be slipping, sliding, or teetering on the edge of dictatorship. But
as a region, North Africa and the Middle East were noticeably devoid of
popular democracy movements—until the early months of 2011.
Between January and April 2011, public demand for political reform cascaded from Tunis to Cairo, Sanaa, Amman, and Manama. This inspired people
in Casablanca, Damascus, Tripoli, and dozens of other secondary cities to taketo the streets to demand change. By May, the political casualties were significant: Tunisia’s Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak, two of theregion’s most recalcitrant dictators, were gone; Libya was locked in a civil war;and several constitutional monarchs had sacked their cabinets and committed
to constitutional reforms (and some several times over). Governments aroundthe region had sought peace by promising their citizens hundreds of billions ofdollars in new spending measures for infrastructure projects, family and unemployment benefits, free or subsidized food, salary increases for civil servants and military personnel, tax cuts, affordable-housing subsidies, and social
security programs. Morocco and Saudi Arabia appeared to fend off serious
domestic uprisings, but the outcomes for other regimes were far from certain.
Democratization movements had existed long before technologies such as
mobile phones and the internet came to these countries. But with these technologies, people sharing an interest in democracy built extensive networks,

17

18

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

created social capital, and organized political action; virtual networks materialized in the streets. Brave citizens made their shared opposition to authoritarian rule known, and digital media helped to accelerate the pace of revolution
and build its constituency. Digital media served as an “information equalizer,”
so described by Seib, allowing for both the telling of compelling stories andthe management of all the small communications and logistics tasks that must
happen in concert if an uprising is to succeed (Seib 2008).
There are many ways to tell the story of political change. But one of themost consistent narratives from civil society leaders has been that the internet,
mobile phones, and applications such as Facebook, Twitter, and other social
media made the difference, this time. Digital media provided the important
new tools that allowed social movements to accomplish political goals that
had previously been unachievable. And judging by the reactions of dictatorsand other desperate political elites, digital media have become an importantpart of a modern counterinsurgency strategy. Looking back over the last few
months, what concrete things can we say about the role of digital media inpolitical uprisings and democratization during the Arab Spring? What do theevents of that time reveal about the contemporary narrative arc of democratization? What implications do the events of the Arab Spring bear for our understanding of how democratization actually works today?

Tunisian Origins
On December 17, 2010, Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire. This young
street vendor had tried in vain to fight an inspector’s small fine, appealing firstto the police, then to municipal authorities, and then to the region’s governor.
At each appeal he had been physically beaten by security officials. Bruised,humiliated, and frustrated by an unresponsive bureaucracy and thuggish security apparatus, Bouazizi set himself alight in front of the governor’s office. By
the time he died in a local hospital on January 4, protests had spread to cities
throughout the country. It is not enough to say that news of Bouazizi’s tragic
death traveled quickly, because the state-run media did not cover his death or
the simmering hatred in the city of Sidi Bouzid. During those angry weeks in
December, it was through blogs and text messages that Tunisians experienced
what McAdam has called a “cognitive liberation”; networks of family andfriends, feeling sympathy for the dying man’s plight, came to realize that theyshared common grievances (McAdam 1982). The realization grew as people

Dig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

19

watched and uploaded YouTube videos about the abusive state, read foreign
news coverage of political corruption online, and shared jokes about theiraging dictators over the short messaging services (SMS) of mobile phone networks. Through communication networks beyond state control, people
crafted strategies for action and a collective goal: to depose their despot.
For many years, the most direct accusations of political corruption had
come from the blogosphere ( Jurkiewicz 2010). Pretty much the only investigative journalism into questionable policies and government corruption camefrom average citizens using the internet in creative ways. Most famous is thegraphically simple video of the Tunisian president’s plane arriving and leaving
Europe’s elite shopping destinations with his wife as the only passenger. Following the online publication of this video, the regime vigorously cracked
down on YouTube, Facebook, and other online applications. In fact, since1995 Tunisia has interfered with digital networks for political reasons moretimes than almost any other state. But a cottage industry of bloggers and activists took to the internet to produce alternative newscasts, create virtual spaces
for anonymous conversation about public policy, and commiserate aboutstate persecution. The critics of Ben Ali, president of Tunisia, dominated virtual spaces, but after Bouazizi’s death, these critics began occupying public
spaces. Shamseddine Abidi, a 29-year-old interior designer, posted regular
videos and updates to Facebook, and Al Jazeera used the content to carry newsof events to the world. Images of Bouazizi, hospitalized with burns, passedalong networks of family and friends, and eventually strangers. An aggressiveinternet campaign called on fellow citizens and unions to set up committees tosupport the uprising in Sidi Bouzid. Lawyers and student unions were among
the first to move into the streets in an organized way.
The government tried to ban Facebook, Twitter, and video sites such as
DailyMotion and YouTube. But within a few days SMS networks were the organizing tool of choice. Less than 20 percent of the overall population actively
used social media websites, but almost everyone had access to a mobile phone.
Outside the country, the hacker communities of Anonymous and Telecomix
helped to cripple government operations with their “Operation Tunisia”
denial-of-service attacks, and by building new software to help activists getaround state firewalls. The government tried to respond with a counterinsurgency strategy against its tech-savvy opponents, jailing a group of known bloggers in early January. For the most part, however, the political uprising wasleaderless in the classical sense—there was no long-standing revolutionary
figurehead, traditional opposition leader, or charismatic speechmaker who

20

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

radicalized the public. But there were prominent nodes in the digital networks, people whose contributions held sway and mobilized turnout. Slim
Amamou blogged the revolution (and later took a post in the national unity
government and the Arab World’s first “Pirate Party”). Sami Ben Gharbia, aTunisian exile, monitored online censorship attempts and advertised workarounds. “El Général,” a middle-class Tunisian rapper, streamed digital“soundtracks for the revolution.”
By early January, urgent appeals for help and amateur mobile phone videos
were streaming across North Africa. Ben Ali’s position seemed precarious. There
were major protests in Algeria, along with several additional self-immolations
across the region. Again, the state-run news media covered little about events inneighboring Tunisia. The Algerian government tried to block internet accessand Facebook use as traffic about public outrage next door increased. But withall the private submarine cables running to Europe, there was no mandatory
point of passage for information flows that the Algerian government could shut
down. When that government also became a target for the hackers, Anonymous, state information infrastructure suffered. By the time Ben Ali fled Tunisia
on January 14, active campaigns for civil disobedience against authoritarian rule
were growing in Jordan, Oman, and Yemen. In other countries, such as Lebanon, Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, minor protests erupted on a range ofissues and triggered quick concessions or had little impact. But even opposition
leaders in these countries drew direct inspiration from what they were tracking
in Tunisia. Moreover, opposition leaders across the region were learning the digital tricks for how to catch their ruling elites off guard. Compared to Tunisia,
only Egypt’s civil society, politically active and cautiously observing developments in Tunisia, was more wired. The stories of success in Tunisia, which soon
became more apparent, helped inspire the largest protests in Cairo in 30 years.

Egypt, Inspired
In Egypt, almost everyone has access to a mobile phone. Overall, the country
has the largest internet-using population in the region, second only to that of
Iran (although Iran is technically not part of the “Arab World”). This meantthat news of Ben Ali’s departure spread rapidly through Egypt’s social strata.
The specific news of his departure was covered, reluctantly, by state-run media.
But the same state-run media had been slow to broadcast news of the protests
in the region earlier in the month, and parallel protests in Cairo. Like Tunisia,

Dig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

21

Egypt has long had a large and active online public sphere. It is here that illegal
political parties, radical fundamentalists, investigative journalists, and disaffected citizens interacted. When the Muslim Brotherhood’s online news services were banned in Egypt, they moved their server infrastructure to London
and kept up their flow of online deliberations and political spin. But it was not
the established parties and unions that converted anti-Mubarak vitriol into
civil disobedience. It was the campaign to memorialize a murdered blogger.
Wael Ghonim, a regional executive at Google, started the Facebook group,“We are all Khaled Said,” to keep alive the memory of a young blogger who
had been beaten to death by police for exposing their corruption. Just as digital images of Bouazizi in the hospital passed over networks of family andfriends in Egypt, an image of Khaled’s bruised face, taken as his body lay in acity morgue, passed from one mobile phone to another, until thousands had
seen the picture and were actively developing protest strategies online. And
just as videos of a young girl dying in the streets of Tehran had inspired hundreds of thousands of people to take to the streets in the summer of 2009, thewebpage to memorialize Said became a portal for collective commiseration.
But more than being a digital memorial—Egyptian police have long tormented bloggers—this webpage became a logistical tool and, at least temporarily, a very strong source of community. Ghonim fast became the country’s
most prominent Tweeter, linking a massive Egyptian social network writing in
Arabic with networks of interested English-speaking observers overseas.
The first occupants of Tahrir Square shared many of the hopes and aspirations of their counterparts in Tunis. They were a community of like-minded individuals with similar backgrounds: underemployed, educated, eager for change,
but exhausted by the religious fervor and political ideologies of past decades(Bayat 2007). They found solidarity through digital media and used their mobile
phones to call their social networks into the streets. Protests escalated quickly.
Both government analysts and outsiders were surprised that such a large network of relatively liberal, middle class, peaceful citizens would mobilize against
Mubarak so rapidly. The traditional Islamists, opposition parties, and union organizations were there, but liberal and civil society voices dominated the digitalconversation about events and the public stages in squares around Cairo during
the igniting phases. News and speeches from Mubarak, Obama, and regional
leaders were streamed live to phones and laptops throughout the square.
Mubarak tried to disconnect his citizens from the global information infrastructure in the last week of January. It was a desperate maneuver with mixed
impact. A small group of tech-savvy students and civil society leaders had

22

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

organized satellite phones and dial-up connections to Israel and Europe, sothey were able to keep up strong links to the rest of the world. And it appears
that some of the telecommunications engineers acted slowly on the order tochoke off internet access. The first large internet service provider was asked to
shut down on Friday, January 28, but engineers didn’t get to it until Saturday.
Other providers responded quickly but returned to normal service on Monday.
The amount of bandwidth going into Egypt certainly dropped off for four days,
but it was not the information blackout Mubarak had asked for. Taking down
the nation’s information infrastructure also crippled government agencies. The
people most affected were middle-class Egyptians, who were cut off from internet service at home. Some people stayed there, isolated and uncertain about thestatus of their friends and family. But in the absence of information about thecrisis, others took to the streets, eager to learn what was going on.
A few days later, the Egyptian security services began using Facebook andTwitter as a source of information for a counterinsurgency strategy. They usedsocial media alerts to anticipate the movements of individual activists. They
abducted Ghonim once his Facebook group topped 300,000 people (it is now
well over 2 million). Digital media helped afford not only a cascade of civil
disobedience across the communities living under Egypt’s unflappable dictator but it also made for a unique means of civic organization that wasobserved, modified, and replicated around the region.

The Digital Contagion of Democracy
Digital media brought the details of social mobilization—and success—against the strongmen of Tunisia and Egypt cascading across the region.
Although many analysts did not foresee the Arab Spring, there was evidence
that Egypt, Tunisia, and other countries shared features with others that had
experienced technology-enabled democratization in recent years (Howard2010). As images of Bouazizi in the hospital, burned and bandaged, circulated
beyond Tunisia, his act of self-immolation inspired similar actions in Algeria,
Egypt, Morocco, Mauritania, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iraq.
As in Tunisia and Egypt, authorities in Algeria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Syria,
and Libya tried to stifle digital traffic about the prospects for domestic politicalchange. These governments also actively targeted bloggers for arrest, beatings,
and harassment. It is clear that digital media have had an important role inchanging the system of political communication during sensitive moments inDig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

23

regime transition. Images of jubilant protesters in Tunisia and Egypt inspired
others across the region. Facebook provided an invaluable logistical infrastructure for the initial stages of protest in each country. Text-messaging systems fed
people in and outside these countries with information about where the action
was, where the abuses were, and what the next steps would be.
Within a few weeks there were widely circulating online tip sheets on how
to pull off a successful protest. The Atlantic Monthly translated and hosted an“Activist Action Plan,” boingboing.net provided guidelines for protecting anonymity online, and Telecomix circulated methods for using landlines to circumvent state blockages of broadband networks. Through Google Earth,Bahrain’s Shia population mapped and aggregated photos of the Sunni rulingminority’s opulent royal palaces while many people lived in single-roomhouses with 17-member families. Digital media provided both an awarenessof shared grievances and transportable strategies for action.
Prominent human rights blogger Mahmood al-Yousif tweeted during his
arrest, instantly linking up the existing networks of local democratization activists such as @OnlineBahrain with international observers through @BahrainRights. In Libya, the first assertion of a competing political authority cameonline, on a website declaring an alternative government in the form of theInterim Transitional National Council. One of Gaddafi’s senior advisors
defected by tweeting his resignation and advising Gaddafi to flee.
Algerians with the same levels of dissatisfaction over economic prospects
found in Tunisia and Egypt broke out in protest in much the same way. Salima
Ghezali, a leading Algerian activist, told Al Jazeera in a phone interview that
this outbreak of protest was “both very local and very global.” Union-led
strikes had been common for decades, but protests of this scale had not occurred since 1991. Algerian protesters were not among the most tech-savvy inthe region, but before the country’s state-run media reported on local protests
or Mubarak’s resignation, many residents in Algiers had already received theinspirational news by SMS.

Digital Contexts, Political Consequences
The range of consequence across Arab regimes and leaders varied widely but
were nonetheless severe. Tunisia’s Ben Ali and Egypt’s Mubarak were removed
peacefully, while Libya’s Gaddafi was killed by rebel fighters, Yemen’s Saleh fled
his country, and Syria’s Assad has been embattled in a civil war (see Figure 1.1).

24

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Figure 1.1 Four Dictators—Ben Ali, Saleh, Gaddafi, and Mubarak—before the ArabSpring. (AP Photo/Amr Nabil)

The Algerian government removed its incongruous 19-year state of emergency.
Oman’s elected legislature got the authority to pass laws. Sudan’s war criminal
president promised not to seek reelection. All the oil-rich states committed to
wealth redistribution or the extension of welfare services.
But real-world politics is not just what happens offline. A classicallytrained social scientist trying to explain the Arab Spring would point tostatistics on the youth bulge, declining economic productivity, rising
wealth concentration, high unemployment, and low quality of life. These
explanatory factors are often part of the story of social change. It does notdiminish their important causal contribution to the Arab Spring to also saythat digital media shaped events and outcomes: digital media were singularly powerful in getting out protest messages, in driving the coverage bymainstream broadcasters, in connecting frustrated citizens, and in helping
them realize that they shared grievances and could act together to do something about their situation. Indeed, digital media may be among the mostproximate of causes because the motivations for protest against authoritarian rule alone had been insufficient for years. It never makes sense tolook for simple, solitary causes of revolution. But if the people behind these

Dig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

25

diverse movements had different reasons to hate their dictators, digital
media use may be one of the most consistent parts of the uprising narrativeacross countries.
Certainly, many journalists have focused on the visible technological tactics that seemed to bring so much success rather than looking at the root
causes of social discontent. But this does not mean that information technologies should be excluded from the causal conditions of social discontent.
Indeed, social discontent is not just a list of grievances. Collective grievances
gestate, and people have to come to agreement on what those grievances are.
In the last few years, this gestation process occurred online, particularly in
Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain. Social discontent took on an organizational form
and was ultimately translated online into actionable strategies and achievablegoals. In the last few months, this translation process has occurred over mobile
phones and social-networking applications, even in countries that are usually
very good at co-opting or suppressing opposition, such as Syria, Yemen, andSaudi Arabia.
Indeed, the range of grievances varied significantly from country to country. Dissent existed in these countries long before the internet. But digital
media helped turn individualized, localized, and community-specific dissent
into a structured movement with a collective consciousness about both sharedplights and opportunities for action. It makes more sense to think of conjoined
causal combinations: the strength of existing opposition movements, theability of the regime to buy off opposition leaders, and the use of digital media
to build opposition networks. It may be that causal combinations vary but thatthe one consistent component is digital media.
Broadly speaking, the internet has provided a means and a medium for political resistance across countries. There are several ways in which the new information infrastructure has had an impact on political communication andpublic opinion formation. These countries, with very different histories andvery diverse political cultures, have experienced similar changes to theirsystems of political communication since the advent of digital technologies.
Even though these regimes are very different, we offer propositions about how
they have opened up in recent years, largely due to the proliferation of digitaland networked information technologies. In most countries where online
news use has been surveyed, researchers have found that the number of people
who use the internet for political news and information peaks in times of crisis
or during elections but that most of the time only a fraction of active internet
users regularly consume news.

26

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Understanding This Wave
It may be premature to call these events a wave of democratization since political outcomes are uncertain and sustainable institutions take years, if not
decades, to build. Yet opposition to authoritarian rule was the consistent collective action goal across the region. Social movement leaders actively sought
training and advice from the leaders of democratization movements in othercountries, and rhetorical appeals for civil liberty appeared consistently fromprotest to protest. Either way, what are the phases of this latest “wave” ofpolitical change?
Looking back over the last 15 years, we can safely say that digital media
has—in different ways—become a necessary and sometimes sufficient causeof democratization (Howard 2010). Looking back over the first three monthsof 2011, there appear to be five phases to the story of digital media and theArab Spring: The first is a preparation phase that involves activists using digital
media in creative ways to find each other, build solidarity around shared grievances, and identify collective political goals. The ignition phase that follows
involves some inciting incident, ignored by the mainstream state-controlled
media, that circulates digitally and enrages the public. Next comes a phase ofstreet protests that are coordinated digitally. A phase of international buy-in,during which digital media are used to draw in international governments,
global diasporas, and especially overseas news agencies is next. This all culminates in a climax phase in which the state either cracks down and protesters areforced to go home (Bahrain, Iran), rulers concede and meet public demands(Egypt, Tunisia), or groups reach a protracted stalemate (Libya, Syria) and a
final denouement of post-protest information in an ideological war between
the winners and losers of any resulting social change.
Across the region, the buildup to political upheaval involved the erosion ofregime credibility through investigative research into corrupt practices. For
most of the constitutional monarchies, military rulers, and strongmen of theregion, the internet is the only place to find their critics. Blogs, news organization websites, Twitter feeds, and political listservs are where many womendebate on equal footing with men, where policy alternatives are discussed, andwhere regime secrets are exposed. The buildup to the physical occupation of acentral square is actually a fairly quiet process of proliferating mobile phones
and internet access. The arrival of new digital technologies becomes an occasion for restructuring the way individuals produce and consume content, sothat when a political crisis is ignited, the new habits of technology use areDig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

27

already in place. Many authoritarian governments use some form of social network strategy to surveil their public—Libya’s Jamahiriya domestic surveillance committees involved between 10 and 20 percent of the population(Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor 2005). As technologies
such as mobile phones and the internet proliferated and social media websites
drew more users, individuals began to assert greater control over their own
social networks.
Since 2000, technology proliferation has been particularly rapid in the
Arab world. This has resulted in improved informational literacy, particularly
in large cities. More people began to get news from overseas and to reconnect
with friends and family abroad. It is not that Tunisians and Egyptians decided
to have political protests and turned to digital media for logistical support.
They were already a relatively wired population who actively maintained theirsocial networks with digital media and then turned to the media they knew
best to organize protest. Digital media became a proximate cause of politicalrevolution precisely because a significant community of users was already comfortable using digital media before the crisis began. It may seem that digital
media use in times of political crisis is new. But for the residents of Tunis,
Cairo, and other capitals, it is the everydayness of mobile phones that makes
the technology a proximate cause of revolution.
Still, modern democratic activists do get formally trained in working with
consumer electronics. Recently, the US Congress approved $30 million to the
US Department of State to train more than 5,000 digital activists around theworld (Gaouette and Greeley 2011), and the Dutch Foreign Ministry has
promised another €6 million, while other Western democratic governments
are following suit. General “how-to” websites have become useful resources
for activist guides, like “How to Set Up a Dial-up Server.” The Alliance ofYouth Movements developed a timely list of activities that sympathetic publics
abroad could participate in to help Egyptians connect. There were guides tolaunching a local Facebook protest and sharing images, helping Egyptians dialup through Telecomix, redirecting Egyptian ham-radio signals to Twitter, running relays to increase activists’ anonymity, or petitioning Vodafone to reopen
their mobile networks in Egypt.
The ignition of popular protest is often a few specific acts of violence, carried out by security services, which are captured and memorialized online but
ignored in state-run broadcast media. Much thought goes into choosing the
day for rhetorically useful events. These deliberations happen online. There isan incident that is usually not covered by the mainstream broadcast media.

28

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

But it is covered by participants who generate their own buzz through digital
media. In Tunisia, the inciting incident was not just Bouazizi’s self-immolation.
In Egypt it was not just Khaled Said’s death, or the inspiring success of protest
in Tunisia. It was the participatory creation of news and discussion about these
events by networks of family, friends, and then strangers when the state-run
broadcast media did not air coverage of such activism. When Al Jazeera did notcover the digital activism in Syria, civic leaders there lobbied to have it covered.
Al Jazeera produced a long documentary and featured Syrian activist content
on its website. Consequently, interest in Syria’s opposition movement—both
within the country and across the region—grew rapidly.
Oddly enough, the ignition of social protest in this latest wave of political
upheaval does not seem to come with recognizable leaders. Charismatic ideologues, labor leaders, religious spokespeople, and eloquent nationalists were
noticeably absent in the first days of uprisings. For Tunisia, the ignition of
civic discontent was likely Bouazizi’s suicide. For Egypt, the eruption of collective dissatisfaction was probably the brazen example of Tunisian citizens
and their ultimate success, inspiration that came over digital networks offamily and friends from Tunis. For the rest of the region, both countries served
as examples of success, stories carried by the digital networks of social media
and Al Jazeera. Eventually, formal political actors and public figures joined in.
After ignition, the street battles of political upheaval began, albeit in aunique way. Most of the protests in most of the countries analyzed here wereorganized in unexpected ways that made it difficult for states to respond.
Demonstrators were relatively leaderless and not dominated by unions, existing political parties, clear political ideologies, or religious fervor. The street
phase of social protest involved a strategic use of Facebook, Twitter, and othersites to identify the times and locations for civic action. Regimes sometimes
adapted to this kind of planning and used the very same social media sites totrack who would be mobilizing where or to block particular pages and applications at chosen moments. Syria has blocked Facebook and Twitter on and off
since 2007, but the government opened access in the midst of political protest, possibly as a way of tracking and entrapping activists.
Activists were well aware of state-surveillance efforts, directing eachother to email, and urging one another not to post sensitive organizational
details publicly on Facebook and Twitter. When the Libyan government
blocked Facebook, activists took to Muslim dating websites and used theromantic language of courtship and dates to mask their planning for face-toface meetings and protests. When state officials in Syria started spreading

Dig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

29

misinformation over Twitter, activists used Google Maps to self-monitor andverify trusted sources. More often than not, the state simply mismanaged information technologies in ways that allowed savvy activists to perform creative workarounds. Mubarak disabled Egypt’s broadband infrastructure but
left satellite and landline links alone. Gaddafi tried to disable his country’s
mobile phone networks, but with multiple decentralized home-location
registers—including a key node in the eastern city of Benghazi—rebels wereable to reinstate the national registry showing which phone numbers linked
to which phones.
News coverage of events in the region regularly revealed citizens using
their mobile phone cameras to document events—especially their own participation. In Tahrir Square, tank commanders took photos of the crowds andshared them on their social networks. The occupants of Tahrir Square took
photos of the tanks, too. When army vehicles were abandoned, people took
pictures of themselves in the vehicles for their Facebook pages. People who
were arrested took pictures of themselves in custody. Some Egyptians openly
speculated that the reason the army did not systematically act against protesters was because soldiers knew they were being constantly photographed
and were suddenly aware of their socially proximate connection to the occupants of the square. In countries where the army was ordered to respond
more aggressively, the carnage was still documented. YouTube had to developa special waiver to its usual policy of not publicizing culturally offensive goreto allow the shocking user content being submitted by users in the field ofaction to go live.
Contemporary political opposition must eventually take the step of seeking
international buy-in, and this, too, has become a digitally mediated process.
Domestic turmoil can eventually capture international attention. Of course,
the degree to which a popular uprising finds an international audience depends
on the strategic relationship with the West and also on the proximity of social
media networks. Most technology users do not have the sophistication towork around state firewalls or keep up anonymous and confidential communications online. But in each country, a handful of tech-savvy students and civilsociety leaders do have these skills, and they used them well during the ArabSpring. Learning from other democracy activists elsewhere, these information
brokers used satellite phones, direct landline connections to internet service
providers (ISPs) in Israel and Europe, and a suite of anonymization softwaretools to supply the international media with pictures of events on the ground,even when desperate dictators attempted to shut down national ISPs.

30

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

The political climax of uprising takes the form of state crackdowns or
major concessions to popular demands that can include executive turnover.
Stalemates between protesters and ruling elites can result in protracted battles. But in each country, the political climax of uprising can also be marked
by a clumsy attempt by the state to disconnect its own people from digitalcommunications networks. Banning access to social media websites, powering down mobile phone towers, and disconnecting internet exchange
points in major cities are the desperate strategies an authoritarian government uses for reasserting control. And there are serious economic consequences to disconnecting a nation from global information infrastructures,
even temporarily. Interrupting digital services cost Egypt’s economy atleast $90 million and damaged the country’s reputation among technology
firms as a stable place for investment. In Tunisia it was activist hackers—“hacktivists”—who did the most economic damage by taking down thestock exchange.
Counterinsurgency campaigns have digital components: by the end of
April, activists in Bahrain, Morocco, and Syria had battled to dominate theircountry’s Twitter hashtags, which pro-regime advocates used to push out links
to photographs of national monuments and soccer statistics. During critical
moments, it can be difficult to tell whether the regime is shutting down mobile
phone networks or if digital switches are just being jammed from high use by
overworked systems. In either case, the peak moments of crisis are marked by
exceptionally poor connectivity—through crushing demand or regime interference. In many of these telecommunications markets, the outcomes are thesame: regimes crack down on the largest providers; demand peaks and isrerouted to the few small available digital switches. States either crack down
successfully; protesters and elites reach a stalemate with protracted, digitalbattles; or rulers concede and meet public demands.
Whether the state crackdown sends people home or the protesters send a
dictator packing, there is a post-protest information war. Once Mubarak left,
the State Security Investigative Service, Egypt’s security service, did its best to
destroy its organizational archives, though some records leaked online. The
websites of activists became portals for constant critique of whoever led thetemporary or transitional government. Losers, whether elites or activists, were
driven offline and their content became more difficult to find. Outsiders werequickly called to task for the side they took or their opinions on the future.
When US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was booked for a web chat with apopular Egyptian website, 6,500 questions were submitted in two days. By the

Dig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

31time the protests were over, a few of the digerati found that they had become
newly prominent political figures.
Traditional media sources have also had an important role in the ArabSpring. A key feature of authoritarian rule is that dictators appoint news editors. During the days of uncertainty in Egypt, Mubarak and his information
minister, Anas el-Fiqqi, called television anchors personally to berate themfor unflattering coverage. And satellite television has done much to create astrong sense of transnational identity in the region. Of the existing news
media organizations, Al Jazeera was certainly the most influential because it
was the most high-profile regional source of news. For example, Al Jazeera’s
Dima Khatib was the most prominent commentator on Tunisia when the
country erupted, and she served as a key information broker for the revolution through Twitter. Al Jazeera had an exceptionally innovative new media
team that converted its traditional news product for use on social media sites
and made good use of the existing social networks of its online users. But a
key aspect of its success was its use of digital media to collect information andimages from countries where its journalists had been harassed or banned.
These digital networks gave Al Jazeera’s journalists access to more sources anda second life to their news products. Indeed, the actual use of social media has
become a news peg, with analysts eager to play with the meme of technologyinduced political change.
Regime responses vary in sophistication but often seem several paces
behind civil society in terms of technology use. In February, during one of his
televised speeches, Muammar Gaddafi lost his train of thought when an aide
drew his attention to real-time coverage of his rant. Gaddafi had simply neverencountered such instant feedback from a source that could not easily besilenced or punished. Now that protests are dying down in Bahrain, the regime
knows where the security holes in its telecommunications network lie. Saudi
Arabia has bolstered its server infrastructure so that all traffic flows throughinternet-exchange points in Riyadh, and online content is monitored closely
through censorship software and crowd-sourced monitoring.
It is a mistake to build a theory of democratization around a particular kindof software, a single website, or one piece of hardware. It is also erroneous tolabel these social events Twitter, Facebook, or Wikileaks Revolutions (Dickinson 2011; Sullivan 2011; Taylor 2011). It does not make sense to argue that
digital media cause civil society leaders or dictators to be more effective attheir work. Technology tools and the social actors who use them, together,make or suppress political uprising.

32

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Conclusion: Information Infrastructure
and Civil Society
Digital media have changed the tactics for democratization movements andnew information and communication technologies played a major role in
the Arab Spring. We do not know how the new states in North Africa andthe Middle East will stabilize and whether change will come to the remaining, more recalcitrant authoritarian governments. But the consistent narrative arc of the uprisings in the Arab Spring involved digital media intimately.
The countries that have experienced the most dramatic political protests areamong the most wired in the region and have large, tech-savvy, civil society
groups. The countries with the most tech-savvy civil society groups, such as
Tunisia and Egypt, removed their dictators with few casualties, while thecountries with the weakest technology infrastructure, such as Libya, Syria,
and Yemen, were locked in protracted civil wars. As Salamey and Pearson
argue, advancements in communications technology and economic globalization have undermined long-standing national authoritarianism in favorof Middle Eastern civil rights and civil society movements (Salamey andPearson 2012).
In times of political crisis, technology firms sometimes act constructively
to either serve the public or capture market share. For example, Google rushed
its launch of Speak2Tweet, an application that bypassed Mubarak’s attempt toblock Twitter use by translating phone messages into text messages. Several
tech firms built dedicated portals to allow in-country users to share content.
But as Morozov points out, information technologies—and the businesses
designing them—do not always support democratization movements (Morozov 2011). Opposition leaders in countries where political parties are illegal
sometimes use pseudonyms to avoid government harassment. But doing so
on Facebook is a violation of the company’s user agreement, and so the company actually shut down some of the protest-group pages. Supporters eventually were successful in having the pages reinstated, but these incidents
demonstrated that businesses such as Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter failed
to fully appreciate how their users were treating these tools—as public information infrastructure and not just as cool new business applications. Alternately, Google has signed the Global Network Initiative—a compact for
preventing web censorship by authoritarian governments; Facebook’s commitment is less resolute and maintains only an observer status. It might beDig it al M e dia an d t h e Arab S prin g

33

technically possible to require Facebook users in Western countries to use real
identities but then to also offer levels of anonymity to people living in dictatorships, but no such features or coordinated frameworks exist.
It is difficult to say whether the revolutions would or would not have happened without digital media. We know the region has long had democratic
activists—they just have not had many successful protests until now. Radioand television reaches most people, while only 10–20 percent of the population of most countries in the region has easy access to the internet. Yet thissubset of people is an important one: it is usually a cluster of government
workers, educated professionals, young entrepreneurs, and urban dwellers.
These are the networks of people who initiated, coordinated, and sustained
civil disobedience. We also know that the countries with the lowest levels oftechnology proliferation are among those with the weakest democratization
movements. Counterfactual scenarios can be intellectually interesting, but theoverwhelming evidence about what did happen in a concrete set of cases
should probably not be evaluated equally with hypothetical cases and imagined alternative scenarios. Counterfactuals and thought experiments can be
fun to work with, but prominence should always be given to the evidence andthe patterns in political change for which there are real cases.
It may seem premature to think of this as a wave of democratization, since
several states are still in crisis. Democratization waves are measured in years,
not months. But like other periods of democratic emergence, the Arab Spring
had a unique narrative arc, has involved a particular community of nations,and has caught most autocrats and analysts by surprise. Digital media areimportant precisely because they had a role in a relatively successful popularmobilization against authoritarian rule. Subsequently, civil society leaders inother countries used digital media in similar ways.
Unlike previous waves of democratization, however, the Arab Spring had
several unique features. For the amount of political change that has occurred,
there has been limited loss of life. In Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, andTunisia, civil society leaders found that state security services were noticeably
more reluctant to move in on protesters precisely because most of the protesters had mobile phone cameras. In Bahrain, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Syria, andYemen, security services did move on peaceful protests, but good documentation of police abuse made its way to the international community.
For scholars of social movements, collective action, and revolution, there
are several things about this latest wave of protests that should challenge ourtheories of how such protests work. These movements had an unusually

34

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

distributed leadership. The first days of protest in each country were organized
by a core group of literate, middle-class youth who had no particular affinities
to nationalism, party, class struggle, or religious fundamentalism. Along withbeing ideologically mainstream, the core group of organizers did not start
their mobilization with something we would recognize as broadcast media.
Radio, television, and newspapers have long been part of the narrative of otherdemocratization waves. But here the storyline involves the production andconsumption of content over social networks, not the broadcast of ideologicalframes from a few demagogues to a less-educated public.
Looking over the events of the first months of 2011, we can say more thansimply that the internet has changed the way political actors communicate
with each other. Since the beginning of the year, social protests in the Arabworld have cascaded across North Africa and the Middle East, largely because
digital media allowed communities to realize shared grievances and nurturetransportable strategies for mobilizing against dictators. In each country,
people used digital media to build a political response to a local experience
with injustice. They were not inspired by Facebook but by the real tragedies
documented on Facebook. Social media have become the scaffolding uponwhich a functioning civil society can grow, and new information technologies
afford activists freedoms they did not have before: information networks noteasily controlled by the state and coordination tools that are already embedded in trusted networks of family and friends.
One of the most important reasons for seriously considering the role ofinformation technology during the Arab Spring is that activists and civic
leaders themselves say it had a significant impact on their organizational effectiveness. Information infrastructure, according to the stories from across theregion, was put to work in the service of political protest. Indeed, the intriguing examples of innovation from the street not only demonstrate how
activists did things with technologies that neither engineers nor censors could
have predicted. There is also evidence that the organization of protest, the demographic of protesters, and the strategic maneuvers of civic leaders haschanged in the digital age.

2
The Recent History of DigitalMedia and Dissent

Information infrastructure provides new structures for collective action. Since
the commercialization of digital media, information infrastructure has become
a formative space for nurturing and organizing social action. Such spaces areespecially important for the public sphere in non-democratic societies because
they can be the only public spaces where autonomous—or even anonymous—discussion can take place. Today, in many authoritarian regimes, public opinion forms online. Yet it is a mistake to think that digital media are important
simply because they are a new system for quickly delivering content. The
longer history of digital media and dissent in the region reveals that the internet, mobile phones, and social media applications are not just content systems;
they are referral systems, rating and ranking systems, archiving systems, standard setting systems, deliberative systems, consultative systems, and systems
for socialization. In varied ways the many technologies we think of as digital
media are sometimes venues for public participation and sometimes means ofsocial control. We identify three periods in which information infrastructure
has come to provide new structures for collective action.
For Western media, the role of information technologies in the Arab Spring
protests became a common news peg. But such technologies did not arrive
suddenly the year before, and the perception that a popular uprising might besuccessful did not form suddenly. So if we investigate the role of digital media
in social change, do we miss the other important, contextual features of eachcountry’s domestic politics and international alliances? It would be epistemologically weak to study digital media and expect that our understanding of thisfactor yields a complete understanding of the whole experience. However,there are things we miss if we do not study the media seriously, and there are

35

36

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

reflexive ways of situating media use in larger historical contexts. In otherwords, digital media provide a useful entry point for understanding how contemporary political communication worked in the regimes that collapsed, andhow they worked in the regimes that survived. The system of political communication within the region did change radically with technology diffusion, but
this recent history is one of evolution, not revolution.
The internet was privatized in 1995. In the following five years, the internet
provided online discussion spaces for political conversations that were nothappening offline. Between 2000 and 2006, the political internet expandedwith online and alternative news media, which provided what Habermas
might recognize as the shared text of a digital public sphere. Since 2007, social
media have added the additional dimension of allowing individuals to manage
their own social networks, and to push and filter political information along
these links to family and friends. Prior to the Arab Spring, past cascades did
not have the benefit of commercialized communication networks and technologies, such as social media and mobile telephony, to draw in the wisdom of
the crowd and smart mob mobilization. In contrast, the Arab Spring is one of
the most impressive examples where laterally organized collective action projects were in combat with vertically organized state bureaucracies.

Social Movements and Digital Media
before the Arab Spring
Prior to the Arab Spring, some countries in the region had vibrant online civilsocieties where open political conversations took place beyond the control ofgovernment censors. In some countries, government censorship was very effective at preventing open political conversations and discouraging the use ofdigital tools for organizing civil society groups independent of the state. By theend of 2010, the first group of countries was experiencing a significant digital
renaissance in how civil society leaders did their work. Protest movementsthat had organized offline years earlier were starting to organize online, scorepolitical victories, and have an influence on public policy. These are also thecountries where the contagious digital content of political protest spread most
rapidly and where several dictators ultimately lost power. In contrast, by theend of 2010 the second group of countries were experiencing no such renaissance, and while there are a few successful examples of civil society leaders
using digital media for political protest, most of the authoritarian governments

The Recent H i s t ory of Dig it al M e dia an d Dis s e n t

37

in these countries were having to spend more and more resources on digital
censorship and surveillance to keep ahead of democracy activists.

Digital Media and the Civic Revival, 1995–2010
Even before their revolutions, Tunisia and Egypt had active blogospheres.
Often the most critical coverage of government abuse was done not by newspaper reporters, but by average citizens using their access to the internet increative ways. Most famous in Tunisia was the graphically simple video of thepresident’s plane arriving and leaving Europe’s elite shopping destinations
with his wife as the only passenger, mentioned earlier. Since the online publication of that video in August 2007, the regime has variously cracked down on
YouTube, Facebook, and other online applications. In Bahrain, it was BahrainOnline.com that attacked the country’s prime minister for corruption, but by
2010 every country in the region had an online source for credible information about corruption and regime abuse, spaces for political conversation
independent of state control, and social network feeds that distributed news
and alternative policy proposals the major news organizations would notcarry. Some countries had many such online sources. At first, such content was
hosted on purpose-built websites, often with named URLs like BahrainOnline.com. But after 2005, a growing amount of critical content was hosted
through social media services; YouTube, DailyMotion, Facebook, and Twitter
became portals through which politicized content could be shared. When aregime could not take the criticism, it had to act by blocking access to entire
services. For Libyans and Syrians, this content was mostly hosted out of country, though the origin of contributors included both in-country citizens andmembers of widespread diasporas.
In Egypt, democracy advocates benefited from Cairo’s position not only asa cultural hub but also as a media center with a reasonably robust information
infrastructure. The diversity in Egypt’s media content had long been unusualin the region, and some have argued that because of this the role of digital
media in Egypt’s uprising may also be unique and not easily compared toother country experiences during the Arab Spring (Khamis 2011). It hasenabled the city’s politically disaffected but still active youth and others tobuild a vibrant public sphere online. Over the past several years, politicalparties and social movements have become particularly adept at using social
media to their advantage. The Muslim Brotherhood, for example, used the38

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

internet to share information, organize supporters, and conduct other activities that helped it challenge secular authorities. Digital networks are ultimately social networks, so it should not be surprising that the most viral
political content actually took the form of music with lyrics that directly targeted political leaders (DeLong-Bas ca. 2011).
In response, the governments of Tunisia and Egypt arrested bloggers,
tracked online conversations, and shuttered websites and internet access. In
2005, Egyptian blogger Abdolkarim Nabil Seliman was arrested and imprisoned for four years after criticizing President Hosni Mubarak and the state’s
religious institutions. In 2007, a number of bloggers were arrested for organizing and covering social protests when the Egyptian parliament approved
controversial constitutional amendments. Many activist Egyptian bloggers,
some affiliated with groups such as Kefaya and the April 6 Movement, werearrested and faced physical abuse. Egyptian bloggers proved particularly resilient in continuing to publish critical information online, and indeed digital
media had for several years provided an opinion platform that neither the state
nor traditional political parties could dominate (Dunn 2010; Lim 2012). But
in both Tunisia and Egypt a cottage industry of bloggers and activists used theinternet to evade government censorship by creating alternative newscasts
and building spaces online where individuals could publish information critical of the government without attaching their names to it. Online activists
and bloggers, digital news organizations, and political party websites form avirtual ecology of civil society groups that debate contentious issues. In manycases, the boundaries between these organizations are blurred for importantreasons. For example, banned political parties, such as Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, had relied on bloggers who maintained servers located outside thecountry and thereby could not be taken offline by the government.
Egypt has a number of active political parties, many of which maintain websites and online newsletters to communicate with supporters and constituents,
but also with each other. Almost all major parties publish online newspapers,such as the New Wafd Party’s Al Wafd Daily, the National Progressive Unionist
Party’s Al-Ahali newspaper, the Arab Democratic Nasserist Party’s Al-Arabi
weekly, and the Tomorrow Party’s Al Ghad weekly. In addition to the discussion spaces fostered by newspapers, party publications like these provide opportunities for cross-party political negotiation. The Muslim Brotherhood had
been banned by the government but nonetheless used Arabic and English
language publications to maintain a presence in online Egyptian politics equal
to—if not more prominent than—that of many politically sanctioned parties.

The Recent H i s t ory of Dig it al M e dia an d Dis s e n t

39

Before the Arab Spring, Twitter had a loyal following of users in Tunisia
and Egypt living mostly in the largest cities. While records of Twitter conversations in both countries prior to the revolutions are not available, in mostparts of the world we know that Twitter is used by networks of family andfriends to trade jokes and talk about everyday life. Facebook became a political
tool because people found it useful for amassing content and building links tolike-minded individuals. The Tunisian government was more active than the
Egyptian regime in restricting social media. In 2007, for example, it blocked
YouTube and DailyMotion for an extended period and in 2008 blocked Facebook for a month. In both cases, observers suspected that the regime wasreacting to fears that social media were strengthening the bonds of communication between citizens in ways not easily monitored and managed by thestate.
In the hands of average people, digital media became a means of documenting corruption and regime abuses. But it was also a tool for sharing theobservations of outsiders. WikiLeaks revealed that the US ambassador toTunisia had reported that more than half of Tunisia’s commercial elites werepersonally related to President Ben Ali (Anderson 2011). This network was
known in the country’s diplomatic circles as “the Family,” and the ambassador’s leaked commentary circulated quickly among regime critiques andembarrassed elites. Yet it was not simply that the networks were exposed
online. Information technologies opened the door to new ways of thinking
about how to investigate, organize, assemble, and conduct political activities
that could be immediately conveyed at a global level (DeLong-Bas ca. 2011).

Digital Media and Civic Repression, 1995–2010
Heightened levels of political conversation have had several specific consequences for key regimes. The topics of political conversation are rarely unique
to digital media, though discussion of electronic surveillance abound on email
forums, blogs, and social media feeds. More important, there is a set of political issues that seem to arise consistently across the varied political cultures inwhich civil society has begun to discuss public policy online. The first topic toarise is often the balance of power and wealth between ruling elites and therest of the country, or between primary cities, secondary cities, and the countryside, or among ethnic minorities. These conversations are about the relative
wealth and impoverishment of some communities and neighborhoods over

40

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

others. Discussing and documenting wealth disparities is an especially political act when the ruling elites are from minority communities, or when thesocial network of family and business interests that controls wealth is unused
to having its finances tracked. In Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria, the online conversation about who controlled what quickly fed the collective sense of disparity.
Second, complaints about corruption grew louder and more fully substantiated. Through digital media, accusations about graft or abuse became documented in video, audio, and text, and these digital narratives were distributed
over networks of family and friends. In some countries, accusations of official
corruption may have occasionally appeared in the newspaper but only when
the accusations were fully substantiated, regime censors had approved thecoverage, or the target was modest. But digital media allowed the accusationsof human rights abuses, misspent funds, and political favoritism to be moreconsistently and systematically documented. Such material became the shared
text of grievances for regime critics.
Third, both the growing conversation about wealth disparities and corruption helped erode the long-held taboo against criticizing leaders directly.
In Tunisia and Egypt, direct criticism of Ben Ali and Mubarak led to arrestand physical intimidation. In Morocco and Jordan, direct criticism of King
Mohammed VI or King Abdullah was an invitation to the state’s security apparatus to take action against the criticizer, and also a violation of a deep-seatedcultural norm that royal figures were the embodiment of the state and beyond
reproach. By 2010, it was increasingly possible to identify, in online news
coverage and political blogs, a Royal’s responsibility, negligence, or behavior
relative to policy gaffes.

Comparing Media Systems
Table 2.1 identifies important points of comparison and divergence in how
digital media have diffused in the countries of North Africa and the Middle
East. As Converse once said of public opinion research, “a sample design
which extracts unrelated individuals from the whole and assigns the opinion of each an equal weight is a travesty on any ‘realistic’ understanding ofwhat the concept of public opinion means” (Converse 1987). Today, any
realistic understanding of public opinion formation in Muslim media
systems must come from a critical awareness of the limits to survey data but
also an appreciation that digital-information technologies are providing

The Recent H i s t ory of Dig it al M e dia an d Dis s e n t

41

new opportunity structures for inclusion in the process of public opinion
formation and measurement.
Many scholars have argued that news media are crucial for raising a sense ofcollective identity (Anderson 1983). And for a long time, social movement
theory supposed that revolutions occurred when both the structural opportunities and perceived opportunities for success were necessarily in place. A
regime had to be demonstrably fragile and the revolutionaries had to believe
they had a chance of achieving their goals. Kurzman argued that the Iranianrevolution of 1979 may have been the evidence that perceived opportunities
can be a sufficient cause of popular uprising (Kurzman 1996). Different kindsof information technology have long supported discourse and activism in the
Muslim communities of the developing world and have often played a role in
the political development of secular Islamic states. President Jamal ‘Abd alNasir skillfully used the radio to strengthen his popular base in Egypt, withemotional appeals that fueled nationalist pride in the 1960s. Iranian revolutionaries used cassette tapes to spread their political messages among networks of students, as have radical Saudi Islamists and Yemeni poets (Fandy
1999; Miller 2007; Sardar 1993; Sreberny-Mohammadi and Mohammadi
1994). Most of the Arab regimes in North Africa and the Middle East had
seemed stable and democracy resistant for 40 years (Diamond 2009). The
perception that a popular uprising might result in an Arab Spring formed
online, but it did not form suddenly.
In the years leading up to the Arab Spring, the diffusion of digital media, inthe form of mobile phones, personal computers, and software applications,
had a significant impact on the systems of political communication in the
countries where civil society was allowed to use such tools and in the countries where governments set the terms of technology access. Egypt’s Kefaya
Movement started online, but it started in 2004. That the movement began
several years prior to the Arab Spring does not undermine the premise that itscored multiple political victories using its online strategies, or that it successfully organized the inciting incidents in Tahrir Square. Digital media did not
have, in this way, a “sudden” impact on Egyptian politics. In several countries
in the region, it took several years for people with political affinities to findthemselves—and each other—online.
In almost every country in the region, mobile phone cameras became
small, personal weapons against authoritarian rule. They were not always usedas such and the consequences for recording and distributing even fuzzy
footage of abusive security services were often severe. Often those whoTable 2.1

The Comparative Context of Digital Media in North Africa and the Middle East
Algeria Bahrain Djibouti Egypt Iran

JordanKuwait Lebanon Libya

Mauritania

Moro

Demographics
Populationa

35

0.66

0.85

80

75

6.4

2.6

2.5

6.3

3.3

32

Percent
Muslima

98

81

97

95

100

99

86

60

97

99

100

Literacy,b
GDP Per
Capitab$6,950 $35,006 $2,309 $6,000 $10,600 $5,663$37,849 $15,193 $16,425 $2,093$4,75

Political Communication
Internet
Users, 2000c

0

6

0

1

0

3

8

8

0

0

0

Internet
Users, 2010c

13

54

8

15

47

27

42

29

5

2

41

Mobile Phone 92
Subscriptions,
Percent of
Inhabitants
2010c

124

19

87

91

107

161

68

172

79

100

..
Do YouOccasionally
Use the internet,
Percent of Total
Population?d

..

..

23
..
(2010)

32(2010)

71
44..
(2007) (2010)

..

22
(2007

Censorshipe
Political

N

P

—

N

P

S

S

N

S

—

N

Social

N

P

—

N

P

N

P

N

N

—

S

Conflict/
Security

N

S

—

N

E

N

S

N

N

—

S

Internet Tools N

E

—

N

P

N

P

N

N

—

S

Note: In Saudi Arabia, there are multiple mobile phones per person. For Surveillance,
N = None, S = Selective, P = Pervasive, E = Extensive.
Sources: (a) population, percentage Muslim, and gross domestic product per capita, purchasing power parity in USD in 2009: World Bank, World Development Indicators; (b) percentage of population over 15 who can read and write: CIA World Factbook; (c) internet users as
a percentage of total population in 2000: International Telecommunications Union; (d) Pew
Global Attitudes Project; (e) OpenNet Initiative.

42

East

ritania93

Morocco Oman

Palestinian Qatar
Territories

Saudi
ArabiaSomalia Sudan Syria

Tunisia UAE

Yemen

32

2.5

4.3

1.2

25

9.2

31

21

10.3

3.6

24

100

88

98

78

97

99

71

93

100

76

99

$4,754$25,301 —$88,559 $20,400 $600

$2,300 $5,208 $8,536$48,821 $2,598

0

4

1

5

1

0

0

0

1

24

0

41

48

54

67

27

1

9

20

34

69

10

100

166

—

132

188

7

41

58

106

145

46

22
(2007)..

48 (2007) ..

..

..

..

..

..

..

..

N

S

—

S

E

—

S

P

P

E

E

S

P

—

P

P

—

E

S

P

P

P

S

N

—

S

S

—

N

S

S

S

S

S

E

—

P

P

—

E

P

P

P

P

43

44

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

recorded and distributed mobile phone footage of abusive governments were
punished more than the perpetrators of abuse. But even in the toughest authoritarian regimes, there are important examples of how mobile phone cameras were used to document the abuse of power and expose injustice to abroader network. By 2010, most governments in the region had experienced apolitical controversy of some kind because video evidence they could not control was being accessed online. Second, Al Jazeera became a functionally independent, transnational news medium that generated content even in countries
where it was unwelcome. Again, governments did not always respond to theaccusations, criticisms, and embarrassing coverage broadcast by Al Jazeera’scable and website feeds. But Al Jazeera clearly rose as a political actor in theregion, transforming political discourse by normalizing forms of journalistic
content and intellectual critique where challenges to political authority were
not only tolerated but encouraged (Lynch 2006). Its markets were not always
large, but they were tolerated by some governments.

Conclusion: Digital Networks as Social Networks
Ruling elites often try to co-opt civil society groups, and in times of political or
military crises they can attempt to control the national information infrastructure. But a defining feature of civil society is independence from the authorityof the state, even in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. And in important ways, digital communication networks are also independent of any particular state authority. What has been the impact of digital media on politicalcommunication in Arab media systems? How have tools such as mobile
phones and the internet affected the process of forming political identity, particularly for the young? When do such tools change the opportunity for civic
action, and when do they simply empower ruling elites to be more effective
censors?
All in all, information technologies have become a tool for graduallyeroding centralized state power. In some countries ruling elites tolerated thiserosion, thinking that it would not ultimately threaten their control. In othercountries, ruling elites resisted the use of consumer communication electronics through regulation and censorship. But as systems of communication
grew, the years leading up to the Arab Spring were notable for a rising numberof protests, fomented and organized online but also involving street action.
Youth leaders seemed surprised at the speed and size of the civic action they

The Recent H i s t ory of Dig it al M e dia an d Dis s e n t

45

could organize on short notice, and they found themselves drawing international attention and sometimes even scoring small political victories. By 2010,
the enemies of the strongmen of Tunisia, Egypt, and Yemen no longer seemed
like a fragmented bunch.
In this book, we analyze the best available micro-level data on technology
use and changing patterns of political identity and macro-level data on networks of civil society actors. Even though these regimes are very different, weoffer four propositions about what has changed since the introduction of new
digital communication technologies. First, we argue that citizens in all four
countries have been able to greatly increase the level of international news
content they can access. Second, a growing portion of the public uses social
networking applications in their communications, independent of direct state
control. Third, civil society actors have flourished online, even when the state
has cracked down domestically. Finally, women and minority movements
have been drawn into political discourse online in ways not often available inoffline spaces. It is within this context that new forms of social movement organization emerged. In the next chapter we discuss how the diffusion of digital
media allowed key civic leaders to develop agile, responsive organizations thatwere eventually able to outmaneuver authoritarian governments.

3
Information Infrastructure and theOrganization of Protest

One of the most important but rarely explored dimensions of digital media
and social change is the innovation of new technologies, new applications, andnew organizational forms in the lead-up to social protest. Successful activists
are exceptionally creative and catch dictators off guard. This chapter provides
rich examples of tools and tool kits that civil society leaders now build—sometimes on their own, sometimes with the help of Western digerati and aid
agencies—to help organize against political elites. Some of the important innovations are cultural: soundtracks to the revolution produced by digital hiphop artists from Libya and Algeria inspired young citizens and earned artists
jail time. Some of this also involves major states or radical fundamentalists,
who redesign technology in ways not expected by engineers to maintain ideological hegemony or promote group propaganda.
No one could have predicted that Mohammed Bouazizi would play a role inunleashing a freedom wave in the Arab world. Yet after the young vegetable merchant stepped in front of a municipal building in Tunisia and set himself on fire inprotest of the government in December 2010, democratic fervor spread acrossNorth Africa and the Middle East. Governments in Tunisia and Egypt soon fell,
civil war broke out in Libya, and protestors took to the streets in Algeria, Morocco,
Sudan, Syria, and elsewhere. The Arab Spring had many sources. One of these wassocial media, which had the power to put a human face on political oppression.
Bouazizi’s self-immolation was one of several stories told and retold on Facebook,
Twitter, and YouTube in ways that inspired dissidents to organize protests, criticize
their governments, and spread ideas about democracy. Indeed, Facebook became
the information infrastructure that supported political organizing independent
not only of the state, but independent of other political parties (Dunn 2010).

47

48

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Tunisia and Egypt’s Tech-Savvy
Popular Democracy Movement
One reason that technology has been an effective tool for democracy advocates in Tunisia and Egypt is that both countries have relatively young, techsavvy populations. In Tunisia, where the median age is 30, approximately 23
percent of the 10 million people who live there are under the age of 14. In
Egypt, where the median age is 24, 33 percent of the country’s 83 million inhabitants are under 14. Cell phone use is widespread in both countries, with
93 mobile phone subscribers for every 100 people in Tunisia and 67 mobile
phones for every 100 people in Egypt. What’s more, in both countries the government has censured the media, giving individuals a strong incentive to turnto the internet for credible sources of information.
Internet use in both countries is also significant. About 25 percent of the
population in Tunisia and 10 percent of the population in Egypt has used theinternet at least once, with much of the use concentrated among young people.
Some 66 percent of the internet-savvy population in Tunisia, and 70 percent
in Egypt, is under the age of 34. All of this might explain why many of thepeople who went into the streets in early 2011 to demonstrate were young,technologically inclined individuals who blogged, Tweeted, or posted to Facebook news events as they unfolded.1
In addition to enabling young people to organize, technology has facilitated
the growing participation of women in political conversations. Forty-one percent of Tunisia’s Facebook population is female; the number is 36 percent for
Egypt. More than 30 percent of the Egyptian citizens who took part in street
protests were women (Gallup 2012). Women also participated actively in political conversations over Twitter, and they were notably present in street gatherings in both Tunisia and Egypt. Indeed, through social media, women like
Esraa Abdel Fattah of the Egyptian Democratic Academy became vocal opponents and thoughtful leaders. Leil-Zahra Mortada’s Facebook album of women’s involvement in the revolution became a popular site in Egypt.
Our unique dataset of Twitter conversations in Tunisia and Egypt reveals thatwomen were quite active during the uprisings. By distinguishing between people
tweeting in-country from those using the same hashtags (key words) but tweetingoutside the country, we were able to determine that 30 percent of the people actively contributing to Twitter conversations inside Tunisia were women. Women
made up 33 percent of those actively tweeting inside Egypt during the revolution.

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

49

Tunisia—From Oppression to Resistanceto Spark for the Region
By early January, protestors’ appeals for help and clumsily recorded mobile
phone videos were streaming across North Africa, and protests in Algeria andother countries started to crop up. By the time Ben Ali fled Tunisia on January
14, active campaigns for civil disobedience against authoritarian rule weregrowing in Jordan, Oman, and Yemen. In other countries such as Lebanon,
Mauritania, Saudi Arabia, and Sudan, minor protests erupted on a range ofissues and triggered quick concessions or had little impact. But even in thesecountries, opposition leaders appeared to draw inspiration from what they
were tracking in Tunisia. Moreover, opposition leaders across the region werelearning the digital tricks for how to catch ruling elites off guard. Soon, eventsin Tunisia would help inspire the largest protests in Cairo in 30 years.
Social media brought a cascade of messages about freedom and democracy
across North Africa and the Middle East and helped to raise public expectations for the success of political uprising. Two kinds of evidence reveal muchabout this cascade: the rhythm of Tweets about political change and the topicalevolution of blog posts. The rhythm of tweets is significant because it gives us awindow into conversations that took place over the broad digital spectrum. The
vast majority of conversations likely involved using cell phones to send text andother types of messages, but there isn’t a good database for studying that information. There is, however, a robust set of data for conversations that take placeover Twitter, so in a sense Twitter can serve as a proxy for understanding thetypes of conversations that happened on other forms of digital communication.
And what we can see on Twitter is that a large volume of people—both
inside each country and across the globe—were following events as they unfolded. Twitter seems to have been a key tool in the region for raising expectations of success and coordinating strategy. Twitter also seems to have been the
key medium for spreading immediate news about big political changes fromcountry to country in the region. As a group, Twitter users are probably moreeducated and wealthier than the average person and more likely to be found inmajor cities. They are also, consequently, opinion leaders for whom Twitterserved as an important means of carrying on extended conversations about
the prospects for liberty and the logistics of social action.
In total, there were 13,262 Tweets using the hashtag most prominently associated with Tunisia’s political uprising: #sidibouzid. On average, throughout

50

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

the study period of January 14 to March 16, 18 percent of tweets about theTunisian uprising came from inside Tunisia, 8 percent from neighboring countries, and 32 percent from outside the region. The remainder offered no location information. The day Ben Ali resigned, 2,200 tweets from Algeria, Bahrain,
Egypt, Morocco, and Yemen concerned the uprising in Tunisia. Many tweets
involved personal stories of suffering at the hands of a tough and incompetentregime. Some involved links to critical documentaries on YouTube or madereference to Facebook groups and news stories that did not paint the regime ina flattering light.
With the earliest available records of Twitter feeds, there are clear waves ofpolitical consciousness that connect key events, political sentiment, and protestor turnout.2 In the case of Tunisia, the number of contributions increased
steadily between late January and late February. The number of people withno location information also declined, suggesting that as time passed, Tunisians grew more willing to note publicly that they were tweeting from inside
Tunisia during the heady days of political change. The flow of content ismarked by moments when the service was either overloaded or mobile networks were under attack (or both). Before Ben Ali resigned, more than a thousand people were tweeting each day about political change in Tunisia.
Immediately after his resignation, Twitter service declined precipitously, withactivists in the country reporting that security forces were interfering with
communication networks. When the service returned to normal, Twitter
traffic peaked again, with a thousand people in Tunisia tweeting daily andstreet protests drawing out tens of thousands. This lasted for several weeks,
until the last vestiges of the ruling elite were removed from power.
Just as Twitter traffic peaked with street protests, the topics discussed in the
Tunisian blogosphere closely tracked with public interest in political freedom.
Figure 3.1 tracks four of the most important keywords in the Tunisian blogosphere, in which content is mostly written in French. Analysis of the structureof content and links in the Tunisian blogosphere between November 2010
and May 2011 indicates direct parallels between online political conversations
and offline events. Particularly after December 17, 2010, when Bouazizi set
himself on fire, the Tunisian blogosphere experienced a spike in the frequency
of online conversations about revolution and President Ben Ali’s leadership. In
this way, the volume of digital conversations peaks with the size of street demonstrations, and the content of these conversations directly reflects public sentiments. Figure 3.1 reveals the rise and fall of certain keywords in the Tunisian
blogosphere, beginning two months before the popular uprising.3

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

51

25
Ben Ali Resigns

Ben Ali
Economie

20

Islam
Revolution

15

10

5

Ju
ne

M
ay

Ap
ril

M
ar
ch

Fe
br
ua
ry

Jan
ua
ry

be
r
De
ce
m

No
ve
m

be
r

0

Figure 3.1 Percentage of Tunisian Blogs with Posts on Politics, by Keyword.
Note: Figure represents the percentage of all blog posts containing at least one of six
keywords. Based on data captured through eCairn beginning November 20, 2010.

Tunisian bloggers had, for several years, been among the most critical opponents of Ben Ali’s regime. By scanning the structure of content and links of
the Tunisian blogosphere, we can chart the progress of the idea of political
reform. Many Tunisian bloggers wrote in French and Arabic. Moreover, distinct keywords and themes regarding economic grievances and democratization arose preceding the popular uprising. Among Tunisia’s digerati, economic
woes and Ben Ali’s leadership are key topics from November to December.
But with Bouazizi’s death in early January came a spike in conversation about
his plight and shortly thereafter a growth in the number of conversations
about freedom and revolution. Islam, as a political theme, tracks on only a few
blogs and the interest in economic issues diminishes over time relative tothemes of freedom and revolution.
Talk about revolution continued even after Ben Ali fled the country because
his replacement, Mohamed Ghannouchi, was viewed by many as part of theold regime. Consequently, the percentage of blog posts with the keywords“revolution” and “liberty” peaked after Ben Ali had already left office. By thethird week of January, 18 percent of all Tunisian blog posts talked about revolution; 10 percent discussed liberty. That week marked the climax of protester

52

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

turnout with estimates ranging from 40,000 to 100,000 people in the streets.
The primary topic of political conversation in Tunisian blogs then became“revolution” until a public rally of at least 100,000 people on February 27, after
which Ghannouchi was forced to resign. In Tunisia, the blogosphere anticipated what happened on the ground by days. Demand online for liberty eventually manifested itself in the streets.
The relative prominence of conversations about freedom among Tunisia’s
wired middle class is consistent with anecdotal evidence of public sentiment
during the first few days of the uprising. Journalists and country experts consistently expressed surprise that traditional political ideologies and politicalparties were absent from the protests. Major opposition parties and politicalleaders did not feature as prominently as Bouazizi, and were not particularly
associated with conversations about liberty or the prospects of revolution.
And conversations about liberty and freedom were more important than conversations about Islam.

Protest Narratives Cascade across the Region
Around the region, people increasingly tweeted about events occurring in theirneighborhoods. Stories of success and difficulty spread widely and created akind of freedom meme. The same meme traveled across the region throughFacebook and YouTube, as inspiring images were captured by mobile phone
and transmitted. Interestingly, their social media conversations about revolution underwent a linguistic change in keeping with the rising feelings of nationaland Arabic pride. Prior to the groundswell of support for political change, mostof the content about protest coming over social media from users in the region
was in English and French. After the inciting incidents in Tunisia and Egypt,
most of the content flowed resolutely in Arabic (Mourtada and Salem 2011). In
addition, Lotan et al.’s analysis of Twitter contributions (Lotan et al. 2011)
reveals a typology of users based on the frequency and form of communication:• Mainstream media organizations: news and media organizations that haveboth digital and non-digital outlets (e.g., @AJEnglish, @nytimes).
• Mainstream news media organizations: blogs, news portals, or journalistic
entities that exist solely online (e.g., @HuffingtonPost).
• Non-media organizations: groups, companies, or organizations that are notprimarily news-oriented (e.g., @Vodafone, @Wikileaks).

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

53• Mainstream media employees: individuals employed by MSM organizations, or who regularly work as freelancers for MSM organizations (e.g., @AndersonCooper).
• Bloggers: individuals who post regularly to an established blog, and who
appear to identify as a blogger on Twitter (e.g., @gr33ndata).
• Activists: individuals who self-identify as an activist, who work at an activist organization, or who appear to be tweeting purely about activist
topics to capture the attention of others (e.g., @Ghonim).
• Digerati: individuals who have worldwide influence in social media circles
and are, thus, widely followed on Twitter (e.g., @TimOReilly).
• Political actors: individuals who are known primarily for their relationshipto government (e.g., @Diego_Arria, @JeanMarcAyrault).
• Celebrities: individuals who are famous for reasons unrelated to technology, politics, or activism (e.g., @Alyssa_Milano).
• Researchers: an individual who is affiliated with a university or think tank
and whose expertise is focused on Middle East issues (e.g., @abuardvark).
• Bots: accounts that appears to be an automated service tweeting consistentcontent, usually in extraordinary volumes (e.g., @toptweets).
The content that was flowing over Twitter, for many users in the countries affected by protests, was also of a peculiar kind. Papacharissi and Oliviera call it“affective news” because so much of the content included links to stories
tagged by personal content, or personal photos and narrative about events on
the ground (Papacharissi and Oliveira 2012).
Here we specifically study tweets, rather than simply Twitter users, because
they represent a sense of conversation and active dialogue about freedom thattranscended national boundaries. For example, after Egyptians heard that Ben
Ali had fled Tunisia on January 14, Twitter user and journalist Gigi Ibrahim
declared that “the Tunisian revolution is being twitterized . . . history is being
written by the people #sidibouzid #Tunisia.” Blogger Tarek Shalaby echoed
with, “we will follow it!” On January 25, journalist Hossam el-Hamalawy
noted that “tens of thousands r protesting [with] the same chants as the Tunisians.” In the aftermath of an unexpectedly large turnout in Egypt that day,
Mahmoud Salem—the blogger and activist also known as “Sandmonkey”—
urged his Twitter followers to “please remember, it took a month of protests 4
Tunis revolution 2 succeed. Persistence is everything.”
Figure 3.2 demonstrates the rising wave of tweets about events in othercountries and the prospects of making democratic gains. To produce this

54

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

6,000
algeria
morocco
feb14
yemen
egypt
sidibouzid

5,000

4,000

Mubarak Resigns
3,000
Ben Ali Resigns
2,000

1,000

January

February

March

April

Figure 3.2 Number of Tweets in the Region Using Hashtags for Neighboring
Countries.
Note: These are the hashtags that came to be associated most prominently with politicaluprisings in Algeria, Egypt, Bahrain, Tunisia, Morocco, and Yemen. The hashtags analyzed, inorder, were “#algeria,” “#egypt,” “#feb14,” “#morocco,” “#sidibouzid,” and “#yemen.”graphic, we first selected all the tweets we could confirm as originating in Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia or Yemen using geo-data. We then isolated the tweets using hashtags for countries and freedom movements otherthan country of origin. In other words, this figure specifically displays the rate
at which people in each country caught and transmitted the meme of political
freedom from other countries. In the two weeks after Mubarak’s resignation,
there was an average of 3,400 tweets a day about the political crisis in Egypt bypeople living in neighboring countries.
Figure 3.2 reveals that at the peak of events in Tunisia, there were 2,200
tweets about Ben Ali’s resignation from outside Tunisia (but within the region).
In the subsequent months, the hashtags associated with conversations about
political change in particular countries were often used by people in neighboring countries. In other words, people in countries throughout the region
were drawn into an extended conversation about social uprising. As street protests arose in Tunisia and Egypt, then Yemen and Bahrain, and eventually Algeria and Morocco, people across the region tweeted in real time about big events.
This is significant because it reveals how the success of demands for political

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

55change in Tunisia and Egypt led individuals in other countries to pick up theconversation and talk about how it was relevant to their own lives. In otherwords, it helped cascade conversation about freedom across the region.

Egypt—The Freedom Meme Spreads
through Social Networks
News of Ben Ali’s departure spread rapidly in Egypt, where almost everyone
has access to a mobile phone and the internet-using population is the largest
in the Arab world. State-run media in Egypt, which had been slow to report
protests in the region and in Cairo, reluctantly covered Ben Ali’s exit. The firstoccupants of Cairo’s Tahrir Square shared many of the hopes and aspirationsof their counterparts in Tunis. They were a community of like-minded individuals, underemployed, educated, eager for change but not committed toreligious fervor or a specific political ideology. They found solidarity throughsocial media, and then used their mobile phones to call their social networks
into the street. In a surprise to both government analysts and outsiders, a large
network of relatively liberal, middle class, peaceful citizens quickly mobilizedagainst Mubarak. The traditional Islamists, opposition parties, and union organizations were in the square too, but liberal and civil society voices dominated the digital conversation about events.
Events in Egypt not only helped spark protest movements in neighboring
countries, they also seeded a global conversation about the politics of freedom. Twitter was used to draw the international community into Egyptian
events. Real-time conversations about protester turnout, regime response,and Mubarak’s political options did not just occur between Egyptians. Elsewhere, we have found that as domestic and international pressure for Mubarak
to resign was building, there was an interesting shift in the geo-data of people
tweeting about political change in Egypt. Two weeks prior to his resignation,
we find that 34 percent of the tweets on the topic of political change in Egypt
were coming from people who self-identified as being outside the region entirely. But as public engagement with political protest grew in the week prior
to his resignation, the relative contribution of outsiders dwindled to just 12
percent: in other words, the vast majority of tweets were coming from people
who were either in the country or in the region, or had refused to give theirlocation information (a common strategy for political protesters). The regime’s
interference with digital networks interrupted online traffic on some days.

56

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Yet in-country Twitter traffic peaked on the day street protests reached into
the thousands and then peaked again during the last days of Mubarak’s holdon power. Over time, the number of Egyptians in Egypt tweeting about politics surpassed the number of individuals tweeting from elsewhere in the region.

Social Media’s Centrality to Political Conversation
Between November 2010 and May 2011, the amount of content produced
online by major Egyptian political actors increased significantly as they reacted
to events on the street and adjusted strategy to compete for the affinities of
newly freed Egyptian voters. Some observers have been skeptical of social
media’s relevance to the evolution of political conversations in Egypt. But wefind that in Egypt, Facebook and Western news media are central to online
political discourse. We mapped the digital space in Egypt twice, once inNovember 2010 and a second time in May 2011. What we found was that
Egypt’s major political actors often linked to social networking and news services. In fact, major Egyptian political websites were far more likely to link to
Facebook or Western media sites like CNN than they were to each other. For
Egyptians, Facebook and other social media are not simply sites used for entertainment or managing their personal lives. These social media are where Egyptians go to practice politics. Political parties have learned this over the past few
months, and are working hard to put new content online and connect withpotential supporters—some of whom may be voters in upcoming elections.
In November 2010, more than 20 percent of the 928 links going out of
Egyptian political party websites were to social media sites such as Facebook,YouTube, and Twitter, and to blogging tools or Western news websites such as
the BBC or CNN. By May 2011, however, this had dropped to 15 percent of
1,332 outgoing links. Table 3.1 highlights the number of pages, unique externallinks, and overall size of the websites of major political groups in Egypt, both
before the revolution and after. Groups that were unlicensed by Mubarak’s government are indicated with an asterisk (*). Both the number of pages and thevolume (in megabytes) are good indicators of the overall size of the website,though the first may be a good measure of text content and the second a measureof multimedia content. The number of unique external links is a good indicatorof how much a political party connects its ideas and content to larger politicalconversations. Table 3.1 reveals something about how the structure of politicalcontent online changed before and after the popular uprising in Egypt.4

Table 3.1

Online Structure of Egyptian Political Parties, Before and After
Revolution
Before Revolution

Political Party, URL

Pages

After Revolution

UniqueExternal
Links

Volume(MB)

Pages

UniqueExternal
Links

Volume(MB)

April 6 Youth
Movement,
6april.org

..

..

..

378

8

48

Communist
Partyof Egypt*,
cpegypt.tk

1,297

248

62

3,379

9

190

Egyptian
Greens,egyptiangreens.com

441

2

16

527

2

17

KefayaMovement*,
harakamasria.org

4,372

90

24

4,522

78

25

National
Association for
Change*,taghyeer.net

1,983

2

35

..

..

..

National
Democratic
Party, ndp.org.eg

1,343

11

43

..

..

..

New Wafd
Party,
alwafdparty.org

78

..

9

2,015

11

165

Progressive
Nationalist
Unionist
Party,
al-ahaly.com

1,583

12

22

323

7

7

Socialist
Labour Party,
el3amal.net

304

7

2

615

6

4

(continued )57

58

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Table 3.1

(continued)
Before Revolution

After Revolution

Political Party, URL

Pages

UniqueExternal
Links

Volume(MB)

Pages

UniqueExternal
Links

Volume(MB)

MuslimBrotherhood(Arabic)*,
ikhwanonline.com

6,123

66

137

7,948

67

459

MuslimBrotherhood(English)*,ikhwanweb.com

4,372

896

196

4,579

739

386

Note: Groups marked with an asterisk (*) were illegal political parties until recently. MB refers
to megabytes of content.

The network structure of Egypt’s online political parties and pressuregroups, along with the unique external websites originating from a group’s
homepage, is mapped in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. The shaded circle around agroup’s origin node represents the volume of pages within that site (the diameter of each circle directly represents the amount of content, in megabytes, that each site hosts). Comparing the ratio of unique external pages toa site’s volume indicates how much any given site is relying on external andself-produced content. In the network map of Egypt’s online political sphere,each dot represents an external link originating from the political parties’
websites. When two dots connect, it is a site that two parties linked to andany links position political parties closer together based on the program’salgorithm. We can see the clear arrangement around blogs and state-run
media sites.
In May 2011, Western social media and news outlets were still at the centerof the online Egyptian political network. The majority of common links
between Egypt’s political parties were commercial, Western sites. The mostcentral of these sites were Facebook, Google, YouTube, CNN, Yahoo!, Blogger, BBC, Flickr, Twitter, and Wordpress. Notably, none of the websites
crawled in November 2010 linked to Al Jazeera, and there were only six outgoing links to Al Jazeera when the crawl was repeated in May 2011.

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

59

Figure 3.3 Pre-Uprising Structure and Content of Egypt’s Online Political Sphere,
November 2010.
Source: Howard, Duff y et al. 2011.

The results of the May 2011 network generation show that the same Western media are still present, but are now oriented along the periphery of the
Muslim Brotherhood’s websites. And while links to Western media are foundon many Egyptian sites, the Muslim Brotherhood provides a surprising
amount of new content in both its Arabic and English language sites. In termsof pages, the Arabic version grew by almost 60 percent, and in terms of size it
more than tripled. Considering how large the Muslim Brotherhood’s Arabic
language website is, it is interesting to note how relatively few links it made tooutside news sources or content from other political actors. The tendency tohave active linking within the community with little activity moving outward
may indicate that the Muslim Brotherhood relies primarily on digital media fororganizational deliberation. Indeed, this organization had an active community of citizen journalists and civic bloggers who were forced to discuss political issues online because of the Mubarak regime’s strong offline censorship.
The National Democratic Party’s website (ndp.org.eg) is no longer in service. The last publicly available versions of the site were cached in Google’s
search engine on February 26, 2011. There is no redirect, so it appears that thehost servers have been taken offline. The April 6 Movement, which had a

60

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Figure 3.4 Post-Uprising Structure and Content of Egypt’s Online Political Sphere,
May 2011.
Source: Howard, Duff y, et al. 2011

central role in the uprising, barely existed as a standalone URL in November
2010 because most of its content was not on its own website but almost exclusively on social networking platforms like Facebook and Twitter. The National
Association for Change and the National Democratic Party ceased to exist
after the uprising.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s Changing Online Content
Even today, Facebook remains one of the most central nodes in Egyptian networks of political information. In November 2010, before the political uprising, the websites of major political actors had more links to Facebook andother Western media than they had to each other. By May 2011, Facebook was
still central, but with Mubarak’s departure, the volume of digital content produced by the Muslim Brotherhood has come to dominate these networks.
The most significant change in how political parties operate online involves
two of the websites of the Muslim Brotherhood. In November 2010, these

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

61

websites had 10,495 pages, with 962 outgoing links and 333 megabytes ofcontent. By May 2011, this had evolved to 12,527 pages, 806 links, and 845
megabytes of content. In other words, the number of web pages had grown by
19 percent, the number of outgoing links had diminished by 16 percent, andthe volume of content had ballooned by 154 percent.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s presence on English and Arabic websites was
dominant in Egypt’s online political sphere before the November elections
began and has grown significantly since then, particularly with respect to content. The Brotherhood’s English site links to much more external content
than its Arabic site, but it is a smaller site in terms of hosted content. This may
indicate that when seeking to inform their English-speaking audience, theMuslim Brotherhood provides more links to external content to build legitimacy. It may also indicate that there is more English content than Arabic content available to link to. The Arabic version of the site has fewer external links(90 percent fewer) and more hosted content (159 percent more) than the
English version.
The Muslim Brotherhood is actively developing its own social media
sphere, with ikhwantube.com and ikhwanbook.com—websites that offer
much of the functionality of Western namesakes like YouTube and Facebook.
As regional experts might expect, the Muslim Brotherhood and Communist
Party of Egypt share a number of links to the same kinds of content. Bothparties were the major opponents to Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic
Party. Since the November 2010 elections, both parties have increased theamount of content they have online.

Streaming Video Made Democratic Aspirations Viral
YouTube became a particularly important tool for spreading news and information of Egypt’s uprising around the world. Elsewhere, we identified the top
viral videos as of June 2011(Howard, Duff y et al. 2011). While it is difficult tomeasure the precise impact of these videos on audiences, some images of suffering certainly would have spurred protests and heightened moral outrage.
The first significant Egyptian video went viral on January 25, 2011. The
video depicts thousands of protesters converging on Tahrir Square. The images were captured by an amateur cameraman looking out of a building near
the main road. Based on the metadata reported on the uploader’s YouTube
account, the video was distributed by an account registered as located in the

62

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

United States. Since then, this video has accumulated more than 600,000
views. Based on tracking of the embed code, it is most likely that the video
received popular attention after being posted on AllMania.com, a sports commentary site that experienced a 600 percent increase in traffic in January 2011.
RussiaToday’s YouTube channel contributed five of the top-20 viral videos,
totaling 1,200,000 cumulative views. These videos were from citizen journalists and included live footage rebroadcast through the news agency’s outlets.
Al Jazeera English’s YouTube channel similarly contributed three videos, totaling more than 300,000 views. Reuters’s YouTube channel contributed one
video totaling more than 200,000 views. Between May 16 and 20, 2011, we
hand coded the most prominent videos loaded into YouTube with the keyword “Egypt” for author, viewing, and creation date information.
We found four major types of content that typified Egyptian viral videos:
raw protest and mobilization footage; citizen commentary; political punditry;and “soundtracks for the revolution.” Raw protest and mobilization footage
was the most common, totaling nearly 5.5 million views from 23 videos. One
video featured a detailed 20-minute dialogue between a religious scholar andpolitical philosopher about the future of Egypt, totaling 100,000 views. Another video featured a homemade video with a young girl’s commentary about
political events, totaling 275,000 views. But the most popular video, a music
video, was heralded as a soundtrack to the revolution and served as a rallying
cry of support for the Egyptian people’s protests. This music video, uploaded
on January 27, was the single most popular viral video for the Egyptian revolution, and it accounted for 25 percent of the top-20 video views.

Gender Politics and the Politics of Inclusion
Digital information technologies mediate gender politics in unexpected ways.
In the political economy of media, women are playing more dynamic roles in
television and film both in front of and behind the camera. But women have,in the opinion of some observers, aggressively invaded the new public spacecreated by digital media (Mernissi 2004). Marcotte, for example, has examined religious discourse regarding gender and sexuality, where forums havebeen essential spaces to challenge, contest, and even transgress traditional
norms (Marcotte 2010). Some have even observed in very conservative societies and families, that Muslim women have begun to participate economically by running their own private online businesses (Ardalan 2002). First,

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

63

digital media are allowing citizens to learn about the status of women and gender relations in other countries. Second, they also allow both men and women
to debate specific gender issues relevant in their own cultures (Stowasser
2001). Third, the arrival of digital media in many Muslim communities andhouseholds has become an occasion for renegotiating and restructuring gender relationships. Finally, the internet supports women-only online communities, which have become sites for political conversation away from bothpatriarchal leaders and the public gaze of journalists. Political elites in somecountries restrict internet access to prevent such cultural learning, discussion,and negotiation.
The introduction of new digital media does not simply provide the opportunity to redress gender disparities in developing communities; it is providing
a platform for learning about gender politics. Three factors impede learning
about gender politics in Muslim countries. First, new internet users rarely
have the ability to conduct sophisticated searches and critically assess thecontent they find. This comes with practice, along with coaching from friends
and family. Second, political elites in some countries actively work to discourage state programs from providing women with media training and access, or actively block listservs, blogs, and chat rooms where young Muslims
can have some discourse on gender issues. Third, government regulators
establish content filters that block websites they judge to be antithetical to theestablished edicts of gender relations in their country or according to theirinterpretation of Islam.
There is a growing literature about how exposure to digital media has an
impact on users’ levels of tolerance and empathy (Brundidge and Rice 2009;
Robinson, Neustadtl, and Kestnbaum 2004). For many young Muslims, theonline social networking applications and other content are the media bywhich they learn of life in other countries where faith and freedom can coexist.
Networked information technologies are, at the very least, partly responsible
for exposing citizens to liberal cultural values. Certainly some internet users inthese countries can be radicalized through their internet use, but many will besensitized through the internet. And in the case of Saudi Arabia, it may be thebroadcast media on state-authorized channels that do more to reinforce conservative and Wahabbist interpretations of Islam. In Egypt, the broadcast
media are certainly used to advance secularist perspectives of the role of faithin statecraft. One of the next steps in researching the impact of digital media incountries with large Muslim communities will be to investigate the overall
impact of internet use on tolerance.

64

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Social Networking, Digital and Otherwise
For the most part, public opinion in countries with large Muslim communities
has been a construction of ruling elites and state agencies. By so constraining
the media diets of citizens, the ability of journalists to investigate popular sentiment, and the ability of researchers to survey the public, the boundaries ofwhat constituted the “public” have been fundamentally constrained andknowledge of “opinion” deliberately kept vague. Today, political parties areusing the internet to construct political opinion in a different way. By deeply
integrating digital tools such as mobile phones and the internet into theirsystems of political communication, parties are able to reach and activate
much larger numbers of people. In this way, the internet is actively used tochallenge the basic relations of power because political parties use it to amass
publics that were not previously reachable. Moreover, even where regimes
allowed official opposition parties, the political actors who agreed to play by
the rules of conduct had an easier time controlling broadcast media. Social
networking applications have provided a new structure for the flow of politicalnews and information, a structure that does not easily provide political elites
with informational choke points. Without mandatory points of passage forpolitical content and digital hosting services beyond the territorial control ofthese governments, social networking applications have had implications for
who counts as the political public.
In countries where a handful of state agencies own the major media outlets,
it is possible to define the public through the selection of topics covered in thenews, through the framing of stories, and through the gender and ethnic representation of people who appear as journalists and as characters in news stories.
It is rare, for example, to have immigrant Bengalis, Pakistanis, and Indians canvassed for opinion in the nightly newscasts in Saudi Arabia or the United ArabEmirates (UAE). Increasingly, the internet has become an alternative information source, one that holds content related to those minority voices.
But public opinion is not shaped by the internet in the sense that lotsof citizens find interesting new public policy options online, but in the sensethat these major media outlets have added the internet to their tool kit formeasuring—and manipulating—public opinion. Media systems in these four
countries were designed by the elites to make for easy manipulation by autocratic leaders or the Saudi royal family. Autocrats, by definition, work to constrain the size and diversity of their publics through media systems that
distribute limited content to carefully defined groups. And it is the political

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

65parties, legal or not, that best use the internet to extend the definition of who
the public is, by expanding their membership and increasing the rate of active
contact. The social networking applications that facilitate the passage of political content over networks of family and friends provide not simply a competing media system but an alternative structure for distributing information.

Conclusions
Social media played a crucial role in the political uprisings in Tunisia andEgypt. Using original data from multiple social media sources, we can offersome concrete conclusions about what that role was. First, social media playeda central role in shaping political debates in the Arab spring. Second, a spikein online revolutionary conversations often preceded major events on the
ground. Third, social media helped spread democratic ideas across international borders. But perhaps the most powerful evidence that digital media
mattered in the Arab Spring comes from activists themselves.
Researchers with the Arab Social Media Report interviewed over a hundred
protesters from both Tunisia and Egypt. In both countries, Facebook users
were of the opinion that Facebook had been used primarily to raise awarenesswithin their countries about the ongoing civil movements, spread information
to the world about the movements, and organize activists and actions. Less
than 15 percent in either country believed Facebook was primarily being used
for entertainment or social reasons (Noman 2011). Surveys of participants in
Tahrir Square demonstrations reveal that social media in general, and Facebook in particular, provided new sources of information the regime could noteasily control and were crucial in shaping how citizens made individual
decisions about participating in protests, the logistics of protest, and the likelihood of success. People learned about the protests primarily through interpersonal communication using Facebook, phone contact, or face-to-faceconversation. Controlling for other factors, social media use greatly increased
the odds that a respondent attended protests on the first day, and half of thosesurveyed produced and disseminated visuals from the demonstrations, mainly
through Facebook (Tufekci and Wilson 2012).
Democratization movements existed in North Africa and the Middle East
long before technologies such as mobile phones, the internet, and social
media came to the region. However, with these technologies, people whoshare an interest in democracy learned to build extensive networks, create

66

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

social capital, and organize political action. In both Tunisia and Egypt, thesevirtual networks materialized in the streets in early 2011 to help bring down
two long-standing dictators.
Anecdotally, we know that social media played an important role at key
moments in the events of 2011. But what are the big-picture trends in social
media use that explain why public demand for democratic reform rose now
and why events unfolded the way they did? The previous datasets reveal muchabout the role of different kinds of social media. The Tunisian blogosphereprovided space for open political dialogue about regime corruption and thepotential for political change. Twitter relayed stories of successful mobilization within and between countries. Facebook functioned as a central node in
networks of political discontent in Egypt. During the protests, YouTube andother video archiving centers allowed citizen journalists, using mobile phone
cameras and consumer electronics, to broadcast stories that the mainstream
media could not or did not want to cover.
Social media alone did not cause political upheaval in North Africa. But information technologies—including mobile phones and the internet—altered
the capacity of citizens and civil society actors to affect domestic politics. Social
media have several kinds of impact on local systems of political communication.
First, social media provide new opportunities and new tools for social movements to respond to conditions in their countries. It is clear that the ability to
produce and consume political content, independent of social elites, is important because the public sense of shared grievances and potential for change candevelop rapidly. Second, social media foster transnational links between individuals and groups. This means that network ties form between international
and local democratization movements, and that compelling stories, told in
short text messages or long-form video documentaries, circulate around theregion. The inspiration of success in Tunisia was not just a fast-spreading contagion, for civil society leaders in neighboring countries also learned effective
strategies of successful movement organizing through social media.
Social movements are traditionally defined as collective challenges, basedon shared purposes, social solidarity, and sustained interactions with elites,
opponents, and authorities. They support a public claim against target authorities and engage in political action by forming coalitions, organizing
public meetings and demonstrations, and using the media to highlight theirclaims. Through such demonstrations and media use, social movements display their unity, numbers, and commitment. Social media, social networking
applications, and consumer electronics have not changed the purpose of

Inform at ion I n fras t ru ct u re an d P rot e s t

67social movement organizing—economic opportunity and political voice arestill the shared goals of social movements.
But in North Africa and the Middle East, relatively new youth movements
have been surprised by the speed, size, and success of protests they have organized over social networking websites. Over several years they have foundtheir political voice online and have held their meetings virtually. Each of the
dictators in these countries has long had many political enemies, but they
were a fragmented group of opponents. Now these opponents do more thanuse broadcast media to highlight their claims. They use social media to identify goals, build solidarity, and organize demonstrations. During the ArabSpring, individuals demonstrated their desire for freedom through social
media, and social media became a critical part of the tool kit used to protest
for freedom.
While several well-placed civic leaders and activists used digital media toorganize political uprisings and communicate with the world, digital media
were also used by regimes to respond to insurgencies. It would be a mistake toproceed without evaluating the ability of authoritarian regimes to use digital
tools in their counterinsurgency strategy, so the next chapter evaluates theforce of response—and degrees of success—that some governments had tothe surge of popular protest for democracy.

4
Authoritarian Responses
and Consequences

Perhaps the best evidence that digital media were an important causal factor in
the Arab Spring is that dictators treated them as such. The months during
which the Arab Spring took place had the most national blackouts, network
shutdowns, and tool blockages to date. But just as activists had a longer historyof using digital media, authoritarian regimes had a history of responding to
the political communication occurring over digital networks.
Long before the Arab Spring, on Friday, June 12, 2009, Iran voted, andwhen voters realized the election had been rigged, many poured into the streets
in protest. Even then, social media websites such as Twitter and Facebook and
SMS messaging were actively used to coordinate the movements of protesters
and to get images and news out to the international community. Compared toprotests that occurred the last time elections were stolen, the social movement
lasted longer, drew in thousands more participants, and produced more witnesses to the brutal regime crackdown. Social media played a role in extending
the life of civil disobedience. But while the theocratic regime did not fall, there
were some important outcomes: the ruling mullahs were split in opinion about
the severity of the crackdown. As part of the response, the regime attempted todisable national mobile phone networks. It disconnected the national internet
information infrastructure for several hours and installed a deep packet inspection system that significantly slowed traffic. Until 2011, few regimes in North
Africa and the Middle East had systematically disabled national information
infrastructure in response to a political crisis.
Fast-forward six months to the early phase of the Arab Spring: the Tunisianand Egyptian regimes had notably different responses to the digital organization of protests. Long before the protests in December 2010 and January

69

70

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

2011, Tunisian officials had a long, repressive history of monitoring and targeting individuals engaging in online political activism. But during the protests, the government did not effectively control information networks to stop
the outflow of local political conditions or the inflow of international reactions
and support. Mobilized and well-informed, protesters benefited from the government’s failure to manage sensitive information. Similarly, Egypt’s Mubarak
also failed to control information networks but in the end made a desperateattempt to shut down mobile networks. UK-based Vodafone complied with
the Egyptian regime’s demands to shut off mobile phones, which officials thenused to send orders and misinformation to protesters. But these actions had
the unintended consequence of increasing protest participation—organizer
Waleed Rasheed said, “I would like to thank Mubarak so much . . . he disconnected mobile phones on January 27. More people came down to the streetson the 28th of January because he disconnected.”
Yet authoritarian regimes have come to value digital media too. Security
services in Bahrain, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria observed how democracy
advocates were using social media in Egypt and Tunisia, and they developed
counterinsurgency strategies that allowed for surveilling, misleading, andentrapping protesters. New information technologies can be vital tools forsocial control (Aday et al. 2010; Howard 2010; Morozov 2011).
So it is not accurate to say that regimes are always disadvantaged by activists using digital technologies. While Tunisia and Egypt failed to act early andeffectively to control digital networks, Libya and Bahrain did not. Turning off
the internet was one of Gaddafi’s first reactions. Before activists and citizens
could learn about what was happening in neighboring cities, all outside news,
as well as outcries for support from foreign diasporas, became effectively impossible to receive. In Bahrain, after failing to turn away protesters after manydays of demonstrations, the regime responded by shutting off mobile networks early one morning. Shortly thereafter, the peaceful protesters were fired
on with live ammunition. This occurred at a time when their ability to coordinate or to seek international support from foreign media was effectively
blocked. In the days that followed, the government used the same social media
sites protesters used to organize themselves by crowdsourcing the identifications of anonymous participants—or what Al Jazeera reporters have termed “avirtual lynch-mob.”
Even Tunisian and Egyptian officials tried such surgical methods to punish
dissenters. It is alleged that Tunisian authorities carried out “phishing” operations, to steal citizens’ passwords to monitor and remove their content. SofieneAuthor it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

71

Chourabi, a journalist and blogger, found himself unable to recover his email
and Facebook accounts after they were hijacked. At the same time, content hehad posted and pages he administered were deleted. “Here we don’t reallyhave internet, we have a national intra-net,” said Azyz Amamy, a Tunisian web
activist.
So what was the role of regimes in controlling information networks? How
did their strategies impede the progress of digital activism, and under whatcircumstances did their efforts fail, backfire, or result in other unpredictableoutcomes? How might understanding the strategies of repressive governments
inform our understanding of the digital organization of social protest and political activism? For civil society actors around the world, digital media andonline social networking applications have changed the way in which dissent
is organized (Bimber, Flanagin, and Stohl 2005; Howard 2010; Still 2005).
Social movement leaders from around the world use online applications anddigital content systems to organize collective action, activate local protest networks, network with international social movements, and share their politicalperspective with global media systems (Byrne 2007; Kloet 2002; Shumate
and Pike 2006).
In the past, authoritarian regimes easily controlled broadcast media intimes of political crisis by destroying newsprint supplies, seizing radio andtelevision stations, and blocking phone calls. It is certainly more difficult tocontrol digital media on a regular basis, but there have been occasions whenstates have disabled a range of marginal to significant portions of their national
information infrastructure. What situational tendencies cause state powers tospecifically block internet access and disable digital networks? When do
regimes resort to the more extreme measures of shutting off internet access?
And when they do not have the capacity to control digital networks, how dostates respond offline to dissent and criticism? What is the impact of doing so,
and who is most affected?
Sophisticated repressive regimes often preemptively respond with a digitalcounterinsurgency strategy and often prepare for the day they need to battle
their citizens either in the streets or in an information war. States such as
China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are excellent examples. China has invested agreat deal of effort in constructing its virtual firewall, Iran has tested andimplemented its own deep-packet inspection software purchased from Nokia,
and Saudi Arabia has rerouted its internet cables through state-security serversin Riyadh to create a literal information bottleneck. Other countries, such as
Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, did not have sophisticated long-term investments in

72

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

managing information infrastructure. But when unexpected political turmoil
arose, they developed responses that ranged from jailing and beating bloggers
to more sophisticated strategies such as asking loyalists to identify protesters
in photos posted on Facebook, creating domestic surveillance programs
forcing citizens to monitor one another’s activities, and more. In these
instances, regimes used activists’ spaces against them.
To conclude, we introduce examples and narratives along a spectrum ofstate sophistication with information technology, digital media censorship,
the co-option of internet and mobile phone service providers, and the surveillance of civil society groups online. We look at the most intriguing examples ofboth clumsy and smart state responses. Egypt responded too late and with astrategy too unsophisticated to stop the information flow. Saudi Arabia and
Syria responded very early and with very sophisticated offline and online
strategies to curb the potential for protest mobilization. Technologies themselves do not possess liberatory potential—in important ways, authoritarian
governments have actively learned new tricks from one another and fromtheir mistakes.

Decision Paths and Opportunity Structures
It is difficult to investigate patterns of state censorship. Many reports of censorship are essentially self-reported by technology users who assume there is apolitical reason behind their inability to connect to a digital network, whether
mobile phone networks, gaming networks, or the internet. Sometimes thestate admits to acts of censorship, which makes it easier to learn why the government has interfered and to what effect. At other times the state acts soclumsily or breaks the communication link between such large networks thatmany users can report being affected. While several researchers have studied
the broad social impact of censorship, only a few have been able to provide
evidence about both the shared perception that the state is surveilling its
public and specific incidents of censorship that involve disconnections in digital networks (Deibert et al. 2008; Deibert et al. 2010). Drawing from multiple
sources, however, it is possible to do a comparative analysis of the myriad ofincidents in which government officials decide to censor their online publics.
The story of state censorship of information networks is not necessarily specific to non-democratic governments. And not all acts of state censorship areeasy to describe and classify. One of the first incidents occurred on December

Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s73

29, 1995, when German prosecutors demanded that an internet service provider (ISP) block 4 million worldwide subscribers from reading sex-related information on portions of the internet. This was the first instance of such drastic
measures of state censorship, legislation, and regulation of information received
online. Motivation for the shutdown came from a police investigation into
child pornography in Bavaria, Germany. Though German officials were targeting 220,000 German subscribers when they asked for the block, CompuServe,
the ISP in question, had no mechanism in place to limit just German users at
the time and thus had to shut down service to all subscribers. In all, CompuServe restricted subscriber access to 200 newsgroups specifically related tothe site Usenet. Reaction to the censorship elicited varied responses from community and civic groups. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, for example, hailed it as a form of “electronic citizenship.” Meanwhile,groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation indicated concern and resistance to the notion of state control over individual rights online. The most current debate over internet censorship in a democratic country is taking place inAustralia. Since 2008, the Australian Labor Party has pushed for a large-scale
blocking of blacklisted foreign websites. If the measure passes, Australian internet service providers would be mandated to block such content, though thelegislation to enact the censorship regulations has not yet been completed.
These early and recent incidents of state intervention with internet connectivity have brought forth questions that we still struggle to answer today: Whocontrols internet content? What are the legitimate reasons for state interference with digital networks? Over the last 15 years, states (both authoritarianand democratic) have become increasingly willing to interfere with the links
between nodes of digital infrastructure. They do this by shutting out particularusers or shutting off particular servers, by breaking the links to sub-networks
of digital media, and sometimes even by disconnecting national information
infrastructure from global networks. Recently, Research in Motion (RIM),
the company behind the popular BlackBerry smartphone, has been involvedin a complex issue involving several governments’ requests to obtain better
access to the server nodes in RIM’s service networks. In the spring of 2010, a
prominent political figure in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) used his BlackBerry’s mobile camera to record himself torturing a Bangladeshi migrant
worker. The video was taken and posted online, causing outrage from humanrights groups and embarrassing the country’s ruling elites. The UAE’s response
has been to demand that RIM provide dedicated servers within their territory
so that the regime can monitor traffic and disable services as it chooses.

74

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Eventually both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates threatened toban the use of the popular BlackBerry smart phone. The UAE threatened toblock access to text messages, email, and web browsers if RIM did not allow
government access for security investigations. The threat of censorship could
potentially affect more than half a million users of the most popular smartphone in the UAE. India followed suit, citing national security as the impetus
for demanding that RIM stop encrypting data sent through their phones. Increasingly, private companies and ISP providers are being caught between
meeting the security and information needs of their users and obeying imposed
government regulations. Conceding, at least partially, to governmental pressure rather than risking a complete block, however, is more valuable to mobile
and internet providers—BlackBerry, for example, is the most popular device
connecting business elites and managers in these booming economies.
Since 1995—the year the National Science Foundation effectively privatized the internet (by decommissioning NSFNET and transitioning to several
commercial networks)—there have been at least 526 occasions in which governments intervened in the connections of a digital network. Of these, about
half were enacted by authoritarian regimes. The three countries with the highest number of incidents, China, Tunisia, and Turkey, represent both authoritarian and democratic regimes. In times of political uncertainty, rigged
elections, or military incursions, ruling elites are sometimes willing to interfere with information infrastructure as a way of managing crises. In many ofthese cases, the targets (victims) are active domestic civil society movementswith international linkages. When these movements organize, authoritarian
governments can react harshly and invasively by blocking access to the global
internet. Yet at the same time, these authoritarian regimes find that theycannot block internet access for extended periods, both because doing so has
an impact on the national economy and because international political pressure becomes hard to ignore. During the heat of the protests in Tahrir Square,
Mubarak demanded that the internet infrastructure be shut down; the loss tothe national internet cost Egypt 4 percent of its annual GDP, or about $90
million dollars from a loss of revenue and global financial transactions. Similarly, on February 18, Libya abruptly turned off the entire internet before collapsing into civil war. Internet traffic fluctuations in Yemen also dropped
briefly when the government was suspected of installing filtering software.
Arbor Networks, an agency that monitors information security said, “We havenever seen a country as connected as Egypt completely lose connectivity forsuch an extended period” (Labovitz 2011). Of 110 major internet providers

Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

75

worldwide during the Arab Spring protests, Bahrain and Libya had the mostpronounced changes in internet traffic. Some blamed “overloaded circuits”
while others suspected governments of enforced slowdowns of servers.
Shutting off the internet for a country’s network also impacts the capacityof the state to respond to a crisis. Therefore, the decision tree for choking off
internet access also involves some willingness to incapacitate portions of thegovernment’s security apparatus. Civil society groups do find methods to circumvent the blocked social media. A significant body of literature has grownaround social movement use of newer digital media against authoritarianregimes (Garrett 2006; Marmura 2008a, b; McLaughlin 2003). While there isa healthy, ongoing conversation by scholars on the ways civil societies use digital media for social and political mobilization, studies are rare that examine
the motivations, tactics, and impacts of government responses to online civic
activity.
Comparative case analyses of the occasions in which regimes disconnectedsignificant portions of their national digital infrastructure, including mobile
phones and internet access, can help illuminate this issue. We need to define
the range of situations in which states have actually disrupted large sections of
their own national information infrastructure, evaluate the outcomes for
regime stability and civil society, and advance collective action theory througha typology of regime-based censorship of digital hardware and digital content.
Through this typology we argue for the importance of the regime in shaping
the political economy of ICT infrastructures. After all, activists must operate
within the overall information infrastructure available to them in the market,
which the government has a heavy hand in shaping. While some have argued
that the state no longer has strong control of media production and consumption systems, there are many occasions when a state can exercise power overdigital networks.

How Do States Interfere with Digital Networks?
The internet has become an invaluable logistical tool for organization and communication among civil society groups. It is an information infrastructure
mostly independent of the state, and since civil society groups are by definitionsocial organizations independent of the state, the internet has become an important incubator for social movements and civic action. Some governments work
hard to censor digital media, but even in such countries the internet is difficult

76

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

to control. Governments might own nodes in the network, but rarely can they
completely choke off network connections. This means that tools such as YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, and email are useful, and at sensitive times, criticalorganizational tools. In some of the toughest authoritarian regimes, these tools
are crucial because face-to-face conversations about political life are so problematic. For civil society groups these tools are often content distribution systems
largely independent of the state. But there are numerous circumstances in whichgovernments and repressive regimes have learned to co-opt or limit these opportunities for autonomous civic action. The internet has altered the dynamics
of political communication systems in many countries, such that the internet
itself is the site of political contestation between the state and civil society.
States interfere with digital networks using many tactics with various levelsof severity. Generally, all states, including democracies, emerging democracies, authoritarian regimes, and fragile states, have targeted members of civilsociety. They have done so online by shutting down websites or portals; offlineby arresting journalists, bloggers, activists, and citizens; by proxy through controlling internet service providers, forcing companies to shut down specificwebsites, or denying access to content the state considers disagreeable; and, inthe most extreme cases, shutting down access to entire online and mobile networks. Surprisingly, while authoritarian regimes generally attempt to control
full networks, sub-networks, and nodes more than democracies do, democracies are more likely to target civil society actors by proxy through control ofinternet service providers. Table 4.1 presents cases where governments exercised control by targeting full networks (shutting down the internet), subnetworks (blocking websites), and network nodes (targeting individuals),
and by proxy (pressuring service providers).
Event-history analysis is a commonly used comparative method for examining the real circumstances of political crises. More important, it is particularly useful for developing a nuanced understanding of relatively newsocial phenomena and for building typologies and categories of politicalaction. Drawing on a range of sources, we built a unique collection ofdetailed event logs for major disruptions in digital networks of nations
between 1995 and 2011. We collected information about incidents asreported in major news media, specialized news sources such as national
security and information security blogs, and other online forums for discussing such topics.
A case is defined as an occasion when a government intervened in a digital
network by breaking or turning off connections between national sub-networks

Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

Table 4.1

77

How Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Incidents
by Regime Type
Democracy Emerging
Democracy

Authoritarian

FragileTotal

Complete Network
Shutdown (FullNetworks)

13

3

30

3

49

Specific Site-oriented
Shutdowns (Sub-Networks)

140

25

210

8

383

Individual Users(Nodes)

82

16

125

3

226

By Proxy Through ISP

47

4

41

4

96

Source: Based on authors’ calculations, replication data available at www.pitpi.org.

and global information networks. Sometimes this meant blocking ports or accessto a particular sub-network of digital media, such as content at the domains Facebook or YouTube. In times of significant political or military crisis, such as war orcontested elections, the governments might disconnect SMS messaging services
or block the entire country’s access to global networks. Additionally, regimes may
target individual actors in networks. But these incidents are more than general
government threats of surveillance or intimidation (which are also forms of censorship). They are distinct incidents when government officials made the specificdecision to disable the links or nodes in the portions of the information networks
they can control.
Since the literature on digital censorship often makes a distinction between
democracies, emerging democracies, and authoritarian regimes, we rely on
the Polity IV data about regime type (Marshall and Jaggers 2010). In addition, since several of the governments appearing in the event log are too fragile to be placed definitively into one of these three categories, we rely on
Polity IV data for a category of fragile regimes. As per Polity IV coding, if astate was recovering from civil war or foreign military invasion, experiencing
a complex humanitarian disaster, or had effectively failed for other reasons,we coded this state as fragile. A state’s regime type was set according to the
Polity IV score for that state in the year of the reported incident. Several
countries had several incidents, and it is possible that regime types changed
over time.

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

78

In all, there were 566 unique incidents involving 101 countries: 39 percentof the incidents occurred in democracies, 7 percent in emerging democracies,
51 percent in authoritarian regimes, and 2 percent in fragile states. Each incident was coded for the name of the country in which a state agency intervened
in digital networks, the year of the incident, the type of regime, and a precise
date if available. We made general notes on the narrative of each incident andmapped on the Polity IV score for the country in the year of the incident. Then
we developed three standardized typologies for the kinds of incidents being
reported. First, we developed a category that iteratively helped define the caseand a typology of actions that states take against social media. Second, wedeveloped a category for the reason a state took that action, sometimes relying
on third-party reports if the state simply denied any interference. Finally, wedeveloped a category for the impact of the interference.
While we might expect authoritarian regimes to interfere more aggressively with their digital infrastructure than other types of regimes, Figure 4.1
reveals that democracies also substantively disconnect their communication
networks—with at least 80 incidents a year occurring in recent years. Only afraction of these involve emerging democracies, but Figure 4.1 provokes
more questions. Over time, it appears that all types of regimes have become
120
Democracy
100

Emerging Democracy
Authoritarian

80

60

40

20

0
1995

2000

2005

2010

Figure 4.1 Number of Major Incidents of State Intervention in Digital Networks, byRegime Type, 1995–2011.
Note: In total, there were 566 incidents before April 2011. Regime type is tied to the specificyear in which the incident was recorded.

Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

79

more and more willing to interfere with information access. As social media
have diffused, they have become a fundamental infrastructure for collective
action. Even though democracies appear just as aggressive as authoritarianregimes in disconnecting digital networks, are there differences in the ways
such states intervene? What are the different reasons for such drastic interventions (see Table 4.2)?
The most extreme form of network control occurs when states shut down
access to the internet entirely. Authoritarian regimes have done so significantly more than fragile states and emerging democracies, and also twice asoften as democracies. For example, China shut down internet services in the
Xinjiang region after ethnic riots erupted in 2006. The riots resulted in 140
fatalities, and the state has since blocked access to Twitter and other social
networking sites to control the conflict and dissent. Pakistan also severely
restricted the internet after a US-based cartoonist organized the “Everybody
Draw Mohammed Day.” After the event attracted 43,000 fans from aroundthe world, the Pakistani government began banning content. Emerging democracies such as Haiti and Thailand have engaged in shutting down internet service providers and entire online networks like YouTube. Thousandsof Haitians lost internet access in 1999 when the government allegedly
attempted to silence dissent and consolidate power under the guise of punishing Alpha Network Communications for selling telephone cards and providing international telephone services. Bangladesh blocked YouTube andmost other file-sharing services after recordings of a meeting between theprime minister and senior army officers were leaked. Thailand, also an
emerging democracy with a record of political online censorship, maintains
a block on entire internet services like YouTube. Guatemala, a democracy,
also blocked entire networks when a political crisis over the murder of aprominent lawyer raged on the WordPress network. These examples suggestthat although complete network shutdowns are least common, they tend tomaterialize when states face national controversies and moments of severesocial and political unrest, often (but by no means exclusively) in authoritarian regimes.
These examples and narratives surrounding the circumstances when
governments are most likely to limit or shut off internet and mobile services were replayed during the Arab Spring. But the Arab Spring also led tosome important innovations and advancements in states’ strategies for
managing information networks, either as long-term investments or moresophisticated short-term responses. For example, the US Department ofState has commented that many Arab regimes engaged in second- andTable 4.2.

Why Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Incidents byRegime Type
Democracy

Emerging
Democracy

Authoritarian

FragileTotal

Protecting Political
Leaders and State
Institutions

30

7

23

1

61

Election Crisis

4

3

9

0

16

Eliminating
Propaganda

5

1

24

0

30

Mitigating
Dissidence

8

5

11

3

27

National Security

29

6

34

0

69

Protecting Authority

Preserving the Public Good

Preserving Cultural
and Religious
Morals

27

4

37

6

74

Preserving Racial
Harmony

9

0

1

0

10

Protecting Children

30

0

2

0

32

CulturalPreservation

2

0

19

0

21

Protecting Individual’s Privacy

3

0

2

0

5

Dissuading
Criminal Activity

29

3

18

1

51

Alleged System
Failure, Neither
Denied Nor
Admitted

4

4

9

0

17

Censorship Denied
By State

3

1

11

0

15

Unknown, Other

40

4

90

4

138

Total

223

38

290

15

566

Source: Based on authors’ calculations, replication data available at www.pitpi.org.

80Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

81

third-generation strategies (Marks 2011). First-generation strategies werelimited to buying online censorship soft ware from Silicon Valley and installing it in-country. Second- and third-generation strategies are more sophisticated and effective. For example, governments have organized“denial-of-service” attacks on human rights or activist organizations’ websites: flooding their sites with so many requests that it effectively crashes
organizational servers and prevents other citizens from accessing their content. Some regimes sent malware and viruses to websites to infect programming and hardware. Although second- and third-generation strategies are
more effective, the ultimate strategy used by many regimes in the ArabSpring was to completely turn off access.
Unlike the most extreme measure of shutting down entire online networks,
states are most likely to target individual websites (online) or their producers
and users (offline). Democracies are much more likely to engage in online
content censorship than other tactics, though they also frequently target civilsociety members offline. The earliest case of a democracy shutting down
online sub-networks was the aforementioned German attempt in 1995. In
1996, German authorities again removed access to banned material, includinga Dutch online magazine. More recently, Australia, as of July 2010, is considering a mandatory internet filter to censor a list of URLs associated with childsexual abuse, bestiality, sexual violence, crime, violence, drug use, and content
advocating violence and extremism.
While socially questionable material and content promoting criminal activities are commonly cited reasons for blocking online material in democratic
states, some states have used the same tactic for dealing with foreign policy
disputes. In August 2010, South Korea engaged in an online dispute with North
Korea over social media when South Korean citizens were threatened by theSouth Korean government with arrest for accessing North Korea’s Twitter feed.
However, despite attempting to reroute requests from North Korea’s Twitter
page to a warning page, North Korea’s page accumulated more than 9,000 followers. In instances like this, when states are unable to block online content
effectively, they are forced to move more directly toward censoring individuals.
Authoritarian states do this most often, and in many cases, with more severity.
Bloggers, journalists, and social activists are the most common individual targets of offline censorship, often facing arrest and fines. Following Thailand’s
military coup in 2006, two cyber dissidents were arrested for comments madeabout the monarchy in online discussion boards, and they now face a minimum
sentence of 15 years in prison. Another example of online activities leading to82

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

offline government reactions is Cuba’s arrests of two online journalists working
for CubaNet in 2005 and 2007. These journalists were arrested for engaging in“subversive propaganda” and “precriminal social danger.”
While democracies engage in censoring individual users, like authoritarianregimes, they also have a unique tendency to target individuals providing theinfrastructure. In fact, democracies have a slightly higher rate of blocking content and controlling civil actors through indirect measures, such as targetinginternet service providers. Turkey and Italy, both democracies, have legally pursued charges against both internet service providers and their users. In March
2010, an Italian court convicted three Google executives for not removing violent video content that appeared on their online services. In August 2009,
Malawi approved legal measures to pressure internet service providers to monitor social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook. Hungary and Belgium have also shared experiences where internet service providers have comeunder pressure to approve “notices of takedown” procedures from their governments, a process whereby online hosts remove content in response to court
orders or allegations of copyright infringement. This could be because much of
the global information infrastructure is based out of advanced economies, suchas the United States, Germany, the United Kingdom, and France. Authoritarianregimes often do not have direct control over these foreign entities, other than
through state-run ISPs based in Tripoli, Riyadh, Cairo, and other countries.
Surprisingly, while authoritarian regimes are more likely to fine and imprison
civil society actors directly for criticizing the regime and its elites, democracies
have more examples of regimes using legal frameworks and roundaboutmeasures for targeting both internet service providers and their users.

Why Do States Interfere with Digital Networks?
Governments interfering with digital networks often justify their actions bysaying they are merely protecting public officials and state institutions, or preserving the “public good.” Authoritarian regimes often do so during election
crises, to eliminate propaganda and mitigate dissidence in the purported interest of national security. Public officials cite “terrorism threats” and preventing the spread of “state secrets” as reasons to do so. For example, the Bahraini
government turned the state media against protesters, broadcasting messages
encouraging citizens to report the identities of Shia dissidents inciting criticism against the Sunni government. Undermining authority figures is a

Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

83

frequent reason for justifying digital interference by non-democratic regimes.
As far back as 2007, Kazakh officials shut down opposition websites becauseof published transcripts and recordings related to a public battle between authoritarian President Nursultan Nazarbayev and his estranged son-in-law.
Because sensitive communications such as these can be used by dissidentgroups for propaganda purposes, governments also target online activists legallyas well. In 2003, China sentenced a user to four years in prison for discussing
and posting information about democracy over email, online forums, and chatrooms. Established democracies such as the United States have also attempted
to discourage dissidence. In 2009, two citizens were arrested for tweeting about
police locations during G20 protests in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Although
regimes interfere with digital networks to preserve regime legitimacy, election
periods are especially sensitive times for authoritarian regimes. These elections,although often forged and rigged, present a lucrative opportunity for prodemocracy activists to illuminate the public about government corruption.
Regimes are on higher alert during these periods to intervene and eliminate
conversations about corruption prior to, during, or after elections. During thecontentious Iranian elections of 2009, officials first slowed and then shut down
access to the entire Twitter network, heavily used by protest movements tocoordinate and share information about the contested elections. Similarly,
Egyptian citizens have been known to post footage of votes being counted, withclear evidence of forgery and bribing, on YouTube. While the Iranian regime
was very sophisticated in tracking, deleting, and arresting these activists, Egyptian state security was not.
While authoritarian regimes (and sometimes established democracies)
will justify digital interventions as a means to protect public officials and state
institutions, they must also engage in some rhetorical gymnastics to justify
their actions as being in the interest of the public good. States also disable
social media by claiming an urgent need to preserve the public good and,sometimes, public safety. During the Arab Spring, preserving cultural and religious morals (Saudi Arabia), preserving racial harmony (Bahrain), and dissuading criminal activity (Egypt) were common reasons cited for shutting off
social media and mobile networks.
Officials attribute intervention to preventing the spread of blasphemous or
offensive information that challenges the religious and cultural morality of thestate. This is especially true of Saudi Arabia and other Islamist regimes. A comprehensive project by the Open-Net Initiative investigating religiously sanctioned censorship found that “religion-based internet censorship bars the free

84

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

flow of information in many majority Muslim countries by means of regulatory restrictions and ISP-level technical filtering that blocks objectionable
web content. When regimes implement and enforce faith-based censorshipthey create borders around certain content. . . . For example, many majority
Muslim countries criminalize the promotion of non-Islamic faiths among
their Muslim citizens offline” (Noman 2011). Because many authoritarianregimes in the Arab world maintain legitimacy by relying on religious sanction, censoring religious content and perspectives is as critical as censoringother types of political information (Noman 2011).
The long list of countries that engage in religiously sanctioned censorshipof sensitive political information include Bahrain, Gaza, Kuwait, Morocco,
Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Tunisia, the UAE, and Yemen. These cases
involve targeting websites and individuals who access or distribute “antiIslamic” (a category frequently used to block anything threatening to theregime or local power elites) or pornographic material. For example, Pakistan
blocked access to 450 sites in 2009, including Facebook and YouTube, after aninternational event to depict the Prophet Mohammed was organized on Facebook. In another example, Iran shut down access to YouTube and Amazon, in
2006, to “purge the country of Western influence.”
Regimes sometimes justify their actions by claiming to protect public
safety. Reducing criminal acts is used as a reason to justify interventions when
individuals have been arrested for copyright infringement, distribution of illegal information, and participation in activities deemed illegal by the state.
Individuals have often been prosecuted for breaking the law in their homecountries. For example, in 2009, Polish authorities arrested the creators of apeer-to-peer portal and shut down the site because of alleged copyright infringement. On the other hand, long before the Arab Spring, Tunisian citizens
were fined and jailed for “causing harm by means of telecommunication networks” when they filmed and posted content online without an official permit
or written consent of those being filmed.

Conclusion: The Causes and Consequencesof Digital Interventions
The lasting impact of a temporary disconnection in internet service may actually be a strengthening of weak ties between global and local civil society networks. When civil society disappears from the grid, others notice. What lasts

Author it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

85

are the ties between a nation’s civic groups, and between international nongovernmental organizations and like-minded, in-country organizations. Certainly not all of these virtual communities are about elections, but their
existence is a political phenomenon particularly in countries where state andsocial elites have worked hard to police offline communities. Thus, even thebulletin boards and chat rooms dedicated to shopping for brand-name watches
are sites that practice free speech and where the defense of free speech is a
topic of conversation. The internet allows opposition movements that are
based outside of a country to reach in and become part of the system of political communication within even the strictest authoritarian regimes. Today,banning political parties could simply mean that formal political opposition
will move to organize online, from outside the country. It also means that civilsociety leaders may turn to other organizational forms permitted by network
technologies.
When states disconnect particular social media services, student and civilsociety leaders develop creative workarounds and relearn traditional (offline)
mobilization tactics. This almost always means that target sites, such as YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter, are accessible through other means. Whenregimes cannot successfully shut off online dissidence and autonomous civilconversations, they are forced to look outward. Sometimes, it is possible tohave enough leverage through international relations or legal frameworks tosuccessfully curb an opposition movement. In March 2011, a Facebook page
supporting the Palestinian intifada was pulled down by Facebook after the
Israeli government complained that the page was inciting violence against
Jews. In authoritarian regimes, such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, andothers, such an act is not as easy. These regimes must work hard to curb
online dissidence internally in creative ways. When 40 Saudi women stageda rare demonstration in Riyadh demanding the release of prisoners held
without trial, they were supported by an online campaign calling for political reform and launched on Facebook. In April 2011, prominent blogger
and democratic activist Ahmed Mansoor was conveniently charged withpossession of alcohol and arrested (after receiving death threats online). He
had been petitioning for political representation and legislative powers for
democratic institutions.
Beyond arrests and beatings, government responses have become moresophisticated. In the case of Mansoor, a Facebook page called “Ahmed Mansoor, a traitor without a nation” was created to defame the activist and hiswork. These tactics have been echoed in neighboring countries as well.

86

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Bahraini officials responded to Shia activists by not only firing on peacefulprotesters but also creating what Al Jazeera English has called “a virtual lynchmob.” The Facebook pages used by Bahraini activists were turned againstthem to hunt down organizers and participants through crowd-sourced identification of individuals in online photographs and videos. Once identified,many of these citizens were arrested, publicly defamed online and on state
media, and tortured, and some killed, by Bahraini authorities.
When a political, military, or other security crisis is over, what remains is
the lasting impact of a temporary outage in digital network connectivity. Theinternet has become a crucial component of political communication during
elections—even rigged ones. It has also become a crucial component of political communication during other kinds of regime transition, such as executive
turnover, foreign military intervention, natural disasters, and social protests
that challenge in a very fundamental way a regime’s legitimacy. Information
infrastructure is not simply part of the general context of contemporary social
mobilization. Indeed, social computing is a defining feature of elections. Digital media such as mobile phones and the internet now help incubate civic
conversations, especially in countries that heavily censor the national print
and broadcast media.
Internet access is often limited to wealthy social elites, but these elites havea key role in either accepting or rejecting the outcome of an election. Theinternet has become a necessary infrastructure for the development of civilsociety, and election season is often the time for civic groups to be most active.
Most, though not all, of the regimes studied in this event catalogue are authoritarian, or were when the decision to disconnect from global information networks was taken. For authoritarian regimes, the single greatest threat tostability is often internal elite defection. When a cohort of wealthy families,
educated and urban elites, and government employees decide they no longer
wish to back a regime, it is likely to fail. In most of the countries studied here,
only a small fraction of the population has internet access through computers
and mobile phones. However, this small population is the one for whichauthoritarian regimes work hard to broker information.
It is not Twitter, blogs, or YouTube that cause social unrest. But today, successful social movement organizing and civic engagement is difficult to imagine without this suite of social media tools, even in countries such as Iran,
Egypt, or Tunisia. Many people in these countries have no internet or mobilephone access. Nevertheless, the people who do—urban dwellers, educatedelites, and the young—are precisely the population with the capacity to enableAuthor it arian R e s pon s e s an d C on s e qu e n ce s

87regime change or to tacitly support electoral outcomes. These are the populations who support or defect from authoritarian rule, and for whom connections to family and friends have demonstrably changed with technology
diffusion. Comparative analysis reveals the degree to which different regimes
feel threatened by social media, whether such tools are actively used to organize dissent, or passively used for producing and consuming culture.
When digital networks are reactivated, personal networks that cross international boundaries also reactivate. Digital outages have become sensitive
moments in which student leaders, journalists, and civil society groups experiment with digital technologies. Even if their favorite candidates are notelected, the process of experimentation with digital media is importantbecause it infuses more information habits and news diets independent of thestate into their daily engagement with public life.
Information infrastructure is politics. And the political culture that we now
see online during elections comes not just from political elites but also fromcitizens: using social media, documenting human rights abuses with their mobile phones, sharing spreadsheets to track state expenditures, and pooling information about official corruption. Perhaps the most lasting impact of digital
media use during crises is that people get accustomed to being able to consume
and produce political content. When regimes disconnect from global information infrastructures, they employ a range of stop-gap measures that usually
reinforce public expectation for global connectivity. One of the things authoritarian regimes did consistently during the Arab Spring was to block citizens
from reading international news and activists from reaching international journalists. On the eve of major protests in Tahrir Square, one protestor noted, “If
Al Jazeera turns off its cameras tonight, there will be a massacre in Tahrir
Square.” In the following chapter we explore why activists, even primarily digital activists, rely so heavily on international news organizations, but also why
non-democratic regimes loathe them so much.

5
Al Jazeera, Social Media,
and Digital Journalism
This is why I no longer have the control over the country
that I once had.
—Mubarak to diplomat in-flight over Cairo, pointing to theforest of television antennas below, 1995
If you switch off your cameras tonight, there will be
genocide. . . . You are protecting us by showing what ishappening in Tahrir Square.
—Caller from Tahrir Square to director of Al Jazeera
network, January 25, 2011
Yes, we may have helped Tunisia, Egypt. But let us notforget the elephant in the room: Al Jazeera + sat dishes.
—WikiLeaks’ tweet, January 29, 2011

In previous chapters, we demonstrated the ways in which social media provided new capacities and constraints on a range of political actors, from desperate democracy activists to traditional political parties and tough dictators.
But we would be remiss not to look into the important changes in how journalists work and to the role of news organizations since news consumers in theregion began using technologies like mobile phones and the internet to readand produce news. In many of the countries caught up in revolutionary fervor,
it was a small group of civic leaders who first used digital media in creative
ways to reach a wider public eager for political change. But in recent years, aneven wider public began using consumer electronics in ways that changed the
dynamics of news markets. And as a news agency, Al Jazeera has been the most

89

90

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

adept and autonomous at keeping up with media habits and demands ofpeople in the region.
Across North Africa and the Middle East, a growing cohort of citizens now
consumes more international news than ever before. There is some evidence
that the news sources are primarily Al Jazeera, the BBC, CNN, and other international news organizations with a vivid online presence. This is an importantdevelopment because regimes that used to be able to play distinct domestic
and international political games through state-owned media can no longer
do so to the same degree. Distinctions between local and international news
are intertwined for many citizens. During the Arab Spring protests, Arab citizens learned about what was happening in Amman and compared it with what
took place in neighboring Cairo, as well as in international Western hubs withlarge overseas diasporas such as Paris, Toronto, and Chicago. How did news of
their experiences reach regional and international readers so quickly and efficiently? What role did the mainstream news organizations play in this critical
diffusion of information? And how are traditional broadcast networks forging
new ways of operating in environments where activists can effectively operateside by side?
In this chapter we discuss the indispensable role broadcast organizations,such as Al Jazeera English, played in amplifying social media narratives internationally. Al Jazeera is a fascinating case study in how traditional news media
helped create new linkages among civil society actors within and between
countries. Unlike many Western news cultures that socialize journalists tomaintain a healthy distance from the subjects of their coverage, news culturesin North Africa and the Middle East operate more nimbly and cooperate withcitizen journalists. Embedded in digital environments, participatory citizen
bloggers upload user-generated content through mobile phones, and activists
reach out directly to journalists. Newly established news organizations such as
Al Jazeera English played a critical role operating not only alongside digital
activists, but acting hand-in-hand with them.
During the height of the protests in Tahrir Square, activists pleaded with Al
Jazeera to not stop filming, saying, “If you switch off your cameras tonight,
there will be genocide. . . . You are protecting us by showing what is happeningin Tahrir Square” (Bosker 2011). In notable contrast were Libya and Bahrain,
where broadcast journalists were not present and protest movements were
notably less successful and more violent. First, we treat Al Jazeera as a news
organization and discuss the role of digital media in shaping organizational
and product innovation. Then we discuss the impact of media privatization on

Al Jaz eer a, S ocial M e dia, an d Dig it al J ou rn al is m91

the political economy of news in the region and the growing market for news
about local events among each country’s global diaspora. Subsequently, we
make the argument that in the absence of legitimate opportunities to be a citizen through voting and public assembly, generating content for blogs andnews sites has become, in recent years, one form of civic expression for people
in several countries across the region. Citizen journalists have been carryingout some of the most vociferous critiques, and the habits of citizen journalism
spread widely in the moments of crisis in early 2011.

Al Jazeera, Digital Media, and the Changing
Organization of NewsThe online and broadcast audience for Al Jazeera’s news products has grownover the years, though it certainly varies from country to country. But during
the Arab Spring, Al Jazeera was instrumental in constructing a news audiencein two ways. First, it covered stories that the national news media in many
countries would not, particularly at times when citizens wanted those stories.
Second, as an independent organization it remained active and “live” as a news
agency when governments shut down domestic news agencies. Third, Al
Jazeera actively cultivated content from citizens, providing fresh, local content
that news consumers wanted.
Al Jazeera is probably the most widely read single online news source in the
Arab world. Its content is frequently updated and is thematically consistentacross English and Arabic versions (Abdul-Mageed 2008). Yet, compared toWestern media, there are definite differences in the frames used. Websites for the
New York Times and the Guardian consistently framed the Iraq war as a project inrebuilding the country. In contrast, Al Jazeera and Al Ahram—the newspaper ofrecord for the Egyptian government—framed the Iraq war in terms of conflictand strife using negative tones and terms (Dimitrova and Connolly-Ahern 2007).
Online news sources still exhibit cultural biases: news sources from the UnitedStates and countries in the “Coalition of the Willing” produced positive content,
human-interest stories, and media self-coverage; news sources in Egypt, Malaysia, Pakistan, Turkey, and the UAE framed the war in terms of responsibility(Dimitrova et al. 2005). For many Arab citizens, online news sites are not just analternative to state-run or state-censored sources but are an alternative to Westernnews sources. Regular Arab readers find Al Jazeera online more respectful of religion, culture, and tradition than the CNN and BBC websites (Barkho 2006).

92

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

In important ways, digital technologies allow citizens to surveil the activities of their states. During Israel’s invasion of Gaza in December 2008, Al
Jazeera developed an application for collecting incident reports from theground using SMS technology and Twitter (Al Jazeera English 2009). As
Anderson and Eickelman conclude, online Arab newspapers “collectively constitute a new community of communication that is transnational, open to moreparticipants, and interactive in a way that traditional broadcasting has notbeen” (Eickelman and Anderson 2003). For example, analysis of articles published during the second Iraq War on Al Arabiya’s site and reader responses tothose articles reveal that that Arab readers not only challenged the views of Al
Arabiya about the war, but they also offered their own versions of events (AlSaggaf 2004). Moreover, in their responses, readers also posted news about theevents covered that they obtained from other satellite television stations, suchas Al Jazeera or from websites in which news was reported by people who
witnessed or were involved in the events themselves (Al-Saggaf 2006).
Online journalism is subject to many of the constraints and pressures thatcan beleaguer the production of news in print or for broadcast. Sensational
stories are given the most hype, broadcast time, or screen space. Research on
Al Jazeera’s site has consistently revealed that military and political violence,
politics, and foreign relations are priorities for its editors, and these stories inturn receive the most commentary from its online readership. The capacity fordebate has grown significantly in the vast majority of Muslim communities
around the developing world. Historically, the capacity for debate over Islamic
texts has expanded whenever new information technologies have been introduced (Miller 2007; Rao 2003). More recently, Al Jazeera helped satisfy ahunger for debate in the Arab world by covering Arab issues in depth and hosting debates from a diversity of perspectives: from feminists and traditionalists,
Arab nationalists and non-Arab separatists, mullahs and secular parliamentarians, apostate scholars, and authoritarian apologists (Ghareeb 2000).

Media Privatization and the Political
Economy of News
When Bouazizi set himself on fire on December 17, Tunisia’s state-run media
did not cover the incident. Indeed, the first state coverage appeared two weeks
later, when Ben Ali deigned to visit Bouazizi in the hospital. In the intervening
period, citizens turned the plight of a disaffected shopkeeper into news. Ben

Al Jaz eer a, S ocial M e dia, an d Dig it al J ou rn al is m

93

Ali went to the hospital not because of mainstream media pressured him to doso but because Tunisians had created a news event through online social networks without the help of state media; Ben Ali had to respond. These citizen
journalists were able to operate because of the proliferation of internet accessand sophisticated, digitally mediated civic innovations that have taken rootover the last five years. To unpack how broadcast media and social media networks have hybridized, we must refer to examples from before the Arab Spring
as well as during the protest period. In Morocco, when 37,000 protesters
poured out onto the streets on February 20, human rights groups and labor
unions were not the only ones responsible for organizing them—journalists
were also critical to the mass mobilizations and joined in. The Overseas Press
Club of America reports that more than 450 journalists were attacked throughout the Arab Spring movements. Ironically, it is perhaps WikiLeaks’ January
29 post on Twitter that most accurately describes the importance of news organizations in the Arab Spring: “Yes, we may have helped Tunisia, Egypt. But
let us not forget the elephant in the room: Al Jazeera + sat dishes.”
Because much of the North African and Middle Eastern societies have notenjoyed the right to free political discourse through uncensored public information systems, Arab public opinion has been simplistically assumed to bemonolithic and cynical. State censorship of public discourse has also beencredited with the seclusion of political discussion to private spheres, with few
opportunities for public deliberation. However, the events of the Arab Spring
present important contradictions to traditional understandings of public opinion formation in North Africa and the Middle East. First, digital media haveprovided many new spaces for free and semi-public political discussion. Second, much of this space takes on an element of transnational and transregional(Zayani 2008) engagement across diverse Arab and Western audiences—both
local audiences and diasporas seem to be enjoying access to the same types ofpolitical information. This shared discourse allows for learning about sharedgrievances across borders, and especially by overseas diasporas.
Khamis offers a two-part explanation for the contemporary development ofArab media ecology: the state-dominated broadcast era and the post-broadcast
digital era (Khamis 2011). Before the 1990s, media ownership in many Arabstates was largely dominated by governments under strict political censorship
norms. In this era, Arab citizens found it difficult to learn about political eventsand engage in political discussion. Also in this era, print media enjoyed somepolitical liberty to test the boundaries of state-monitored status quos because
readership was limited to the highly literate and political elites of societies. On

94

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

the other hand, broadcast media did not share this political liberty; media
ownership before the 1990s was mainly locally based, and top-down organizational hierarchies made it easy for non-democratic governments to coerce
journalists to play by party rules. During and after the 1990s, however, many
important economic and legal changes took place across Arab media systems.
First, media privatization, like that in Egypt, led to direct broadcast satellite
television being introduced in the region. Laws that carefully monitored news
workers were also altered in a struggle to keep up. For example, many of
Egypt’s press laws were removed in 2006, while media rights and journalism
advocacy organizations funded by media-development programs began tothrive (Hamdy 2009). Similarly, Morocco, which until 2006 had only two
radio and two television stations, established more private radio and television stations—all while regulatory codes struggled to keep up with thechanging media environment (Hidass 2010). Second, large-scale foreign military interventions like the First Gulf War paved the way for non-Arab news
organizations to acquire firsthand footage, such as CNN’s introduction to theregion. Previously isolated Arab publics began having direct exposure to international images and events. Consequently, Arab regimes and their state-run
television channels lost a significant monopoly on official versions of the
public narrative. Third, media privatization and the introduction of non-Arabnews outfits also coincided with the diffusion of internet access to private citizens. Tunisians were the first to gain internet access (1991), followed by
Egyptians, Algerians, the citizens of the Emirates, and then Kuwaitis (1993),
then Jordanians, Bahrainis, Lebanese, and Moroccans (1994–5), and last,
Yemenis, Omanis, Saudis, and Syrians (1996–7)(Oghia and Indelicato 2011).
Since the ushering in of the post-broadcast digital era, online civil society
has flourished in the Arab world, with popular social media destinations suchas Facebook skyrocketing (Mourtada and Salem 2011); 2 million Algerians,
6.5 million Egyptians, 1.4 million Jordanians, 1 million Lebanese, 3.2 million
Moroccans, 4 million Saudis, 2.3 million Tunisians, and 2.4 million Emiratis
use social media regularly to access international news information. For thisgrowing membership of online civil society, access to a diverse array of political information was not only possible but it was also a crucial new opportunity to seed autonomous political engagement. New satellite stations andprint newspapers hosted themselves online with the growth of internet accessibility, making it easier for more uncensored sources of international news
information. Faced with an increasingly young and college-educated laborpool, government efforts to join information society development initiatives

Al Jaz eer a, S ocial M e dia, an d Dig it al J ou rn al is m95

necessitated Arab regimes’ compliance with access to information laws andinstrumental openness on the web. For example, the UAE does not have suchlaws but is ranked as #12 by the United Nations on e-government measures(Relly and Cuillier 2010). Similarly, Jordan has taken a lead in making information society building a national priority—such as improving e-government
services, facilitating the growth of the private information technology sector,
and generally improving quality of public life (Nagi and Hamdan 2009).
Between the late 1980s and now, the era of monolithic state-controlled andgovernment-owned media environments in many Middle Eastern nations has
shifted to a more privatized and non-hierarchically organized digital public information infrastructure for their citizens. These shifts mostly began after the 1990s
and have accelerated since 2006 because of demands for economic growth andjob-creation needs through information society-based economic development
initiatives. As a consequence, online-only media outlets and online versions ofbroadcast channels and print newspapers have particularly boomed with a widearray of political information and perspectives to be shared, consumed, and discussed by individuals. For citizens whose political discussions were often marginalized to the safety of the private sphere, online discussion spaces allowed for moreautonomous and semi-public political discussions and public opinion formation.

Diasporic News Consumption during the Arab Spring
The international Arabic-speaking diaspora is estimated to be more than 30
million and is located primarily in Europe (France, Germany, and the United
Kingdom), with a few noteworthy populations in North and South America(Brazil, Argentina, and the United States). With significant diasporic minorities in Europe and millions in the Americas now consuming a shared diet ofinternational news, Arab citizens are both transnational and transregional.
ICTs and digital media offer their cyber activists new opportunities to gather
and disseminate political information produced by the new cohort of news
workers. Social change in the Arab Spring was in large part due to this important dynamic of growing media access and networked activists sharing thisinformation. Studies exploring large and small national organizations find thatweb discussion forums made use of news information to discuss politicalevents and to produce action alerts for interested online citizens to engage
locally and transnationally (Nagel and Staeheli 2010). Mass emailing lists
allow these individuals to organize and to publicize their activities.

96

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Furthermore, the newly privatized pan-Arab media networks discussed earlier
do not operate alone. Western media outlets such as CNN International and the
BBC World Service are accessed by Western Arab diasporas, as well as transregional Arab activists. BBC World News’ Arabic network was the oldest (launched
in 1938) (el Issawi and Baumann 2010) and had the largest budget, broadcastinga 24-hour television channel duplicated online with a large quantity of interactive
web content (Cheesman, Nohl, and BBC WS US Elections Study Group 2011).
In the Arab diaspora located in the European Union, Arab news consumers combine national television consumption with Arabic language television. Al Jazeera
is the most watched network for diasporas originating from the Maghreb region(Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia) located primarily in France, Spain, and the Netherlands, and they have a more distinct news diet (Slade 2010). A more diverse
range of Arab transplants located in Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom,on the other hand, consume a combination of BBC Arabic, Al Jazeera, CNN, andAl Arabiya; these individuals have particularly high levels of media literacy andcritical evaluations of media content (Camauer 2010).
On the other hand, a closer examination of Arab citizens who consume
Western international news services is also revealing: they are primarily
located in North Africa and the Middle East (61 percent of all non-Western
audiences) (Andersson, Gillespie, and Mackay 2010). The top countries consuming BBC Arabic online information are Egypt, the United States, Saudi
Arabia, the United Kingdom, the United Arab Emirates, Germany, and Canada. This audience is relatively young and technologically savvy 25- to 44-yearolds with professional backgrounds and high levels of education. Of thefrequently consumed international news content, one third of all news tends
to be about the Middle East. Because mobile phones have reached relativeubiquity in developing Arab countries, many individuals reach international
news content through mobile phones.

Citizen Journalism and User-Generated
Content as Civic Engagement
It is important to reemphasize here that contemporary Arab media systems
are both transnational and transregional. They nurture digital diasporas thatconnect citizens of Arab countries who do not enjoy free and open politicalsystems. The evolution of broadcast channels entering a post-broadcast era
has also led to a boom in online journalism. This has introduced new avenues

Al Jaz eer a, S ocial M e dia, an d Dig it al J ou rn al is m

97

for the creative consumption of international news content with new repertoires for political action. Sometimes these repertoires are strikingly vivid,
but often they come in the form of semi-public online spaces for political discussion and learning about shared experiences and grievances. These newdevelopments are in important ways possible only due to the uniqueness ofdigital information: multimedia content that is interactive, immediate, andtransportable.
The nature of digital news information means that dynamic political information can be found immediately through official outlets (CNN, BBC, Al
Jazeera online) as well as through online indexing and search services (Google,
Yahoo, MSN). It means that this information can be transported and repackaged by online information consumers to suit their needs, such as discussion and mobilization. Important by-products of these possibilities come in
the form of thriving news discussion forums and political blogs. Even in countries with strict digital censorship, such as Egypt and Tunisia, activists wereable to organize because they had been taking part in identifying and discussing shared grievances and nurturing tactics for political action. Free from theinstitutional constraints of news organizations, digital activists are free toreshape and repackage news information with their personalized interpretations and motivating messages for sympathetic audiences.
Long before the swelling of the Arab Spring, there were many Arab bloggers and digital activists shaping their tactics with the new international news
information made available to them on the web. Dashti has documented therole of online journalism in the 2006 Kuwaiti electoral crisis: while the local
press was not able to cover the electoral controversy effectively, Kuwaiti citizens looked online (Dashti 2009). Because offline political discussion could
not take place publicly, the online public sphere filled with international news
information and free discussion spaces served as the forum to find andexpress citizen views. These political discussions could have taken place without international news information, but with it, Kuwaitis could fact-checkand refute the official statements of political elites. In contrast to Kuwait’s
moment of political crisis, Al-Saggaf (2006), looking at the Saudi-owned Al
Arabiya online, found that Arab online citizens also fact-check news organizations’ narratives by responding to articles and discussing issues, as well as
expressing their opinions and attacking views by challenging them with evidence found in competing news services. Online discussion spaces found inautonomous news forums or in news organizations’ interactive spaces, then,became a vital new semi-public sphere in the Arab world. Al Nashmi et al.

98

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

(2010), looking at Kuwaiti, Saudi, Egyptian, and Jordanian online forums,
found that almost every news event in 2006 was heavily discussed anddebated by Arab internet users.
It is accurate to describe contemporary Arab media systems as both transregional and transnational. This mediascape is also composed of regional
journalists who see themselves as Al Jazeera-type change agents, as well as
non-Arab international news organizations such as CNN International and
BBC Arabic. It includes citizen bloggers and online citizens who consume
news information in an interactive and creative way. Since the Web2.0 boom
beginning in 2006, this hybrid environment has led to a thriving ecology oftransregional Arabic speaking and diverse international digital diasporas composing the Arabic blogosphere. The network study of Arabic language blogs
conducted by Etling et al. (2010) has identified some significant clusters.
Many of the bloggers are located in the Middle East, but there is a significant“bridge” of English-speaking bloggers that are expatriates from North Africa
and the Middle East residing in Western countries. They are political and active consumers of online, international news information. In fact, 46 percent
engaged with international news as well as other social and political issues.
They also share a high level of inter-linking, but not much external-linking; inother words, they are a cohesive and dynamic group of individuals with sharedinterests. They frequently rely on online news from BBC, the Guardian, CNN,
Al Jazeera, the New York Times, and other Arab and English news organizations. News-aggregating services are also popular, such as Google News. In
contrast to previous concerns of an Arab street, Etling et al. concluded that
this is ample evidence of a thriving, networked Arab public sphere:
It is a political discourse space apparently free of government control.
It draws as heavily on peer-produced Web 2.0 resources such as YouTube and Wikipedia as on traditional mainstream media; however, itremains deeply enmeshed in the domestic, pan-Arab, and international news media ecologies. . . . Mainstream news is cited alongside
cell phone video shot in the street. Sometimes mainstream media
events become the basis for “bottom-up” action, as in the case of the
Saudi prince whose on-air criticism of sports announcers sparked
mass online outrage. It is a space that members of these societies use
to communicate about matters they understand to be of public concern and that potentially require collective action or recognition.
(2010, pp. 1240)

Al Jaz eer a, S ocial M e dia, an d Dig it al J ou rn al is m

99

Acting Together: Al Jazeera and Citizen Journalists
during the Arab Spring
Despite the diverse and active digital mediascape made possible by the proliferation of social media and broadcast media, it is Al Jazeera English (AJE) that
played a significant role in amplifying the distributed and diverse voices of the
Arab Spring. Over the past several years, Al Jazeera English has grown rapidly
in importance for mediating both transregional and international politics.
Over the past several political crises, Al Jazeera English has also learned actively from past challenges and beta-tested strategies for covering dangerous
areas. Combining both advantages during the Arab Spring, Al Jazeera was wellequipped to navigate the region’s political and cultural complexities, feeding
coverage about the Arab Spring to the rest of the world; it became the default
go-to source on Arab Spring updates for many other organizations, including
the New York Times, the Huffington Post, Reuters, and Wired.
Since 2008, Al Jazeera English has laid the groundwork for a unique style ofstorytelling that presents compelling narratives, but also a mix of citizens’
voices with political elites. For example, during the 2008 Gaza War, Al Jazeera
reporters lost contact with the network’s Doha headquarters. Instead of stopping coverage, they turned to mobile phones until live feeds were restored,
winning prestigious awards in the process, such as “Best 24 Hour News Programme” at the 48th Monte Carlo Television Festival, and AdBuster’s “Broadcaster of the Year” in 2010. Their Gaza coverage won them references such as“the BBC of the [global] South.” During the Arab Spring, Secretary of State
Clinton applauded Al Jazeera English for outcompeting US news media in offering “real news.” While prestigious Western news outlets such as CNN and
MSNBC turned to American political commentators for updates about theArab Spring, Al Jazeera English was securing interviews with Egyptian opposition party leaders and covering minute-by-minute updates through live feeds
even in the most contentious and dangerous locations. Reaching more than
150 million households in more than 100 countries worldwide through television, Al Jazeera English’s footprint also reaches the Arab digital diaspora,
which was an essential ingredient for the digital activists both on the groundin places such as Tahrir Square and their counterparts mobilizing solidarity
protests in Europe and North America.
These trends were facilitated through AJE’s unique approach toward incorporating digital content and reaching online news consumers. Beyond

100

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

AJE’s existing regional advantage in North Africa and the Middle East, thenetwork had a number of digital tools and digital strategies to deploy that
others did not. As soon as the protests began in Tunisia and cascaded to multiple countries, AJE organized rapid updates and a large influx of news in its
live blogs. Unlike other services waiting patiently to verify and double-checkinformation, AJE did both: posting information as it came in onto the live
blogs, then doing extended articles and in-focus stories on information thatwas double-checked and verified. With this combination of rapid reportingand in-depth coverage, a diverse set of viewers’ needs was addressed. First,
online and offline activists were able to coordinate with a quick understanding of successes, failures, and dangers experienced by others like themin neighboring countries. Second, the 150 million households in 100 countries could learn about a rapidly escalating and complex cascade through
AJE’s deep coverage.
Another important innovation AJE offered its online viewers was its remarkably open and forward-looking approach toward user-generated content. It is true that AJE journalists have risked their lives to cover dangerous
locations. But sometimes the dangers are too high for reporters to cover
events effectively. As a route-around during the 2009 Gaza War, Al Jazeera
Labs began testing an online citizen journalism application based on theaward winning Ushahidi platform, giving citizen journalists on the groundin Gaza a way to document casualties. Between late December 2008 andlate January 2009 this platform documented daily casualties, which peaked
during the war with more than 40 user-submitted and documented reports.
The meta-data from these reports were used to generate maps of the conflictand seed real stories then explored and expanded upon by professional
journalists.
AJE also accepted contributions through its YourMedia page, where any
citizen could submit stories for coverage and attach raw content giving AJE a
Creative Commons License use for rebroadcast in their coverage. The Creative Commons Repository was deployed by AJE during the Gaza War and fed
mostly through direct submission by citizens and activists working on the
ground. With this repository, AJE encouraged its online supporters with themessage that their “videos will be downloaded, shared, remixed, subtitled,
and eventually rebroadcasted by users and TV stations across the world”(Andrews 2009).
Riyaad Minty, head of Social Media and AJE Labs, cites that much of
the Creative Commons and user-submitted content was redeployed at

Al Jazeer a, S oc ial M e dia, an d Dig it al J ou rn al is m

101

Wikipedia by film makers, for remixing music videos; by artists; in video
games; for teaching; and by activists and indie media. The recently
launched television show “The Stream” is also an important innovation—
both a social media community and a daily television program; the creators tap into user-generated content to seek out unheard voices, find new
perspectives, and amplify less-covered communities’ perspectives bothonline and through its television show. The founder of the Creative Commons license, Lawrence Lessig, praised AJE’s bold approach toward usergenerated content, stating, “Al Jazeera is teaching an important lesson
about how free speech gets built and supported. By providing a freeresource for the world, the network is encouraging wider debate and aricher understanding” (Al Jazeera English 2009).
Al Jazeera English reaches its largest numbers of followers through its satellite shows and television viewership. But in important ways, most viewers findits content online. In countries where AJE was not available on television(such as the United States and parts of Europe), AJE effectively bypassed thetelecommunications ban by streaming live content online. In February 2011,
Al Jazeera live streamed 24-hour coverage of the Egypt protests through
Google TV and its YouTube channel, driving a 2,500 percent increase in traffic
to its home website (Lee 2011). The majority of the traffic came from the US
viewers, whose opinions have a weight in foreign policy toward the Middle
East. Another steady, live source of AJE coverage was through its main Twitterchannel and as well as Al Jazeera journalists’ individual Twitter channels. For
example, during the riots leading up to the Tunisian revolution, journalist Yasmine Ryan’s Twitter page became a critical source for organizing and sharing
rapid updates about the protests.
Al Jazeera English and other news organizations established since the inception of digital media are more limber in their newswork and more successful in adapting to digital environments saturated with user-generated
content than other, traditional media organizations. Al Jazeera English was
open to incorporating inspiring examples of citizen journalism, innovative inpromoting the use of Creative Commons Licensing, and successful in extracting critical updates from within dangerous regions such as Gaza with creative
digital tools. Both new media journalism and young citizen journalists did a
lot of work to bring youth activists together, resulting in the unification ofthese kinds of movements while older, traditional political parties were fragmenting and older news organizations were struggling to adapt to a new political information environment.

102

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Conclusion: Digitizing the News about
the Arab Spring
As an event, the Arab Spring had two primary consequences for the political
economy of journalism in the Arab world. First, citizens demonstrated, usingsocial media, that they could make news in creative ways using digital tools
and their social networks. Second, Al Jazeera’s position in the region as a credible, responsible, and responsive news organization was solidified. News about
the Arab Spring came from social media and cell-phone videos uploaded on
Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, and other sites, but they were effective
because pan-Arab satellite networks such as AJE rebroadcast them with amplifying effects that mobilized and enraged regional and international publics.
Indeed, studies of Arab journalists find them favoring regional coverage
and explicitly pushing for social change (Pintak and Ginges 2008). In a 2008
survey of Arab journalists, 75 percent identified “encouraging political reform”
as the most significant job of a journalist, followed by human rights, with 32
percent believing that a lack of political change was the greatest threat facing
the Arab world, not foreign threats, such as US policies. It is telling, then, that
Al Jazeera’s vision includes a mission “to support the right of the individual toacquire information and strengthen the values of tolerance, democracy andthe respect of liberties and human rights.” Perhaps more significantly, thegrowing cohort of Arab journalists also self-identify more with the Muslim
world (35 percent) than the Arab region (25 percent) and least with theirhome country (15 percent) (Pintak 2009), and they “represent a fusing ofMuslim and Arab worldviews that is leading the body politic in directions thatreinforce a sense of shared consciousness.”
One important consequence of this new socialization of journalists is theirsignificant role as cultural intermediaries (Mellor 2008) for Arab publics:
from messengers of the state to rebels guiding social change. Indeed, thegrowth of pan-Arab television has also been credited with the growth of transnational political identification (Nisbet and Myers 2010). But beyond satellite
television, social media had a role in supporting a particular kind of identity
formation among the young men and women who eventually led the uprisings. Even in countries with relatively few social media users, such as Libya,
analysis of Facebook content noted significant identity markers of collectivism, pan-Arab and national pride, but fairly few markers of Islamic affirmation in the cause (Carr et al. 2011).

Conclusion: Digital Media and the
Rhythms of Social Change

By 2012, Egypt and Tunisia had run elections and were drafting fresh constitutions, there were new Parliaments and Cabinets in Morocco and Jordan,
with significant commitments to extend franchise. Traditional political actors
had been drawn into the movement for popular democracy. Even in constitutional monarchies where ruling families remained in control, a greatly expanded welfare state was the cost of the stability. Several countries are now
governed by transitional governments with imperfect constitutions and predatory militaries. It will be years before we can judge the democratic practicesof the new governments. But even in countries where Islamism is on the rise,
the most viable Islamist leaders are competing in elections and advocating
different brands of Islamic constitutionalism.
In this chapter, we build on the multi-stage framework for political change
observed during the early aftermath of the Arab Spring (Howard and Hussain
2011) to understand the contextual variables that were in play before it occurred. The most successful cases of sustained and peaceful protest, followed
by institutional regime change, were Tunisia and Egypt. Both cases exemplified certain phases: a preparation phase, involving activists’ use of digital
media across time to build solidarity networks and identify collective identities and goals; an ignition phase involving symbolically powerful momentsthat ruling elites and regimes intentionally or lazily ignored but that served togalvanize the public; a protest phase, where, by employing offline networks
and digital technologies, small groups strategically organized in large numbers;
an international buy-in phase, where digital media networks extended therange of local coverage to international broadcast networks; a climax phase

103

104

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

where the regime maneuvered strategically or carelessly to appease public discontent through welfare packages or harsh repressive actions; and finally, afollow-on information warfare phase where various actors, state based andfrom international civic advocacy networks, compete to shape the future ofcivil society and information infrastructure that made it possible. But this narrative of political change, though generalizable to many Arab Spring cases,
does not account for some important variables that were in play or for cases
where regimes benefited or did not experience any noticeable liberalization.
Weighing multiple political, economic, and cultural conditions, we argue that
information infrastructure—especially mobile phone use—consistently appears as one of the key ingredients in parsimonious models behind regime
fragility and social movement success. Internet use is relevant in some solution sets, but by causal logic it is actually the absence of internet use that
explains low levels of success.
Looking at these important steps toward the first successful large-scale
movements for political and economic reform in the Arab world, it is clear thatthe battle over the use and applicability of information infrastructure became
a repeated tool and location for political contention. Though it is tempting tofollow this chronology of phases and begin anticipating what is next to come,it is important to recognize that successful uses of digital media across manycases of the Arab world were potentially counterbalanced by important instances where digital media, even when available, may not have been very
useful. For example, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar boast some of thehighest levels of connectivity and e-government development in the Arabworld, but these countries experienced hardly any successful offline mobilization. Additionally, as in Saudi Arabia (and Iran), some regimes were very masterful in designing information censorship and management protocols nearing
the sophistication shown by China.
In prior observations during the lead up to the Arab Spring movements, wehave also observed four key criteria that were being supported by the diffusionof mobile phones and digital media (Hussain and Howard 2012): an increasein the production and consumption of international news (Chapter 1); widespread diffusion and use of social networking tools (Chapter 2); the entrenchment of online civil society; and growing access to include a greater numberof political publics, including women and minority ethnic communities(Chapter 3). As evidenced during the Arab Spring, Al Jazeera English, theBBC, and related international news organizations have paved inroads acrossArab countries and delivered political information and news countering theC on cl u s ion

105

state-managed broadcast networks (Chapter 5). Authoritarian regimes thatwere used to playing closed internal games related to the narratives of corrupt
election practices and inability to provide necessary welfare to their citizens
are no longer able to do so (Chapter 4).
Furthermore, when periods of political upheaval present themselves,these international news organizations play an important function in
spreading the news to sympathetic political diasporas abroad and sometimes encouraging foreign governments to intervene, as in the case of Libya
and, less successfully, Syria. This international networking of citizens is
amplified by broadcast networks and the successful connectivity madepossible by the diffusion of social media tools, like Facebook, YouTube,and Twitter, and it includes average citizens in the shaping and flow ofpolitical information. Indeed, citizen journalism videos and blogs were
important vehicles for spreading news about self-immolations in Tunisia,
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Algeria. More formally organized networks of citizens and civic organizations have also led to the entrenchment of civil society, albeit in some cases, mostly online. These civil society groups, likethe April 6 Youth Movement in Egypt, and banned but preeminent political parties, like the Muslim Brotherhood, have all successfully used information infrastructure to do political organizing and capacity building overtime, not simply during the phase of street protests. The April 6 Youth
Movement has been active since at least 2008, and the Muslim Brotherhood has built a massive online blogging and news production ecology
outweighing any other Egyptian party or movement. Last, and especiallyin the case of women in the Middle East, many, including but not limited
to, feminist movements, have expanded the range of political inclusionfrom suffrage rights to driving, particularly in Saudi Arabia—and they havedone so through online advocacy movements and awareness campaigns.
Media have been particularly important to “pink hijabis,” who integrate
their faith with the pursuit of women’s rights by circulating films about
female genital mutilation to friends and family, organizing workshops
about technology strategies, and learning about successful digital strategies
from like-minded groups in other countries (Wright 2011). This short listof key changes in the social makeup of societies in closed authoritarianregimes is evidence of locations where state and society relations havebeen forever altered (Migdal, Kohli, and Shue 1994). One of the key ingredients facilitating them has been the long-term diffusion and use of digital
media (Howard 2010).

106

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Fuzzy Logic
In the analytical discourse so far, there are two ways of describing the causes
and consequences of the Arab Spring. The first analytical frame is to identify
the things that make a country susceptible to protests, or fragile when facedwith a popular uprising. The second is to identify the things that might explain
a successful uprising. Rather than looking for simple or singular causal explanations for what made a country susceptible to popular uprisings or whatallowed a popular uprising to achieve its goals, we should observe that there
are complex causal patterns, or even several “causal recipes” that would provide analytical purchase over several sets of cases. Moreover, knowing what we
now know about social movements and regime change, it makes most sense
to look for “conjoined causal conditions,” the set of multiple indicators thattogether provide a fulfilling narrative for understanding political outcomes.
There have been numerous single-country case studies in which ICTs havebeen part of the contemporary narrative of both democratic entrenchment
and persistent authoritarianism. The comparative perspective taken in our investigation is not limited to the standard cases or even to situations that standout as incidents of technology-driven, enhanced, or enabled regime change.
Instead our comparative perspective embraces situations in which information technologies had little to no role in democratic promotion, those inwhich information technologies were carefully used by authoritarian elites tobecome better bullies, and situations in which information technologies
played a critical role in sudden democratic transitions. Thus, the comparative
approach is anathema to those who would generalize from singular studies inwhich information technologies had a central role in a grand democratization
project and those who would generalize by only relying on statistical models
of international data on government effectiveness in terms of internet penetration.
Methodologically, the comparative approach is powerful and productivein that it confronts theory with data. Sometimes this approach is called “settheoretic” in that attention is given to consistent similarities or differences
across a set of cases, especially the causally relevant commonalities uniformly
present in a given set of cases (Byrne and Ragin 2009). The set of cases at handis the population of Arab countries with large Muslim communities, and there
are at least 22 of these. The argument of our investigation is that in recent
years, information technologies have opened up new paths to democratization and the entrenchment of civil society in many Arab countries.

C on cl u s ion

107

Large-N quantitative researchers often turn “democratization” into an indicator for which the Western democracies are the standard. In our set-theoretic
approach, we assume that democratization among these 22 countries is best
calibrated according to more grounded standards, set by countries such as
Lebanon at the high end, and Saudi Arabia at the low end. This calibration
does not preclude the theoretical possibility of an Islamic democratic ideal
type. So a grounded approach does assume that healthy, functional Muslim
democracies may not look like Western democracies. Set-theoretic reasoning
allows for fine gradations in the degree of membership in the set of successful
democratic outcomes, and it requires evidence about each country’s degree ofmembership in the set of countries that have experienced democratic transition or entrenchment during or since the Arab Spring.
Moreover, a set-theoretic explanation of the role of ICTs in contemporary
democratization requires that we identify a consistent set of causal relations
between technology diffusion and political liberalization outcomes. To construct this explanation requires fuzzy set logic, which does not explain variation in a sample through reductive correlational statistics. Instead, fuzzy set
logic produces general knowledge about the role of information technology incontemporary democratic transitions through the accumulated experience ofparticular countries where rapid technology diffusion among political actors
such as the state, parties, journalists, and civic groups has an observed impact
on the domestic balance of power, the opportunity structure for social mobilization, or the “cognitive liberation” of citizenry.
Fuzzy set logic offers general knowledge through the strategy of looking forshared causal conditions across multiple instances of the same outcome—sometimes called “selecting on the dependent variable.” For large-N, quantitative, and variable oriented researchers, this strategy is unacceptable because
neither the outcome nor the shared causal conditions vary across the cases(King, Keohane, and Verba 1994). However, the strategy of selecting on thedependent variable is useful if researchers are interested in studying necessary
conditions (Ragin 1987). Perhaps most important, this strategy is most usefulwhen developing theory grounded in the observed, real-world experience of
democratization in the Arab-Muslim communities of the developing world
rather than deploying theory privileging null, hypothetical, and unobservedcases.
The qualitative and quantitative empirical evidence reviewed thus far lends
itself to a set-theoretic argument, because the evidence reveals that many of
the countries experiencing protests have high levels of ICT diffusion, and108

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

almost all experienced significant changes in their political systems and/or
economic welfare policies. Our claim is based on the parsimoniously summarized relations between properties and cases rather than modest correlations
between technology diffusion and democratization. Examining cases with thesame causal conditions to see if they also share the democratization outcome
is appropriate for identifying sufficient conditions, and sufficient conditions
often appear as combinations of conditions. Identifying the causal conditions
shared by cases that have democratized is appropriate for identifying thenecessary conditions of democratization. In other words, if information technologies and infrastructure are a sufficient cause of democratization, then thepresence of information technologies implies the presence of democratization (though democratization does not imply the presence of information
technologies).
On the other hand, if a sophisticated information management and censorship infrastructure is a necessary cause of no political change, then the presence of no democratic outcome implies the presence of a strong censorship
regime. It is possible that there are several recipes for contemporary democratization, and many possible ingredients and combinations of ingredients. One
way to assemble the accumulated country experience is by comparing therecent histories of countries that share the common outcome of a significant
period of democratic transition or entrenchment, such as in the Arab Spring.
Analyzing the relationships in this set-theoretic manner exposes the key ingredients for democratization. Moreover, treating the institutional outcomes as
fuzzy-sets avoids selecting cases based on the outcome because countries will
actually vary in their degree of membership in the set displaying democratictransition or entrenchment. Set theory allows us to examine cases with thesame causal conditions to see if they also share the same outcome. More
important, if we assume that there is not just one recipe for contemporary
democratization, but several, we can use fuzzy set analysis to identify combinations of causal conditions that share the same outcome.

Fuzzy Variables
Several contextual factors may have exacerbated or mitigated the causal role ofparticular aspects of technology diffusion, and reducing the set of causal attributes to a few important ones must also respect the significant diversity among
these countries. The cases involved in the Arab Spring differ in important ways,

C on cl u s ion

109

yet there may still be causal patterns and shared attributes that explain membership in the set of countries that have or have not democratized. Along with
the impact of technology diffusion on the system of political communication
involving states, journalists, political parties, civil society groups, and cultural
elites, additional contextual conditions should also be evaluated on a case-bycase basis, and they vary widely across the region.
Average incomes vary among countries and are measured as GDP per
capita (adjusted for purchasing power parity), a measure that accounts for thelarge diversity in the access to wealth by citizens. Among other things, this indicator is useful for contextualizing the relative cost of living and inflation rates
in countries rather than distorting the real differences in income by countries.
The high end of this scale includes rich countries like Qatar, the UAE, Kuwait,
and Bahrain (average range of $20,000–$70,000); the low end includes countries like Djibouti, Mauritania, Iraq, and Somalia (average range of $200–$1,000). Equitable distribution of wealth is also a key indicator often measured
as Gini coefficients for income distribution. This measure accounts for thewide range of access to wealth by differing members of Arab societies. The
distribution of wealth in many Arab countries is relatively unequal—the upper
half of more equally distributed wealth in societies includes cases like Lebanon and Qatar, and the lower half of unequally distributed wealth includes
extreme cases like the UAE and Egypt. Many commentators have noted thataccess to jobs may have been a primary source of existing discontent in many
countries, particularly Tunisia (14 percent) and Yemen (15 percent), but caseson the lower end, including Saudi Arabia (5 percent) and Kuwait (1 percent)also experienced political discontent and protests. Levels of unemployment
are useful to include because whether levels of unemployment were a central
factor in nurturing support for political and economic change must be examined comparatively in the recipes for democratic political change.
Beyond economic inequality, general population measures are importantfor understanding the macro social contexts of Arab societies undergoingprofound political and social change: the total population, the proportion ofurban population of societies (where most digital connectivity is located),
and the proportion of those societies that is under the age of 25 (a demographic often cited as most politically disenfranchised and enraged). Qatar
and Kuwait are the most urbanized (96–98 percent) and are counterbalanced by Yemen and Somalia (32–38 percent). Yemen and Somalia also havethe largest proportion of young citizens (45 percent), while Qatar andKuwait have the smallest (16–23 percent). When considering the total mass

110

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

of citizenry, Qatar and Kuwait are well below 10 million, and both Yemen
and Somalia are well over. Understanding the dynamic relationships between
the total population and critical proportions of young disenfranchised citizens residing in connected urban hubs will provide important context for
unpacking the recipes for political change.
Additionally, one of the most consistent variables predicting a regime’s capacity to hold out from making a meaningful political transition has been theamount of natural resources it can utilize to buffer its security apparatuses orquell discontent over distributions of wealth. In the Arab Middle East, many
countries, particularly those in the Gulf Cooperation Council, export vast
volumes of crude oil and enjoy a significant backing from the international
system whose foreign policy interests prioritize regional stability over the unpredictable democratic transition of ailing authoritarians. To account for thissignificant variable, we included countries’ levels of oil production and sharesin the global oil resources available. Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Kuwait
ranked highest.
Digital connectivity and access to information infrastructure are the central variables being investigated in relation to other variables. Here, we observe
digital connectivity through the diffusion of mobile and internet telephony.
Interestingly, more than half of Arab countries have mobile penetration wellover 100 percent. These countries include Tunisia (106 percent), Bahrain(124 percent), and Saudi Arabia (188 percent). The other half are below 100
percent and include Egypt (87 percent), Syria (68 percent), and Yemen (46percent). Patterns of internet diffusion share similar properties, but are somewhat lower than mobile penetration. Countries with 25 percent or more internet access include Saudi Arabia (27 percent), Tunisia (34 percent), andBahrain (54 percent). Countries with 25 percent or less internet access include
Libya (5 percent), Yemen (10 percent), and Egypt (15 percent). To counterbalance digital access and shared connectivity, many regimes in the Arabworld have instituted censorship mechanisms that range widely in levels of
sophistication. As noted earlier, a few countries have very sophisticated monitoring and management systems, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and theUAE. On the other hand, some regimes, including Algeria, Egypt, and Libya,
were either sloppy or unable to monitor activity. To examine these cases comparatively we created an index combining the OpenNet Initiative’s monitoringof countries that had instituted no filtering, or a range of selective, substantial,
and pervasive filtering on content for political, social, security reasons or usedautomated tools to do so. Our index combines these multiple dimensions of

C on cl u s ion

111

censorship and sophistication in filtering to assess the overall censorship
regime’s capacity for managing new information infrastructure.
Last, because our key research questions deal with the contextual factors
and variables at play during the Arab Spring, many of our predictive variables
listed above come from the latest data points available at or just before theprotest periods. However, our overall objective in this investigation was to
identify causal recipes that best predict the widest range of democracy promoting outcomes from the Arab Spring. Therefore, our outcome variablemeasures countries on a scale from ideal cases of peaceful democratic regimechange (Egypt and Tunisia), followed by major political and economic concessions (Oman and Saudi Arabia), followed by major political concessions
only (Kuwait and Jordan), followed by economic concessions only (Lebanon
and Bahrain), and last, countries that reached bloody civil wars and/or violent
stalemates with ruling elites (Libya and Syria). The fuzzy ranks for this variable took into account the detailed qualitative information for each case, including the longevity of protest, numbers of killed and injured citizens, typesof meaningful political concessions, and levels of economic redistributions ofwealth. The outcome variables were created from the data presented in Tables
I.1 and I.2.
In each case and variable, the data used came from 2011 or the best available year (2005 to 2010). When the data taken from large datasets wereincomplete, supplementary data from secondary sources were sought anddouble checked with cooperating sources. Patching these gaps by hand significantly reduced the number of missing cases and provided for a more robust
and meaningful fuzzy ranking system. Preparing data for treatment as a fuzzy
set required several steps. First, we computed indices for causal attributes analyzed in each chapter and then we computed the indices for additional context
variables often recommended by the literature on democratization in the developing world and the latest scholarly and policy reports since the ArabSpring. Then we calibrated the indices, a process that evens out the distributionof cases between the thresholds for full inclusion in each set, full exclusionfrom the set, and the crossover point at which cases go from being partially inthe set to being partially out of the set.
For example, among the 22 countries there are a few very populated countries and many countries with a small population. Egypt and Saudi Arabia areat the top of this set, and obviously help define the category of “populated
country.” In fact, Egypt has such a large population that if the set were left
uncalibrated, Tunisia and Syria would be barely in the set, and most of the112

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

countries would be fully out of the set. Yet the important attribute is that somecountries are comparatively more populated than others, so calibration makes
the differences between the populous countries more comparable to thosebetween smaller countries. The very populated countries still define the set bybeing almost full members, while the rest of the cases get indexed by theirdegrees of membership in the set. In this case, the threshold value for full
membership in the set of populated countries is established just below theactual population of Iraq. At the lowest points in the curve are countries suchas Bahrain, Qatar, and Oman, and these are definitely not very populated
countries. So the threshold for full exclusion is set at 3 million people because
these countries have even smaller populations than that. The crossover threshold has been set at 10 million people, which roughly splits countries into twogroups. Since Somalia and Tunisia have barely 10 million citizens, these twocountries are just barely in the category of “populated country.”
The recalibration around these thresholds allows for fuzzy set values that
more meaningfully reveal the degree to which each country can be included in
the theoretical set of populated countries. As another example, for membership in the category of countries with a strong censorship regime, the threshold for full membership is defined as regimes that pervasively or substantiallyfilter at least two categories measured by the Open Net Initiative (political,
social, security, or tools). Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the UAE all fall comfortably into full inclusion into this category. Countries that had a very unsophisticated political information management regime had no functional ability tomonitor and filter online content. Algeria, Egypt, and Lebanon all fall comfortably into the fully excluded category. Syria, Kuwait, and Oman are barely
included because they do all, some, or no filtering, and none was robust
enough to “pervasively” or “substantially” filter on two or more of the four
filtering categories.
In addition, fuzzy calibrations allow researchers to put comparative knowledge to work to complete incomplete datasets. In this study, there were four
hand calibrations. There were no censorship scores for Djibouti, Mauritania,
and Somalia, but secondary sources suggest that the level of censorship in Djibouti was much like that of Kuwait, that the level of censorship in Mauritania
was higher than Lebanon’s but not as a high as Jordan’s, and that the level ofcensorship in Somalia was almost as high as that in Saudi Arabia. The final handcalibration involved designating a Polity score for Somalia. Polity IV identifies
Somalia as a failed state in 2010. This case is not likely to teach us much about
a theoretical relationship between political institutions, technology diffusion,

C on cl u s ion

113

and popular movements for democracy, so it was given a fuzzy score of 0.50.
This is a special score designating a case that is neither in nor out of the theoretical set of democracies. A score of 0.51 would mean that a country is veryslightly in the theoretical set of democracies, and a score of 0.49 would meanthat a country is just out of such a set. But the transition score signals that if thisvariable is important, Somalia is not a good instance.1

Fuzzy Recipes for Fragility and Success
Table C.1 presents two of the parsimonious models with the best balance ofcase coverage and solution consistency. Certainly, there are more complex formulations of conditions that would also explain the susceptibility of a regime
to a popular uprising, or the chances such an uprising would be successful.
Moreover, each case could be described with a unique combination of causal
factors. The combinations reported here are not the only plausible ones, butthey do cover the widest spectrum of Arab experience around the developingworld, and the cases are largely consistent with causal conditions for democratic outcomes. Coverage refers to the percentage of cases explained by thatrecipe.
Consistency refers to the degree to which cases adhere to a particularcausal recipe. As in many statistical procedures, the research proceeds by examining a variety of models. In testing out all of the plausible causal variables,
urbanization and youth unemployment rarely appeared in parsimonious explanations. These variables were dropped in the analysis of regime fragility.
Having high levels of income but poor internet diffusion and low Gini scores
made regimes vulnerable to public demonstrations, and Libya, Algeria, andSaudi Arabia are the best examples of how this causal combination resulted inregime sensitivity. A second parsimonious explanation is that regimes withhigh levels of unemployment, significant mobile phone use, and low levels ofinternet censorship also made regimes sensitive—Libya and Oman are thebest instances of this causal relationship.
Whereas there were multiple conjoined causal recipes for regime fragility,
and the two with highest levels of consistency were presented in Table C.2,
there was a relatively short and complete parsimonious solution for the
analysis of social movement success. This analysis, presented in Table C.2,
yielded three causal recipes, which altogether covered two thirds of the caseswith four fifths consistency. Here mobile phones, not internet use, appeared

114

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

Table C.1

Two Parsimonious Models Explaining Regime Fragility

Variables
IncludedCausalRecipeAverageincome,unemployment
rate, internet
and mobile
phone penetration rates, levelsof censorship,
size of the
youth bulge,
wealthdistribution,
economic
dependence on
fuel exports,
regime type in
2010

Raw
Coverage

UniqueCoverage

Consistency

Best
Instances

Relatively
0.44high averagelevels ofincome, where
the wealth isevenlydistributed,
and internet
use is very low

0.00

0.97

Libya
(0.58,0.95),
Algeria(0.58,0.53),
Saudi(0.53,0.63)

Relatively high 0.50
levels ofunemployment,with many
mobile phoneusers and notmuch regime
censorship

0.00

0.98

Libya
(0.81,0.95),
Oman(0.58,0.74)

Note: The consistency cutoff for the first causal recipe was set at 1.00, and the cutoff for thesecond recipe was set at 0.96.

in several solution sets, and Jordan, Tunisia, and Morocco were the best instances of the conjoined causal relationships. Altogether, these three parsimonious recipes form a solution set with good coverage (0.64) and goodconsistency (0.79).

The Causes of Democracy’s Fourth Wave
What has happened online over the past several months, and what tools andtechnological structures facilitated the initial ignition of mass protest? Whatlong-term preludes in information society development were necessary forthis to happen? Are digital media simply a new “tool” for social protest, or does
more need to be said about the modern character of social protest, the contemporary organizational form of civic unrest, or the changing opportunity

C on cl u s ion

Table C.2

Variables
Included

115

Parsimonious Causal Solution Explaining Social Movement
Success
Causal Recipe

Raw
UniqueCoverage Coverage

Average income, Relatively high 0.53
general andrates of mobile
youth unemphone use inployment rate, countries notinternet anddependent onmobile phone fuel exports
penetration
Relatively high 0.52
rates, levels ofrates of mobile
censorship,
phone use inurbanization,
countries withsize of the youth lower urbanizabulge, wealthtion rates
distribution,
Relatively low 0.44
economic
rates of unemdependence on
ployment, infuel exports,countries withregime type inlower urbaniza2010
tion rates andwealth is moreconcentrated

Consistency

Best
Instances

0.08

0.83

Jordan(0.63,0.58),
Tunisia(0.58,0.95),
Morocco(0.53,0.58)

0.02

0.88

Jordan(0.63,0.58),
Morocco(0.53,0.58)

0.03

0.86

Morocco(0.63,0.58),
Jordan(0.53,0.58)

Note: The consistency cutoff for the solution set was 1.00.

structure for public dissent? How or to what extent were regimes ready or not
ready to deal with unexpected periods of galvanized discontent? Did regime
sophistication in managing information infrastructure translate meaningfully
to limiting the capacity of civil society to operate and organize?
To answer these questions, we have examined the narrative arc of how digital media changed the tactics for democratization movements during the ArabSpring, and how new information and communication technologies played amajor role in the organization of street protests. First, many of the countries
that experienced long and sustained movements of protest had preexisting political publics that had long been wired and developed tech-savvy civil society
groups based both within the region and across borders. In these moments of

116

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

political crisis, multinational technology firms also played a critical role, wheresome were constructive in providing activists the tools to create action opportunities. Others, when pressured by dictators and authoritarian regimes,
sometimes played into the hands of political suppression. It is difficult to say
whether the revolutions would or would not have happened without digital
media. Indeed, other sociological factors, such as widespread poverty andgovernmental ineptitude, had created the conditions for extensive publicanger. However, the networks of people who did mobilize did so with thedirect application, initiation, and coordination of digital media tools. Counterfactual scenarios are important, but the overwhelming evidence of what
did happen concretely illustrates that the patterns of political change in these
protests were digitally enabled, both in the short term, but also over time since
the early 2000s.
For scholars of social movements and collective action, there are several
things in these examples that should be considered more centrally: the distributed leadership of protest organizers, the core groups of elite publics (literate,
middle-class, youth, women, and technocrats) that were relatively quick injoining them, and the important role that international news organizations
played in giving them the critical voice and global exposure that helped stave off
overtly violent reactions from their repressive regimes. We can say more thanthat the internet changed the way political actors communicated—social movements and collective action networks shared strategies for direct political action,
created regional and international news events that drew attention and sympathy from neighboring countries, and inspired others to join and celebrate theircauses. One of the key reasons we must turn our attention to the role of information technology is that citizens themselves have expressed and celebrated its roleand now consider access to digital media a core nation-building resource.
Subsequently, we must also consider the years leading up to the ArabSpring and the diffusion of digital media, in the form of mobile phones, personal computers, and software applications over time. These technologies andtheir applications have significantly impacted the political communication
systems and their relationships to civil society organizations. First, mobile telephony, in the form of small and affordable consumer-based communication
devices, have allowed regular citizens to bear witness, record, and disseminate
acts of injustice and repression by their ruling elites and their security agencies.
In important ways, authoritarian regimes holding phony elections also
gained widespread infamy, particularly in the Egyptian elections of 2005,
when Mubarak’s party won 89 percent of the vote. Mobile videos uploaded toC on cl u s ion

117

YouTube and other video sharing cites disseminated actual footage of votecounting and rigging. Second, over the last five years, Al Jazeera became afunctionally independent regional news organization, and with the addition of
the English-language network in 2006, an international powerhouse that illuminated the accusations, criticisms, and failures of autocrats. Third, widespread internet access, though limited to middle-class urban-dwellers, offered
everyday citizens the opportunity to synthesize social networks with broadcast networks to communicate and engage with political issues. Together,
these long-term trends mean that information infrastructure helped decentralize state power, especially regimes that were not quick enough to adapt
their management strategies to regulate these new political information
spaces.
We have also argued that digital media were very important during theshort-term cascade of street protests across the region. For example, we knowthat online conversations spiked before major events on the ground in bothcases, as well as many others, across many of the Arab Spring cases. This was
possible because social media provided the structural antecedents for democratic ideas to spread across borders, through informal networks of families,
friends, and interested onlookers. The intensity of political conversations thattook place preceding major street protests supports the idea that virtual networks materialized before street protest networks. For example, detailed maps
and guides were widely available before protests began and provided wouldbe participants with strategies and nonviolent goals to sustain periods ofdissent that disabled authoritarian regimes’ past coercion and suppression
techniques. Indeed, Facebook pages and Twitter conversations were essential
for designing and trying out new strategies as events took place on the ground.
Political blogospheres, many based nationally but others also based more regionally, brought together political diaspora communities from France, theUnited Kingdom, and other Western democratic countries (Etling et al.
2010). The ability to produce and consume political content was importantbecause it created a sense of shared grievances and strong political efficacy
that had not led to such sizable, diverse, and quick mobilization before theArab Spring.
Despite the ample evidence illustrating the role of digital media in the ArabSpring, it would be a mistake to suggest the democratic potential of information technologies without considering the important roles that regimes play inmanaging or limiting their applications. Indeed, there are several regimes thathave very sophisticated strategies to effectively co-opt or coerce technology

118

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

providers. One of the key threats to authoritarian regimes is elite defection.
Therefore, some regimes, like Saudi Arabia and the UAE, followed a closely
guarded and systematic strategy to monitor and punish a variety of autonomous attempts at online political engagement. Others, like Egypt and Jordan,
tolerated such incidents by assuming that some political dissatisfaction could
be ventilated online and therefore not materialize substantively offline. When
this dissatisfaction did eventually spill over, unfriendly regimes took a range ofmeasures to suppress the political application of digital media. During extreme
circumstances, entire global information networks were taken offline. This
strategy caused street protests to increase in numbers, especially in Egypt,where individuals turned to traditional institutions to find each other, such as
after Friday prayer congregations in Cairo. Disconnecting large information
networks also caused regimes to lose millions of dollars on global financialtransactions taking place in the world economy. This was the case in Egypt,which lost $18 million USD per day (nearly $90 million USD in total) after
turning off mobile and digital networks.
Digital media had a causal role in the Arab Spring in that they provided thefundamental infrastructure for social movements and collective action, aprocess Bennett and Segerberg (2012) call “connective action.” In the first few
weeks of protest in each country, the generation of people in the streets—andits leadership—was clearly not interested in the three major models of political Islam. These social movements were not seeking to replace secular dictatorships with Al Qaeda’s Salafi Jihadism, Iran’s Shiite theocracy, or Saudi’s rigid
Wahhabism (Wright 2011). Instead, these mostly cosmopolitan and younger
generations of mobilizers felt disenfranchised by their political systems, saw
vast losses in the poor management of national economies and development,
and, most important, voiced a consistent and widely shared narrative ofcommon grievances—a narrative which they learned about from each otherand co-wrote on the digital spaces of political writing and venting on blogs,
videos shared on Facebook and Twitter, and comment board discussions on
international news sites like Al Jazeera and the BBC.
The causes of revolution are always complex, and the conditions underwhich revolts succeed rare. As Goldstone (2011) observes, for a revolution to
succeed, the government must seem so unjust and inept that it is viewed as athreat to the nation’s future. A country’s combined social, economic, and military elites must be alienated from the state. This happened in Egypt and Tunisia, was slow to happen in Libya and Syria, and did not happen in Bahrain andSaudi Arabia. A regime’s opponents must also build consensus across a broadC on cl u s ion

119

swath of the population, crossing ethnic, religious, and class groups, which inseveral Arab Spring countries was made possible by digital networks. Finallyinternational powers must either refuse to step in and defend the governmentor they must constrain the government from defending itself too ruthlessly—
both roles which have been played by Western powers at critical moments, but
not in all (Goldstone 2011).
The Arab Spring, then, is historically unique because it is the first set ofpolitical upheavals in which all of these things were digitally mediated.
Digital media allowed local citizens access to international broadcast networks, networks that were then used by online civil society organizations
to lobby advocacy campaigns regionally by Arab and Western support
groups like AccessNow and the Electronic Frontier Foundation in securing information infrastructure and combating regimes’ attempts at
committing overt violence and censoring coverage of human rights atrocities. When the internet went down in Egypt, Mubarak also revoked satellite broadcast licenses. As a response, Google began streaming Al Jazeera
English directly to YouTube.
Many of the dictators who have held on to power in the Middle East andNorth Africa have done so by telling their population, their neighbors, and theinternational community that they were the guardians against Islamist revolution. And many of these networked individuals showed a lack of interest in thepolitical Islamist frameworks of previous generations (Bayat 2007). Some
Islamist parties may have benefited from the Arab Spring, as in the aftermathof Tunisia and Egypt, but they did not inspire the uprisings. In fact, they havecategorically hesitated to join them till victory and political change was close
to a real possibility. Among the countries in the region, those with high rates
of technology diffusion and a significant, tech-savvy, and young civil society
were the ones where the Arab Spring was most successful, along with regimesthat had not mastered the art of managing information infrastructure. The
countries with the lowest rates of technology diffusion, or a fragmented civilsociety with few technology resources, had less successful uprisings. Some ofthese later countries, including Libya, Syria, and Yemen, did experience extended civil war, but the inciting incidents of political strife, again, were digitally mediated. On the whole, however, the role of digital media in the politicalunrest of these countries was not as pronounced as it was in Tunisia, Egypt,
and Morocco, all of which experienced major political concessions ranging
from democratic regime changes or the lifting of political sanctions andreplacement of ruling elites.

120

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

The argument devaluing the complex causal role of digital media in the ArabSpring is often made through the simple claim that it is people on the streets andtheir grievances that constitute political revolution. Pundits have made thisclaim in different ways. Several, including Gladwell, Rosenberg, and Friedman,argue that while Facebook and Twitter may have their place in social change, real
revolutions take place on the ground (Gladwell 2010). Rosenberg wrote thatthe biggest obstacle in using social media for political change is that “people
need those personal connections in order to get them to take action—especially
if action is risky and difficult” (Rosenberg 2011). For Friedman, “what brought
Hosni Mubarak down was not Facebook and it was not Twitter. It was a million
people in the streets, ready to die for what they believed in” (Friedman 2011). It
is true that Facebook and Twitter were not singular causes of revolutions, but it isalso silly to ignore the fact that the careful and strategic uses of digital media to
network regional publics, along with international support networks, haveempowered activists in new ways. These have led to some of the largest protests
this decade in Iran, the temporary lifting of the Egyptian blockade on Gaza, andthe popular movements that ended the decades long rule of Mubarak and Ben
Ali. Digital media had a causal role in the Arab Spring in the sense that they provided the very infrastructure that created deep communication ties and organizational capacity in groups of activists before the major protests took place andwhile street protests were being formalized. Indeed, it was because of those welldeveloped, digital networks that civic leaders so successfully activated such large
numbers of people to protest.
Social media are the reason we have such good documentation of events.
More important, they are the reason that Egyptians had such excellent live
coverage of what was going on in Tunisia, and also the reason that Moroccans, Jordanians, and Yemenis had coverage of what was going on in Egypt,
just as Libyans and Syrians had coverage of what was going on in those countries, and so on. In other words, it was social media that brought the narrativeof successful social protest across multiple, previously closed, media regimes.
When things did not go well, as in the case of Bahrain and Libya, activists inthe continuing cascade took note and applied these lessons—just as authoritarian regimes, like Syria and Bahrain, have made interesting moves like
opening up previously embargoed digital networks to better monitor the
strategies and activities of protestors. The Syrian government also very
quickly developed a digital counterinsurgency strategy, effectively intimidating that country’s activists (one of the region’s largest online civil societies) from using social media in a systematic way for organizing. For theC on cl u s ion

121

most part, it was physical intimidation that discouraged activists from communicating about their political activity on Facebook. But the authoritarianregime also invested in its social media strategy by actively employing people
to create pro-government content to distribute over social media networks.
Perhaps the most compelling reason for not dismissing the importantcausal role of digital media in the Arab Spring is that the traditional analysis,
privileging other factors, yields uncompelling explanations (Gause, 2011).
For example, The Economist magazine built an index of how press freedom,
corruption, democratic institutions, income, the youth bulge, and years of authoritarian rule might predict the vulnerabilities of particular regimes. This
index used many of the variables that traditional social media theorists also
consider important—suggesting that Yemen, Libya, Syria, and Iraq were themost vulnerable. Yet they are neither the inciting nor defining cases of the
Arab Spring. Yemen, Libya, and Syria had a small elite of technology activists
who helped spread the word of successful rebellion in other countries, but the
tough authoritarian regimes responded quickly and forcefully and with theirown digital media strategy. These countries descended into months of civil
strife and did not see a rapid regime transition. The countries that experienced
rapid regime collapse or where regimes made major concessions did notappear particularly vulnerable—for example, Egypt and Tunisia, and Saudi
Arabia and Morocco, respectively.
It is wrong-headed to debate how many bloggers it takes to make a democracy. But there is little doubt that, altogether, social media and information infrastructure make useful contributions toward social movement organizing andthe mobilization of popular protest. A peripheral look at counts of media use
and digital diffusion reveals that the countries experiencing the most dramaticchanges had low overall percentages of social media use (Mourtada and Salem
2011). But limiting the analysis to aggregate indicators precludes the possibilityof telling a more complex, causal story. Moreover, if there is anything to the analytical frame of networks, the use of important media by a few important nodesof users could be exceptionally consequential. This is why, to unpack the complexities of the Arab Spring, we must employ analytic approaches that make possible the examination of complex social systems that constitute the overall
aggregate of state-based cases. Street protests were the most challenging manifestations of political opposition for each regime’s security forces, and they werecertainly bolstered by decades-long economic and political disenfranchisementof their citizens. Yet the millions of individuals on the streets of capital cities
around the region were not disconnected individuals.

122

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

In fact, the opposite is true. These protesters were very connected, in groups
and networks. Not every Tunisian and Egyptian had access to a computer. But
mobile phones were the key mediating instrument bridging communication
gaps: they could be easily carried and concealed, could often be used to recordand upload photos and videos, and could be recharged in the street. Given thehigh rates of mobile phone use, especially in the dense urban centers, it is safe to
say that each person at the protests either had a mobile phone or was part of agroup in which there were several mobile civic journalists and bloggers (see Figure C.1). Before the Arab Spring, most social movement theorists had landed
on a straightforward way of describing the importance of digital media. Digital
media affected the costs and benefits of action, the opportunities and constraints
on actor commitment, and was one of many resources available to activist
leaders (Earl and Kimport 2011). In Bimber’s account, “socio-technologicaldevices do not determine political outcomes, but simply alter the matrix ofopportunities and costs associated with intermediation, mobilization and theorganization of politics” (Bimber 2003, p. 231).

Figure C.1 Mobile Charging Station in Tahrir Square. (© Alisdare Hickson)

C on cl u s ion

123

The Digital Scaffolding for Building a Modern
Civil Society
What might have made some regimes more susceptible than others to popular
uprisings, and what might explain the relative successes of some movements
more than others? What role does information technology have in the modern recipe for democratization? Weighing multiple political, economic, andcultural conditions, we find that information infrastructure—especially mobile phone use—consistently appears as one of the key ingredients in parsimonious models for the conjoined combinations of causes behind regime
fragility and social movement success. Internet use is relevant in some solution sets, but by causal logic it is actually the absence of internet use that
explains low levels of success.
In every single case, the inciting incidents of the Arab Spring were digitally
mediated in some way. Information infrastructure, in the form of mobile
phones, personal computers, and social media, were part of the causal story
we must tell about the Arab Spring. People were inspired to protest for manydifferent and always personal reasons. Information technologies mediatedthat inspiration, such that the revolutions followed each other by a few weeks
and had notably similar patterns. Certainly there were different political outcomes, but that does not diminish the important role of digital media in the
Arab Spring. But even more important, this investigation has illustrated thatcountries that do not have a civil society equipped with digital scaffolding aremuch less likely to experience popular movements for democracy than are
countries with such an infrastructure—an observation we are able to makeonly by accounting for the constellation of causal variables that existed before
the street protests began, not simply the short-term uses of digital technologies during the brief period of political upheaval.
Perhaps some of the best evidence that digital media altered the system ofpolitical communication in several countries is in the way political candidates
have recently campaigned for office, emboldened by successful digital tactics,
and have continued to use information technologies in running for office. In
both Egypt and Tunisia, the initial rounds of elections were notable for theway candidates wooed voters with social media strategies. Interacting withvoters face to face was most important for reaching the many new voters who
were not online and had little experience with campaign politics (Saleh2011). But competitive candidates also took to the internet, and independent

124

DEMOC R AC Y’ S FOUR TH WAVE ?

candidates not allied with Islamist parties, such as Mohammed El Baradei in
Egypt, also relied heavily on Facebook to activate networks of supporters.
Digital media have had a crucial causal role in the formation, enunciation, andactivation of coordinated opposition in several countries in North Arica andthe Middle East. Now there is more evidence to suggest that this information
infrastructure continues to be important after the dictators have fallen—
further supporting the need to develop our theories to go beyond seeking
linear relationships and to look for parsimonious recipes grounded in limited
but real case contexts.
This chapter offers a transportable framework that may describe the staging
of contemporary, digitally mediated social change. Digital media ignited popular uprising for democracy across the region, but digital media had for several
years served as the scaffolding over which civil society had grown. These
media were tools for social protest, but tools that shaped the character of social
protest, the contemporary organizational form of civic unrest, and thechanging opportunity structure for public dissent. Digital and social media
allowed more people in the region to be involved in the production and consumption of international news, to solidify their own social networks using
digital applications, to entrench online civil society groups that nurtured newpolitical publics and involved women and minority ethnic communities in
new forms of political communication. Several international news agenciesdelivered political news and information that authoritarian regimes could
only clumsily block.
We also offered a six-stage model of protest mobilization: a capacitybuilding phase that involves the diffusion and entrenchment of digital media
over many years in local and diasporic communities; a preparation phase thatinvolves activists learning to use digital media in creative ways to find eachother, build solidarity around shared grievances, and identify collective political goals; an ignition phase that involves some inciting incident, usuallyignored by mainstream, state-controlled media, that enrages the public and isleveraged by civil society groups; a phase of street protests that are coordinated digitally; a phase of international buy-in, during which digital media areused to draw in international governments, global diasporas, and overseas
news agencies; a climax phase in which the state either cracks down, protesters
and elites reach a stalemate, or public demands are met; and then a final denouement of a post-protest information war between winners and losers insocial change. The countries with the lowest rates of technology diffusion, or afragmented civil society with few technology resources, had less successful

C on cl u s ion

125

uprisings. But in every single case, the inciting incidents of the Arab Springwere digitally mediated. In this way, mobile phones, personal computers, andsocial media are part of the causal story we must tell about this period. Certainly there were different political outcomes, but that does not diminish theimportant role of digital media in the Arab Spring.

NotesAcknowledgments
1. Copyright © 2011 National Endowment for Democracy and The Johns Hopkins University Press. This article first appeared in Journal of Democracy 22.3
(2011): 35–48. Reprinted with permission by The Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Chapter 3
1. Demographic data from the CIA World Factbook and World Bank’s World
Development Indicators database. Technology use data from the International
Telecommunications Union.
2. The data for Twitter and blog trends were collected by the Project on Information Technology and Political Islam. This project is among the first to analyze
the flow of text messages about the potential and strategy of democratization
movements among multiple countries. In addition, we figured out how to distinguish between domestic, regional, and international contributors to thegrowing online consciousness about political crisis. Demonstrating Twitter’s
impact on regional conversations is an important contribution but was technically challenging. We processed more than 3 million tweets for their use ofhashtags about events in North Africa and the Middle East. We purchased
cloud computing time from Amazon to speed up the text analysis, and wrote
automated scripts for identifying the relevant tweets. A significant number of
the tweets provide longitude and latitude information, and that information
was automatically converted into country location. Finally, we hired a translator
to help with texts and location information that is in Arabic, French, Hebrew,
and Turkish.
This dataset was created using the Twitter archiving service TwapperKeeper(http://twapperkeeper.com/) to capture the flow of tweets from the Twitter

127

128

No te to Pag e 50

Search API for Algeria, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, and Yemen. The hashtags
analyzed, in order, were “#algeria,” “#egypt,” “#feb14,” “#morocco,” “#sidibouzid,” and “#yemen.” Since these archives were initiated by different users at different times, they do not all cover the same time period. The earliest, #sidibouzid,
begins on January 14, 2011, and the last tweets (in multiple hashtags) occur
on March 24, 2011. TwapperKeeper experienced system overloading at several
times during this period, resulting in coverage gaps within some of the archives.
But even for archives with no gaps, it is highly unlikely that TwapperKeeper’s
archive captured all relevant tweets due to limitations imposed by Twitter.
All six archives combined contain a total of 3,142,621 tweets, some of which
undoubtedly overlap because each tweet could contain multiple hashtags. Morethan 75 percent of these (2,363,139) are from #egypt. This method omits some
unknown number of in-region tweeters due to blank location fields, deleted
accounts, and garbled information in the fields.
Twitter changed its terms of service on March 20, 2011, to disallow public
sharing of tweets. The archives analyzed in this report were queued for downloading from TwapperKeeper on March 19, 2011, but due to the backlog ofsimilar requests from other users, the downloads did not become available until
several days later (which is why some of them include tweets added after March
20). The archive dates for specific hashtags vary, and the earliest data points
come from #egypt on January 5, 2011. All tracking ends March 20, 2011, due
to Twitter’s terms of service change. TwapperKeeper, the service used to track
hashtags, was crippled (See www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_recent_changes_to_twitters_terms_of_service_mi.php).
The hashtag archives included a wide array of metadata along with each
tweet, including the author’s name, the GMT it was posted, and the application used to send it, among other information. However, authors’ self-reported
location field was not included. To gather this, a list of unique users from eachhashtag was created via a custom hypertext preprocessor (PHP) script. Each list
was then used as an input into a second PHP script which automatically saved
each user’s location field from the Twitter REST API (representational statetransfer application programming interface). Due to restrictions on the numberof requests that can be sent to Twitter’s REST API per hour, the user locations
had to be collected one archive at a time. Location collection for the largest
hashtags took longer than a day, with the exact amount of time depending on
the number of unique users that contributed to it. Ultimately, between 25 percent and 40 percent of the unique users in each archive lacked any location data.
Reasons for this included simply leaving the field blank, deleting one’s account,or having it suspended due to misuse.
Once this script had finished collecting the location fields for all uniqueusers from each hashtag archive, each data file was subjected to a word filter
that attempted to automatically classify each user-provided location into one

N ot e s t o Pag e 5 0

129

of four categories: (1) within the hashtag country; (2) within the broader Arabic region; (3) outside both the country and the Arabic region; and (4) noprovided location. The first two filters consisted of a simple string-matching
search pattern that sought the English name of each country along with thenames of the top five cities by population in each country. The sole exception tothis was for countries with less than 5 percent internet penetration, for which
only the capital city was used in addition to the country name. Because many
user-provided locations came in the form of latitude-longitude coordinates
or were written in other languages, we decided to convert these into English
before applying the filter. Google’s reverse geocoding service was used for theformer and Google Translate was used for locations written in Arabic script.
Manually reading the translated locations, we were able to identify additional
city names within the Arabic region that recurred often, so we added these to
the word filter.
The procedure described here resulted in a dataset for each archive thatconsisted of each unique username and its category ID as determined by theword filter. To combine the category IDs with the full tweet data, each pair ofarchive files (consisting of one full tweet set and one list of unique names andcategory IDs) was loaded into a MySQL database hosted on a virtual Linuxcomputer hosted by Amazon’s commercial cloud. Custom structured querylanguage (SQL) queries were used to automatically graft each unique user’s
location to each appearance of that user within the archive. Another SQL querytallied the number of tweets in each full archive classified as coming from a user
in the hashtag country, in the broader Arabic region, outside of the country andregion, and with no location. These summaries were aggregated by date andused to create time-series charts showing the posting dynamics of each location
category.
3. The data for Figure 3.1 come from our analysis of the Tunisian blogosphere.
This dataset was created using the eCairn Conversation archiving and analysis
service. The tool was used to capture the flow of information through blog
posts from Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feeds for Tunisia’s key blogs. The
captured data-streams begin on November 20, 2011, and end on May 15,
2011. A total of 475 key Tunisian blogs contributed a total of 26,000 posts
during this period. A number of languages are represented in the Tunisian
blogosphere, including Arabic, French, and English. We were able to analyze
blog centrality through eCairn Conversation, and 17 of 475 blogs were identified as the main information gateways for the Tunisian blogosphere. In orderof centrality, they are Tunisie Blogs; Wallada; Extravaganza; Tn-Bloggers;
Boukornine; ‫ ;ﻣﺪﻭﻧﺔ ﻛﺎﻟﻴﻤﺎﺭﻭ‬Venus et Moi; Barbach; Tuniblogs; Notes; Carpe
Diem; L’universe de Narwas; ‫ ;ﻣﻴﺎﺩﻳــــــﻦ‬Desenchantee; ‫ ;ﻭﻟــﺪ ﺑﻴـــــــــــﺮﺳﺎ‬Mon
Massir; and Blogger. These 17 blogs (3.6 percent of the Tunisian national
blogosphere) were linked to the remaining sphere of 475 blogs, of which 76

130

No tes to Pag es 50–56(16 percent) were located in a medium level of network centrality, 262 (55.1
percent) were in low network centrality; and 120 (25.2 percent) were network
outliers and did not link to or share much dialogue with the rest of the Tunisian
blogosphere.
Almost all of the 17 core blogs in the Tunisian blogosphere have been hosted
within Tunisia. According to IP addresses, the cities of Tunis and al-Hammah
have had the most prominent bloggers. The most central blogs in Tunis were El
Fan, Tuniscope, and Tekino (all had medium network centrality in the larger
Tunisian blogosphere). The most central blogs in al-Hammah were Tunisie
Blogs, Tn-Bloggers, and Barbach (all had high network centrality in the larger
Tunisian blogosphere). Interestingly, al-Hammah was a more critical location
for the Tunisian blogosphere than Tunis. In addition, there have been several
prominent Tunisian blogs maintained by people in the Tunisian diaspora. For
example, the blogs Stupeur, Houblog, Arabasta, and Chroniques Absurdes
were located in Montreal or Paris, belonged mostly to Tunisian expatriates, andwere key mid-level blogs in the Tunisian national blogosphere.
The keywords identified for the analysis were determined using eCairn’s conversation analyzer. The application used text search and identification algorithms
to assess word frequencies and proximate phrases. This allowed us to specify Ben
Ali, Bouazizi, Economie, Islam, Revolution, and Liberty as important conversation items in the Tunisian national blogosphere. After identifying important
keywords, we reverse-analyzed their presence through time-series analysis. The
discussion of Bouazizi and Liberty was consistently less frequent than otherkeywords, so were dropped from Figure 3.1. By sub-selecting the portions of
the blogosphere that frequently mentioned different key words, we were able
to investigate their particular network-structures. For example, the keywords
appearing less frequently (e.g., Islam) had less network heterogeneity and werecomposed of less and mostly low-influence blogs. In contrast, blogs mentioning
popular keywords (e.g., Revolution) had more network heterogeneity and werecomposed of larger, more diverse, and more high-level influence blogs driving
those conversations. Put more simply, the networks of blogs within the Tunisian national blogosphere that were more diverse, cross-linked with others, andwere key information gates were able to drive different topics of conversation
more successfully than smaller and more homogeneous blog networks.
4. A comprehensive list of Egypt’s political party and political pressure groupdata was built using both the Central Intelligence Agency’s World Factbook,
Wikipedia, and some specialized Egyptian political blogs anticipating that thiscombination of “official” and “unofficial” data could bring major and minor,
new and established parties to the list. Several search engines and media databases were consulted to confirm the URLs for parties that had websites. In the
pre-uprising dataset, a total of 1,332 external links were found across 10 active
websites, of which 1,225 were unique and 102 were linked to by more thanN ot e s t o Pag e s 5 6 – 1 1 3131

one site. In the post-Mubarak dataset, a total of 927 external links were foundacross 9 active websites, of which, 828 were unique and 99 were linked to bymore than one site. We searched for party websites in Arabic, in English transliterations of Arabic party names, and for the official English names of parties.
To analyze the structure, the Web Data Extractor crawled each political party’s
URLs and extracted all external-facing URLs on the entire directory. All links
from the first dataset were collected by the Web Data Extractor from November
11 to November 13, 2010, and all links from the second dataset were collected
between May 3 and May 6, 2011. An XML based add-in for Microsoft Excel
2007 called NodeXL, developed by a team funded by Microsoft Research, wasused to create network maps with the data like that pulled from the Web Data
Extractor. NodeXL generated the Network Linkage Map between Political
Parties in Egypt in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. An arrangement of nodes and clusters,
the map is based on the Harel-Koren algorithm, which groups the nodes (individual sites as dots) based on common external links.
Conclusion
1. The full dataset of all variables in the causal recipes described in this investigation is available at www.pITPI.org , as are the technical scripts for secondary
solution sets not described here and the calibration points for specific membership sets.

References

Abdul-Mageed, Muhammad M. 2008. “Online News Sites and Journalism 2.0: Reader
Comments on Al Jazeera Arabic.” tripleC 6(2): 59–76.
Aday, Sean, Henry Farrell, Marc Lynch, John Sides, John Kelly, and Ethan Zuckerman.
2010. Blogs and Bullets: New Media in Contentious Politics. Washington, DC: USIP.
www.usip.org/publications/blogs-and-bullets-new-media-in-contentious-politics.
Al Jazeera English. 2009. “Al Jazeera Announces Launch of Free Footage under Creative Commons License.” Press Release, January 13. http://cc.aljazeera.net/
content/launch-press-release.
Al Nashmi, Eisa, Johanna Cleary, Juan-Carlos Molleda, and Melinda McAdams. 2010.
“Internet Political Discussions in the Arab World: A Look at Online Forums
from Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan.” International Communication
Gazette 72(8): 719–38.
Al-Saggaf, Yeslam. 2004. “The Effect of Online Community on Offline Community in
Saudi Arabia.” Electronic Journal of Information Systems in Developing Countries
16(2): 1–16.
———. 2006. “The Online Public Sphere in the Arab World: The War in Iraq on the Al
Arabiya Website.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 12(1): 311–34.
Anderson, Benedict. 1983. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spreadof Nationalism. London, UK: Verso.
Anderson, Lisa. 2011. “Demystifying the Arab Spring: Parsing the Differences
between Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya.” Foreign Affairs 90(3): 2.
Andersson, Matilda, Marie Gillespie, and Hugh Mackay. 2010. “Mapping Digital Diasporas @ BBC World Service: Users and Uses of the Persian and Arabic Websites.” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 3(2): 256–78.
Andrews, Robert. 2009. “Al Jazeera Offers Creative Commons Video, Lessig Lends
Backing.” paidContent:UK, January 14. http://paidcontent.org/tech/419-aljazeera-offers-creative-commons-video-lessig-lends-backing/.

133

134

Refer ences

Ardalan, Davar. 2002. “Cyber Fatima, Muslim Women on the Web.” Islam on the Internet: Part II. National Public Radio. www.npr.org/programs/watc/cyberislam/fatima.html.
Barkho, Leon. 2006. “The Arabic Al Jazeera vs. Britain’s BBC and America’s CNN:
Who Does Journalism Right?” American Communication Journal 8(1): 1–15.
Bayat, Asef. 2007. Making Islam Democratic: Social Movements and the Post-Islamist
Turn. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Bennett, W. Lance, and Alexandra Segerberg. 2012. “The Logic of Connective
Action.” Information, Communication & Society 15(5): 739–68. doi:10.1080/13
69118X.2012.670661.
Bimber, Bruce A. 2003. Information and American Democracy: Technology in the Evolution of Political Power. Communication, Society and Politics. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Bimber, Bruce, Andrew J. Flanagin, and Cynthia Stohl. 2005. “Reconceptualizing
Collective Action in the Contemporary Media Environment.” Communication
Theory 15(4): 365–88.
Bosker, Bianca. 2011. “Al Jazeera Director General Wadah Khanfar Heralds ‘Birth Of
New Era’ in Arab World.” Huffington Post. www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/
al-jazeera-wadah-khanfar_n_830318.html.
Brundidge, Jennifer, and Ronald E. Rice. 2009. “Political Engagement Online: Do the
Information Rich Get Richer and the Like-minded More Similar?” In The Handbook of Internet Politics, ed. Phillip N. Howard and Andrew Chadwick. London,
UK: Routledge.
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. 2005. “Libya.” US Department ofState. www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2004/41727.htm.
Byrne, Dara N. 2007. “Public Discourse, Community Concerns, and Civic Engagement: Exploring Black Social Networking Traditions on BlackPlanet.com.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 13(1): 319–40.
Byrne, David, and Charles C. Ragin. 2009. The SAGE Handbook of Case-based Methods.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Camauer, Leonor. 2010. “Media Menus of Arabic Speakers: Stockholm.” Journalism
11(6): 751–54.
Carr, Michelle, Sebrin Von Muellner, Triin Rum, and Jacob Sommer. 2011. “The Construction of Identity by the Libyan Youth Movement on Facebook.” Uppsala, Sweden:
Uppsala University.
Cheesman, Tom, Arnd-Michael Nohl, and BBC WS US Elections Study Group. 2011.
“Many Voices, One BBC World Service? The 2008 US Elections, Gatekeeping
and Trans-editing.” Journalism 12(2): 217–33.
Converse, Philip E. 1987. “Changing Conceptions of Public Opinion in the Political
Process.” Public Opinion Quarterly 51(4): S12–S24.
Council on Foreign Relations, ed. 2011. The New Arab Revolt: What Happened,
What It Means, and What Comes Next. Washington, DC: Council on Foreign
Relations.

R e fe re n ce s135

Dashti, Ali A. 2009. “The Role of Online Journalism in Political Disputes in Kuwait.”
Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 2(1–2): 91–112.
Deibert, Ronald J., John G. Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski, and Jonathan Zittrain, eds. 2010.
Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace. Information Revolution and Global Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
———. 2008. Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Information Revolution and Global Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
DeLong-Bas, Natana J. ca. 2011. “The New Social Media and the Arab Spring.” Oxford
Islamic Studies. www.oxfordislamicstudies.com/Public/focus/essay0611_social_media.html.
Diamond, Larry J. 1994. “Toward Democratic Consolidation.” Journal of Democracy
5(3): 4–17.
———. 2009. “Why Are There No Arab Democracies?” Journal of Democracy 21(1):
93–112. doi:10.1353/jod.0.0150.
Dickinson, Elizabeth. 2011. “The First Wikileaks Revolution?” Foreign Policy, January
13. http://wikileaks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/01/13/wikileaks_and_the_tunisia_protests.
Dimitrova, Daniela V., and Colleen Connolly-Ahern. 2007. “A Tale of Two Wars:
Framing Analysis of Online News Sites in Coalition Countries and the Arab
World.” Howard Journal of Communications 18(2): 153–68.
Dimitrova, Daniela V., Lynda Lee Kaid, Andrew Paul Williams, and Kaye D. Trammell. 2005. “War on the Web: The Immediate News Framing of Gulf War II.”International Journal of Press/Politics 10(1): 22–44.
Dunn, Alexandra. 2010. “Public as Politician? The Improvised Hierarchies of Participatory Influence of the April 6th Youth Movement Facebook Group.” Working
paper. Cambridge, UK: Centre for Research in the Arts, Social Sciences andHumanities. www.polis.cam.ac.uk/cghr/docs/NMAP_Dunn_paper_4.pdf.
Earl, Jennifer, and Katrina Kimport. 2011. Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in
the Internet Age. Acting with Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Eickelman, Dale F., and Jon W. Anderson. 2003. New Media in the Muslim World: The
Emerging Public Sphere. 2nd ed. Indiana Series in Middle East Studies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Etling, Bruce, John Kelly, Robert Faris, and John Palfrey. 2010. “Mapping the Arabic
Blogosphere: Politics and Dissent Online.” New Media & Society 12(8): 1225–43.
Fandy, Mamoun. 1999. “CyberResistance: Saudi Opposition between Globalizationand Localization.” Comparative Studies in Society and History 41(1): 24–47.
Friedman, Thomas. 2011 “Commencement Remarks to Tulane University.” http://tulane.edu/grads/speakers-thomas-friedman.cfm.
Gallup. 2012. After the Arab Springs: Women on Rights, Religion, and Rebuilding. Washington, DC: Gallup Organization.
Gaouette, Brendan, and Nicole Greeley. 2011. “Untangling Dictators’ Webs: The State
Dept. Is Funding Tools to Help Online Activists Abroad.” BusinessWeek, April 28.
www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/11_19/b4227022810305.htm.

136

Refer ences

Garrett, R. 2006. “Protest in an Information Society: A Review of Literature on Social
Movements and the New ICTs.” Information, Communication & Society 9(2)(April): 202–24.
Garrett, R. Kelly. 2006. “Protest in an Information Society: A Review of Literature on
Social Movements and the New ICTs.” Information, Communication & Society
9(2): 202–24.
Gause, F. Gregory III. 2011. “Why Middle East Studies Missed the Arab Spring.” Foreign
Affairs. www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67932/f-gregory-gause-iii/why-middleeast-studies-missed-the-arab-spring.
Ghareeb, Edmund. 2000. “New Media and the Information Revolution in the Arab
World: An Assessment.” Middle East Journal 54(3): 395–418.
Gladwell, Malcolm. 2010. “Small Change.” New Yorker, October 4. www.newyorker.
com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell.
Goldstone, Jack A. 2011. “Understanding the Revolutions of 2011.” Foreign Affairs.
www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/67694/jack-a-goldstone/understanding-therevolutions-of-2011.
Hamdy, Naila. 2009. “Building Capabilities of Egyptian Journalists in Preparation for
a Media in Transition.” Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research 1(3): 215–43.
Hidass, Ahmed. 2010. “Radio and Television in Morocco: New Regulation andLicensing for Private Channels.” Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research3(1–2): 19–36.
Howard, Philip N. 2010. Digital Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: The Internetand Political Islam. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Howard, Philip N., and Muzammil M. Hussain. 2011. “The Role of Digital Media.”
Journal of Democracy 22(3): 35–48.
Howard, Philip N., Sheetal D. Agarwal, and Muzammil M. Hussain. 2011. “When Do
States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Regime Responses to the Political
Uses of Social Media.” Communication Review 14(3): 216–32.
Howard, Philip N., Aiden Duff y, Deen Freelon, Muzammil Hussain, Will Mari, andMarwa Mazaid. 2011. Opening Closed Regimes: What Was the Role of Social Media
during the Arab Spring? Seattle: University of Washington. www.pitpi.org.
Howard, Philip N., and Malcolm R. Parks. 2012. “Social Media and Political Change:
Capacity, Constraint, and Consequence.” Journal of Communication 62(2): 359–
62. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2012.01626.x.
Howard, Philip N., and World Information Access Project. 2007. World Information
Access Report 2007. Seattle: University of Washington. www.wiaproject.org/
index.php/191/2007-briefing-booklet.
Hussain, Muzammil M., and Philip N. Howard. 2012. “Opening Closed Regimes:
Civil Society, Information Infrastructure, and Political Islam.” In Digital Mediaand Political Engagement Worldwide: A Comparative Study, ed. Eva Anduiza,
Michael J. Jensen, and Laia Jorba. Communication, Society and Politics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

R e fe re n ce s

137

el Issawi, Fatima, and Gerd Baumann. 2010. “The BBC Arabic Service: Changing Political Mediascapes.” Middle East Journal of Culture and Communication 3(2):137–51.
Jurkiewicz, Sarah. 2010. “Blogging as Counterpublic? The Lebanese and the Egyptian
Blogosphere in Comparison.” In Social Dynamics 2.0: Researching Change inTimes of Media Convergence, ed. Nadja-Christina Schneider and Bettina Graf,
27–48. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
Khamis, Sahar. 2011. “The Transformative Egyptian Media Landscape: Changes,
Challenges and Comparative Perspectives.” International Journal of Communication 5: 1159–77.
King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kloet, Jeroen. 2002. “Digitisation and Its Asian Discontents: The Internet, Politics
and Hacking in China and Indonesia.” First Monday 7(9). http://firstmonday.
org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1789/1669.
Kurzman, Charles. 1996. “Structural Opportunity and Perceived Opportunity in
Social-Movement Theory: The Iranian Revolution of 1979.” American Sociological Review 61(1): 153–70.
Labovitz, Craig. 2011. “Egypt Returns to the Internet.” DDoS and Security Reports:
The Arbor Networks Security Blog. http://ddos.arbornetworks.com/2011/02/
egypt-returns-to-the-internet/.
Lee, Daniels. 2011. “Al Jazeera on Google TV.” Corporate Blog. Google TV. http://
googletv.blogspot.com/2011/02/al-jazeera-on-google-tv.html.
Lim, Merlyna. 2012. “Clicks, Cabs, and Coffee Houses: Social Media and Oppositional Movements in Egypt, 2004–2011.” Journal of Communication 62(2): 231–
48.
Lotan, Gilad, Erhardt Graeff, Mike Ananny, Devin Gaffney, Ian Pearce, and danah
boyd. 2011. “The Revolutions Were Tweeted: Information Flows during the2011 Tunisian and Egyptian Revolutions.” International Journal of Communication 5: 1375–405.
Lynch, Marc. 2012. The Arab Uprising: The Unfinished Revolutions of the New Middle
East. New York, NY: PublicAffairs.
———. 2006. Voices of the New Arab Public: Iraq, Al-Jazeera, and Middle East Politics
Today. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Marcotte, Roxanne D. 2010. “Gender and Sexuality Online on Australian Muslim
Forums.” Contemporary Islam 4(1): 117–38.
Marks, Joseph. 2011. “Internet Repression on the Rise Since Arab Spring.” Nextgov,
July 15. www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20110715_1793.php.
Marmura, Stephen. 2008a. “A Net Advantage? The Internet, Grassroots Activism andAmerican Middle-Eastern Policy.” New Media & Society 10(2): 247–71.
———. 2008b. “A Net Advantage? The Internet, Grassroots Activism and American
Middle-Eastern Policy.” New Media & Society 10(2) (April 1): 247–71.

138

Refer ences

Marshall, Monty G., and Keith Jaggers. 2010. Polity IV: Political Regime Characteristics
and Transitions, 1800–2009. College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management. www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm.
McAdam, Doug. 1982. Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930–
1970. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
McLaughlin, W. 2003. “The Use of the Internet for Political Action by Non-state Dissident Actors in the Middle East (computer File).” First Monday (Online) 8(11)(November 3): 1.
McLaughlin, W. Sean. 2003. “The Use of the Internet for Political Action by Non-state
Dissident Actors in the Middle East.” First Monday 8(11). www.firstmonday.org/
htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1791.
Mellor, Noha. 2008. “Arab Journalists as Cultural Intermediaries.” International Journal of Press/Politics 13(4): 465–83.
Mernissi, Fatema. 2004. “The Satellite, the Prince, and Scheherazade: The Rise of
Women and Communicators in Digital Islam.” Transnational Broadcasting Studies
12 (Spring). www.tbsjournal.com/Archives/Spring04/mernissi.htm.
Migdal, Joel S., Atul Kohli, and Vivienne Shue, eds. 1994. State Power and Social Forces:
Domination and Transformation in the Third World. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, W. Flagg. 2007. The Moral Resonance of Arab Media: Audiocassette Poetry andCulture in Yemen. Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
Morozov, Evgeny. 2011. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. New York,
NY: PublicAffairs.
Mourtada, Racha, and Fadi Salem. 2011. Civil Movements: The Impact of Facebook andTwitter. Arab Social Media Report. Dubai, UAE: Dubai School of Government.
www.dsg.ae/en/Publication/Pdf_En/DSG_Arab_Social_Media_Report_
No_2.pdf.
Nagel, Caroline, and Lynn Staeheli. 2010. “ICT and Geographies of British Arab, andArab American Activism.” Global Networks 10(2): 262–81.
Nagi, Eman Al, and Mohammad Hamdan. 2009. “Computerization ande- Government Implementation in Jordan: Challenges, Obstacles and Successes.” Government Information Quarterly 26(4): 577–83.
Nisbet, Erik C., and Teresa A. Myers. 2010. “Challenging the State: Transnational
TV and Political Identity in the Middle East.” Political Communication 27(4):347–66.
Noman, Helmi. 2011. In the Name of God: Faith-based Internet Censorship in Majority
Muslim Countries. OpenNet Inititative. http://opennet.net/sites/opennet.net/
files/ONI_NameofGod_1_08_2011.pdf.
Oghia, Michael J., and Helen Indelicato. 2011. “Ruling the Arab Internet: An Analysis
of Internet Ownership Trends of Six Arab Countries.” Arab Media & Society
Summer (14). www.arabmediasociety.com/?article=779.

R e fe re n ce s

139

Papacharissi, Zizi, and Maria de Fatima Oliveira. 2012. “Affective News and Networked Publics: The Rhythms of News Storytelling on #Egypt.” Journal ofCommunication 62(2): 266–82.
Pintak, Lawrence. 2009. “Border Guards of the ‘Imagined’ Watan: Arab Journalists
and the New Arab Consciousness.” Middle East Journal 63(2): 191–212.
Pintak, Lawrence, and Jeremy Ginges. 2008. “The Mission of Arab Journalism: Creating
Change in a Time of Turmoil.” International Journal of Press/Politics 13(3): 193–227.
Ragin, Charles C. 1987. The Comparative Method: Moving beyond Qualitative andQuantitative Strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rao, Madanmohan, ed. 2003. “Bangladesh.” In News Media and New Media: The AsiaPacific Internet Handbook, Episode V, 243–453. Communication & Media Studies.
Singapore: Eastern Universities Press.
Relly, Jeannine E., and David Cuillier. 2010. “A Comparison of Political, Cultural, andEconomic Indicators of Access to Information in Arab and non-Arab States.”
Government Information Quarterly 27(4): 360–70.
Robinson, John, Alan Neustadtl, and Meyer Kestnbaum. 2004. “Technology and Tolerance: Public Opinion Differences among Internet Users and Nonusers.” In Society Online: The Internet in Context, ed. Philip N. Howard and Stephen Jones.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rosenberg, Tina. 2011. “Friends in Revolution.” Opinionator. http://opinionator.
blogs.nytimes.com/2011/07/12/friends-in-revolution/.
Salamey, Imad, and Frederic S. Pearson. 2012. “The Collapse of Middle Eastern Authoritarianism: Breaking the Barriers of Fear and Power.” Third World Quarterly
33(5): 931–48.
Saleh, Yasmine. 2011. “Social Media Show Limits as Egypt Elections Loom.” Reuters.
http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/07/20/idINIndia-58359520110720.
Sardar, Ziauddin. 1993. “Paper, Printing and Compact Disks: The Making and Unmaking of Islamic Culture.” Media, Culture & Society 15(1): 43–59.
Seib, Philip M. 2008. The Al Jazeera Effect: How the New Global Media Are Reshaping
World Politics. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
Shumate, Michelle, and Jon Pike. 2006. “Trouble in a Geographically Distributed Virtual Network Organization: Organizing Tensions in Continental Direct Action
Network.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 11(3): 802–24.
Slade, Christina. 2010. “Media and Citizenship: Transnational Television Cultures
Reshaping Political Identities in the European Union.” Journalism 11(6): 727–33.
Sreberny-Mohammadi, Annabelle, and Ali Mohammadi. 1994. Small Media, Big Revolution: Communication, Culture, and the Iranian Revolution. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Still, Brian. 2005. “Hacking for a Cause.” First Monday 10(9). http://firstmonday.org/
htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/1274/1194.
Stowasser, Barbara. 2001. “Old Shaykhs, Young Women, and the Internet: The Rewriting of Women’s Political Rights in Islam.” Muslim World 91(1–2): 99–120.

140

Refer ences

Sullivan, Andrew. 2011. “Tunisia’s Wikileaks Revolution.” Daily Beast. http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/01/tunisias-wikileaks-revolution.
html.
Taylor, Chris. 2011. “Why Not Call It a Facebook Revolution?” CNN Tech, February
24. http://articles.cnn.com/2011-02-24/tech/facebook.revolution_1_facebookwael-ghonim-social-media?_s=PM:TECH.
Tufekci, Zeynep, and Christopher Wilson. 2012. “Social Media and the Decision toParticipate in Political Protest: Observations from Tahrir Square.” Journal ofCommunication 62(2): 363–79.
Wright, Robin. 2011. “The Pink Hijab.” Wilson Quarterly. www.wilsonquarterly.com/
article.cfm?aid=1969.
Zayani, Mohamed. 2008. “The Challenges and Limits of Universalist Concepts: Problematizing Public Opinion in a Mediated Arab Public Sphere.” Middle East Journalof Communication and Culture 1(1): 60–79.

Index#sidibouzid, 49–50, 53, 128n2@BahrainRights, 23@OnlineBahrain, 23
Abdel Fattah, Esraa, 48
Abdullah II bin Al-Hussein, King of Jordan, 40
Abidi, Shamseddine, 19
activist hackers (hacktivists), 30
Anonymous, 19, 20
Telecomix , 19, 23, 27
Al-Ahali (Egyptian newspaper), 38
Al Ahram (Egyptian newspaper), 91
Al Nashmi, Eisa, 97–98
Algeriacounterinsurgency strategies in, 20, 22
internet access and use in, 94
mobile phones and, 33
protests in, 20, 23, 24, 49
Twitter and, 50, 53–55, 54
Alliance of Youth Movements, 27
Alpha Network Communications, 79
Al-Saggaf, Yeslam, 97
Amamou, Slim, 20
Amamy, Azyz, 71
Anderson, Jon W., 92
anonymization software, 29
April 6 Movement, 38, 59–60, 105
Arab Democratic Nasserist Party (Egypt), 38
Arab Social Media Report, 65
Arab Spring
citizen journalism and, 105
comparative method and, 10–13, 106–114,
114, 115
counterinsurgency strategies and, 69–72,
79–81, 83, 87
digital media and, 4, 12–13, 17–18, 22–34,
65–67, 115–122
leadership in, 33–34

overview, 3–4, 6–9, 10–12
traditional media sources and, 31
Twitter and, 52–55, 54, 117
See also specific countries
Al-Arabi (newspaper), 38
Arabic-speaking diaspora, 95–96, 98
Al Arabiya, 92, 96, 97
Arbor Networks, 74
al-Assad, Bashar , 23Atlantic Monthly, 23
Australia, 73, 81
Bahraincensorship in, 84, 110, 112
control of information networks in, 75
counterinsurgency strategies in, 22, 30, 31,
70, 82, 83, 85, 86
Google Earth and, 23internet access and use in, 25, 94, 110
journalists and, 90
mobile penetration in, 110
police abuse in, 33
population, 112
Twitter and, 23, 50, 53–55, 54
BahrainOnline.com, 37
Bangladesh, 79
BBC (British Broadcasting Corporation), 56,
58, 90, 96, 98
Belgium, 82
Ben Ali, Zine el Abadine
Bouazizi’s self-immolation and, 19, 92–93
fall of, 3, 17, 19–20, 23, 55“the Family” and, 39
photograph, 24
Twitter and, 50
Ben Gharbia, Sami, 20
Bennett, W. Lance, 118
Bimber, Bruce A., 122

141

142

I ndexBlackberry smartphones, 73–74
Blogger, 58
blogs
Egypt and, 37–38
Tunisia and, 19, 37, 38, 50–52, 51
boingboing.net, 23
Bouazizi, Mohamed
coverage of, 92–93
self-immolation of, 18–19, 22, 28, 47, 51
cassette tapes, 41
censorship, 11, 12, 36, 83–84, 110–111, 112
child pornography, 73
China
Arab Spring and, 10
control of information networks in, 71, 74,
79, 83, 104
Chourabi, Sofiene, 70–71
citizen journalism
Arab Spring and, 105
Bouazizi’s self-immolation and, 92–93
civic engagement and, 96–98
Al Jazeera and, 90–92, 98, 99–102
civil society
definition of, 4–5
digital media and, 124internet and, 4–5, 10, 36–40, 44–45, 84–85
Clinton, Hillary, 30, 99
CNN (Cable News Network)
Arabic-speaking diaspora and, 96
citizen journalism and, 98
Egypt and, 56, 58
as source of international news, 90, 94
collective identity, 41
Communist Party of Egypt, 61
CompuServe, 73
Computer viruses, 81
connective action, 118
Converse, Philip E., 40
corruption, 40
counterinsurgency strategies
in Algeria, 20, 22
Arab Spring and, 69–72, 79–81, 83, 87
in Bahrain, 22, 30, 31, 70, 82, 83, 85, 86
in China, 83
digital media and, 18, 28–30, 37–39, 69–87,
77, 78, 117–118
in Egypt, 21–22, 28–29, 29, 38, 70, 71–72, 74, 83
Facebook and, 22, 37
in Iran, 69, 70, 71, 104
Al Jazeera on, 70
in Libya, 22, 29, 31, 37, 70, 71–72, 74–75
in Morocco, 30
in Saudi Arabia, 22, 70, 71, 72, 83, 85
in Syria, 22, 30, 37, 70, 72, 120–121
in Tunisia, 19–20, 37, 38, 39, 69–71, 74, 84

Twitter and, 22, 30, 37
in UAE, 85
in Yemen, 71–72, 74
Creative Commons License, 100–101
Cuba, 82
DailyMotion, 19, 37, 39
Dashti, Ali A., 97
dating websites, 28
democratization
Arab countries and, 11, 17, 103
digital media and, 4, 17–18
denial-of-service attacks, 19, 81
digital media
Arab Spring and, 4, 12–13, 17–18, 22–34,
65–67, 115–122
civil society and, 124counterinsurgency strategies and, 18, 28–30,
37–39, 117–118
definition of, 13
democratization and, 4, 17–18
diffusion of, 40–44, 42–43
elections and, 123–124
public opinion and, 35
surveillance and, 27, 28–29
women and, 62–63
See also internet; mobile phones
Djibouti, 112
eCairn Conversation, 129n3
The Economist, 121
Egypt
blogosphere in, 37–38
broadcast media in, 63
cell phone use in, 48
counterinsurgency strategies in, 21–22,
28–29, 38, 70, 71–72, 74, 83
criticism of leaders and, 40
democratization and, 103
Facebook and, 22, 27, 39, 56, 58, 60, 65
internet access and use in, 5, 20, 25, 48,
94, 110
Iraq War and, 91
media privatization in, 94
mobile phones and, 33, 110, 116–117
online civil society in, 5, 10
political parties in, 38, 56–61, 57–58, 59, 60
population, 48, 111
protests in, 20–22, 55–56, 103–104
television and, 31
Twitter and, 21, 22, 27, 39, 48, 50, 53–56,
54, 56, 58
YouTube and, 56, 58, 61–62, 83, 116–117
Eickelman, Dale F., 92
Electronic Frontier Foundation, 73
Etling, Bruce, 98

I n dex
Facebook
anonymity and, 32–33
Arab Spring and, 47, 65, 117
Bahrain and, 85
counterinsurgency strategies and, 22, 37
Egypt and, 22, 27, 39, 56, 58, 60, 65
Iran and, 69
Israel and, 85
Libya and, 28, 102
Pakistan and, 84
Saudi Arabia and, 85
Syria and, 28
Tunisia and, 19, 37, 39, 65
women and, 48
feminist movements, 105
el-Fiqqi, Anas, 31
Flickr, 58
Friedman, Thomas, 120
Gaddafi, Muammar
counterinsurgency strategies and, 29,
31, 70death of, 23
fall of, 3
photograph, 24Gaza
Al Jazeera and, 92, 99, 100
religiously sanctioned censorship in, 84
El Général (Tunisian rapper, Hamada BenAmor), 20
Germany, 72–73, 81
Al Ghad (Egyptian newspaper), 38
Ghannouchi, Mohamed, 51–52
Ghezali, Salima, 23
Ghonim, Wael, 21, 22
Gladwell, Malcolm, 120
Global Network Initiative, 32Goldstone, Jack A., 118–119
GoogleEgypt and, 58
Global Network Initiative and, 32
Italy and, 82
Speak2Tweet and, 32
Google Earth, 23
Google Maps, 28–29
Google TV, 101
The Guardian, 91, 98
Guatemala, 79
Habermas, Jürgen, 36
Haiti, 79
el-Hamalawy, Hossam, 53
Hungary, 82
Ibrahim, Gigi, 53
India, 74

143

internet
access to, 33, 85, 86–87, 110
civil society and, 4–5, 10, 36–40, 44–45,
84–85
as medium of political resistance, 25
privatization of, 36, 74
public opinion and, 35, 64–65
Iran
Arab Spring and, 10–11
counterinsurgency strategies in, 69, 70, 71, 104
Twitter and, 69, 83
Iranian revolution (1979), 41
Iraq War, 91
Israel, 10, 85
Italy, 82
Jamahiriya, 27
Al Jazeera
Arabic-speaking diaspora and, 96
Bouazizi’s self-immolation and, 19
citizen journalism and, 90–92, 98, 99–102
on counterinsurgency strategies, 70
digital activism in Syria and, 28
Egypt and, 58
Ghezali and, 23
Iraq War and, 91
as political actor, 31, 44, 117
as source of international news, 90
Twitter and, 92, 101
YouTube and, 62, 101
Jordancivil disobedience in, 20, 49
criticism of leaders and, 40
democratization and, 103
e-government in, 95
internet access and use in, 94
mobile phones and, 33
Kazakhstan, 83
Kefaya Movement, 38, 41
Khamis, Sahar, 93–94
Khatib, Dima, 31
Kurzman, Charles, 41
Kuwait, 84, 94, 97, 109
Labor Party (Australia), 73
Lebanon, 20, 49, 94
Lessig, Lawrence, 101
Libya
civil war in, 17
counterinsurgency strategies in, 22, 29, 31,
37, 70, 71–72, 74–75
Facebook and, 28, 102
Interim Transitional National Council and, 23internet access and use in, 110
Jamahiriya and, 27

144

I ndex

Libya (continued)
journalists and, 90
police abuse in, 33
Twitter and, 23
Lotan, Gilad, 52–53
Malawi, 82
Malaysia, 91
malware, 81
Mansoor, Ahmed, 85
Marcotte, Roxanne D., 62
Mauritania, 20, 49, 112
McAdam, Doug , 18
media privatization, 93–95
Minty, Riyaad, 100–101
mobile phones
Arab Spring and, 122, 122
cameras and, 29, 33, 41, 44
Egypt and, 20, 110, 116–117
penetration of, 110
SMS and, 19, 69, 77, 92
Mohammed VI, King of Morocco, 40
Moroccocensorship in, 84
counterinsurgency strategies in, 30
criticism of leaders and, 40
democratization and, 103
internet access and use in, 94
journalists and, 93
media privatization in, 94
mobile phones and, 33
protests in, 17
Twitter and, 50, 53–55, 54
Morozov, Evgeny, 32
Mortada, Leil-Zahra, 48
Mubarak, Hosni
counterinsurgency strategies and, 21–22, 29
fall of, 3, 17, 23
photograph, 24
Muslim Brotherhood, 21, 37–38, 59, 60–61,
105
al-Nasir, Jamal ‘Abd, 41
National Association for Change (Egypt), 60
National Center for Missing and ExploitedChildren, 73
National Democratic Party (Egypt), 59, 60, 61
National Progressive Unionist Party (Egypt),38
National Science Foundation, 74
natural resources, 110
Nazarbayev, Nursultan, 83
New Wafd Party (Egypt), 38
New York Times, 91, 98
newspapers, 5, 71.
See also specific newspapers

Nokia, 71
North Korea, 81“Occupy Wall Street” protests, 10
Oliveira, Maria de Fatima, 53
Oman
censorship in, 84
internet access and use in, 94
population, 112
protests in, 20, 24, 49
religiously sanctioned censorship in, 84
OpenNet Initiative, 83–84, 110“Operation Tunisia” denial-of-service attacks, 19
Overseas Press Club of America, 93
Pakistan, 79, 84, 91
Palestine, 10Papacharissi, Zizi, 53
Pearson, Frederic S., 32
Poland, 84
political parties
in Egypt, 38, 56–61, 57–58, 59, 60
internet and, 64–65
Project on Information Technology and
Political Islam, 127n2
Qatar, 10, 84, 104, 109, 112
radio, 5, 33, 41, 71
Research in Motion (RIM), 73
Reuters, 62
Rosenberg, Tina, 120
RussiaToday, 62
Ryan, Yasmine, 101
Said, Khaled, 21, 28
Salamey, Imad, 32
Saleh, Ali Abdullah , 23, 24
Salem, Mahmoud (Sandmonkey), 53
Saudi Arabia
Blackberry smartphones and, 74
broadcast media in, 63
cassette tapes and, 41
censorship in, 31, 84, 104, 110, 112
counterinsurgency strategies in, 22, 70, 71,
72, 83, 85
internet access and use in, 94, 110
mobile penetration in, 110
online civil society in, 10
opposition in, 25
police abuse in, 33
population, 111
protests in, 17, 20, 49
social networking in, 94
unemployment in, 109
women and, 105

I n dex
Segerberg, Alexandra, 118
Seib, Philip M., 18
Seliman, Abdolkarim Nabil, 38
Shalaby, Tarek, 53
short messaging services (SMS), 19, 69, 77, 92
Somalia, 109, 112–113
South Korea, 81
Spain, 10
Speak2Tweet, 32
State Security Investigative Service (Egypt), 30
The Stream (tv show), 101
Sudan, 20, 24, 49, 84
Syria
counterinsurgency strategies in, 22, 30, 37,
70, 72, 120–121
digital activism in, 28
internet access and use in, 94
mobile penetration in, 110
opposition in, 25, 40
police abuse in, 33
Twitter and, 28–29
television, 5, 31, 33, 71
Thailand, 79, 81
Tomorrow Party (Egypt), 38
Tunisia
activist hackers in, 30
blogosphere in, 19, 37, 38, 50–52, 51
Bouazizi’s self-immolation and, 18–19, 22,
28, 47, 51, 92–93
cell phone use in, 48, 110
counterinsurgency strategies in, 19–20, 37,
38, 39, 69–71, 74, 84
criticism of leaders and, 40
democratization and, 103
Facebook and, 19, 37, 39, 65
internet access and use in, 25, 48,
94, 110
mobile phones and, 33
population, 48
protests in, 18–20, 103–104
religiously sanctioned censorship in, 84
Twitter and, 19, 39, 48, 49–50, 53–55, 54
unemployment in, 109
women and, 48
Turkey, 74, 82, 91
TwapperKeeper, 127–128n2
Twitter
Arab Spring and, 52–55, 54, 117
China and, 79
counterinsurgency strategies and, 22,30, 37145

Egypt and, 21, 22, 27, 39, 48, 50, 53–56,
54, 56, 58
Iran and, 69, 83
Al Jazeera and, 92, 101
Libya and, 23
North Korea and, 81
Syria and, 28–29
Tunisia and, 19, 39, 48, 49–50, 53–55, 54
WikiLeaks and, 93
women and, 48
unemployment, 109
United Arab Emirates (UAE)Blackberry smartphones and, 73–74
censorship in, 84, 110, 112
counterinsurgency strategies in, 85
internet access and use in, 94, 95,
104
Iraq War and, 91
United Kingdom, 10
United States, 83
Vodafone, 70
Al Wafd Daily (Egyptian newspaper), 38
WikiLeaks, 39, 93
women, 48, 62–63, 105
WordPress, 58, 79
Yahoo! 58
Yemen
cassette tapes and, 41
civil disobedience in, 20, 49
counterinsurgency strategies in,
71–72, 74
internet access and use in, 94, 110
mobile penetration in, 110
opposition in, 25
population, 109
religiously sanctioned censorship in, 84
Saleh and, 23, 24
Twitter and, 50, 53–55, 54
unemployment in, 109
al-Yousif, Mahmood, 23YouTubeBouazizi’s self-immolation and, 18–19
control of information networks and, 37, 79
Egypt and, 56, 58, 61–62, 83, 116–117
Al Jazeera and, 62, 101
Pakistan and, 84
Tunisia and, 37, 39
waiver for culturally offensive gore and, 29