Digital authoritarianism is primarily enacted by authoritarian regimes seeking to maintain and strengthen their political control. Digital authoritarianism is also known as techno-authoritarianism, is the way governments utilize digital technologies to surveil, repress, and manipulate both domestic and foreign populations.
The motivations behind wielding the power of the internet and technology to gain or solidify control include suppressing dissent, controlling information, and preventing the mobilization of opposition groups. By leveraging tools like internet censorship, surveillance systems, and disinformation campaigns, these regimes aim to stifle political activism and maintain their hold on power.
Defining 4 Terms in Digital Authoritarianism
Competing terms have emerged to conceptualize the use of digital technologies by authoritarian regimes to maintain political control, including:
- Digital authoritarianism
- Networked authoritarianism
- Digital repression
- Techno-authoritarianism
Much of the existing literature uses these terms without clear definition, often referring to a diverse range of actions and measures. This lack of clarity undermines the basis for comparative research to advance knowledge and to determine how best to mitigate or overcome the negative effects of digital authoritarianism on democracy and development.
The paper “Digital Authoritarianism: A Systematic Literature Review” defines four key terms: digital repression, networked authoritarianism, digital authoritarianism, and digital authoritarian practices. These definitions highlight the various ways in which digital technologies are employed to maintain political control and suppress dissent across different regimes.
Digital Repression
Digital repression refers to the use of new technologies—primarily the Internet, social media, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)—to repress citizens and maintain political control.
Example: In 2019, the Chinese government employed AI-driven surveillance technologies to monitor and suppress the Uyghur population in Xinjiang. This included facial recognition systems and predictive policing algorithms to identify and detain individuals deemed a threat to state security.
Networked Authoritarianism
Networked authoritarianism describes regimes that allow a degree of freedom of communication but within a system of information control, censorship, and proactive public opinion manipulation.
Example: In Russia, the government permits internet access but employs extensive surveillance and censorship measures. The state influences online discourse through troll farms and controls over media outlets, shaping public opinion while suppressing dissenting voices.
Digital Authoritarianism
Digital authoritarianism involves the use of digital information technology by authoritarian regimes to surveil, repress, and manipulate domestic and foreign populations.
Example: Iran’s government has developed a national internet infrastructure, facilitating state oversight and control. This “domesticated” internet allows the regime to monitor online activities, censor content, and suppress political dissent within its borders.
Digital Authoritarian Practices
Digital authoritarian practices are actions embedded in an organized context that sabotage accountability to citizens and prevent their free voice, often through digital means.
Example: In Uganda, the People’s Republic of China has helped President Museveni spy on his political opponents, co-opt, and repress dissent, including infiltrating encrypted communications of opposition leader Bobi Wine. Ugandan police have deployed facial recognition capabilities that often compromise privacy, in the name of public security.
Digital Authoritarianism in Humanitarian Relief
Digital authoritarianism in humanitarian relief is the use of digital technologies by authoritarian regimes to control, monitor, and manipulate humanitarian aid efforts, often to suppress dissent, maintain power, or marginalize certain populations.
This practice can undermine the principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence that are fundamental to effective humanitarian action. There are three mechanisms of digital authoritarianism in humanitarian contexts:
- Surveillance and Data Control: Authoritarian governments may monitor communications between aid organizations and affected populations, collecting data that can be used to track individuals or groups deemed oppositional. This surveillance can deter people from seeking aid or expressing their needs openly, fearing retribution. For example, in some conflict zones, regimes have intercepted aid communications to identify and target dissidents.
- Internet Shutdowns and Censorship: By restricting access to information through internet shutdowns or censorship, regimes can control narratives around humanitarian crises, limiting the ability of organizations to coordinate relief efforts or raise awareness. In Myanmar, for instance, internet blackouts have hampered humanitarian operations and obscured human rights abuses.
- Manipulation of Aid Distribution: Digital tools can be exploited to manipulate aid distribution, favoring certain groups aligned with the regime while depriving marginalized or oppositional communities. This selective allocation reinforces existing power structures and exacerbates inequalities. In Syria, there have been reports of aid being diverted to areas loyal to the government, leaving opposition-held regions underserved.
Digital Authoritarianism Framework
The paper outlines a framework for analyzing digital authoritarianism in humanitarian relief programming, focusing on five key elements: the protagonist, technologies, specific practices, first-order effects on citizens, and second-order effects on power relationships.
1. Protagonist
The protagonist refers to the primary actors implementing digital authoritarian measures, typically authoritarian regimes or governments with authoritarian tendencies. These actors employ digital tools to maintain political control, suppress dissent, and manipulate information. For instance, China’s government utilizes extensive surveillance systems to monitor its population.
2. Technologies
This element encompasses the digital tools and platforms used to enforce authoritarian control. Key technologies include internet censorship mechanisms, surveillance systems (e.g., facial recognition), data analytics, and artificial intelligence. In Russia, the System for Operative Investigative Activities (SORM) enables comprehensive monitoring of internet communications.
3. Specific Practices
Specific practices involve the methods and strategies employed by regimes to exert control through digital means. These include internet shutdowns, censorship of online content, deployment of disinformation campaigns, and surveillance of digital communications. In Myanmar, the military junta has implemented internet shutdowns and surveillance to suppress dissent.
4. First-Order Effects on Citizens
First-order effects are the immediate impacts of digital authoritarian practices on citizens. These effects include restricted access to information, violations of privacy, suppression of freedom of expression, and increased self-censorship due to surveillance. In Iran, government surveillance and censorship have led to significant limitations on citizens’ online freedoms.
5. Second-Order Effects on Power Relationships
Second-order effects pertain to the broader implications of digital authoritarianism on societal power dynamics. These include the entrenchment of authoritarian regimes, weakening of civil society, erosion of democratic institutions, and the creation of a climate of fear and conformity. In Saudi Arabia, digital surveillance and repression have reinforced the regime’s power while stifling dissent.
This framework provides a structured approach to analyzing how digital tools are leveraged by authoritarian regimes to maintain control and the subsequent impacts on society.
This post was inspired by Digital Authoritarianism: A Systematic Literature Review by Tony Roberts and Marjoke Oosterom
