Quantcast
Article Index |Advertise | Mobile | RSS | Wireless | Newsletter | Archive | Corrections | Syndication | Contact us | About Us| Services
 
  Breaking News :    
Advertisement
Robinsons Land Corp.
Radio on Inquirer.net

INQUIRER ALERT
Get the free INQUIRER newsletter
Enter your email address:




 
Inquirer Opinion/ Columns Type Size: (+) (-)
You are here: Home > Opinion > Inquirer Opinion > Columns

  ARTICLE SERVICES      
     Reprint this article     Print this article  
    Send Feedback  
    Post a comment   Share  

  RELATED STORIES  





 OTHER COLUMNS


imns


Viewpoint
Cyber whisper

By Juan Mercado
Philippine Daily Inquirer
First Posted 02:01:00 06/25/2009

Filed Under: Internet, Protest, Elections

WHO hit the TV ?replay? button for a moment, one asked: Weren?t those re-runs of tatmadaws beating up demonstrators in Burma?s Saffron Revolution?

They were footage of Iran?s baseej paramilitary trashing protestors against election dagdag-bawas. Many saw bleeding Neda Agha-Soltan?s eyes go blank on a Tehran sidewalk. She was one of thousands who challenged President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?s ?reelection.?

A 63-percent margin means Ahmadinejad boosted his conservative vote by 113 percent over the 2005 results, notes a Chatham House study. ?There?s little correlation at provincial level.? Turnout in Mazandaran and Yazd provinces exceeded 100 percent. ?Using identity documents of dead people to cast additional ballots is a widespread problem.?

Just like our ?birds and bees?? In the 1986 snap election Ferdinand Marcos ?won? with 10.8 million votes. But Namfrel?s quick count proved Corazon Aquino trounced Marcos. That fraud triggered People Power.

Iran is also strapped to primitive manual counts. Yet in just over 48 hours, Tehran claimed it collected, counted, verified, then collated 37 million ballots cast. That?s physically impossible. Worse, Ahmadinejad ?won? every single province?by identical margins. That is implausible.

Filipinos agonized through manual elections since 1907. The process is tortuous. In the 2004 elections, 35.4 million voted. The count for local posts ended two weeks after the May 10 vote. The final tally for president came 41 days later, on June 20.

Iranians flayed vote-rigging with silent, peaceful marches. They were met by beatings, tear gas and, as the Neda Agha-Soltan video shows, bullets.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged an ?immediate stop to the arrests, threats and use of force.?

Grudgingly, the Guardian Council conceded irregularities in 50 districts. Some returns outnumbered voters. ?If votes cast exceed the number of cardinals present, let all ballots be burned,? directs a rule for conclaves to elect popes.

A Tehran re-rerun would correct injustice. But it would compel Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to swallow his claim that God ?blessed? this electoral fraud. Thus, the Revolutionary Guards on Monday warned protestors: ?Prepare for a revolutionary confrontation.?

The Guards compete with Burma?s tatmadaws in brutality. Is there a ?Tiananmen Moment? just ahead?

?I don?t know,? Adrian Sullivan wrote in the Times of London. ?But something changed last week... The ?twitter revolution? will transform the way we cover and consume breaking news? Nothing quite captured the mood and pace of events like the tweets coming from people of Iran.?

In 2001, Filipinos were the first to harness text and cell phones to call out People Power, Howard Rheingold observed in his book, ?Smart Mobs; The Next Social Revolution.? Japanese use cell phones to shop. Filipinos waged a peaceful revolt with them. Black-clad supporters were summoned together by a single line, passed from phone to phone: ?Go to Edsa. Wear black,? Rheingold reported. That helped topple the corrupt Estrada regime.

The Lebanese cloned that tactic to wage their ?Cedar Revolution,? reported Cathy Hong of the Christian Science Monitor.

Dictators like Ferdinand Marcos or ?Papa Doc? Duvalier padlocked newspapers, cut phone lines and jailed journalists. Information Minister Francisco Tatad ordered the registration of mimeograph machines.

But the spread and speed of the Internet changed the ?calculus of censorship.? Over 35 governments?from China, Cuba to Burma?block access to the Web. Iran is one of the most aggressive, notes Harvard University?s Berkman Center for Internet and Society.

?YouTube? traffic within Iran was down 90 percent last week. Facebook has been tamped down by more than half. Some 20 million Iranians are wired. In the Middle East, they?re second only to Israel?s Cyber-savvy citizens who are adept in hop-scotching controls.

Iranians connect to ?digitalsafehouses? or computers outside Iran. Traffic from Iran to such ?safehouses? increased tenfold in a week, The New York Times reported.

The Agha-Soltan video, for example, went through server proxies. An Iranian slipped copies to the Guardian in London, Voice of America and five contacts in Europe. CNN broadcast the film. ?In less than 24 hours, Agha-Soltan was transformed, on the Web, from a nameless victim into an icon of the Iranian protest movement.?

Twitter sends a burst of 140 characters. Thus, it was derided as the ?inane calling to the impatient.? But Twitter proved particularly resilient to censorship, notes Harvard Law School?s Jonathan Zittrain.

Twitter can originate from a phone, a Web browser or specialized applications. The posts find their way to many outlets. ?Qualities that make Twitter seem inane and half-baked make it easy to be echoed elsewhere in the world?and makes it so powerful.?

?Tehran has become the city of whispers,? The New York Times? Roger Cohen observes. ?Tomorrow, Vanak Square,? whispers one. ?Everyone wear black,? says another. A man, 28, whispers: ?The government will use more violence.?

Reminds one of 1986. Here, a neighbor would whisper: ?Rally at Camp Crame Edsa at 4. Tell others.? Twitter with its 140-character cap, come to think of it, is a whisper. Only it sounds in Cyberspace.

(E-mail: juanlmercado@gmail.com)



Copyright 2011 Philippine Daily Inquirer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

To subscribe to the Philippine Daily Inquirer newspaper in the Philippines, call +63 2 896-6000 for Metro Manila and Metro Cebu or email your subscription request here.

Factual errors? Contact the Philippine Daily Inquirer's day desk.
Believe this article violates journalistic ethics? Contact the Inquirer's Reader's Advocate.
Or write The Readers' Advocate:

c/o Philippine Daily Inquirer
Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Streets,
Makati City, Metro Manila, Philippines
Or fax nos. +63 2 8974793 to 94

Share

RELATED STORIES:

OTHER STORIES:

COLUMNS:

  ^ Back to top

© Copyright 2001-2011 INQUIRER.net, An INQUIRER Company

The INQUIRER Network: HOME | NEWS | SPORTS | SHOWBIZ & STYLE | TECHNOLOGY | BUSINESS | OPINION | GLOBAL NATION | Site Map
Services: Advertise | Buy Content | Wireless | Newsletter | Low Graphics | Search / Archive | Article Index | Contact us
The INQUIRER Company: About the Inquirer | User Agreement | Link Policy | Privacy Policy

Advertisement
Inquirer Mobile
Jobmarket Online
Inquirer VDO
BizLinq