Tweeting Iran and social media responsibility
The recent Twitter storm on the developments in Iran shows Twitter’s enormous potential for independent news and communication. But with great power comes great responsibility. At some point media attention dies out, and we all go back to normal business. What happens then to the people that are on the streets right now? I severely doubt that the big contender Mousavi stands for a much needed democratic change. Isn’t he just a better choice between bad ones? There may be a lot in store for the Iranians still.
I asked myself a couple of questions:
The events in Iran, and Moldova earlier this year, show that the social media support makes confontation much faster. Are we prepared to take responsibility for the speed of events social media seem to support?
Is there a way social media can support a longer process towards constructive confontation, or does it rather stay with the thrill of the clash?
What we can do in the longer run? Is there a ‘we’ that is able to organize an inclusive sustainable glocalized approach to support change in Iran – local activists and international actors alike? And is there a role for Twitter or other social media in it?
I’m not entirely sure.
1. Support for the unheard oppositional democratic voices
The twitto- and blogosphere excels in supporting and organizing the unheard oppositional voices by giving those voices a platform to speak out on. But it should not stop there: what about trips for oppositional actors and human right activists? What about organizing participation of those actors in international conferences and other fora? What about organizing an NGO for more elaborate support, and finding some funding by connecting it to some donor, like justgiving.com?
An international platform is one thing. In the end change starts being real when the local recipients of the messages profit from it. It’s less important that weak voices can be heard internationally: in the end it’s about people in Iran changing their minds. Local organizations and activists need support in their efforts to support the weak voices locally. I severely doubt current social media are equipped to do so, as opressive governments tend to have their powerbase with the ones who have less access to media.
On the other hand, people that speak out need a kind of sustainable system in which their activities can get rooted. A sustainable road is to support local civil society organizations that can carry unheard democratic voices to another level.
Seeking out these organizations is a tedious job, but here social media can play a role. I am not an Iran expert, so I have no organizations that come to mind. But I can look for them: local human right groups, political youth groups, independent media organizations and the odd academic circle. In a country with such a large educated middle class as Iran, I’m sure they (still) exist. Social media can support these organizations by making them known, again by providing them space to speak out and connect to powerful players. So, where are the Facebook fan pages of local Iranian organizations?
2. Be there
Supporting weak voices to make them stronger is actually a rather subversive and destabilizing step, as it strikes at the established power system. When voices become stronger you inevitably work towards confrontation. Iran has its confrontation right now, with a great role of social media. Social media can inform and can organize demonstrations and meetings. Moldova and Iran are just the beginning.
One of my old friends in the peace scene wrote in his facebook status line he’d rather be in Teheran than on his current conference in Sevilla. I agree. But most participating Twitters – myself included – don’t go there themselves: in the end it’s the people in the streets that count. And they need protection, sustained mental support and connection to financial sources. Especially in the longer run. Who will go? Who will provide useful contacts, protect and monitor the events?
Of course we shouldn’t all go… but we can support those that do. This is another situation when social media can play its role: find and support the people that could make a difference by going on the scene.
3. Support a constructive confrontation
Twitter is powerful. It can be used as a quick medium for informing and organizing yourself. But it makes the step between support for the unheard to open confrontation between opposing groups much faster. When dealing with such a powerful tool, you deal with a responsibility towards the confontation happening on the street. Are social media equipped to deal with that responsibility? For now, I don’t think so.
Violent confontations happen. Iran is no exception. Although I try to stick to non-violent roads myself, I do not believe you can prevent opposing parties do take the occasional violent roads. However, for a social change to get rooted, some kind of constructive confrontation is inevitable: a process of negotiation and maybe reconciliation. This stage often needs some kind of support for mediated approaches and constructive interaction between the opposing groups. Actors need to be found that can act as a bridge between opposing parts of society.
The trick with supporting interaction is that it would have to be based on common interests. In relation to Iran, one could look at common opinions between the opposition and the current governement. Social media could provide a space for these common interests to be worked out and to be negotiated. I’m not sure that has been tried yet. I’m not even sure you could find a format for it. And besides, the situation in Iran doesn’t seem ready for any kind of constructive negotiation between opposing groups. It’s still a situation in which for the opposition it’s hard to find a sound power basis.
But you never know. Social media make things quick. Better be prepared.
