Abstract
The spread of democracy in Africa in the 1990s, often dubbed the third wave of democracy, was a period of democratic optimism on the continent. This revolution, which led to an increase in democratic activities, was given impetus by the fourth industrial revolution, occasioned by the internet to engender a digital democratic space characterized by increased political communication and easy access to information. Despite the optimism of liberation that digital democracy promises, it has been reversed by African leaders to promote authoritarianism: digital authoritarianism. Digital tools are increasingly being used to promote mass surveillance of citizens, internet shutdown, electoral manipulation, corporate espionage, censorship, etc. The chapter further posits that the incidence of digital authoritarianism pervades Africa and has been further entrenched by the incidence of the COVID-19 pandemic, which provided autocratic leaders with the opportunity to restrict expression and free speech with the pretext of combating disinformation and cybercrime.
TopIntroduction
The spread of democracy in Africa and the disenchantment with authoritarian rule in the 1990s and the beginning of the millennium marks a watershed in the history of many African states. As a result of the revolution, some leaders in Africa organized periodic elections and emphasized the guarantee of human rights to appear less autocratic. Many states adopted a pseudo-democratic model where the leader while encouraging sit-tightism and despotic tendencies, organized elections and allowed nominal citizens freedom to give legitimacy to the government and maintain a democratic outlook. Leaders like Paul Biya, Gnassingbe Eyadéma, and Daniel Arap Moi of Cameroon, Togo, and Kenya respectively, were able to hold and win multiparty elections despite the widespread criticisms of dictatorship that characterized their regimes. Nonetheless, the incursion of democratic principles around Africa continued unabated and has been bolstered by the proliferation of the internet and social media.
Meanwhile, the fourth industrial revolution occasioned by the internet increased the chances of political participation, civic engagement, activism, and citizens’ involvement in decision-making by citizens around the world, including Africa. The digital revolution influenced democratic political behaviour among youths and political leaders. African leaders like Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria and Ian Khama of Botswana were able to use social media to their advantage by reaching millions of young people and amassing massive followership. Technology has been adapted in the Democratic Republic of Congo to grant access to citizens to budgetary proceedings while in Nigeria youths have used the internet to protest against police brutality and government negligence. As Gopaldas (2019) submits, the global relevance of social media to democracy cannot be undermined. It has significantly promoted a digital democratic space characterized by increased political communication, accountability, political engagement and criticism, easy access to information, swift connectivity of electorates and candidates, citizen-dominated political discussions, and improved service delivery.
However, despite the plenitude of advantages that digitization holds for political development and democratic consolidation in Africa, it has in recent times become a tool of oppression by the political elite to exploit the state for political gain and maintain its prebendal predilection. This trend is increasingly permeating the African political spectrum and promises an amplification of anti-democratic practices. This was alluded to by Gopaldas (2019) that even though networks like Twitter, Facebook, and WhatsApp have been used to secure election victories, they have also been accused of being a threat to democracy. Facebook has been alleged of misusing data following the Cambridge Analytica scandal. More so, these platforms are unregulated and therefore easily manipulated to spread fake news, disinformation, incite violence, and promote digital authoritarianism.
Lamensch (2021) opines that the interconnected nature of the internet has made digital authoritarianism a transnational repression tactic adopted by governments to attack the citizens, journalists, human rights activists, and the opposition. In a flagrant disrespect for human rights, the tactic has been used in combination with indiscriminate arrests and extralegal killings. Given this, Yayboke and Brannen (2020) aver that digital authoritarianism is inimical to democracy and the guarantee of free speech. To this end, the internet presents dual options, for good and evil. It can be used to promote or mar an electioneering process, it can be fragmented to provide a fertile ground for authoritarianism while it can also be used to dictate the flow of information or utterly suppress the rights of citizens. In the words of Gopaldas (2019), the claim of combating fake news has become a front for governments to shut down the internet and maintain close control over citizens.
Key Terms in this Chapter
Digital Authoritarianism: The promotion of dictatorship and authoritarian tendencies through digital technology. It is the use of digital tools such as such as the internet and social media to manipulate information and restrict access to information. It is technology-enabled authoritarian rule.
Digital Democracy: The promotion of democratic rule through digital technology. Also referred to as internet democracy, digital democracy is the adoption of technology in the governance process. It is the application of digital tools to entrenching political interaction and active participation in politics.
Digital Technology: Refers to an array of technological tools such as audio, video and audio-visual devices connected to computer and the internet. Electronic devices that generate, process and store information.
Surveillance: The act of observing someone closely to collect information about the person’s activities. It can be used by a state to monitor unscrupulous elements to investigate crime or prevent it altogether. Meanwhile, it can also be used by the state to monitor the citizens so as to prevent activism or opposition and promote repression.
Social media: Internet-based applications that allows its users to interact and network using a network of connections. These applications or digital channels are used to aid communication and promote the creation and sharing of information. It makes its users content creators, producers and consumers and its usage cuts across the different aspects of the society.
Activism: This is the desire to bring about political or social change. It is often carried out to provide legitimacy to or oppose a political and/or social order. Activist often act under the impression that their actions will change the course of events in the society and engender a desirable alternative.
Censorship: The suppression and control of the circulation of information available in society. It is the regulation of mass or new media content deemed harmful to the censor (government or political elite). It encompasses the restriction and prohibition of the expression of thoughts on sociopolitical matters.
Espionage: Act of spying and intelligence gathering by a foreign government to obtain secret and confidential information about another government. It involves the use of spies or unsanctioned monitoring devices to obtain political, industrial, or military information.
Free Speech: The ability to speak freely about any matter. It is the right to express one’s opinion about a political or social phenomenon without fear of victimization. It encompasses internet freedom which is the freedom to use the internet to create and disseminate information.
Repression: The intentional act of a government or higher political authority to restrict and prevent citizens from participating in political activities. Here, citizens are subdued from performing civic duties and exercising free will. This is done through coercion, intimidation, inducement, and threat – among others.