Are Governments Losing their Grip?
Read the PDF of this piece
Es ist schön in Ost-Berlin zu sein... Ich möchte euch sagen, ich bin nicht hier für oder gegen eine Regierung, ich bin gekommen um Rock 'n' Roll zu spielen für Ost-Berliner... In der Hoffnung, dass eines Tages alle Barrieren abgerissen werden...
"It is nice to be in East Berlin. I would like to tell you that I am not here for or against any government; I have come here to play rock'n'roll for the East Berliners... With the hope that one day, all barriers will be torn down."
Bruce Springsteen – East Berlin, 1988
Government actions during the Cold War contributed to a way of thinking in Europe which ascribed the actions of many organisations to loyalty to either the American or Soviet Government. This perspective may have been strengthened by revelations that organisations previously thought to be independent, such as the Congress for Cultural Freedom, Encounter Magazine, the International Student Conference, and trade union movements across Europe, had received covert US support, largely through the CIA.
Thus, it would have been tempting mentally to link Bruce Springsteen’s concert at Radrennbahn Weissennsee, East Berlin in 1988, with the actions of American governments in the run up to the end of the Cold War. However, Springsteen was clear that he was not in East Berlin ‘for or against a certain government’. In fact, the concert included the iconic Born in the USA and War, originally made famous by Edwin Starr. Both songs contain a clear anti-war and by implication anti-US government message. This was not merely Americans sending American messages to a Soviet oppressed East German audience: there were some ideas that were shared, not owned by one side or the other, which created a network transcending borders. These networks already existed in 1988. But high barriers prevented large numbers of people from participating in them.
The generation growing up with Youtube can watch the video of this concert online, alongside videos from Friends of the Earth and Amnesty International. These organisations seek to exert influence through the creation of international networks of individuals placing pressure on governments. In the past many international campaigns were organised or supported by a governmental elite: now governments are as often as not the target of international campaigns coordinated by transnational networks of individuals who exist outside the traditional hierarchical structures. As such, while governments still retain influence over the image of a country, they have far less influence over the flow of ideas and campaigns.
Governments still play a significant role; they retain legal authority within their borders, whether these are e-borders or physical barriers. They continue to provide financial support for ‘independent’ cultural programmes around the world. But the role of governments in promoting ideas or causes is diminishing. No longer does it take the resources of a state to change the views and lives of millions in other countries. In its place has arisen the cross-border power of individuals, the media and the internet. The barriers, which in the past separated people with common interest, are much lower today. Networks of individuals can change minds and ultimately societies through engaging people on their own terms, in their language, and in their environment. Whether it is a large network like Avaaz.org or an individual with an effective Blogroll, RSS feed and a webcam, there are many ways of mobilizing an opinion-forming network which governments can only watch with envy.
Online, successful campaigns for Cadburys to reinstate their Wispa chocolate bar, sit alongside the US Presidential Primaries campaigns, with virtual primaries on facebook. This time around various Presidential campaigns are catching up with what Nicco Mele achieved as Howard Dean's webmaster and internet strategist four years ago. These networks do not rely on the US Government for support; on the contrary, it is the politicians who attempt to channel the potential power of these massive online networks into support for their campaigns. Such networks are still in their infancy but have the potential to influence the outcome of elections and pressure governments over particular policies.
What networks have in common is a shared focal point and the ability to communicate over vast distances at high speed. Juxtaposed against the myriad of government departments, overlapping authority, and slow adoption of new technology, it is clear why governments lag behind networked communities in innovation and communication of perspectives.
Do governments still influence the perceptions of a country? As the legal authority with ability to conduct official foreign policy, the answer has to be yes. Yet, the way those actions are framed and interpreted is increasingly influenced by the actions of the still nascent online networks. When government officials speak of countries ‘confronting a problem’, or Europe and America ‘facing issues side by side’, they are invoking a language imbued with their kind of authority.
Online, authority comes from credibility in the eyes of the audience, not legal responsibility for a geographic area. Networks focusing on a particular issue, whether in the form of international movements that link physical and virtual campaigns, or behind the scenes coordination between bloggers, are not restricted to the language of the state. As such they have the potential to produce material which resonates across borders, continents and oceans, to reach specific communities.
In future, while the conduct of foreign policy is an important component in the way a country is perceived, the manner in which transnational networks frame the interpretation of government actions will have at least as great an impact on the way such actions are understood. Inevitably, the issues that governments have to confront will be increasingly influenced by international networks. The International Campaign to Ban Landmines successfully lobbied governments to use their legal authority to create the Ottawa Convention, otherwise known as the Mine Ban Treaty. Greenpeace has mobilised similar pressure on issues such as the anti-whaling campaign that has been running since 1975.
On the road to Copenhagen 2009, the demands from transnational networks for a post-Kyoto climate deal will continue. Governments may speak the language of countries and nations, but the pressure from transnational networks will be undeniable. The ‘video message in a bottle’ campaign which demanded action at Bali is just one example of the many initiatives that have already started to build the pressure for a historic deal.
Today the barriers between nations have not been completely torn down but they are so low that almost everyone has the potential to trample over them. It will be the next ten years which will determine whether governments learn to engage effectively with transnational networks, or whether they have been inexorably sidelined in the exchange of ideas, becoming increasingly reliant for their authority on their legal position, rather than their credibility.
As Kofi Annan once said;
"The challenges of our age are global; they transcend national frontiers; they are problems without passports. To address them we need blueprints without borders. That is why, more than ever before, we need dedicated and talented young men and women to be global citizens who make the choice of service to humankind"
(Kofi Annan United Nations General Secretary C21 Citizens: Young People in a Changing Commonwealth (2002))
| 
