Ban on Twitter „.... For domineering/authoritarian governments, society is a dependent, submissive body rather than the source of legitimacy and authority. A domineering government sustains its power if it succeeds in satisfying the masses economically and pacifies them ideologically through religion and nationalism. It loses its credibility, and later its power, if it fails to successfully employ these ideological instruments. Historical experience tells us that governments that get tougher and transgress legal boundaries alienate new groups with each repressive measure they take. The development of democracy and modern technology are interconnected phenomena. The age of propaganda that relies on a single authority (outlet), single channel and single message is no more. Today there are multiple channels of communication, a multitude of messages and many organized groups that need to communicate amongst themselves. This is exactly what globalization means. In the age of globalization, world communities are interconnected through many paths and channels. Twitter is only one of these. You cannot simply stand up and say that you are closing this medium for your people with excuses that are not compatible with a civilized society or popular government. Maybe you can take such an executive decision if you have the will and power to sever your country from the rest of the world, as in North Korea, which is a perfect example of totalitarianism. But can such a government remain in power on the fringes of the Western world? A country, such as Turkey, that takes pride in being the 17th largest economy in the world, cannot lag too far behind in individual rights, civil liberties and equality among its citizens. If it does, then it cannot cope with systemic crises. It starts to slide down the international scale. The global system does not allow countries to become black holes of instability, because in an integrated international system, instability is contagious. A political system that constantly produces “internal enemies” and feeds on fear and hatred of “external enemies” cannot develop healthy relations with neighbors and other countries, let alone produce internal solidarity. If a domineering government has reached the point where it is engaged in a so-called War of Independence against putative internal and external enemies, that government must be left with few credible instruments with which to cling to power. What prolongs its tenure is the effectiveness of the ideological instruments it employs. Constantly generating fear of the other and the appearance of being under siege by enemies who aim to destroy the nations welfare and stability is a potent anesthetic. But it is not sufficient for the generation of national solidarity and building a common future. Twitter, like other collective communication media, offers numerous opportunities to the individual at a time when the boundaries of social classes, political organizations and even nation-states have become obscure or have been transcended. These forms of social media have appeared as freedoms have become globalized. That is why they are called forms of democratic interaction. No doubt the opportunities they offer can be abused and misinformation is also disseminated. Character assassinations are carried out. But a government that takes pride in being democratic or even ushering in “advanced democracy” cannot ban the entire communication network. If it does, as in the Turkish case, it must be very worried about the information that is being shared and is yet to come. But technology is more advanced than authorities that strive to cling onto the status quo. Lets see which one wins.” Prof. Dr. Doğu Ergil
Posted on: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 16:54:52 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015