Institutions And New World “Netizens”: Act 1

“First They Ignore You — Then They Ridicule You — Then They Fight You — Then You Win”
Mahandas Gandhi

Will technology fundamentally change the relationship between the nation state and citizens? Are hyper-connected citizens a threat to or opportunity for government? These are the kinds of questions that the political ruling class across the globe should be asking. However, I fear that most governments are failing to recognize how their own wired societies will increasingly demand profound changes in how the governing communicates with the governed. From local politics to foreign policy, citizens view points are no longer being shaped principally by national institutions, but are being molded instead by very independent internet citizens or “netizens”.

Has the way in which citizens perceive and understand the world around them been forever transformed? Technology visionaries like Google Executive Chairman, Eric Schmidt seem to think so. Schmidt is super-optimistic  about how transformational  new  technologies will prove to be in coming years.  He recently stated,

“My view is that we should be very optimistic about all of this. The world isn’t perfect but
it is going to a much safer and more informed place. The things that [the US] can bring to
the world really will change a lot of these countries and lift people out of financial
poverty, and information poverty.”

Though Mr. Schmidt might be cunningly laying the PR groundwork for some soon to be released Google app, I do believe he is onto something. His thoughts, as well as a few lessons from the era of the Holy Roman empire, provide us useful insights into how disruptive “making the world a more informed place” can be.

Consider the printing press — the first weapon of mass reproduction that dramatically changed the relationship between one of the most politically powerful institutions of all time, the Catholic Church, and its millions of  followers. The change was so profound that in 1620, English statesman and philosopher Francis Bacon was compelled to state that this invention has “changed the whole face and state of things throughout the world.”

Prior to this technological innovation, Catholic priests interpreted the Holy Scriptures for the church faithful — information is power, and the clergy held onto this power with a samsonian grip. A Christian in that era who was found with an unauthorized copy of the bible could be denounced as a heretic, and likely condemned by the church to burning at the stake. Such was the church’s respect (or fear) for the power of knowledge. The church acted as a sort of information gatekeeper certain that knowledge sharing was not in their best interest.  Thankfully, over  time, the church accepted the new reality (albeit reluctantly) and even learned to harness the printing press to achieve core institutional goals; like worldwide evangelizing.

Now, back to the future. Are our governing institutions and their respective clergy acting in a similar manner to the old world church? Certainly Middle Eastern autocrats like Egypt’s Mubarack behaved in true old world fashion during Act 1 of  ‘Revolution 2.0’.  But I am not convinced that  government officials, even in industrialized countries, are cognizant of how technological innovations like social media have forever robbed them of their positions as trusted sources of  timely and legitimate information. Citizen journalists, and other online old world anti-bodies are weakening the reach and health of  traditional information sources. I dare say that netizens have started to short-circuit the politico-corporate communications wiring; raising the political and social justice consciousness of the hyper-connected citizen in a way that might not be in the interest of the governing classes.

I look forward to witnessing how Act 2 of Revolution 2.0 will unfold. Will the officials that govern the modern nation state engage their respective societies in meaningful ways, or will they continue to hide their heads in the sand? From what I’ve learned from history and the very erudite Mahandas Gandhi — I think I know the answer.