“Networked Authoritarianism” or The Relation of Authoritarian Regimes and Cyber Space: A Literature Review on Russia and China

Year 2018, , 103 - 120, 30.12.2018

Mustafa Cem Oğuz

https://doi.org/10.17829/turcom.415025

Abstract

The aim of this study is to examine the relationship of cyber zone and authoritarian regimes through
the cases of China and Russia. It was a big expectation at 1990s that via the widespread use of ICT and
especially internet, authoritarian regimes would become democratized and transparent. According to that expectation, internet would penetrate to authoritarian state like a Trojan horse and would be the sound
of the democratic opposition in there, then facilitate the transforming of the regime. However, from
the middle of the 2000s, it was observed that authoritarian regimes did not weaken against information
technologies, and even spread across the world scale. Reason of this success was the new relation form
that adopted by these regimes, especially Russia and China, against internet. In this new form, called
“Networked Authoritarianism”, the regimes do not prohibit the internet, but are in compliance with it.
They compete with opposition who use the internet as a democratic tool via internet by create counter
discourses. Beside these, the states who adopt the networked authoritarianism, create a safe public space
via the internet and facilitate the communication of state and public. Through this pseudo communication
it prevents the growth of social opposition. After all, it can be concluded that the internet became not a tool
that demolishes the authoritarian state from inside, but it consolidates and give strength to it.

Keywords

Networked Authoritarianism, Data Localization, Astroturfing, Internet, Authoritarian Regimes

“Şebekeleşmiş Otoriteryanizm” ya da Otoriter Rejimlerin Siber Alanla İlişkisi: Rusya ve Çin Üzerine Bir Literatür İncelemesi

Abstract

Bilişim
teknolojilerinin ve özellikle internetin yaygınlaşması ile otoriter rejimlerin
demokratikleşeceği ve şeffaflık kazanacağı 1990’larda güçlü bir beklentiydi.
Buna göre internet bir Truva atı gibi kapalı rejimlerin içine girecek ve burada
toplumsal muhalefetin sesi olarak rejimlerin dönüşümünü sağlayacaktı. Ancak
2000’li yılların ortalarından itibaren otoriter rejimlerin bilişim
teknolojileri karşısında zayıflamadığı ve hatta dünya ölçeğinde yaygınlık
kazandığı gözlemlendi. Bu başarının ardında otoriter rejimlerin internetle
girdikleri yeni ilişki formu vardı. “Şebekeleşmiş Otoriteryanizm” (Networked
Authoritarianism) olarak adlandırılan bu olguda rejimler, interneti
yasaklamamakta ve fakat ona uyum sağlamaktadırlar. İnternet üzerinde örgütlenen
demokratik muhalefete karşı aynı platformdan karşıt söylem oluşturup, onunla
rekabet etmektedirler. Otoriter rejim yine internet üzerinden kontrollü bir
kamusallık yaratarak, toplumun rejimle iletişime girmesine imkan vermekte ve
böylece muhalefetin genişlemesini engellemektedir. Neticede internet, otoriter
rejimleri içeriden yıkan bir silah değil, onu pekiştiren ve istikrar kazandıran
bir niteliğe kavuşmaktadır.  

Keywords

Şebekeleşmiş Otoriteryanizm, Veri Yerelleştirme, Suni Kitle, İnternet, Otoriter Rejimler

References

• Barber, B. R. (1998). Three scenarios for the future of technology and strong democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 573-589.
• Becker, T. (1981). Teledemocracy-Bringing Power Back To People. Futurist, 15(6), 6-9.
• Bremmer, I. (2010). Democracy in cyberspace: What information technology can and cannot do. Foreign Affairs, 86-92.
• Calingaert, D. (2010). Authoritarianism vs. the Internet. Policy Review, (160), 63.
• Chander, A., & Le, U. P. (2014). Breaking the Web: Data Localization vs. the Global Internet. Emory Law Journal, Forthcoming, UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper No. 378
• Deibert, R. (2015). Cyberspace under siege. Journal of Democracy, 26(3), 64-78.
• Deibert, R., & Rohozinski, R. (2010a). Liberation vs. control: The future of cyberspace. Journal of Democracy, 21(4), 43-57.
• Deibert, R., & Rohozinski, R. (2010b). Control and subversion in Russian cyberspace. Access controlled: The shaping of power, rights, and rule in cyberspace, 15-34.
• Diamon, Larry (2010). Liberation Technology. Journal of Democracy. 21 (3), 69-83.
• Diamond, L., Plattner, M. F., & Walker, C. (Eds.). (2016). Authoritarianism goes global: The challenge to democracy. JHU Press.
• Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2012). The network society. Sage.
• Ferdinand, P. (2000). The Internet, democracy and democratization. Democratization, 7(1), 1-17.
• Grossman, L. K. (1995). The electronic republic: Reshaping democracy in the information age. Viking Penguin.
• Gunitsky, S. (2015). Corrupting the cyber-commons: Social media as a tool of autocratic stability. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 42-54.
• Hague, B. N., & Loader, B. (Eds.). (1999). Digital democracy: Discourse and decision making in the information age. Psychology Press.
• Hill, J. (2014). The growth of data localization post-snowden: Analysis and recommendations for us policymakers and business leaders. The Hague Institute for Global Justice, Conference on the Future of Cyber Governance.
• Jiang, M. (2010). Authoritarian deliberation on Chinese Internet. Electronic Journal of Communication, 20 (3&4).
• Karlekar, K., & Cook, S. (2009). Access and Control: A growing diversity of threats to internet freedom. Freedom on the Net, 1-11.
• Kelly, Sanja (2014). “Freedom on the Net 2014: Russia”. Freedom House. https:// freedom house.org/sites/default/files/resources/Russia.pdf. (Erişim, 2018)
• MacKinnon, R. (2011). China's" networked authoritarianism". Journal of Democracy, 22(2), 32-46.
• Maréchal, N. (2017). Networked authoritarianism and the geopolitics of information: Understanding Russian Internet policy. Media and Communication, 5(1).
• Morris, D. (2000). Direct democracy and the Internet. Loy. LAL Rev., 34, 1033.
• Nathan, A. J. (2003). Authoritarian resilience. Journal of Democracy, 14(1), 6-17.
• Nocetti, J. (2015). Contest and conquest: Russia and global internet governance. International Affairs, 91(1), 111-130.
• Pearce, K. E., & Kendzior, S. (2012). Networked authoritarianism and social media in Azerbaijan. Journal of Communication, 62(2), 283-298.
• Reuter, O. J., & Szakonyi, D. (2015). Online social media and political awareness in authoritarian regimes. British Journal of Political Science, 45(1), 29-51.
• Han, R. (2015). Manufacturing consent in cyberspace: China's' fifty-cent army'. Journal of Current Chinese Affairs, 44(2), 105–134.
• Ratkiewicz, J., Conover, M., Meiss, M. R., Gonçalves, B., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2011). Detecting and tracking political abuse in social media. ICWSM, 11, 297-304.
• Sargsyan, T. (2016). Data localization and the role of infrastructure for surveillance, privacy, and security. International Journal of Communication, 10, 17.
• Stockmann, D. (2013). Media commercialization and authoritarian rule in China. Cambridge University Press.
• Vendil Pallin, C. (2017). Internet control through ownership: the case of Russia. Post-Soviet Affairs, 33(1), 16-33.
• İnternet Kaynakları:
• http://nationalpost.com/opinion/rebecca-mackinnnon-chinas-networked-authoritarianism
• https://www.ted.com/talks/michael_anti_behind_the_great_firewall_of_china
• https://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm