The cyber-revolution cannot be ignored by anyone who wants to succeed in business today. Manufacturers and sellers regularly use the Internet to advertise, to negotiate, and to send payments across the globe. Business people, however, are not the only ones who have discovered the power of the net. Political activists have also learned how to use the Internet to make governments pay attention to their demands. In his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree, Thomas L. Friedman predicted this revolution years ago when wrote, “In such a world, activists (will) learn how to use globalization to their advantage.
They (will) learn how to compel companies to behave better by mobilizing global consumers through the Internet. I call this the ‘network solution for human rights,’ and it’s the future of social advocacy. It is bottom up regulation, or side by side regulation—not top down regulation. You empower the bottom, instead of waiting for the top, by shaping a coalition that produces better governance without global government.” What Friedman predicted in 2005 has come to pass. Populist movements have used the net to topple governments in Tunisia and Egypt and they threaten other governments the world over. So far this strategy seems to have worked fairly well for the protestors, but can you spot any dangers that might be hidden within the cyber-politics revolution? Think about that as you answer the following questions.

Questions

1. Do you agree with Friedman’s premise that the electronic “network solution for human rights” is beneficial? Explain.
2. Regardless of your answer to the first question, do you see the growth of populist movements, such as the Muslim Brotherhood and the Kefaya, as a good thing? Explain.
3. Play devil’s advocate for a moment. How might an autocrat like Qaddafi in Libya use the World Wide Web to keep himself in power? Explain.
4. Are electronic populist movements the wave of the future or just a temporary tactic that the autocrats will soon learn to suppress? Explain.
5. What if the net is used to coordinate violent populist movements? Is violence avoidable or does it always result from political advocacy? Explain