The Second Superpower Rears
its Beautiful Head
Berkman Center for Internet &
Society
Monday, March 31,
2003
As the United States
government becomes more belligerent in using its power in the world, many people
are longing for a “second superpower” that can keep the US in check. Indeed, many people desire a superpower
that speaks for the interests of planetary society, for long-term well-being,
and that encourages broad participation in the democratic process. Where can the world find such a second
superpower? No nation or group of
nations seems able to play this role, although the European Union sometimes
seeks to, working in concert with a variety of institutions in the field of
international law, including the United Nations. But even the common might of the
European nations is barely a match for the current power of the United
States.
There is an emerging second
superpower, but it is not a nation.
Instead, it is a new form of international player, constituted by the
“will of the people” in a global social movement. The beautiful but deeply agitated face
of this second superpower is the worldwide peace campaign, but the body of the
movement is made up of millions of people concerned with a broad agenda that
includes social development, environmentalism, health, and human rights. This movement has a surprisingly
agile and muscular body of citizen activists who identify their interests with
world society as a whole—and who recognize that at a fundamental level we are
all one. These are people who are
attempting to take into account the needs and dreams of all 6.3 billion people
in the world—and not just the members of one or another nation. Consider the members of Amnesty
International who write letters on behalf of prisoners of conscience, and the
millions of Americans who are participating in email actions against the war in
Iraq. Or the physicians who
contribute their time to Doctors Without Borders/
Medecins Sans
Frontieres.
While some of the leaders
have become highly visible, what is perhaps most interesting about this global
movement is that it is not really directed by visible leaders, but, as we will
see, by the collective, emergent action of its millions of participants. Surveys suggest that at least 30 million
people in the United States identify themselves this way—approximately 10% of
the US population. The percentage
in Europe is undoubtedly higher.
The global membership in Asia, South America, Africa and India, while
much lower in percentage of the total population, is growing quickly with the
spread of the Internet. What makes
these numbers important is the new cyberspace-enabled interconnection among the
members. This body has a beautiful
mind. Web connections enable a kind
of near-instantaneous, mass improvisation of activist initiatives. For example, the political activist
group Moveon.org, which specializes in rapid response campaigns, has an email
list of more than two million members. During the 2002 elections, Moveon.org
raised more than $700,000 in a few days for a candidate’s campaign for the US
senate. It has raised thousands of dollars for media ads for peace—and it is now
amassing a worldwide network of media activists dedicated to keeping the mass
media honest by identifying bias and confronting local
broadcasters.
New forms of communication
and commentary are being invented continuously. Slashdot and other news sites present
high quality peer-reviewed commentary by involving large numbers of members of
the web community in recommending and rating items. Text messaging on mobile
phones, or texting, is now the medium of choice for communicating with thousands
of demonstrators simultaneously during mass protests. Instant messaging turns out to be one of
the most popular methods for staying connected in the developing world, because
it requires only a bit of bandwidth, and provides an intimate sense of
connection across time and space.
The current enthusiasm for blogging is changing the way that people
relate to publication, as it allows realtime dialogue about world events as
bloggers log in daily to share their insights. Meta-blogging sites crawl across
thousands of blogs, identifying popular links, noting emergent topics, and
providing an instantaneous summary of the global consciousness of the second
superpower.
The Internet and other
interactive media continue to penetrate more and more deeply all world society,
and provide a means for instantaneous personal dialogue and communication across
the globe. The collective power of
texting, blogging, instant messaging, and email across millions of actors cannot
be overestimated. Like a mind
constituted of millions of inter-networked neurons, the social movement is
capable of astonishingly rapid and sometimes subtle community consciousness and
action.
Thus the new superpower
demonstrates a new form of “emergent democracy” that differs from the
participative democracy of the US government. Where political participation in the
United States is exercised mainly through rare exercises of voting,
participation in the second superpower movement occurs continuously through
participation in a variety of web-enabled initiatives. And where deliberation in the first
superpower is done primarily by a few elected or appointed officials,
deliberation in the second superpower is done by each individual—making sense of
events, communicating with others, and deciding whether and how to join in
community actions. Finally, where
participation in democracy in the first superpower feels remote to most
citizens, the emergent democracy of the second superpower is alive with touching
and being touched by each other, as the community works to create wisdom and to
take action.
How does the second
superpower take action? Not from
the top, but from the bottom. That is, it is the strength of the US government
that it can centrally collect taxes, and then spend, for example, $1.2 billion
on 1,200 cruise missiles in the first day of the war against Iraq. By contrast, it is the strength of the
second superpower that it could mobilize hundreds of small groups of activists
to shut down city centers across the United States on that same first day of the
war. And that millions of
citizens worldwide would take to their streets to rally. The symbol of the first superpower
is the eagle—an awesome predator that rules from the skies, preying on mice and
small animals. Perhaps the best
symbol for the second superpower would be a community of ants. Ants rule from below. And while I may be awed seeing eagles in
flight, when ants invade my kitchen they command my attention.
In the same sense as the
ants, the continual distributed action of the members of the second superpower
can, I believe, be expected to eventually prevail. Distributed mass behavior, expressed in
rallying, in voting, in picketing, in exposing corruption, and in purchases from
particular companies, all have a profound effect on the nature of future
society. More effect, I would argue, than the devastating but unsustainable
effect of bombs and other forms of coercion.
Deliberation in the first
superpower is relatively formal—dictated by the US constitution and by years of
legislation, adjudicating, and precedent.
The realpolitik of decision making in the first superpower—as opposed to
what is taught in civics class—centers around lobbying and campaign
contributions by moneyed special interests—big oil, the military-industrial
complex, big agriculture, and big drugs—to mention only a few. In many cases, what are acted upon are
issues for which some group is willing to spend lavishly. By contrast, it is
difficult in the US government system to champion policy goals that have broad,
long-term value for many citizens, such as environment, poverty reduction and
third world development, women’s rights, human rights, health care for all. By
contrast, these are precisely the issues to which the second superpower tends to
address its attention.
Deliberation in the second
superpower is evolving rapidly in both cultural and technological terms. It is difficult to know its present
state, and impossible to see its future.
But one can say certain things. It is stunning how quickly the community
can act—especially when compared to government systems. The Internet, in combination with
traditional press and television and radio media, creates a kind of “media
space” of global dialogue. Ideas
arise in the global media space. Some of them catch hold and are disseminated
widely. Their dissemination, like
the beat of dance music spreading across a sea of dancers, becomes a pattern
across the community. Some members
of the community study these patterns, and write about some of them. This has
the effect of both amplifying the patterns and facilitating community reflection
on the topics highlighted. A new
form of deliberation happens. A
variety of what we might call “action agents” sits figuratively astride the
community, with mechanisms designed to turn a given social movement into
specific kinds of action in the world.
For example, fundraisers send out mass appeals, with direct mail or the
Internet, and if they are tapping into a live issue, they can raise money very
quickly. This money in turn can be used to support activities consistent with an
emerging mission.
The process is not without its flaws and weaknesses. For example, the central role of the mass media—with its alleged biases and distortions—is a real issue. Much news of the war comes to members of the second superpower from CNN, Fox, and the New York Times, despite the availability of alternative sources. The study of the nature and limits of this big mind is just beginning, and we don’t know its strengths and weaknesses as well as we do those of more traditional democracy. Perhaps governance is the wrong way to frame this study. Rather, what we are embarked on is a kind of experimental neurology, as our communication tools continue to evolve and to rewire the processes by which the community does its shared thinking and feeling. One of the more interesting questions posed to political scientists studying the second superpower is to what extent the community’s long-term orientation and freedom from special interests is reinforced by the peer-to-peer nature of web-centered ways of communicating—and whether these tendencies can be intentionally fostered through the design of the technology.
Which brings us to the most
important point: the vital role of the individual. The shared, collective mind of the
second superpower is made up of many individual human minds—your mind and my
mind—together we create the movement.
In traditional democracy our minds don’t matter much—what matters are the
minds of those with power of position, and the minds of those that staff and
lobby them. In the emergent
democracy of the second superpower, each of our minds matters a lot. For example, any one of us can launch an
idea. Any one of us can write a
blog, send out an email, create a list.
Not every idea will take hold in the big mind of the second
superpower—but the one that eventually catches fire is started by an
individual. And in the
peer-oriented world of the second superpower, many more of us have the
opportunity to craft submissions, and take a shot.
The contrast goes
deeper. In traditional democracy,
sense-making moves from top to bottom. “The President must know more than he is
saying” goes the thinking of a loyal but passive member of the first
superpower. But this form of
democracy was established in the 18th century, when education and
information were both scarce resources.
Now, in more and more of the world, people are well educated and
informed. As such, they prefer to
make up their own minds. Top-down
sense-making is out of touch with modern people.
The second superpower,
emerging in the 21st century, depends upon educated informed
members. In the community of the
second superpower each of us is responsible for our own sense-making. We seek as much data—raw facts, direct
experience—as we can, and then we make up our own minds. Even the current fascination with
“reality television” speaks to this desire: we prefer to watch our fellows, and
decide ourselves “what’s the story” rather than watching actors and actresses
play out a story written by someone else.
The same, increasingly, is true of the political stage—hence the
attractiveness of participation in the second superpower to
individuals.
Now the response of many
readers will be that this is a wishful fantasy. What, you say, is the demonstrated
success of this second superpower?
After all, George Bush was almost single-handedly able to make war on
Iraq, and the global protest movement was in the end only able to slow him
down. Where was the second
superpower?
The answer is that the
second superpower is not currently able to match the first. On the other hand, the situation may be
more promising than we realize.
Most important is that the establishment of international institutions
and international rule of law has created a venue in which the second superpower
can join with sympathetic nations to successfully confront the United
States. Consider the international
effort to ban landmines. Landmines
are cheap, deadly, and often used against agrarian groups because they make
working the fields lethal, and sew quite literally the seeds of starvation. In the 1990s a coalition of NGOs
coordinated by Jody Williams, Bobby Muller and others managed to put this issue
at the top of the international agenda, and promote the establishment of the
treaty banning their use. For this,
the groups involved were awarded the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize. While the United States has so far
refused to sign the treaty, it has been highly isolated on the issue and there
is still hope that some future congress and president will do so.
At the Kyoto meetings on
global climate change, a group of
NGOs coordinated by Nancy Keat of the World Resources Institute joined
with developing nations to block the interests of the United States and its
ally, big oil. The only way for the
United States to avoid being checkmated was to leave the game entirely. In the World Trade Organization, the
second superpower famously shut down the Seattle meeting in 1999, and later
helped to force a special “development round” focused on the needs of poor
countries. That round is currently
underway—and while the United States and others are seeking to subvert the
second superpower agenda, the best they have achieved to date is stalemate.
And finally, while George
Bush was indeed able to go to war with Iraq, the only way he could do so was to
ignore international law and split with the United Nations. Had he stayed within the system of
international institutions, his aims likely would have been frustrated. The French and the Germans who led the
attempt to stop him could not, I believe, have done what they did without the
strength of public opinion prodding them—the second superpower in action.
Now we all know that the
Bush administration has decided to undermine, in many cases, the system of
international law. Some argue that
by pulling out, the administration has fatally damaged the international system,
and ushered in a new era where the United States determines the rules—hub and
spoke style—through bilateral deals with other nations. The result, some will say, is that the
second superpower no longer has a venue in which to meet the first
effectively. In my view this is an
overly pessimistic assessment—albeit one that members of the second superpower
need to take seriously and strive to render false by our success in supporting
international institutions.
International law and
institutions are not going away.
Too many parties want and need them. First, individuals around the world are
becoming more globally aware, and more interested in international institutions.
Global media, travel, and immigration all contribute to citizens being aware of
the benefits of consistent approaches to everything from passport control to
human rights. It is striking, for example, that up until the final days before
the war, a majority of the US population wanted the president to deal with Iraq
in concert with the United Nations.
Second, business organizations want global rule of law. Global trade is now central to a vast
majority of businesses and almost all nations—and such trade requires rules
administered by multilateral bodies.
Third, most nations want a global legal system. In particular, European nations, wary of
war, outclassed in one-on-one power confrontations with the United States, have
become strongly committed to a post-national world. They are pouring collective national
resources of enormous magnitude into continuously strengthening the
international system.
The key problem facing
international institutions is that they have few ways to enforce their will on a
recalcitrant US government. And
this is where the second superpower is a part of the solution. Enforcement has many dimensions. When
the United States opts to avoid or undermine international institutions, the
second superpower can harass and embarrass it with demonstrations and public
education campaigns. The second superpower can put pressure on politicians
around the world to stiffen their resolve to confront the US government in any
ways possible. And the second
superpower can also target US politicians and work to remove at the polls those
who support the administration’s undercutting of international
law.
Longer term, we must press
for a direct voice for the second superpower in international institutions, so
that we are not always forced to work through nations. This means, as a practical matter, a
voice for citizens, and for NGOs and “civil society” organizations. For example, the Access Initiative of
the World Resources Institute is working to give citizens’ groups the ability to
influence environmental decisions made by international organizations such as
the World Bank. The Digital
Opportunity Task Force of the G8 group of nations included a formal role for
civil society organizations, as does the United Nations Information and
Communications Technology Task Force.
Overall, what can be said
for the prospects of the second superpower? With its mind enhanced by Internet
connective tissue, and international law as a venue to work with others for
progressive action, the second superpower is starting to demonstrate its
potential. But there is much to
do. How do we assure that it
continues to gain in strength? And
at least as important, how do we continue to develop the mind of the second
superpower, so that it maximizes wisdom and goodwill? The future, as they say,
is in our hands. We need to join
together to help the second superpower, itself, grow
stronger.
First, we need to become
conscious of the “mental processes” in which we are involved as members of the
second superpower, and explore how to make our individual sense-making and
collective action more and more effective.
This of course means challenging and improving the mass media, and
supporting more interactive and less biased alternatives. But more ambitiously, we will need to
develop a kind of meta-discipline, an organizational psychology of our
community, to explore the nature of our web-enabled, person-centered, global
governance and communication processes, and continue to improve
them.
Second, and ironically, the
future of the second superpower depends to a great extent on social freedoms in
part determined by the first superpower.
It is the traditional freedoms—freedom of the press, of assembly, of
speech—that have enabled the second superpower to take root and grow. Indeed, the Internet itself was
constructed by the US government, and the government could theoretically still
step in to restrict its freedoms.
So we need to pay close attention to freedom in society, and especially
to freedom of the Internet. There
are many moves afoot to censor the web, to close down access, and to restrict
privacy and free assembly in cyberspace.
While we generally associate web censorship with countries like China or
Saudi Arabia, tighter control of the web is also being explored in the United
States and Europe. The officials of
the first superpower are promoting these ideas in the name of preventing
terrorism, but they also prevent the open peer-to-peer communication that is at
the heart of the second superpower.
We need to insist on an open web, an open cyberspace, around the globe,
because that is the essential medium in which the second superpower
lives.
Third, we must carefully
consider how best to support international institutions, so that they
collectively form a setting in which our power can be exercised. Perhaps too often we attack institutions
like the World Bank that might, under the right conditions, actually become
partners with us in dealing with the first superpower. International institutions must become
deeply more transparent, accessible to the public, and less amenable to special
interests, while remaining strong enough to provide a secure context in which
our views can be expressed.
And finally, we must work on
ourselves and our community.
We will dialogue with our neighbors, knowing that the collective wisdom
of the second superpower is grounded in the individual wisdom within each of
us. We must remind ourselves that
daily we make personal choices about the world we create for ourselves and our
descendants. We do not have to
create a world where differences are resolved by war. It is not our destiny to
live in a world of destruction, tedium, and tragedy. We will create a world of
peace.