Summer 2006 Netizens, Democracy and Labor Volume 14 No. 2

Editorial: Is Democracy

Working?

“Is Democracy Working?” was the theme

recently of an international conference of political

scientists held in Japan July 9-13, 2006.

The

program was 181 pages with papers and talks on

many aspects of the problems of democratic

institutions and practices in our modern world.

The question, “Is Democracy working?” is a

vital question for our times. This issue of the

Amateur Computerist is intended as a contribution to

an exploration of this question.

The opening article of the issue, “Carother’s

Critique of the Transition Paradigm and the 2002

Presidential Election Campaign in South Korea”

explores how the Internet and the netizens helped to

create democratic political forms for the 2002

Presidential election in South Korea. These forms

provided a challenge to the power of the

conservative press which wields a lot of power in

South Korea. An Internet fan club created by

netizens called “Nosamo” was able to provide

leadership for a different election campaign than the

standard kind of campaign. The election year issues

of policy, not of the personalities of the candidates

were primary. The election represented a “shift from

party politics to citizen politics” as one scholar

observed.

Table of Contents

Editorial: Is Democracy Working?. . . . . . . . Page 1

Critique Of Democratization In S. Korea. . . Page 2

Delphi: Fight that Confronts . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 8

Suppression of a VOICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 9

We are the workers (song). . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10

Delphi: Live Bait & Ammo . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 10

“Who Killed the Electric Car”. . . . . . . . . . Page 13

Internet: Citizen Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15

The second article in the issue describes the

problem of workers in the U.S. Here employers and

union officials have cooperated to take away labor

rights and benefits that workers have fought hard to

acquire. Three articles by a retired auto worker, John

Goschka, present the need for workers to have a

voice in the labor-management arena. The article

which follows then is from a newsletter by auto

worker Gregg Shotwell “Live Bait & Ammo #73.”

Shotwell describes his response to a speech by the

CEO of the Delphi Corporation, Steve Miller.

Shotwell attended a talk Miller gave at the Detroit

Economic Club on Monday, April 3, 2006. Delphi

had gone to a U.S. Court to declare bankruptcy in its

North American operations and asked the court’s

help to end their obligations to workers under their

union contracts. Shotwell’s response to Miller’s

speech also reflects on the role played by the

president of the United Auto Workers Union (UAW)

Ron Gettelfinger in the crises auto workers are

facing.

A review of the new movie “Who Killed the

Electric Car?” follows. The film presents the little

known set of events in the 1990s until 2005 when

General Motors had a functioning electric car

operating in the Western part of the U.S. Instead of

supporting this new technology and mass producing

the electric cars, the auto maker acted with other auto

companies, the oil industry and the U.S. Department

of Justice to get the withdrawal of the regulations

which required the auto companies to have non

polluting technology. In this situation, GM claimed

that they withdrew the electric cars from operation

and crushed them because no one wanted to buy

them. The film demonstrates how that is not true. A

similar situation is documented in earlier issues of

the Amateur Computerist as the pretext given to end

computer programming classes at Ford.

The last article in this issue is from a talk

presented at a conference in Finland on the the

Page 1

History of Technology. The theme of the conference

related to the problem of borders and the role of

technology in rethinking borders. On July 1, 2006

Finland once again assumed the Presidency of the

European Union. The talk describes a conference

when Finland last had the presidency in Fall of 1999.

At the conference, the question of overcoming the

borders or boundaries that prevent citizens from

having a say in government decisions was explored.

The talk also refers to the process of how the Internet

was built on a model of grassroots participation in its

development. The talk raises the question of whether

the Internet model of development may be helpful in

providing gateways to help cross the boundaries

preventing political communication between citizens

and government representatives.

In considering the articles in this issue, it is clear

that while the 2002 Presidential election in Korea

and the building of the Internet were examples of

democracy working, the problems in the U.S. auto

industry and of the auto workers show that

democracy there is not working.

We hope this issue begins to raise some of the

problems which need to be identified and explored to

be able to have more functional democratic

institutions and processes. As Carl Johnson, an auto

worker in Flint in the 1940s and 1950s recognized in

a column he wrote in his local UAW newspaper,

“Only More Democracy Can Save Democracy.”

Notes:

1) The conference was the 20th World Congress of the

International Political Science Association (IPSA)

http://www.fukuoka2006.com/en/default.asp/

2) Kim Yong-Ho, “Political Significance of the 2002

Presidential Election Outcome and Political Prospects for the

Roh Administration,” Korea Journal, Summer 2003, p. 233.

Carothers’ Critique of the

Transition Paradigm and

2002 Presidential Election

Campaign in South Korea

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

I - Preface

The mass demonstrations in France in April

2006 in opposition to the youth employment law

(CNE) and the mass demonstrations in Nepal pro-

testing the actions of the monarchy, reveal the

serious mass dissatisfaction with the political pro-

cesses in both developed countries like France and

developing countries like Nepal. Such examples of

mass dissatisfaction help to highlight the widespread

desire for democratic political processes.

In a similar vein, a report issued recently in

Great Britain titled Power to the People: The report

of Power An Independent Inquiry into Britain’s

Democracy documents a deepening public dissatis-

faction with the political processes in Great Britain

and the U.S.

Thus even in the countries long considered to be

models of democracy, democratic practices are now

the subject of serious discontent. In light of such

deep and growing dissatisfaction with the old models

of democracy, the efforts of countries that have

recently thrown out autocratic systems and are now

searching for how to develop and sustain a democra-

tizing process, become especially interesting and

relevant subjects for study.

This article explores certain aspects of the

current democratization process in South Korea

(officially known as the Republic of Korea, but

hereafter referred to most often as Korea).

II - Carothers’ Critique of the Transition

Paradigm

Given the crisis of democracy around the world,

it is not surprising that serious questions are being

raised about what had been considered a model of

how a newly democratizing country could be ex-

pected to develop.

One such critique is developed by Thomas

Carothers, in his article “The End of the Transition

Page 2

Paradigm.” Describing the origin and impetus for

what he calls the ‘transition paradigm’, Carothers

explains how in the 1980s U.S. policy makers

desired a model to apply to newly democratizing

countries in their official democracy-promotion

work. He writes:

As early as the mid-1980s, President Ron-

ald Reagan, Secretary of State George

Shultz, and other high-level U.S. officials

were referring regularly to “the worldwide

democratic revolution.” During the 1980s,

an active array of governmental, quasi-

governmental, and nongovernmental orga-

nizations devoted to promoting democracy

abroad sprang into being. This new

democracy-promotion community had a

pressing need for an analytic framework to

conceptualize and respond to the ongoing

political events. (Carothers 2003: 6)

In response, a model for the democratizing

process that Carothers calls the ‘transition paradigm’

was advanced which has been applied by scholars. In

recent years, however, a number of problems have

become obvious with the ‘transition paradigm’. This

has led Carothers to declare, “It is time for the

democracy-promotion community to discard the

transition paradigm.”

He argues that researchers

interested in democratization need to shed the lens

colored by these prior assumptions. When analyzing

the democratization process in a country, he pro-

poses that instead of asking, “How is its democratic

transition going?,” the question researchers should

ask is, “What is happening politically?” (Carothers

2003: 18)

South Korea provides the example of a country

that has made significant progress with democratiza-

tion since its June 1987 revolution. Therefore, it

provides a useful case study to explore whether

Carothers’ critique of the transition paradigm can be

helpful in analyzing democratization.

I want to focus mainly on developments in

Korea which took place during the 2002 presidential

election campaign. This campaign resulted in the

nomination and then election of Roh Moo-hyun as

the 16th President of South Korea.

Roh’s election is a sign of the new found power

of the Internet and of the online citizen, the netizen.

The events of the election campaign, provide useful

experience to consider in trying to come to grips

with the problems and achievements of democratiza-

tion in Korea.

When considering Carothers’ critique of the

transition paradigm, one is struck by the fact that

newly democratizing countries don’t start out with a

clean slate when they make the transition to democ-

ratization. Instead it can be expected that they will

inherit at least some of the forms and power struc-

tures from their past. These countries have a handi-

cap, the handicap of having to root out the surviving

remnants of the political and economic authoritarian

past. How they do this and what new forms and

structures they find to replace the vestiges of the

surviving autocratic system is a subject worthy of

study.

III - Forms and Structures from Korea’s

Autocratic Past

A number of scholars of Korean democratiza-

tion are concerned with these surviving remnants of

the autocratic system and their continuing impact on

the economy and politics of Korea. One such scholar

is Choi Jang Jip, a Professor at Korea University,

and the author of the book Democracy after Democ-

ratization. Choi discusses how the holders of power

from the autocratic period of Korean history, have

continued to dominate Korean politics and econom-

ics after the 1987 Revolution. A major subject for his

study are the structures supporting the continuing

hegemony of the conservatives over Korean political

and economic life. Among the strata that Choi is

worried about are the chaebols, the conservative

newspapers, and the conservative intellectuals. The

conservative intellectuals according to Choi are those

who “do not criticize the media and chaebol. Nor do

they show any interest in the groups and social

classes being victimized in the process of the en-

trenchment of the class structure.” (Choi 2005: 48)

Choi argues that the forces which have contin-

ued from the authoritarian period that dominated

post WWII Korea until June 1987, are those which

“resist change.” He proposes that they “have become

gradually more organized and stronger.” (Choi 2005:

49)

In evaluating the progress made in Korean

society since the June 1987 revolution, Choi argues

that conditions have gotten worse for people, rather

than improving. He explains that it is no longer

likely that hard work and education will make it

possible for most people to advance in their society.

Page 3

(Choi 2005: 41)

Hong Yun-Gi is another researcher interested in

the nature of the power bloc that has emerged from

the autocratic post WWII period. Hong writes:

The ruling group of the post-war order

included extreme-right [wing] anti commu-

nist politicians, conglomerate capitalist

groups called chaebol, military forces of

politicized generals and officials, and the

three largest newspapers, i.e. Chosun Ilbo,

Joong Ang Ilbo and Dong A Ilbo. The

social power of these groups survived the

process of democratic consolidation which

dissolved the system of formal military

dictatorship in the June revolt of 1987.

(Hong 2003: 8)

In his critique of this power block, Choi empha-

sizes the role that the conservative press plays in

Korean politics. Choi argues:

The political agenda in Korea is set by the

press, not initiated by the political parties.

It is also the press that determines policy

issues and priorities. From the President to

members of the National Assembly, from

cabinet ministers to political advisors, to

ranking bureaucrats....the most they do in

terms of making any decisions is to make

decisions based on the expectation of how

the press would evaluate such decisions.

(Choi 2005: 41)

This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but it

suggests the central importance in Korean politics of

the press. Choi also criticizes how the press func-

tions with respect to private individuals, “(I)t arbi-

trarily intervenes and defines a person’s intellectual

and emotional spheres, calling a person ‘ideologi-

cally suspicious’ or ‘leftist’ as they see fit. The press

freely conducts ideological inquisitions that one

would credit to the Japanese colonial rulers or a

totalitarian regime.” (Choi 2005: 41)

The effect of the conservative domination of the

print press, Choi explains, is that public opinion

becomes the views expressed in a few large powerful

newspapers. This narrows the range of political and

ideological viewpoints that are reflected as the public

opinion of Korean society. (Choi 2005: 43)

Some scholars writing about the struggle for

democratization in South Korea explain that it was

not until 1997, ten years after the June 1987 victory,

that there was an actual transfer of political power to

opposition parties. Even with this transfer, however,

the conservative media is presented as one of the

contenders for what form any reform of the political

system will take. According to Chang Woo Young,

after the June 1987 victory, rather than having

curtailed the conservative media, it emerged as an

“independent political institution.” (Chang 2005:

928)

Others emphasize the need to reform the conser-

vative media. “Without the reform of the media, no

success of democratic reform is possible,” argues

Cho Hu Yeon, one of the founders of the civil

society NGO People’s Solidarity with Participatory

Democracy (PSPD).

The failure to put through reforms of the struc-

ture of the chaebols and of the conservative media

from 1987 to 1997 has been blamed as contributing

to the economic crisis of 1997.

South Korean Presidents Kim Young Sam and

then Kim Dae Jung had promised to uproot the

conservative power base. Several of the measures

Sam took when he came to office did indeed make

some impact. But the financial crisis of 1997 is

attributed to the fact that not nearly enough progress

had been made.

For example, Sunhyuk Kim writes:

There is currently an extensive consensus

in and outside of Korea that the economic

crisis could have been avoided had Kim

Young Sam’s chaebol reform been success-

fully carried out. (Kim 2000: 28)

Similarly, “mainstream South Korean news

outlets failed to apply a critical eye to economic

reporting before the Asian slump,” a reporter ex-

plains, “a fact that many analysts say contributed to

the crash.” He admits, “We were guilty of printing

government statements without checking the facts.”

The conservative newspapers most often cited as

the problem are Chosun Ilbo, Donga Ilbo, and

Joongang Ilbo. Chosun Ilbo (Daily Newspaper) was

started March 5, 1920. It has a reputation as the

South Korean print newspaper with the largest

circulation (2,383,429 in 2004). The 2nd largest

newspaper is Dong Ilbo, started in April 5, 1920. (In

2004 its circulation was given as 2,088,715) (Lee,

Gunho 2004: 6)

These three major newspapers, have a market

share of 70%, explains Lee Eun-Jeung. (Lee, Eun-

Jeung: 624) She quotes Sisa Journal, 5 January

2002 “Never had a politician won elections against

Page 4

the will of these newspapers.” (Lee, Eun-Jeung, 634)

In this context the success of the electoral

campaign of Roh Moo-hyun, which was bitterly

opposed by the major conservative print publications

takes on an added significance. What was the nature

of his campaign and how did it succeed despite the

opposition of all the major conservative print publi-

cations?

IV - Roh Moo-hyun’s Election Campaign

Roh’s background was unusual for someone

who would run for the office of President of South

Korea. He had come from a farming family. He

completed high school, but never attended college.

He studied on his own to take the National Bar

Exam. Passing the exam, Roh was licensed to prac-

tice law. Soon afterwards he became interested in

helping students who had been prosecuted for their

opposition to the autocratic government. Roh also

supported labor activists. He was from Busan but

had not been able to win a National Assembly seat

from the area.

By the 2000 National Assembly election, Roh

was able to win a seat in an area around Seoul. But

he gave it up to run again for a seat in Busan in an

effort to challenge the regional divisions in Korean

political parties and politics. When Roh lost the

April 2000 election, however, his efforts attracted

discussion on his website among a number of people

interested in election reform. Through their online

discussion the idea was presented to create an online

fan club for Roh, like the fan clubs for sports teams.

Formed in April 2000, Nosamo, the online fan club,

began discussion about how to support Roh as a

candidate in the upcoming election for the South

Korean presidency.

On May 12, 2000, the NGO People’s Solidarity

for Participatory Democracy (PSPD) held an online

poll to see which of several candidates was most

desired. The candidates included in the poll were

Rhee In-je, a representative in the National Assem-

bly and an advisor to the Millennium Democratic

Party (MDP), Lee Hoi-chang, the head of the Grand

National Party, and Roh Moo-hyun, who appeared as

the underdog, the candidate who was least likely to

be able to win the election for the presidency. Yet

Roh won the PSPD poll.

In April 2002 Nosamo held a meeting in a

computer cafe in Busan. A hundred people attended

the meeting. It was also broadcast on the Internet. An

organization was formed to support Roh’s candi-

dacy. Its founding documents included a section

committing Nosamo to participatory democracy.

A significant aspect of the election campaign for

Roh, however, was the fact that his candidacy was

strongly opposed by the conservative print press. For

example, during the primary election, the major

newspapers “almost everyday carried articles that

both implicitly and explicitly criticized candidate

Roh Moo-hyun,” writes Yun Young Min in his

article, “An Analysis of Cyber-Electioneering:

Focusing on the 2002 Presidential Election in Ko-

rea.” (Yun 2003: 154)

Surprisingly, however, the attacks by the print

media served to increase the public’s interest in Roh

and his campaign. As Yun documents, “As a result

more and more voters must have wondered to them-

selves ‘Just Who Is This Roh Moo-hyun?’” In his

study of the online activity on the Internet during the

2002 election, Yun documents the “sharp increase in

the number of visits to Roh’s Web site. Also, that

must have been the reason,” Yun writes, “why ‘Roh

Moo-hyun’ became one of the most popular search

terms in the news section of portal sites.” (Yun 2003:

154)

Describing the effect that the criticism of Roh

by the major newspapers had, Yun writes that it was

akin to a David and Goliath effect with Roh being

regarded as the brave David able to slay the more

powerful Goliath.

Lee describes how attacks on Roh that appeared

in the conservative print media were quick to draw

responses and discussion in online newspapers and

discussion forums. If there was a reference in the

print media to a speech that Roh gave, the whole

speech would be posted online with a response to the

article that had appeared in the print media.

Similarly, online discussions were common and

supporters of Roh would send each other articles

they found of interest. The online discussion and

exchange of views found particular favor among the

younger generation who had previously found

politics uninteresting.

Yun observes that a feedback system was

created between the articles published in the conser-

vative major print publications and the comments

and discussion that occurred online. (Yun 2003: 163)

Lee argues that the election of 2002 “was a power

struggle between the main print media and the

Internet.” (Lee, Eun-Jeung: 634)

Page 5

“In 2002 for the first time in Korean history,”

writes Lee, “the power of the so-called netizen

(‘citizen on the net’) made itself felt.” (Lee

Eun-Jeung: 632) There were several well-publicized

netizen actions in 2002. These included the online

protest waged against the disqualification of the

Korean track athlete in the Winter Olympics; the

netizen directed celebration during the World Cup

events in Korea in June 2002; and the candlelight

protests against the Status of Forces Agreement

(SOFA) in November and December 2002. The

victory of Roh in the 2002 election was but one

example of Korean netizens exploring how the

Internet could be helpful in their efforts to have an

impact on Korean politics.

V - Role of the Netizen in Election Cam-

paign

In his summary of his research about the impact

of the online activity during the 2002 election, Yun

observes that prior to the election, most experts

would have assumed that it was impossible for Roh

to win. But after the election, these same experts

would have to agree that the Internet had played a

significant role in the victory. (Yun 2003, 163)

Though he is cautious about claiming causality

without further study, Yun proposes that the

“so-called experts” should also exert caution when

making their predictions about “such events in the

future.” (Yun 2003: 163)

Yun’s analysis is most cogent, however, when

he considers the significance of Roh’s victory. He

writes:

Cyberspace is making it possible for citi-

zens to choose a political position free from

the influence of the mainstream press....

Public opinion, which has been almost

exclusively minted by a few mass media,

can no longer be hidden beneath the control

of the press. The...effect is expected to

break the old equation, ‘the opinion of the

press = public opinion = prevailing opin-

ion.’ (Yun 2003: 143)

Lee’s summary is similarly optimistic. “In a

sense the netizens mobilised themselves into the

political realm,” she writes, “exercising their power

as citizens...” (Lee, Eun-Jeung: 635) She continues,

“With their electoral revolution the netizens had

transformed political culture in Korea.” (Lee, Eun-

Jeung: 638)

VI - Conclusion

Carothers’ advice to look at “what is happening

politically” when trying to understand the experience

in a newly democratizing country like South Korea

helps to remove the filters from one’s glasses so that

one can see new and previously unknown develop-

ments.

Something fundamental occurred during the

2002 presidential campaign in South Korea. Citizens

found a way to turn the election campaign into a

citizens’ event. They became actively involved in

debating and exploring the issues that were raised. It

wasn’t only the candidates or the elites and their

newspapers that participated in the debates. To the

contrary, articles in the conservative print media

about the Roh candidacy were subjected to scrutiny,

and citizens could respond in both discussion forums

and online newspapers. Citizens had reclaimed their

role as participants in the election process, rather

than being resigned to the status of passive observ-

ers. The citizenry also became watchdogs of the

process, as well as participants. They were able to

contribute to and spread the discussion among other

citizens.

It is reported that 80% of the South Korean

population has access to high speed Internet. Thus a

far larger percentage of the Korean population can

contribute online to the discussion on politics than

the limited number of writers who can be published

in the conservative print media. Also the Internet

provides a much broader range of views and discus-

sion on various issues than any print media can make

available. Even if one doesn’t choose to contribute

articles and discussion to be available online, one

can read a much broader range of viewpoints than

one can read in the print media. From the contro-

versy of ideas that developed during the 2002 elec-

tion campaign, netizens were able to develop a more

broad based perspective of the salient issues.

Carothers refers to an article by Dankwart

Rustow “Transitions to Democracy: Toward a

Dynamic Model” which was published in 1970, as a

seminal article in the early academic transition

literature. (Carothers, 2003: 8) In this article, Rustow

raises the question “What conditions make democ-

racy possible and what conditions make it thrive?”

This, I want to argue is a critical question for politi-

cal scientists who are trying to develop a theoretical

Page 6

analysis of democracy. Rustow begins a process of

exploring the genesis of a democratic society by a

study of the origins and development of democrati-

zation in Turkey and in Sweden. Rustow’s conclu-

sion is that democratization is not about establishing

maximum “consensus” but rather about creating an

environment where dissention thrives. (Rustow

1970: 363)

The 2002 presidential campaign in South Korea

was an important development in the democratiza-

tion of Korea. Out of the debate and dissention,

emerged a broader form of public opinion than

hitherto available in Korea. It is therefore an experi-

ence that merits serious attention from the commu-

nity of scholars interested in democratization.

Notes

1. Power to the People: The Report of Power: An Independent

Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy. London, 2006

http://www.powerinquiry.org/report/index.php

2. He also writes:

Confronted with the initial parts of the third wave –

democratization in Southern Europe, Latin America,

and a few countries in Asia (especially the Philip-

pines) – the U.S. democracy community rapidly

embraced an analytic model of democratic transi-

tion. It was derived principally from their own

interpretation of the patterns of democratic change

taking place, but also to a lesser extent from the

early works of the emergent academic field of

‘transitology,’ above all the seminal work of

Guillermo O’Donnell and Philippe Schmitter.

(Carothers 2003: 6)

3. See Carothers 2003, p. 14-17. He lists what he proposes are

five false assumptions of the ‘transition paradigm’. These

assumptions briefly are:

a) That there was a predictable democratization script that

could be expected to unfold.

b) That one could assume there would be a particular

sequence of stages.

c) That elections would not only provide legitimacy for

government officials, but also would “continuously deepen

political participation and accountability.” (Carothers, p. 15)

d) That legacies from the autocratic period would not

affect the democratization process.

e) That the previous power holders would not lock in the

power and resources they held.

4. Committee to Protect Journalists Country Report, December

31, 1998.

Bibliography

Carothers, Thomas. 2003. “The End of the Transition Para-

digm,” Journal of Democracy, Vol 13, No. 1, January, p. 5-21.

Chang Woo Young. 2005. “Online civic participation, and

political empowerment: online media and public opinion

formation in Korea,” Media, Culture, and Society, Vol 27, No.

Cho Hee-Yeon. 2001. “The Role of NGO’s in the Democratic

Transition,” Asian Solidarity Quarterly, No. 3, Winter.

Choi Jang-Jip. 2005. Democracy after Democratization: the

Korean Experience, translated by Lee Kyung-hee, Humanitas,

South Korea.

Committee to Protect Journalists. 1998. Country Report,

December 31.

Hong Yun-Gi. 2003. “Hope for a New Beginning: A Retrospec-

tive Look at the 2002 Presidential Election in Korea.

http://www.peoplepower21/publication/pub_view.php?article

_id=8519

Kim, Sunhyuk. 2000. The Politics of Democratization in Korea:

the Role of Civil Society, University of Pittsburgh Press,

Pittsburgh.

Lee Eun-Jeung. 2004. “E-democracy@work: the 2002 presiden-

tial election in Korea,” Asian Cyberactivism: Freedom of

Expression and Media Censorship, edited by Steven Gan,

James Gomez and Uwe Johannen. Friedrich Naumann Founda-

tion, Singapore, p. 622-642.

Lee Gunho. 2004 “Salience Transfer between Online and

Offline Media in Korea: Content Analysis of Four Traditional

Papers and Their Online Siblings,” Paper Submitted to the 2004

Toronto Convention of the Association for Education in

Journalism and Mass Communication, AEJMC, Nov. 24,2001

http://list.msu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0411c&L=aejmc&T=0

&F=&S=&P=25084

2006. Power to the People: The Report of Power: An Independ-

ent Inquiry into Britain’s Democracy. London.

http://www.powerinquiry.org/report/index.php

Rustow, Dankwart A. 1970 “Transitions to Democracy: Toward

a Dynamic Model,” Comparative Politics, April, p. 337-363.

Yun Young Min. 2003 “An Analysis of Cyber-Electioneering:

Focusing on the 2002 Presidential Election in Korea,” Korea

Journal, Autumn, p. 141-164.

Page 7

The Fight That Confronts

The Mighty, Mighty Workers

by John Goschka

Good morning to the heros of the workers and

retirees of this great world that we live in. My mind

is always busy trying to piece together this RAPE of

the workers in the world today and again I will share

some of my thoughts and concerns as we move

forward in this great struggle of ours.

As we all know, many of us have been asleep

for many years while the powers that be have laid the

trap that determines if we still have the will and

fortitude of our forefathers to fight for the preserva-

tion of the middle class of the working force in the

world today.

Many of us have enjoyed a good working life

with adequate benefits and a retirement that would

give us a decent way of life through our golden

years. We worked long and hard hours in the plants

to earn a secure future for our retirement years.

Many of us have lived through long and bitter

strikes to preserve and indeed add gains to what we

enjoy today. And, at some point we fell asleep as we

were led into the new way of partnership with the

corporations and we “let the good times roll” as we

continued on our way towards retirement.

The “BIG LIE” was now in place and many of

us never saw that “BIG LIE” because we were

earning a good wage with a good benefit package.

Many of us didn’t like what was happening with the

job speed ups and the added pressures that were

added to our work assignments but, we just contin-

ued to “let the good times roll”.

We were lulled into this magical new way of

doing business and forgot to watch our backs. As all

of the free trade agreements were being passed by

the powers that be, we actually believed that the

corporations would stand behind us and honor their

commitments and contract obligations as they made

more and more money.

The political process was and is being influ-

enced by the big lobbying dollars that can buy the

conscience of our elected politicians. This in turn has

set the stage for a corrupted court system where the

laws have been changed and allow corporations to

RAPE the workers and retirees.

Our UAW IEB (International Executive Board)

has gone along with this destructive path for the

workers and retirees and have become partners in

this great RAPE that we are enduring. They have

made of themselves leaders and dictators to preserve

and enhance what they them-selves stand to gain.

They are now in a concessionary mode (and

have been for years) and sell their contract proposals

with half truths (highlights). A half truth is a LIE.

They LIE to us and we pay for them to do it. We

continue to see our standard of living falling as they

ROB from us the gains that we have fought for.

The great disgrace to this concessionary LIE that

they are shoving down our throats is that there are no

concessions for themselves. They enjoy what they

have and indeed they will continue to hold on to

them while selling the membership out.

Do you really believe that they want to see a

strike and deplete the strike fund? They draw interest

from the strike fund. They see this fund as theirs.

You can bet that they will do everything within their

power to preserve the fund. Why would they want to

risk a loss of income during this great RAPE?

What will the last concessionary offer be to the

workers before the union is decertified? What half

truths (highlights) will they throw before the mem-

bership in the hopes of averting a strike? The wolves

are in their dens right now deciding what is good for

us. When they decide on the concessionary offer

they will show their pearly whites and we will finally

hear from them. They will talk with half truths and

take extra care to cover their fangs.

Mr. Miller [Steve Miller, CEO of Delphi] enters

into the scene and puts Delphi into bankruptcy. The

man would have us believe that this is for our bene-

fit. The man is a habitual liar and will let nothing

stop him in his quest to destroy Delphi and our lives.

The man is on a mission for money and power and

will try to crush any resistance that gets in his way.

He has met very little resistance in his past

RAPES so he can just smile and tell us that this is for

our own good. “Don’t strike because it won’t do you

any good.” “Let me do my thing, and I will just

move on to my new victim.” “I will tear out your

heart and soul and leave you in poverty, but it’s for

your own good.” “I leave my trail of misery and will

continue to do so.” “So, just step back and allow this

to happen.” “I will have the money and power that is

really yours”.

Our UAW IEB allows the corporations to buy

off the votes of older workers through retirement

(another trap). These are very cunning and calculated

Page 8

measures that will rear their ugly heads in our future.

Everything that we have ever worked for is

being taken from us. This is a slow process but if we

allow it to continue, it will happen. A little here, a

little there. We hold the hope that it will stop at some

point. Money, power and greed will crush any hopes

of this. Concessions will lead to more concessions

and more job losses.

We must STRIKE. We must put a stop to this

RAPE before we all become slaves to the corporate

world. We have many enemies as you all can see.

These enemies will have to be crushed one at a time.

Who is our biggest enemy? I don’t have a clue.

Politicians, courts, corporations, the Millers of the

world or our UAW IEB? The enemies surround us.

They are moving in for the kill.

This STRIKE will be a great learning process

for all of us. We learn by doing. We will learn how

to take our enemies down one at a time. We will

never agree on who is the biggest enemy. We know

who they are. We know that we have to begin some-

where.

We the workers are a mighty force. As a com-

bined force we will correct the injustices that have

been placed upon us. One enemy at a time. We learn

to walk before we can run. We are truly Soldiers Of

Solidarity and we will fight for our livelihoods and

dignity.

The day is fast approaching soldiers. Stand alert

and stand ready. We will fight the good fight and

stand as champions to an honorable cause.

In Solidarity

Suppression of a VOICE

by John Goschka

UAW 699 Retiree

Good morning to the hero’s of this great move-

ment of the workers and retirees who are making

their VOICE heard again.

WE ARE THE WORKERS, THE MIGHTY

MIGHTY WORKERS.

Our VOICE has been slowly but surely put into

silence over the years. We must regain that VOICE

and never allow it to be suppressed again.

The unions in America were formed to represent

and protect the workers and retirees in this great

nation of ours. They were to be our bargaining voice

and were formed to serve the VOICE of the member-

ship who pay union dues to be heard.

Slowly but surely over the years the union

representatives have MADE themselves LEADERS.

They have placed themselves to be IN CHARGE of

and or IN COMMAND of the membership who pay

for representation. Leaders WILL NOT represent.

They will lead and take command. The VOICE will

NOT be heard.

I would ask why our local union representation

will do nothing until they hear from their LEAD-

ERS? You have heard this comment on the television

and news many times over the past few months and

will continue to hear it. WE must put a stop to it.

THEY ARE NOT OUR LEADERS. They are

our representation. The WORKERS are the LEAD-

ERS and pay for representation. Our local union is

looking in the wrong direction. They should be

listening to the membership and directing our

VOICE “UP” to OUR highest representation.

I will tell you that over the years that I worked

for GM/Delphi even management recognized the

role of our union. I was ALWAYS asked if I wanted

union REPRESENTATION when warranted. I was

NEVER asked if I wanted to talk to my LEADERS.

Have you ever gone to a union meeting to have

your VOICE heard? If you talk the talk that our

union representation wants to hear, you will see the

smiles and pearly whites shining from the podium.

You be allowed to talk.

Use your Voice to be heard on a subject that the

union representation DOES NOT want to hear and

your VOICE will be silenced. You will then see their

twisted faces and the fangs will appear in place of

the pearly whites. Try it.

Our representation must be held accountable.

They must read the bylaws of the UAW Constitution

and follow them. They must read our contract books

and follow them.

How many of our representatives can go to our

contract book and show you where it says in writing

what they are telling you? LOL!! Most of them have

no clue as to what’s in the contract. YOU must hold

them accountable!!!!!

WE the membership must get our VOICE back.

The VOICE must go “UP” to OUR representatives.

Page 9

THEY ARE NOT OUR LEADERS. The VOICE

must go “UP” in order to have democracy within our

union.

WE must FIGHT to get this basic right back for

our membership. WE want a true democracy not a

dictatorship. OUR VOICE has been subdued. FIGHT

to get that VOICE back so that you are never left in

the dark again.

You have the RIGHT to know what our repre-

sentatives are negotiating or planning in these times

of uncertainty. YOUR VOICE IS NOT BEING

HEARD. OUR VOICE IS NOT BEING HEARD.

WHY NOT!!!

WE ARE THE WORKERS, THE MIGHTY

MIGHTY WORKERS. LISTEN TO WHAT WE

SAY OR THERE’LL BE HELL TO PAY. YOU can

make this happen. Will you? YOU have the VOICE

to make this happen. WE have the UNITED VOICE

to make this happen.

Do YOU want to make this happen???? Then

“ROAR” workers of the world, “ROAR.” The courts

have been bought and paid for. Our politicians have

been bought and paid for.

“ROAR” and be heard. “ROAR” and your

VOICE will be heard. The world can’t function

without the WORKERS. THIS IS TRUTH. “ROAR”

and get democracy back. “ROAR” for all of the

injustices that are being done to US. “ROAR” and

continue to “ROAR” until OUR collective VOICE is

heard once again.

No more “FAST TRACK” voting on contracts.

NO MORE CONCESSIONS. YOU, the UAW IEB

are our representatives. YOU ARE NOT OUR

LEADERS. WE, THE “WORKERS” ARE THE

LEADERS. LISTEN TO WHAT WE SAY OR

THERE’LL BE HELL TO PAY!!!!!!!!!!

In Solidarity

We Are the Workers

Good morning to my heros who fight for the workers

and retirees in this great world of ours.

I tried out the new “We are the workers” song when

we were at the protest rally in Detroit last Monday

and it appeared to be well received.

This was my first attempt to use this song and after

singing it a few times I felt that it should have more

of a message in it. The people that were at that rally

know the tune of the song.

I’m presenting an updated version of the song and

will use it at a future protest rally if there is no

objection to the wording in it.

Everywhere we go

People want to know

Who we are

What we stand for

So we tell them

We are the workers

The mighty, mighty workers

No more paycuts

No more givebacks

No more suffering

No more pain

What we want

Are our gains

Work to rule

Work to win

That’s our motto

For your sin

No more lies

No more sorrow

We will fight you

Till we win

We are the workers

The mighty, mighty workers

Listen to what we say

There’ll be hell to pay

In Solidarity

John Goschka

Local 699 Retiree

Live Bait & Ammo # 73

by Gregg Shotwell

While soldiers of solidarity chanted, “Steve

Miller’s got to go!” I chewed synthetic lasagna

warmed to room temp. I didn’t eat anything that

touched the meatballs, they looked like freeze dried

“Colorado oysters” and I eschewed the coffee which

Page 10

emanated an aroma reminiscent of high school

biology class. A levy of polite manners subdued the

normal aggressiveness of the free enterprise crowd

but my appetite was in a self protective mode, wary

and circumspect. I could have been described by

security guards as the guy with “a small dark look in

his face.”

While the corporati wallowed in the warm sty of

mutual flattery, the industrial landscape of Detroit

disintegrated all around us and a cold rain descended

on the luckless and the damned. The third world

status of Detroit’s inner city is emblematic of cities

all over the United States. The deterioration is not

accidental, it is not the by-product of capitalism’s

vaunted “creative destruction.” The destitution was

engineered for a purpose: to control labor costs.

Solidarity House is surrounded by sweatshops.

On the dais Miller appeared to be enjoying

himself. In Steve’s World that’s all there is to enjoy.

Despite our differences which are both wide and

substantial, Steve Miller and I do have some points

of agreement.

Point of Agreement #1: No partnership between

union and management.

Unlike Gettelfinger who displays all the social

movement of a chicken crossing the road (Must you

ask why?), Miller makes no bones about the ad-

versarial relationship between union and manage-

ment. On October 8, 2005 Miller shot jointness right

between the eyes. An obituary notice was nailed to

the door post of every GM-UAW local union hall.

On March 31, 2006 when Miller petitioned the

court to void the union contracts, I actually consid-

ered sending him a thank you card. Miller has done

more to organize shopfloor resistance than anyone in

the UAW.

#2: The problem isn’t globalization.

I agree. The problem is domestic. We have

failed to organize and the litany of excuses can’t

withstand the scrutiny of history.

Was it easy when Walter Reuther got his head

busted open at the Battle of the Overpass? Was it

easy when he took a double barrel shotgun blast in

the back? Was it easy when Victor Reuther was shot

in the face and blinded in one eye? Was it easy for

John L. Lewis to tell the Governor of Michigan that

if he sent in the National Guard to oust sitdown

strikers that ‘the militia will have the pleasure of

shooting me, too’? It has never been easy. It has

never been fair. The bosses have never been nice.

We can talk partnership until the outhouse blooms

roses, but it won’t change the stink of the bastards in

charge of our livelihoods. [Live Bait & Ammo #31:

excerpt from a speech made at the 33rd UAW

Constitutional Convention]

The UAW should have built a union hall across

the street from every transplant in America. Instead

we built a golf course at our Family Education

Center in Black Lake, MI. Our UAW International

reps have turned into caddies for “economic hitmen”

like Miller, Wagoner, and Ford.

Miller said, “Globalization gets blamed for this

outcome but it is only part of the story.” The full

story is, as Miller notes, less than 20% of the auto

parts industry is organized. Only two of the foreign

transplants located in the U.S. are organized. Instead

of organizing workers the UAW formed a partner-

ship with the Corps. As a result, rather than taking

workers out of the competition which is the goal of

unionism, workers are subjected to “a competitive

cost structure and modern operating agreements”

which impoverish families and strip workers of their

dignity.

Miller notes that transplants are competing “in

our backyard with good pay and benefits and flexible

work rules.” He declares that “productivity has

perhaps been more important than basic wage levels

in overturning the established order.” He conve-

niently ignores the enormous productivity gains of

UAW workers. We make as many vehicles and/or

parts as we did before with half as many workers.

“Flexible work rules” is simply coded language for

unrestricted authority to whip the horses, and purge

solidarity, democracy, and equality from the work-

place.

The competitive disadvantage of domestic auto

makers in the U.S. is a consequence of the UAW’s

failure to organize which begs the question: Why

would anyone want to join a union that is partners

with the boss and bargains for concessions?

If the UAW doesn’t take a stand at Delphi, a

stand that unites GM and Delphi UAW members and

the broader community of uninsured and unsecured

workers and retirees, the union busting plan embod-

ied by Miller’s brand of vulture capitalism will

spread like an epidemic. Retreat is not an option

Page 11

when your back is against the wall.

# 3: Miller recognizes we need ‘Broader based

health care programs’.

I agree. Where we differ on health care is that

for Miller it means transferring the cost from em-

ployers to workers. For soldiers of solidarity it

means universal health care.

Miller said that when workers retired at age “65

and then died at age 76”...the social contract inherent

in these programs seemed affordable. In The World

According to Steve, now that we stand a chance of

actually enjoying our fair share of those benefits, it’s

unreasonable.

He explained that in the old days “employers

passed along the costs to customers.” But now “since

their customers won’t pay for it when they have

choices,” it’s not viable. Miller asserts, “somebody

has to pay” and it isn’t going to be him and his gang

of shrugging Atlases.

Miller’s reasoning is fallacious. First of all,

Toyota isn’t selling vehicles cheaper than GM. So

“choices” that customers make have nothing to do

with health care or pensions. They make choices

based on personal preferences, not an automaker’s

legacy costs. But more significantly, the customer is

getting double billed.

As Miller explained, when the promises were

made, the cost was shifted to consumers. Where is

that money now? Rather than fulfilling their respon-

sibility to retirees by setting the money aside in a

trust fund, GM squandered it. GM like Delphi spent

our legacy on assets overseas and extravagant com-

pensation for executives. Now Miller proposes

passing the legacy cost on to taxpayers so that

consumers will in effect pay for the same thing

twice.

If taxpayers are going to get stuck with the bill,

the investment should have a commensurate return,

i.e., health care for everyone not just the privileged

few. Furthermore, the return should ensure a level

playing field for all employers. National health care

is the only viable social-economic solution to the

crisis in American industry and our communities.

If UAW members resist health care concessions

and connect the struggle to all of the uninsured

people in America, we may be able to leverage the

automakers into support for national health care. The

idea is not improbable. GM’s 2004 annual report to

stock holders stated: ....we need to encourage access

to affordable healthcare coverage for all our citizens.

It’s simply not acceptable for over 45 million Ameri-

cans to be without healthcare coverage. This causes

a tremendous cost shift to those that do provide

coverage, through higher bills to cover the costs of

the uninsured.

Neither Delphi workers nor the UAW as a whole

can succeed without broad public support. Such

support will not come until the UAW is perceived as

a partner in the pursuit of social and economic

justice for all, not just their own members. The

success of organizing in the thirties was due in part

to the public’s recognition that unions promote the

common good. We will succeed in organizing and

bargaining when the needs of the broader community

dovetail with the goals of the union. Forty-five

million Americans need our support.

The tide that raises all boats is social movement

unionism; that is, a strategy of confrontation that

links the struggle of one group with the struggle of

all groups; a strategy of concerted activity that

ensures a victory for one [GM-Delphi] is a victory

for all; a strategy for striking action that rings the

bell of liberty and justice in every American’s heart.

Miller’s attack is not confined to Delphi. His

goal is the degradation of all working people. Miller

insists we can no longer afford to pay good wages

and benefits. Soldiers of solidarity see it differently.

Our society can no longer afford extravagant rewards

for fraud and incompetence. We can no longer afford

to allow our legacy to be shipped overseas while our

own citizens are deprived of a decent standard of

living, quality education, health care, and security in

retirement. We can no longer afford to support

vulture capitalists. We can no longer tolerate the

bullshit that pervades The World According to Steve

by Steve Miller.

(sos, shotwell)

(http://www.soldiersofsolidarity.com/files/livebaita

mmo/lba73.html)

w w w .s o l d i ersofsolidarity.com

www.futureoftheunion.com

Order your “Miller Isn’t Worth a Buck” t-shirts at

Gregg[email protected]

Page 12

Powerful Interests Stifle

Innovation

Government, Business Conspire to Kill

Electric Car Technology

by Ronda Hauben

General Motors Corporation and its offspring

parts operation Delphi are currently laying off more

than 50,000 unionized workers in the U.S. The

companies claim that their North American opera-

tions are not profitable, and GM claims that it has to

do the layoffs since it is losing market share for its

cars.

Given the problems that GM claims it is having

in its North American operations, the newly released

film “Who Killed the Electric Car?” offers a helpful

framework from which to view the automaker’s

current actions.

The film tells a little-known but significant story

about corporate America and the U.S. government’s

failure to support innovation. Few in the U.S. or

elsewhere know that GM had produced and leased

800 electric cars, which dotted the roads of Califor-

nia in the second half of the 1990s.

This was a new and functioning technology, the

charged-at-home battery operated automobiles. The

EV1 proved not only a viable technology but also a

joy to the drivers. Yet, by 2006, all the cars, with the

exception of a few hidden away in some museums,

had been sent by GM to a crushing station in the

Arizona desert.

By this time, though, a set of activists who had

leased the cars and had come to love them, were

monitoring what GM was doing. The fact that GM

chose to destroy the cars rather than welcome the

support of and enthusiastic reception by their users,

highlights the disdain with which GM treated a new

technology that could have revolutionized its indus-

try and the corporation.

The film was released June 30, 2006, for view-

ers in New York and California, and will be shown

throughout the U.S. in the coming months. It raises

some serious and important questions about the

nature of corporate-government collusion in the U.S.

when it comes to the ability of a society to transition

to a new technology. This was similar to a problem

that plagued the former Soviet Union. The story of

what happened when a functioning electric car was

introduced in the U.S. helps to show the forces at

play that are hostile to a society’s ability to embrace

a new and needed technology.

The story starts in California in 1990. Plagued

by high levels of smog that were very damaging to

the health of its residents, the California Air Re-

source Board (CARB) adopted a regulation called

the Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandate. This

government entity set a series of goals for

automakers selling cars in the state. It required them

to produce a percentage of cars with zero emissions.

The regulation would require that automakers sell 2

percent ZEV’s in 1998, 5 percent in 2001 and 10

percent in 2003.

In January of 1990, GM introduced a car pow-

ered by a battery at the Los Angeles Auto Show. The

car was later called the EV1 (Electric Vehicle). By

December 1996, GM made cars available on lease

for U.S. $400-$500 a month. Later the lease rate was

reduced to $250-$300 a month.

By 2000, GM was leasing 800 of the EV1s it

had produced. Those leasing them found them

enjoyable to drive and that they needed much less

maintenance than older model cars. The batteries

could be charged in one’s garage overnight. There

was no need to purchase gasoline or to do mainte-

nance like oil changes. Though GM did not yet

mass-produce the cars nor provide favorable public-

ity to let people know that they were an option for

drivers, there were a number of people who learned

of the cars and were willing to go through the hur-

dles put up by GM to be able to lease a car.

The reluctance of GM to advertise the cars and

offer them to drivers, however, is part of a larger

story. The California regulations were an incentive

for GM and other automakers to invest in and de-

velop new technology. The state of California

subsidized each EV1 leased in California. The

automakers, however, did not welcome such incen-

tives. Instead, they formed a trade organization, the

American Automotive Manufacturing Association

(AAMA) and set out to try to stymie the regulations.

In March 1995, the AAMA circulated a confi-

dential proposal to develop a “grassroots education

campaign” to repeal the CARB ZEV program.

Andrew Card was then the president of the AAMA.

He would subsequently become chief of staff in the

George W. Bush White House, when the U.S.

Department of Justice joined the GM and Daimler

Chrysler lawsuit to end the CARB ZEV require-

Page 13

ments.

In January 2002, GM, Daimler Chrysler and

several auto dealerships sued CARB in U.S. District

Court in Fresno, California, to repeal the ZEV

mandate. In October 2002, the U.S. Department of

Justice filed a “friend of the court brief” supporting

the auto companies. The auto companies claimed

that California could not require zero emissions, as

this was an interference with the right of the federal

government to regulate fuel economy standards.

Also, the Bush administration gave support to

fuel cell vehicle technology, providing big financial

incentives for research. Such technology, however,

will take many years to develop, while the electric

car technology was already functioning.

In 2002, Alan C. Lloyd, the chair of CARB, was

named chair of the California Fuel Cell Partnership.

This meant that Lloyd had a conflict of interest with

regard to providing support for electric cars, as he

headed an organization promoting a competing

technology. Yet, Lloyd chaired the April 2003

CARB meeting, which decided to revise the ZEV

mandate. Automakers no longer had the incentive to

produce electric cars.

With this change in the regulation, GM an-

nounced that it would not renew the leases on the

EV1 cars. It reclaimed the vehicles and towed those

it had trouble reclaiming because of opposition to the

removal of the EV1s from operation.

The disappointed former lessees of the cars used

the Internet to form a group of activists hoping to

save their cars from destruction. They offered to buy

the cars and release GM from any obligation to

repair them, or other liability, but GM refused the

offer.

In March 2005, the cars were loaded onto

trucks, despite the efforts of some of the activists to

block the final trip of the cars to the crusher.

The film is important since it documents the

powerful forces that came together in the U.S. to

thwart the development and adoption of a vitally

needed new technology. It sets out to understand

how an automobile that didn’t pollute and that didn’t

rely on oil could be destroyed by the company that

successfully produced it. Though not a typical

detective plot, the film offers the viewer a cast of

suspects to consider when trying to understand how

the crime was committed.

Not surprisingly, GM, the Bush Administration,

and Bush’s former Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, are

among the suspects. So is Alan Lloyd, who presided

over the hearing where the ZEV mandate was butch-

ered. Another suspect is the oil industry. The film

documents how the oil industry bought up the battery

technology that made the EV1 work, not to develop

it, but to suppress it.

The film offers other suspects. It fails to indict

the press, however, and the fact that there was little

media attention to the fight by the activists against

the destruction of an important new technology.

There was little media attention to the question,

“Why was GM gutting a potentially highly profitable

component of its operations?”

GM and its offspring Delphi are currently the

subject of various federal government investigations

about their questionable accounting practices, which

have misrepresented expenses and unsold cars, thus

inflating profits. The opportunity that GM had to

pioneer a new and desired technology was thrown

into the crusher.

At a time when the U.S. government is occupy-

ing Iraq in order to control its oil, among other

geopolitical aims, the promise of an automobile not

dependent on oil is all the more desirable to the

many Americans who oppose the war in Iraq.

Just as the Bush administration conducted a

disinformation campaign to deceive public opinion

about its reasons for invading Iraq, so GM has

conducted a disinformation campaign to deceive

public opinion about its reasons for destroying the

electric car it had produced and successfully put into

operation.

The film helps to highlight the great need for

media that will shine a light on corporate and gov-

ernment plans to subvert the public interest. In the

absence of functioning mass media doing the needed

investigative journalism, it is a welcome event to

have the production and showing of a film like “Who

Killed the Electric Car?”

Page 14

Citizen Model for the Study

of the Internet

New Technology Demands New

Paradigm, Methodology

by Ronda Hauben

[Editor’s note: The Presidency of the European

Union (EU) rotates among its member states every

six months. In July 2006, Finland will assume the

presidency for the second time. Recently Ronda

Hauben was at a conference on “Technology and

Rethinking European Borders” in Lappeenranta,

Finland.

The theme of the conference related to the

problem of borders and the role that technology has

played in the construction of the European Union.

Following is an edited version of her talk presented

at the conference.]

My last visit to Finland was in December 1999,

when Finland last had the EU presidency. I was

invited to speak at a very interesting conference of

NGOs from all over Europe that took place in

Tampere, Finland. The title of the conference was

“Citizen’s Agenda NGO Forum 2000.”

It was held

to herald in the new millennium. Some at the confer-

ence had just returned from the 1999 World Trade

Organization (WTO) protests in Seattle in the U.S.

The Citizen’s Agenda NGO Forum 2000 put on

the table the problem that citizens in Europe, as well

as citizens in the U.S. (as shown in Seattle), were

feeling the problem of a lack of power. The EU

conference demonstrated the efforts of citizens to

pressure their governments to maintain the social

institutions and policies so vital to the fight against

the harmful effects of globalization. I presented a

talk at the conference exploring the question of

whether the Internet could be helpful for citizens.

The talk was titled, “Is the Internet a Laboratory for

Democracy?”

In July 2006 Finland will again assumes the

Presidency of the EU. The problem of the citizen is

again an issue in the EU, as it is in the U.S. What, if

any, is the connection between this conference on the

history of technology and European borders and the

problem of the citizen in 2006?

The paper I submitted for this conference

discusses the history of the Internet and the role that

it has played in helping to make it possible for the

citizen to communicate across the borders of diverse

networks.

I want to propose that at its essence, the

Internet is about communication – communication

across borders. Similarly, communication is vital to

those who desire to act as citizens in these times.

The Citizen’s Agenda Forum demonstrated that

the border that citizens have to be able to cross in

their communication is the border posed by their

elected representatives, who all too often are not

interested in hearing the ideas and views of the

citizens. This problem – finding a way to have the

representative system recognize a means of involv-

ing citizens in the decisions that are made – is a

problem that was identified and discussed at the

workshop, “Civic Participation, Virtual Democracy

and the Net” held during the Citizen’s Agenda 2000

Forum. Research exploring whether the Internet

could help citizens to bridge the borders blocking

such communication was discussed.

The problem of involving the citizens in the

affairs of the EU, which was the subject of the

Citizen Agenda Forum in 1999, had similarly been

the focus of research and discussion in the EU in

1995-96. The debate over the ratification of the

Maastricht treaty “revealed that there was still a

degree of skepticism about European Integration”

among the citizens of Europe, explains the EU

document “Preparing for the 21

Century.” The

authors of this document explain that the “Maastricht

Treaty makes citizenship an evolving concept.”

In a paper published in 1996, after the meeting

of the EU’s Intergovernmental Conference, “The

1996 IGC: European Citizenship Reconsidered,”

Leszek Jesien, a researcher and advisor to the Polish

government on EU integration, explores the problem

of creating a European form of citizenship.

Jesien argues that the bedrock principle of

democracy is what legitimizes a government, and

that is the “principle that power can be held and

governance exercised only with the consent of the

governed.”

A sign that there is a lack of such legitimacy, he

proposes, is when “men and women distrust the

institutions of their state.” Thus, Jesien identifies as

a necessary aspect of democratic legitimacy “the

need to find modern ways for [the] proper expression

of the political will of the citizens.”

In the course of his research Jesien identified the

ability to participate in the affairs of the state as the

essential aspect of citizenship. But he still had a

Page 15

problem of determining how there could be a form of

citizenship that was different from that of belonging

to a nation.

To solve the problem, Jesien proposed as a

model the role of the netizen – Internet users who act

as citizens of the Net. Jesien recognized that the

netizen was an active participant in the affairs of the

Net. Jesien referred to the work of Michael Hauben,

co-author of the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Hauben did

pioneering research which provided a conceptual

foundation for the social phenomenon of the netizen.

In his paper about European construction, Jesien

quotes Hauben’s description of the netizen:

Netizens are Net Citizens... these people are

... those who... make [the Net] a resource of

human beings. These netizens participate to

help make the Net both an intellectual and

a social resource.

Jesien recognized that just as the EU was having

trouble determining how to develop a concept of

citizenship, a related form of citizenship was being

developed online. Jesien wrote:

At the time the European Union struggles

to shape the European citizenship with

much effort and little success, the other

citizenship — Netizenship emerges.

What a rare researcher Jesien is, able to not only

identify the significant aspect of the problem he was

pursuing, but also to see a model for a solution from

what would seem on the surface to be an unrelated

phenomenon. Jesien proposed that European “nego-

tiators and... political leaders should look at this

phenomenon with sympathy and attention.”

I have taken a significant portion of the time

allotted for my talk to focus on one aspect of my

paper. I believe that this aspect is worthy of the time

for several reasons. One is that it focuses on a

serious problem of European construction and of the

crisis of democracy worldwide. A second is that

once a problem was identified and studied, a solution

to it was found in a model which emerged from the

new technology, from the technology of the Internet.

Third is that there is something new and significant

to be learned from paying attention to technology

and to the social phenomena which emerge as a

result of the technology.

While this example on the surface doesn’t refer

to the problem of borders or boundaries, the rele-

vance to the theme of this conference becomes

clearer when one considers that an essential aspect of

the Internet has to do with the problem of making

communication possible across the borders or bound-

aries of dissimilar but interconnected networks.

My paper describes the means found to solve the

communication problem facing the Internet pioneers.

Their breakthrough was the design and creation of

gateways to perform the functions needed to support

communication across the borders or boundaries of

dissimilar networks.

While the design of these gateways is only a part

of the design for the Internet, it helps to demonstrate

that a significant technical model was developed to

help to solve the problem of communication across

boundaries or borders of dissimilar networks. (One

could add that an aspect of the problem was that

these early computer networks were or would be

under the political ownership and administration of

diverse entities.) Similarly, the netizen provides a

model for a social phenomenon that has made it

possible to solve the problem of citizenship across

borders or boundaries, a problem Jesien identified as

relevant to EU construction.

I am proposing that the study of the origin and

development of the Internet and of the netizen is a

fruitful arena for research, as something new has

been created and the research can make it possible to

learn about the newly emerging technology and the

newly emerging social processes that it brings into

being.

Not only is the study of the Internet a means of

learning about collaboration across technical and

social borders or boundaries, it is also true that the

Internet provides a platform to nourish and support

such collaborative research.

The significance of this research is highlighted

by some observations about the nature and needs of

new technology like the Internet that are presented in

the work of a British researcher writing about the

history of technology and engineering. In his article

“Engineering Disclosing Models,” Michael Duffy

argues that not only is it important to recognize the

nature of the new and emerging technical and engi-

neering developments, but also that the research to

document these new developments will require new

models and methodologies.

Duffy argues that these new engineering and

technical developments represent a change in the

conceptual paradigm as fundamental as the change

described in the book The Elizabethan World Picture

Page 16

by Tillyard. This book described the changed para-

digm in the Elizabethan period that made it possible

to discard the models of the old world of fire, air,

earth, and water, and to substitute in their place a

science that would focus on the nature of the phe-

nomena being observed in order to determine their

underlying principles and scientific laws. This

paradigm, Duffy explains, led to the discovery of

thermodynamics and mechanics and other scientific

explanations that made possible the industrial revo-

lution. Duffy proposes that the new technologies of

our time are very different from the machines and

systems which built and powered the former phases

of industrialization.

Similarly, the new kinds of industry and tech-

nology being created require a new conceptual

apparatus adequate for interpreting the new physical

and biological phenomena. I would add that a new

conceptual apparatus is needed to understand and

develop the social phenomena that the new technol-

ogy brings into being.

There is, Duffy argues, a need for a new history

of engineering and technology and a new methodol-

ogy that will focus on concepts and models as the

basis for this new history. Essential for this is a need

to focus on the actual technology and the new social

forms that emerge as part of these developments. I

want to propose that the new technologies like the

Internet also require a new research agenda to

support the study and understanding of the changes

that they have introduced into our society.

Even the simplest model can affect a revolution,

Duffy observes, referring to the importance of the

application of the model of the semi-permeable

membrane from chemistry being transferred to

describe the model of the heart by diastolic and

systolic action.

Similarly, the model of gateways and the netizen

are significant new models to help open up the study

of communication across boundaries or borders of

dissimilar systems. Citizens seeking to find a way to

impact the decisions made in their society may well

find that they can learn from the experiences and

models that have developed on the Internet.

Just as Duffy is arguing for a new methodology

appropriate to the study of new engineering develop-

ments, so I want to argue for such a new methodol-

ogy for the study of the Internet that will focus on

what is new, on how it was created, and on what its

impact has been. As Geoff Long, in a book chapter

titled, “Why the Internet Still Matters for Asia’s

Democracy,” argues:

“The Internet is fundamentally differ-

ent from any previous media communica-

tions technology... The Internet was devel-

oped using a participatory model that has

its own democratic traditions... The Internet

itself is still evolving ... the full story has

yet to be written.”

Notes:

1. For the program of the conference see “Launch of the

Tensions of Europe Research Programme,” Lappeenranta,

Finland May 24. http://www.lut.fi/eki/toe2006/files/26.pdf

2. The Citizens’ Agenda NGO Forum 2000 was held from the

3rd to 5th of December 1999 in Tampere, Finland.

3. See “Communicating Across the Boundaries of Dissimilar

Networks: The Creation of the Internet and the Emergence of

the Netizen.”

4. See, for example, Seija Ridell, “Manse Forum: a local

experiment with web-mediated civic publicness” [PDF]; Lasse

Peltonen, “Civic forums, virtual publicness and practices of

local democracy”; Ronda Hauben, “Is the Internet a Laboratory

for Democracy?”

5. Leszek Jesien, “The 1996 IGC: European Citizenship

Reconsidered.”

6. Michael Duffy, “Engineering Disclosing Models,”

Helvelieus, edited by Oktawian Nawrot, University of Gdansk,

2004, p. 22-64.

7. From Asian Cyberactivism, edited by Steven Gan et al, 2004,

p. 72.

The opinions expressed in articles are those of their

authors and not necessarily the opinions of the

Amateur Computerist newsletter. We welcome sub-

missions from a spectrum of viewpoints.

Page 17

EDITORIAL STAFF

Ronda Hauben

William Rohler

Norman O. Thompson

Michael Hauben

(1973-2001)

Jay Hauben

The Amateur Computerist invites submissions. Articles

can be submitted via e-mail: [email protected]

A two issue surface mail subscription costs $10.00

(U.S.). Send e-mail to [email protected] for details.

Permission is given to reprint articles from this issue in

a non profit publication provided credit is given, with

name of author and source of article cited.

ELECTRONIC EDITION

All issues of the Amateur Computerist are on-line and

available via e-mail. To obtain a free copy of any issue

or a free e-mail subscription, send a request to:

[email protected] or [email protected]

Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are

available on the World Wide Web:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/

Page 18