Rakesh Sharma is the research manager for IFES' F.Clifton White Applied Research Center for Democracy and Elections.

The headline on the cover of the October issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review betrays some anxiety: “Can China Co-opt the Web?” This question springs from many analysts’ fear that the Chinese government’s efforts to control the Internet—both content and access to content—have successfully limited the Web’s ability to effect sociopolitical change in China. However, while it seems clear that China has managed the growth of the Internet so as to make virtually impossible any “revolutionary” challenges to the existing regime, this does not necessarily mean the Internet has had no impact on the country’s political environment. The spread of information and networks made possible by the Internet, even in a controlled environment, have led to collective action in China that may be a harbinger of evolving state-society relations through incremental political reform.

The Internet and Political Change
Theorists of democratic development have long noted the important role that increased access to information plays in fostering political participation and democracy. With the rise of the Internet in recent years, this link has been widely discussed, though largely in terms of the Internet’s impact on democratic practices in industrialized countries. A smaller but no less important strain of scholarship has focused on the Internet’s impact on the development of liberal democratic practices in authoritarian political systems. Many initial assessments of the Internet’s impact on authoritarian systems predicted that the emancipatory potential of the Internet, with its pervasive reach, would create strong pressures on authoritarian regimes for political and economic liberalization. After all, these regimes faced a real dilemma created by the positive relationship between IT and economic growth: either allow citizens access to the Web (loosening control of information but gaining benefits from the resulting economic growth) or limit access to the Web (and risk being left behind economically). In the end, though, these analyses did not account for actions that authoritarian regimes might take to direct the growth of the Internet.

The Case of China
China’s Internet policies of the last decade illustrates how to harness the Internet for economic benefit while limiting the potential to produce political change. Various state agencies (led by the Ministry of Information Industry) regulate the growth of the Internet and other information technologies, and draft standards for its use. The state also issues periodic regulations that define content acceptable for the Internet. For example, content that contradicts the basic principles of the constitution, endangers national security or is detrimental to the honor and interests of the state is illegal. The authorities are also active in blocking Web sites or bulletin boards that contain sensitive terms, and have enlisted the cooperation of both domestic and foreign companies (Yahoo, Microsoft, Google, etc.) to filter and block Internet content available in China.

At the same time as it enforces these controls and regulations, the Chinese government actively encourages its citizens to use the Internet. In June 2005, officials at the Ministry of Information Industry reported more than 100 million Internet users in China, and some experts believe that this number could grow to nearly 134 million by the end of 2005.

That the Chinese authorities have so thoroughly upended the dilemma described above led analysts, such as Matthew Forney of Time Asia, to downplay the Internet’s impact on democratization: “A decade ago, the Internet was hailed as a breakthrough technology for promoting freedom and democracy because its pervasive reach would make it impossible for repressive regimes to control free speech and the flow of information within their borders. The Chinese government has proven this to be wishful thinking.”

Much scholarly analysis of China and the Internet echoes this opinion. RAND analysts Michael Chase and James Mulvenon end their study of Chinese dissidents’ use of the Internet by concluding that “…political use of the Internet has further degraded the [Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP)] ability to control the flow of information into and within China but [the study] rejects hyperbolic claims that the arrival of the Internet in China will inexorably lead to the downfall of the CCP” (Chase & Mulvenon, p. 38). In an article assessing the impact of the Internet on the CCP, Tamara Renee Shie agrees that the CCP has been able to manage the growth of the Internet to harness economic power while at the same time limiting the transformative potential of the medium.

Incremental Liberalization
But while many scholars recognize China’s effective control of the Internet, they also point out (as do Chase, Mulvenon, and Shie) that the Internet may be promoting incremental liberalization in China’s political environment by opening up space for the discussion of political issues and social problems, and by making possible collective action on societal concerns. Analysts have employed surveys of users and non-users to illustrate this point. Sociologist Guobin Yang argues that the popularity of online forums provide Chinese Internet users with a virtual public sphere that allows for expression of ideas and public debate. As such, the Internet represents an expansion of public space in Communist China, where grievances have traditionally been managed through official channels not open to public scrutiny.

Political scientists Yongnian Zheng and Guoguang Wu point to these online forums to emphasize the two types of collective action the Internet makes possible. In the Chinese context, successful collective action is “cooperative interaction” rather than “conflict interaction.” In the latter, dissident groups (such as Falun Gong or the Chinese Democratic Party) use the Internet for direct challenges to the CCP. Such action does not produce change in institutional behavior because the government immediately cracks down on challenges to its legitimacy.

Cooperative interaction—which gives voice to public opinion in order to change the practices/policies of official institutions—is the more successful strategy, and the Internet provides an important means for communication about common concerns in an environment where all other communication media are under tight governmental control. Examples of successful collective actions initiated through the Internet include the protests over Beijing University’s decision not to allow public mourning services following the death of a university student, and protests about the custody and repatriation system (C&R) for vagrants and beggars after the death of a civilian in a C&R center. In both these cases, official policy was reversed after citizens voiced objections through the Internet and other means. Yang also points to these cases as examples of what he views as political protest made possible in China by the Internet.

An issue that resonates with the cooperative model of collective action is that of nationalism. Political scientist Peter Gries notes the emergence of a popular nationalism that is primarily Internet-driven and directed toward influencing the policies of the Chinese government along nationalist lines. This popular nationalism is primarily anti-Japanese and has used Internet chat rooms, text messaging and e-mail to generate millions of e-signature petitions critical of Japan and its campaign to secure a permanent seat on the Security Council. The Internet and other electronic media have also been used to stage anti-Japan demonstrations in several Chinese cities. Gries notes that while Chinese authorities could have forcibly stopped these demonstrations and that good relations with Japan are in their interest, they did not do so because it would have put the CCP in opposition to popular opinion.

While in many ways nationalism possesses an ethos opposed to that of political liberalization, the nationalists’ use of the Internet illustrates the utility of the Web in galvanizing political protest and channeling popular demands to the Chinese authorities. This is a small but significant step on the path to political liberalization in China. As more and more Chinese go online in coming years, the potential for the Internet to produce gradual changes in state-society relations may grow and political liberalization may yet gain strength.

If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing

We'd love to hear from you. Share your thoughts by emailing editor@democracyatlarge.org

 Go Back