The Amateur
Computerist
Summer 2006 Netizens, Democracy and Labor Volume 14 No. 2
Table of Contents
Editorial: Is Democracy Working?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 1
Critique Of Democratization In South Korea. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4
Delphi: Fight that Confronts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 15
Suppression of a VOICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 18
We are the workers (song). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 20
Delphi: Live Bait & Ammo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 22
“Who Killed the Electric Car”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 26
Internet: Citizen Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 30
Editorial: Is Democracy Working?
“Is Democracy Working?” was the theme recently of an interna-
tional conference of political scientists held in Japan July 9-13, 2006.
1
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 contribu-
tion 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 conserva-
Webpage: http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/
Page 1
tive 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.
2
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 History of Technology. The theme of the confer-
Page 2
ence 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.
Page 3
Carothers’ Critique of the Transition
Paradigm and 2002 Presidential
Election Campaign in South Korea
by Ronda Hauben
I - Preface
The mass demonstrations in France in April 2006 in opposition to
the youth employment law (CNE) and the mass demonstrations in Nepal
protesting the actions of the monarchy, reveal the serious mass dissatis-
faction with the political processes 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 dissatisfaction with
the political processes in Great Britain and the U.S.
1
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 democratizing 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 expected to
develop.
Page 4
One such critique is developed by Thomas Carothers, in his article
“The End of the Transition 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 Ronald 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 organizations 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)
2
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.”
3
He argues that researchers interested in
democratization need to shed the lens colored by these prior assump-
tions. When analyzing the democratization process in a country, he
proposes 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 democratization 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 democra-
tization.
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 16
th
President of South Korea.
Roh’s election is a sign of the new found power of the Internet and
Page 5
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 democratization 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 democratization.
Instead it can be expected that they will inherit at least some of the
forms and power structures from their past. These countries have a
handicap, 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 democratization 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 Democratization. Choi discusses how the holders of
power from the autocratic period of Korean history, have continued to
dominate Korean politics and economics 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
entrenchment of the class structure.” (Choi 2005: 48)
Choi argues that the forces which have continued 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
Page 6
hard work and education will make it possible for most people to
advance in their society. (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 communist 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 emphasizes 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 functions with respect to private individuals, “(I)t arbitrarily
intervenes and defines a person’s intellectual and emotional spheres,
calling a person ‘ideologically 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
Page 7
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 conservative 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 structure 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 successfully 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
explains, “a fact that many analysts say contributed to the crash.” He
admits, “We were guilty of printing government statements without
checking the facts.”
4
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 2
nd
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%,
Page 8
explains Lee Eun-Jeung. (Lee, Eun-Jeung: 624) She quotes Sisa Journal,
5 January 2002 “Never had a politician won elections against 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 publications?
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 practice 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 candi-
dates was most desired. The candidates included in the poll were Rhee
In-je, a representative in the National Assembly 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.
Page 9
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 candidacy. Its
founding documents included a section committing Nosamo to participa-
tory 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 Korea.” (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
themselves ‘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 conservative major print publications and the
Page 10
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)
“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 Campaign
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 citizens 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 = prevail-
ing opinion.’ (Yun 2003: 143)
Lee’s summary is similarly optimistic. “In a sense the netizens
mobilised themselves into the political realm,” she writes, “exercising
Page 11
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 developments.
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 observers. 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
discussion 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 controversy of ideas that
developed during the 2002 election 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
Page 12
conditions make democracy possible and what conditions make it
thrive?” This, I want to argue is a critical question for political scientists
who are trying to develop a theoretical analysis of democracy. Rustow
begins a process of exploring the genesis of a democratic society by a
study of the origins and development of democratization in Turkey and
in Sweden. Rustow’s conclusion 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 democratization of Korea. Out of the debate and
dissension, emerged a broader form of public opinion than hitherto
available in Korea. It is therefore an experience that merits serious
attention from the community 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
Philippines) – the U.S. democracy community rapidly embraced an analytic
model of democratic transition. 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
Page 13
they held.
4. Committee to Protect Journalists Country Report, December 31, 1998.
Bibliography
Carothers, Thomas. 2003. “The End of the Transition Paradigm,”
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. 6.
Cho Hee-Yeon. 2001. “The Role of NGO’s in the Democratic Transi-
tion,” 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 Retrospective 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 presidential
election in Korea,” Asian Cyberactivism: Freedom of Expression and
Media Censorship, edited by Steven Gan, James Gomez and Uwe
Johannen. Friedrich Naumann Foundation, 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
Page 14
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 Independent
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.
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 preservation 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
Page 15
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 corpora-
tions 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 continued 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 influenced 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
themselves 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
Page 16
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 membership 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 benefit. 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 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
Page 17
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 somewhere.
We the workers are a mighty force. As a combined 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 movement 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
Page 18
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 LEADERS? 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 LEADERS 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 representa-
tion 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. 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.
Page 19
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 representatives 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.
Page 20
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
Page 21
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 emanated an aroma reminis-
cent 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 capital-
ism’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 adversarial relationship between union and management. 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
Page 22
union contracts, I actually considered 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
33
rd
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 trans-
plants located in the U.S. are organized. Instead of organizing workers
the UAW formed a partnership 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 conveniently ignores the
enormous productivity gains of UAW workers. We make as many
Page 23
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 workplace.
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 embodied by
Miller’s brand of vulture capitalism will spread like an epidemic. Retreat
is not an option 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 employers 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 responsibility 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 compensation for executives. Now Miller proposes
Page 24
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 Americans 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 bargain-
ing 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,
Page 25
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/livebaitammo/lba73.html)
www.soldiersofsolidarity.com www.futureoftheunion.com
Order your “Miller Isn’t Worth a Buck” t-shirts at:
Gregg[email protected]
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 operations 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 California 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.
Page 26
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
industry and the corporation.
The film was released June 30, 2006, for viewers 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 Resource 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% ZEV’s in 1998, 5% in 2001 and
10% in 2003.
In January of 1990, GM introduced a car powered 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 maintenance like oil changes. Though GM did not yet mass-produce
the cars nor provide favorable publicity 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 hurdles put up by GM to
Page 27
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 develop
new technology. The state of California subsidized each EV1 leased in
California. The automakers, however, did not welcome such incentives.
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 confidential 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 requirements.
In January 2002, GM, Daimler Chrysler and several auto dealer-
ships 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 announced 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
Page 28
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 butchered.
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 occupying 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,
Page 29
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 government 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?”
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.
1
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.”
2
It was held to herald in the new millennium. Some at the
conference 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
Page 30
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.
3
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
involving 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.
4
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
st
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
Page 31
Reconsidered,” Leszek Jesien, a researcher and advisor to the Polish
government on EU integration, explores the problem of creating a
European form of citizenship.
5
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 partici-
pate in the affairs of the state as the essential aspect of citizenship. But
he still had a 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 partici-
pate to help make the Net both an intellectual and a social
resource.
Jesien recognized that just as the EU was having trouble determin-
ing 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 Euro-
pean 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
Page 32
model for a solution from what would seem on the surface to be an
unrelated phenomenon. Jesien proposed that European “negotiators
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 relevance 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 boundaries 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 phenome-
non 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
Page 33
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 observa-
tions 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 engineer-
ing developments, but also that the research to document these new
developments will require new models and methodologies.
6
Duffy argues that these new engineering and technical develop-
ments represent a change in the conceptual paradigm as fundamental as
the change described in the book The Elizabethan World Picture by
Tillyard. This book described the changed paradigm 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 phenomena 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
revolution. 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 technology 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 technology brings into being.
There is, Duffy argues, a need for a new history of engineering and
technology and a new methodology 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
Page 34
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 developments, so I want to argue for such a
new methodology 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 different from any previous
media communications technology.... The Internet was
developed using a participatory model that has its own demo-
cratic traditions.... The Internet itself is still evolving...the full
story has yet to be written.”
7
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 3
rd
to 5
th
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?”
Page 35
5. Leszek Jesien, “The 1996 IGC: European Citizenship Reconsidered.”
6. Michael Duffy, “Engineering Disclosing Models,” Helvelieus, edited by Oktawian
Nawrot, University of Gdansk, 2004, pp. 22-64.
7. From Asian Cyberactivism, edited by Steven Gan et al, 2004, p. 72.
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] 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.
The opinions expressed in articles are those of their authors and not
necessarily the opinions of the Amateur Computerist newsletter. We
welcome submissions from a spectrum of viewpoints.
ELECTRONIC EDITION
ACN Webpage:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ All issues of the Amateur
Computerist are on-line. Back issues of the Amateur Computerist are available at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/Back_Issues/
All issues can be accessed from the Index at:
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf
Page 36
