4. The Political/Governmental Dimension of the Information Revolution
Moderator: David Gompert
Speakers: William Drake and Paul Bracken
Rapporteur: Richard Hundley
The next session of the conference discussed the political/governmental
dimension of the information revolution. It focused primarily on possible
changes in the role of the nation state as a result of the information
revolution. It began with two speakers, followed by an audience discussion.
The Information Revolution, National Sovereignty, and Political
Change
The first speaker began by listing three guiding principles that should be
followed in any discussion of the impact of the information revolution on
national sovereignty, and resulting political change:
- We should avoid technology determinism. Technology by itself does not
tell the whole story.
- We should not ignore sources of continuity. There are many operating
in the geopolitical realm.
- We need to develop careful comparative research.
He went on to note that this is not the first time national sovereignty has
been called into question. Rather, national sovereignty has been viewed as
challenged by each new communication media. What is new about the Internet is
the distributed nature of access and content.
The speaker listed two different aspects of sovereignty:
- Constitutional sovereignty: the legal authority and primacy of
national governments within their territorial domains.[5]
- Operational sovereignty: the ability of governments to exercise
effective control within their territorial domains.
Constitutional sovereignty is not being challenged by the information
revolution. But operational sovereignty is, both technically and with regard
to cost.
The speaker noted that the current political science literature addressing the
impact of the information revolution on international and national politics is
posed mainly in black-and-white terms: either the nation state is on
the way out, or the nation state is as powerful as ever. He feels that
the situation is not either-or, but rather somewhere in between, and varies
from state to state.
At the conclusion of this talk, an associate of the speaker noted that various
writers have suggested that the Internet is a force for democratization (i.e.,
for political change in authoritarian societies). Whether or not this is true
in any given country depends, in his view, on four "Internet and
democratization variables":
- Regulation strategy
- Openness of the political system
- A state's vulnerability to international pressure
- The level of economic liberalization in a regime.
The Role of Nationalism in the Information Revolution
According to the second speaker, a current widely held view is that nationalism
-- which he defines as a shared identity and feelings of attachment among
the citizens of a nation -- should decline in importance because of
globalization. He does not agree with this view. Rather, he believes that
nationalism is on the rise in many parts of the world, particularly in Asia.
He acknowledges that nationalism may be a somewhat declining force in North
America and Western Europe, but believes it to be a rising force in many Asian
nations (e.g., India, China, etc.)
According to the speaker, nationalism has a bad reputation in political science
today. It often gets equated with labels like "xenophobic," "extreme,", etc.
This may be because governments often have manipulated nationalist feelings to
obtain results that they could not otherwise achieve.
But nationalism can be put to positive, progressive uses as well. For example,
the Asian nations tapped forces of nationalism during the 1920s - 1950s to
through out their colonial rulers and achieve independence. Today, according
to the speaker, the only way for a nation like Russia to modernize is to
harness nationalism. Russian, and other, leaders can use nationalism as a
counter to the centrifugal forces of globalization, which threaten to break up
many nations.
The speaker noted that we are at a time of rapid economic change in the world.
This implies higher levels of "creative destruction" and resulting disruption.
In many cases these lead to a decline in real security (e.g., as obtained from
job, religion, community), especially among the lower and middle classes.
Nationalism will often serve to counter this.
The speaker also noted that just as we need to study nationalism to understand
world history over the last 150 years, he believes that nationalism will be
equally relevant in the future.
For all of the above reasons, the speaker believes that the U.S. should not
become, or be seen as, the "enemy of nationalism."
The Discussion
The moderator began the discussion portion of this session by noting that in
considering the political/governmental impacts of the information revolution,
we should be careful to look at "more or less," not just "yes or no." (In
other words, things are not just black and white, but have many varying shades
of gray.) Secondly, we should be careful about assigning causality, since
there are other major causes operating today, not just cheaper and better
information technology. Thirdly, we need to consider direct versus indirect
effects.
Several participants responded to the nationalism theme raised by the second
speaker. One noted that nationalism serves as an important filter through
which many people interpret the information they receive via the Internet and
other media; for example, CNN and the New York Times are not seen as "neutral"
by many non-U.S. viewers/readers. Another participant stated that some nations
(such as India) are linking technology to nationalism, to further the course of
the information revolution in their country. Still another participant
suggested we consider how nationalism will play out in the information age
between information revolution "haves" -- e.g., between the U.S. and Canada, or
between England and Scotland.
Another participant posed the question: in the world at large (i.e., outside
of the U.S.), to what extent is IT and the information revolution seen as
another U.S. "threat" (i.e., of increasing U.S. hegemony)? This seemed to
strike a positive chord with several participants:
- One non-U.S. participant stated that the Internet is seen as an
expression of U.S. nationalism by most of the rest of the world, regardless of
whether it's being used deliberately as such by the U.S.
- Another non-U.S. participant noted that in 1997 there was US
Congressional testimony stating that more than 70% of the value of information
products worldwide was of US origin. Also, the same participant noted, the
possibility that US law on commerce (especially in cyberspace) will dominate
against other legal norms is being debated in Congress.
- In response, a U.S. participant noted that many in the U.S. would view
the U.S. approach to IT, the Internet, and the information revolution not as a
manifestation of nationalism, but rather of internationalism --
specifically, an extension of the belief that our ideas, especially involving
democracy, are perhaps the only basis for legitimacy. He went on to suggest
that those in the U.S. having this view are very narrow-minded.
- A second U.S. participant agreed with the characterization of this view
(i.e., that the U.S. is internationalist rather than nationalist in its
approach to the Internet and the information revolution) as narrow-minded. He
stated his belief that U.S. nationalism is very strong, saying that we mask it
as "human rights," democracy," etc., but have a strong affinity for the U.S.
"model" or "role."
Another participant noted that, historically, nationalism has been based on
geographical communities. The Internet makes possible non-geographic, network
communities. These network communities can be either global (i.e., larger
than nations) or local (i.e., smaller than nations). As the information
revolution progresses, these network communities may come to suppliant, at
least partially, communities based on nationalism.
Changing the subject (somewhat), still another participant posed the question:
who will be the "Jimmy Hoffa" of the information age? That is, what if someone
organizes the system administrators of the world? If so, will he control the
information revolution?
Another participant noted that the empowerment of individuals (e.g., Osama bin
Laden) through the use of information technology is a new political factor
brought into being by the information revolution. Several other participants
endorsed this comment, emphasizing the importance of this factor.
The moderator ended the discussion by noting that we should not forget the
contribution of information technology to "hard power."
[5] See Cabinet Office (1999) for a detailed
discussion of the UK e-commerce vision and program.
Contents
Previous
Chapter
Next
Chapter