Social media affects election results in Egypt and Russia
The politics of the 21st century are shaping up with the outcomes of the Russian and Egyptian elections. Both countries have been run by authoritarian regimes and can hardly be labeled liberal. However, the populace is making its views known in both countries, forcing the administrations to heed the voice of the people rather than obey the agendas of their leaders who have little doubt that they know best.
Every major sociopolitical transformation requires three basic components to find its way: a clearly formulated ideology or political agenda, organization and leadership. However, the mass movements that have lately erupted in some Arab countries have proved that a lack of strong, organized opposition to an authoritarian political system can be compensated for by the use of modern means of communication, namely the Internet, Facebook, Twitter and cell phones. Through social media millions connected and shared the same sentiments and messages, and acted in relative concert. The Tahrir Square protests are the best example of what a virtual community can create in the absence of an organized opposition.
Russia has a strong, authoritarian leadership. Here too new methods of communication trumped the authoritarian state structure, as evinced by the recent election results.
Although the incumbent Russian leadership used and controlled TV to drive its message home, two-thirds of the Russian people are said to be utilizing new communication technology, especially the mobile phone network and blogging. As they did, ideological divides narrowed as general opposition grew to the government whose basic instinct seems to be sustaining its grip on society for as long as it can.
The revolutionaries of the past could not even dream of what is happening now and the speed of events, given the fact that it took them decades to organize the masses. Virtual organizations and instant and sustainable communication have taken away governments' ability to monopolize information as well as one-sided justifications of their policies. People can now discuss everything and develop their own views as they exchange opinions.
By the same token voters make their choices and the inclinations of their immediate communities known at the ballot box, leaving little room for governments to play too much with election results. This new informal media also reduces fraud and makes it harder for those in power to manipulate election outcomes. This is exactly what happened in both Egypt and Russia. Neither the Kremlin nor the Supreme Military Council in Cairo could turn the tide of elections to their liking due to the power of social media and the popular sentiments it generated.
The election results will no doubt affect the power structures in both countries. Management of society “from above” will be harder than before if not altogether impossible. The new compositions of both parliaments will also impact new constitutions in the pipeline.
These results reveal a certain resistance to the ruling authorities in both countries. But they also share a common theme: The parties that denied a majority to Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's party are blatantly anti-Western. In Russia, the Communist Party and Just Russia Party gained prominence by increasing their share of the vote by 7.6 percent and 5.5 percent, respectively. In Egypt the Freedom and Justice Party (Muslim Brotherhood) won 40 percent and the Nour Party (Salafist) won a quarter of the votes. Neither have a reputation for being pro-Western.
Hence the West, namely the United States and Europe, has to decide whether democracy will mature and stabilize in these countries, making them reliable allies in the medium term, or if they should be viewed as potential dangers and security liabilities. Each perception would result in a significantly different policy implementation.