Digital Intervention in National Political Systems in the Conditions of Contemporary Information Society

• Authors: Sergey V. Volodenkov

Title variants

PL

Interwencja cyfrowa w krajowych systemach politycznych w warunkach współczesnego społeczeństwa informacyjnego

• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The article analyzes the phenomenon of digital interference with national political systems in the conditions of the modern information society and the evolution of the Internet as a space of political communications. It is shown that digital intervention is relevant but at the same time a complex multidimensional phenomenon of contemporary politics. In many respects, the potential of the digital interference phenomenon is closely related to the substantive and functional features of the functioning and transformation of the contemporary Internet, which has been actively used when changing political regimes in many countries. The initiatives of countries to form the sovereign national segments of the Internet space are, on the one hand, an attempt to protect their political systems from external influence and invasion, to ensure their own political stability, and on the other hand, they pose risks to the democratic potential of the Internet. The article substantiates the thesis that the phenomenon of interference with elections in actual practice often becomes not so much an objective process as an instrument of information warfare, mass political propaganda and discredit of political opponents, a manipulative tool that can be actively used not only by authoritarian regimes with a low level of democratic development. It is noted that differences in understanding and defining the essence of the Internet by various countries give rise to a significant potential for political conflicts on a global scale. This leads the author to conclude that it is necessary to form institutions that are able to prevent and regu- late information conflicts in the Internet space, as well as reduce global political risks (including risks associated with potential interference in the electoral process of sovereign states), forming a collective responsibility in the functioning of the global Internet.

PL

Artykuł analizuje zjawisko ingerencji cyfrowej w krajowe systemy polityczne w warunkach współczesnego społeczeństwa informacyjnego oraz ewolucję Internetu jako przestrzeni komunikacji politycznej. Wykazano, że interwencja cyfrowa to istotne i jednocześnie złożone, wielowymiarowe zjawisko współczesnej polityki. Pod wieloma względami potencjał zjawiska zakłóceń cyfrowych jest ściśle związany z merytorycznymi i funkcjonalnymi cechami działania i transformacji współczesnego Internetu, który jest aktywnie wykorzystywany przy zmianie ustrojów politycznych w wielu krajach. Inicjatywy krajów zmierzające do utworzenia suwerennych krajowych segmentów przestrzeni internetowej są – z jednej strony – podejmowaną w celu zapewnienia sobie stabilności politycznej próbą ochrony swoich systemów politycznych przed wpływami zewnętrznymi i inwazją, a z drugiej strony, stanowią ryzyko dla demokratycznego potencjału Internetu. Artykuł uzasadnia tezę, że w praktyce zjawisko ingerencji w wybory często staje się nie tyle obiektywnym procesem, co narzędziem wojny informacyjnej, masowej propagandy politycznej i dyskredytacji przeciwników politycznych oraz narzędziem manipulacji, które może być aktywnie wykorzystywane nie tylko przez reżimy autorytarne o niskim poziomie rozwoju demokratycznego. Podkreślono, że różnice w rozumieniu i definiowaniu istoty Internetu przez różne kraje powodują znaczny potencjał konfliktów politycznych w skali globalnej. Prowadzi to autora do wniosku, że konieczne jest utworzenie instytucji zdolnych do zapobiegania konfliktom informacyjnym w przestrzeni internetowej i ich regulowania, a także do ograniczania globalnego ryzyka politycznego (w tym ryzyka związanego z potencjalną ingerencją w proces wyborczy suwerennych państw) i formowania zbiorowej odpowiedzialności za funkcjonowanie globalnego Internetu.

Keywords

EN

Internet communications; digital interference; informational confrontation; political system; electoral process; Internet communications; digital interference; informational confrontation; political system; electoral process

PL

komunikacja internetowa; ingerencja cyfrowa; konfrontacja informacyjna; system polityczny; proces wyborczy

• Publisher: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu
• Journal: Przegląd Strategiczny
• Year: 2019
• Issue: 12
• Pages: 367-377

Dates

published

2019-12-31

Contributors

author

Sergey V. Volodenkov

References

• Aaronson S. A. (2017), What might have been and could still be: the Trans-Pacific Partnership’s potential to encourage an open internet and digital rights, “Journal of Cyber Policy”, Vol. 2, No. 2.
• Adami R. (2014), Human rights for more than one voice: rethinking political space beyond the global/local divide, “Ethics & Global Politics”, Vol. 7, No. 4.
• Akhavan N. (2013), Blogistan: The Internet and Politics in Iran, “Iranian Studies”, Vol. 46, No. 1.
• Baines P., Jones N. (2018), Influence and Interference in Foreign Elections, “The RUSI Journal”, Vol. 163, No. 1.
• Bastos M. T., Mercea D. (2019), The Brexit Botnet and User-Generated Hyperpartisan News, “Social Science Computer Review”, Vol. 37, No. 1.
• Benkler Y. (2006), The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom, Yale.
• Benkler Y. (2018), The Russians didn’t swing the 2016 election to Trump. But Fox News might have, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2018/10/24/russians-didnt-swing-election-trump-fox-news-might-have/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.bd3b8b18119c (28.01.2019).
• Bessi A., Ferrara E. (2016), Social bots distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential election online discussion, “First Monday”, Vol. 21, No. 11, http://firstmonday.org/article/view/7090/5653 (28.01.2019).
• Bildt C., Smith G. (2016), The one and future internet, “Journal of Cyber Policy”, Vol. 1, No. 2.
• Brooking E. T., Singer P. W. (2016), War Goes Viral. How social media is being weaponized across the world, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/11/war-goes-viral/501125/ (28.01.2019).
• Chandler D. (2007), Deriving Norms from ‘Global Space’: The Limits of Communicative Approaches to Global Civil Society Theorizing, “Globalizations”, Vol. 4, No. 2.
• Chernenko E. (2013), Cyberspace as a New Arena of Confrontation, “Russia in Global Politics”, No. 1.
• Chou L., Fu C. (2017), The influence of Internet on politics: the impact of Facebook and the Internet penetration on elections in Taiwan, “Applied Economics Letters”, Vol. 24, No. 7.
• Christou G., Simpson S. (2011), The European Union, multilateralism and the global governance of the Internet, “Journal of European Public Policy”, Vol. 18, No. 2.
• Eberwein T., Porlezza C., Splendore S. (2016), Media as Political Actors, in: The International Encyclopedia of Political Communication, (ed.) G. Mazzoleni, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/book/10.1002/9781118541555 (28.01.2019).
• Ferrara E. (2017), Disinformation and social bot operations in the run up to the 2017 French presidential election, “First Monday”, Vol. 22, No. 8, https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/8005 (28.01.2019).
• Freedom on the Net 2017. Manipulating Social Media to Undermine Democracy, https://freedom-house.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2017 (28.01.2019).
• Hart S. W., Klink M. C. (2017), 1st Troll Battalion: Influencing military and strategic operations through cyber-personas, in: 2017 International Conference on Cyber Conflict (CyCon U.S.).
• Holt T. J., Stonhouse M., Freilich J., Chermak S. M. (2019), Examining Ideologically Motivated Cyberattacks Performed by Far-Left Groups, “Terrorism and Political Violence”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09546553.2018.1551213 (28.01.2019).
• Innes M., Dobreva D., Innes H. (2019), Disinformation and digital influencing after terrorism: spoofing, truthing and social proofing, “Journal of the Academy of Social Sciences”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21582041.2019.1569714 (28.01.2019).
• Jiang M. (2016), Managing the micro-self: the governmentality of real name registration policy in Chinese microblogosphere, “Information, Communication & Society”, Vol. 19, No. 2.
• Karagiannopoulos V. (2012), The Role of the Internet in Political Struggles: Some Conclusions from Iran and Egypt, “New Political Science”, Vol. 34, No. 2.
• Keller T. R., Klinger U. (2018), Social Bots in Election Campaigns: Theoretical, Empirical, and Methodological Implications, “Political Communication”, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10584609.2018.1526238 (28.01.2019).
• King G., Pan J., Roberts M. E. (2017), How the Chinese government fabricates social media posts for strategic Distraction, not engaged argument, “American Political Science Review”, Vol. 111, No. 3.
• Kovic M., Rauchfleisch A., Sele M., Caspar C. (2018), Digital astroturfing in politics: Definition, typology, and countermeasures, “Studies in Communication Sciences”, Vol. 18, No. 1.
• Kreiss D., Lawrence R. G., McGregor S. C. (2018), In Their Own Words: Political Practitioner Accounts of Candidates, Audiences, Affordances, Genres, and Timing in Strategic Social Media Use, “Political Communication”, Vol. 35, No. 1.
• Lee S. H. (2017), Digital democracy in Asia: The impact of the Asian internet on political participation, “Journal of Information Technology & Politics”, Vol. 14, No. 1.
• Perez Y. V., Ben-David Y. (2012), Internet as freedom – does the internet enhance the freedoms people enjoy?, “Information Technology for Development”, Vol. 18, No. 4.
• Pigman L. (2018), Russia’s vision of cyberspace: a danger to regime security, public safety, and societal norms and cohesion, “Journal of Cyber Policy”, https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2018.1546884 (28.01.2019).
• Pope A. E. (2018), Cyber-securing our elections, “Journal of Cyber Policy”, Vol. 3, No. 1.
• Ruijgrok K. (2017), From the web to the streets: internet and protests under authoritarian regimes, “Democratization”, Vol. 24, No. 3.
• Safshekan R. (2017), Iran and the global politics of internet governance, “Journal of Cyber Policy”, Vol. 2, No. 2.
• Seo H., Thorson S. (2017), Network Approach to Regime Type and Global Internet Connectedness, “Journal of Global Information Technology Management”, Vol. 20, No. 3.
• Shahbaz A. (2018), Freedom on the Net 2018. The Rise of Digital Authoritarianism, https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-net/freedom-net-2018/rise-digital-authoritarianism (28.01.2019).
• Shen H. (2016), China and global internet governance: toward an alternative analytical framework, “Chinese Journal of Communication”, Vol. 9, No. 3.
• Shirinyants A., Gutorov V. (2017), Modern terrorism as a political and psychological phenomenon: actual aspects of interpretation, “Przegląd Strategiczny”, No. 10.
• Shirinyants A., Gutorov V. (2018), Terrorism and Revolution, “Przegląd Strategiczny”, No. 11.
• Stier S., Bleier A., Lietz H., Strohmaier M. (2018), Election Campaigning on Social Media: Politicians, Audiences, and the Mediation of Political Communication on Facebook and Twitter, “Political Communication”, Vol. 35, No. 1.
• Styszyński M. (2016), Jihadist activities in the Internet and social medias, “Acta Asiatica”, No. 28.
• The concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation, http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/70218094 (28.01.2019).
• Verrall N., Mason D. (2018), The Taming of the Shrewd. How Can the Military Tackle Sophistry, ‘Fake’ News and Post-Truth in the Digital Age?, “The RUSI Journal”, Vol. 163. No. 1.
• Wagner K. M., Gainous J. (2013), Digital Uprising: The Internet Revolution in the Middle East, “Journal of Information Technology & Politics”, Vol. 10, No. 3.
• Williams C. B. (2017), Introduction: Social Media, Political Marketing and the 2016 U.S. Election, “Journal of Political Marketing”, Vol. 16, No. 3–4.

Identifiers

DOI

10.14746/ps.2019.1.23