“Networked” Revolutions? ICTs and Protest Mobilization in Non-Democratic Regimes

• Author: Ashley Anderson
• Published date: 01 December 2021
• Date: 01 December 2021
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920958071
• Subject Matter: Articles

2021, Vol. 74(4) 1037 –1051

https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920958071

Political Research Quarterly

© 2020 University of Utah

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1065912920958071

journals.sagepub.com/home/prq

We use Facebook to schedule the protests, Twitter to

coordinate, and YouTube to tell the world.

—Fawaz Rashed

Alaa is in prison because electronic words scare this

government. Nothing more.

—Omar Robert Hamilton

Introduction1

The above quotes, attributed to activists in Egypt’s January

25th revolution, exemplify the growing influence of infor-

mation and communication technologies (ICTs) on poli-

tics in non-democracies. ICTs purportedly solve the

collective action problem inherent in authoritarian regimes

(Kuran 1995)—aided by digital tools such as Facebook,

Twitter, and mobile technology, disaffected citizens have

been able to mobilize protests on an unprecedented scale,

shaking the foundations of long-standing dictatorships in

countries as diverse as Tunisia, Zimbabwe, Hong Kong,

and Ukraine. Yet, while commentators have extolled the

virtues of digital technologies for political activism, it

remains an open question whether ICTs actually promote

protest behavior in non-democratic regimes. While some

scholars highlight the transformative potential of these

media for facilitating communication and strengthening

the public sphere (P. N. Howard and Hussain 2011; Little

2016; Shirky 2008; Steinert-Threlkeld 2017), others ques-

tion the efficacy of digital networks for mobilizing citi-

zens in the absence of face-to-face interactions, and call

attention to the ways in which autocrats have used these

technologies to scupper opposition communication and

manipulate messaging (Gunitsky 2015; King, Pan, and

Roberts 2013).

A key challenge in resolving this debate is the singular

focus that most research has placed on ICTs as a means of

evaluating collective action in non-democratic settings.

Bolstered by recent events in the Arab Spring and beyond,

958071PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920958071Political Research QuarterlyAnderson

research-article2020

1The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA

Corresponding Author:

Ashley Anderson, 361 Hamilton Hill, CB3265, UNC Chapel Hill,

Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.

Email: aaanders@email.unc.edu

“Networked” Revolutions? ICTs

and Protest Mobilization in

Non-Democratic Regimes

Ashley Anderson1

Abstract

Despite the wealth of research linking Internet-based communication technologies (ICTs) with the rise of anti-

government demonstrations in non-democracies, empirical evidence on the impact of ICTs on protest remains

inconclusive. Using data from the sixth-wave of the World Values Survey (WVS), I test the relationship between

ICT use and protest in non-democracies, finding that although Internet use helps to explain protest participation,

organizational networks remain crucial for mobilizing protesters, even in the digital age. Notably, I find that active

membership in formal organizations (i.e., attending meetings, holding leadership positions, etc.) significantly increases

the likelihood of individual protest participation, providing members with the skills necessary for political engagement

and connections to a sustained flow of information about protest events. Most important, I find significant interactive

effects between organizational membership and ICT use—while Internet use increases the likelihood of protest

engagement for all individuals, the effects of ICT use are greatest for multiply-engaged citizens who are actively

involved in both online and offline organizational networks. This work thus illuminates a largely overlooked symbiosis

between online and offline communities and forces a reconsideration of the ways in which organizations work to

mobilize contention under authoritarian rule.

Keywords

social movements, protest, communication technology, authoritarian regimes

Article