The Amateur

Computerist

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

Summer 2016

Netizens, South Korea and Participatory Democracy

Volume 29 No. 2

Table of Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page 1

Celebrate 20

Anniversary of Netizens . . . . . . . . Page 2

South Korea’s Candlelight Protests . . . . . . . . . . . Page 3

South Korea’s Blue House Scandal . . . . . . . . . . . Page 4

Korean Candlelight Model for More Democracy . Page 8

Candlelight Demos: Laboratory for Democracy Page 10

Significance of the Net and the Netizens . . . . . Page 15

Rise of Netizen Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 21

What Is of Value to Me On the Net . . . . . . . . . . Page 35

New News Forms Can Improve Policy Making . Page 36

Doing Democracy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 47

Netizens Celebrate a Decade of Activism . . . . . Page 49

Welcome to the 21

Century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 50

Introduction

In his research and writing about the impact

the net and netizens could have on the future struggle

for more democracy, Michael Hauben wrote:

We are seeing a revitalization of soci-

ety. The frameworks are being rede-

signed from the bottom up. A new

more democratic world is becoming

possible.

(“The Net and the Netizens: The Im-

pact the Net has on People’s Lives”)

While the netizen research and writing by

Hauben demonstrates the potential contribution by the

netizen and the net toward a “new more democratic

world” that Hauben predicted could come into exis-

tence, the practices being developed in the Candle-

light Revolution in South Korea are exploring how to

make this potential a reality.

This issue of the Amateur Computerist is dedi-

cated to both marking the 20

Anniversary of the

publication of the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet and to recognizing

the significance of the Candlelight Revolution that

has emerged in South Korea over the past two de-

cades.

The recent candlelight demonstrations that

gripped South Korean society for six months (from

October 2016 until March 2017) succeeded in achiev-

ing the impeachment and then prosecution of the

president, Park Geun-hye, for the corrupt activities

she and her colleagues were part of.

Two of the articles in the issue, “South Ko-

rea’s Candlelight Protests” and “South Korea’s Blue

House” provide background on the particular devel-

opments of the 2016-2017 candlelight demonstra-

tions.

The significant element of what has happened

in South Korea this past year, however, is only

secondarily whether the former public and private

parties will be adequately punished for their abuse of

the public. More important is the fact that the citizens

of South Korea not only succeeded in determining the

public interest but also in finding a means to direct

the politicians toward implementing their public

interest obligations.

How this has been accomplished needs to be

understood and built on.

The article “Korean Candlelight Model for

More Democracy” summarizes some few of the

analyses contributed by researchers and others toward

exploring the goal of the Candlelight Revolution, i.e.,

to provide a means beyond representative democracy,

for a new form of democracy that supports the partici-

pation of the grassroots in more of the decisions that

determine the present and future of society.

These recent developments, however, build on

a longer tradition of candlelight demonstrations in

South Korea.

One critical aspect of the 2008 candlelight

demonstration which lasted for 106 days was the role

of netizens in helping to explore the political alterna-

Page 1

tives to representative democracy. The article “The

Candlelight Demonstrations in South Korea as a

Laboratory for Democracy” explores this important

2008 precedent.

The article “The Rise of Netizen Democracy:

A Case Study of Netizens Impact on Democracy in

South Korea” puts candlelight demonstrations into the

context of earlier South Korean netizen activities.

The article “Considerations on the Significance of the

Net and the Netizens” explores how the pioneering

research and writing by Michael Hauben recognized

that along with the development of the Internet was

the emergence of the netizens. Netizens, for Hauben

identified those online citizens who devoted time and

effort to achieve the public interest goals that Netizen

empowerment and contributions make possible. The

article also considers contributions by computer

pioneer JCR Licklider and media theorist Mark Poster

to formulating a theory of the nature and importance

of the netizen phenomena.

Other articles in the issue help to put these

developments into the broader context that is being

developed through the Candlelight demonstrations in

South Korea.

[Editor’s Note: The following is a proposal made to

the re:publica 2017 Conference organizers for a

celebration of the 20

Anniversary of the print publi-

cation of the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. It was accepted.]

Celebrate 20

Anniversary of

Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the

Internet

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Short Thesis:

“Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a

Netizen (a Net Citizen),” wrote Michael Hauben in

1993 when he discovered that along with the Internet

there had emerged a new form of citizen and citizen-

ship. He called this new form of citizen “netizen.”

The article Hauben wrote introducing his research and

the concept of Netizen to the world soon became the

first chapter of the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Come celebrate the

Anniversary of this book with us.

Description:

In 1993 Michael Hauben recognized that

along with the Internet there had emerged the netizen.

He observed that the netizen was not all users, but the

online user who recognized the empowerment the Net

made possible and who sought to utilize this

empowerment to contribute to the Net and the bigger

world it was part of.

This May marks the 20

Anniversary of the

print edition of Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet. The book was first pub-

lished online and then in a print edition in English and

in a Japanese translation.

We want to mark this occasion by a presenta-

tion celebrating the milestone the book represents.

While there are many publications exploring the

social impact of the Internet, it was and continues to

be rare for a book or other publication to document

and make the case for the importance of recognizing

the social impact of the Net and Netizens.

Our presentation will explore the historic and

scientific roots of the phenomenon, the early vision,

the research that led to the recognition of the emer-

gence of the netizens and the continuing development

of both the theory and practice of netizens and

netizenship. Several names stand out in the history of

this achievement. Among these are J C R Licklider

for the guiding vision, Michael Hauben for the pio-

neering research and scientific insight for recognizing

that along with the Internet had emerged the Netizen,

and Mark Poster’s work realizing that the netizen

could be the social force waging a successful struggle

against the harmful effects of globalization.

The netizens have carried forward the torch so

the Internet can continue to evolve and thrive.

Particularly, the contributions of the South Korean

and Chinese netizens have turned the concept of

netizens into a national laboratory for democracy.

We plan two informative presentations. One

presentation will include a case study of the candle-

light revolution by citizens and netizens in South

Korea which demonstrates in practice the efforts

toward forging a new governance model for participa-

tory democracy. The second will argue that netizens

are having a sustained impact and are contributing to

Page 2

developing Chinese society in the direction of greater

citizen participation.

There will be time for comments, contribu-

tions and discussion by those joining us for the

presentation. Leif Kramp has written about re:publica,

“Every May, Berlin transforms into the European

capital of ‘netizens’.” What more fitting venue to

mark the 20

Anniversary of the print edition of

Netizens than in Berlin as part of re:publica 2017.

Come celebrate this 20

Anniversary with us.

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared on

Feb. 7, 2017 on East Asia Forum at:

http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2017/02/07/south-kor

east-candlelight-protests/]

South Korea’s Candlelight

Protests

by Sun-Chul Kim

Political protest has always propelled South

Korea’s democratization. It was through the mass

uprising in April 1960 that South Koreans ended the

autocratic rule of Syngman Rhee. The democracy that

followed the ‘April Revolution’ was short-lived, but

the subsequent military regimes of Park Chung-hee

(1961–79) and Chun Doo-hwan (1980–87) had to

cope with a recalcitrant opposition that tirelessly

protested authoritarian rule. In June 1987, another

mass mobilization eventually forced the authoritarian

rulers to concede democratic reforms.

Political protest did not slow down with South

Korea’s transition to democracy. On the contrary,

street protest became the new normal as democratic

space expanded. Students, workers, civic organiza-

tions, and even opposition political parties and law-

makers took to the streets in protest of government

policies. Observing the pervasiveness of protest in

South Korea in 2008, an Al Jazeera reporter came to

the conclusion that ‘protest has become part of [South

Korean] culture.’ Given this context, the recent

candlelight protests that erupted in response to the

scandals of President Park Geun-hye and her confi-

dante, Choi Soon-sil, were no isolated event.

The use of candlelight as a form of protest

traces back to 2002 when two teenage girls were

killed by U.S. armored vehicles on military training

maneuvers. A proposal for a candlelight vigil circu-

lated among internet cafes after the news spread that

the U.S. soldiers responsible for the deaths of the

Korean girls had been acquitted in the U.S. court-

-martial. Thousands gathered in Gwanghwamun

Square to commemorate the victims. The candlelight

vigil was picked up by activist groups and turned into

a symbol of the movement against the perceived

injustice. Ever since 2002, mass demonstrations in

South Korea have taken the form of candlelight

protest.

The advent of the candlelight protest signified

important changes distinct from earlier protests. In the

past, it was impossible to picture a protest scene in

South Korea without conjuring up the image of

violent clashes and the exchange of teargas and

Molotov cocktails between protesters and riot police.

Violent protests persisted into the 1990s, well after

South Korea’s democratic transition, but the emer-

gence of the candlelight protest offered a new plat-

form that enabled protesters to convey their serious-

ness of intent through peaceful means.

Specifically, the candlelight protests of the

past three months have been remarkable in their

absence of violence, despite the high political tension

and massive number of protesters roaming the streets.

On the one hand, this had to do with greater tolerance

on the part of the police and favorable court rulings

that opened up new marching routes previously

unavailable to the protesters – a trend not uncommon

during times of revolutionary change. But it also had

much to do with the adept handling of the rallies and

marches by the organizers.

The weekly candlelight protests were orga-

nized by Emergency Action for Park’s Resignation, a

coalition of more than 1500 civic organizations. In the

past, large coalitions were often plagued by fierce

infighting among competing political groups. To

avoid discord, the anti-Park coalition set rules for

decision making based on the lowest common denom-

inator among participant organizations.

Its role was focused on providing political

space for citizens of all walks of life to come and

express their views freely. From booking celebrities

to setting up lost-and-found services, the coalition

paid close attention to the details of the rallies to

make them more accommodating to all.

Combined with unprecedented levels of

frustration and anger among South Koreans, the

outcome was explosive. Week after week, the coali-

Page 3

tion successfully mobilized millions of South Koreans

on the streets of dozens of cities and channeled their

anger into a powerful political message. Eventually,

the candlelight protests pushed reluctant lawmakers to

cast their vote to impeach the president in the Na-

tional Assembly, marking one of the most significant

events in South Korea’s political history.

The success of the anti-Park candlelight

protests illuminates the growth and maturity of civil

society in South Korea. At the same time, it brings to

attention the weakness of its party system as a mecha-

nism for political mediation. South Korean political

parties have been characterized by their extreme

fluidity, by Mi-yeon Hur which involves frequent

splits, mergers and name changes.

In the absence of stable political parties with

which to communicate political agendas and develop

a shared identity, civil society organizations often

bypassed the mediation of political parties when it

came to promoting new agendas or resisting policies.

Consequently, direct action was frequently used as

leverage vis-à-vis the decision makers.

The latest candlelight protest set an unusual

example in that street protesters and opposition

lawmakers found themselves in sync throughout the

impeachment campaign as well as the subsequent

legal proceedings. But this rare accord is unlikely to

be sustained as the ruling party goes through another

split and the fractured opposition field prepares for an

early presidential election in late spring, pending

confirmation of President Park’s impeachment by the

Constitutional Court.

Lacking a reliable partner in party politics, the

anti-Park coalition will likely break into multiple

political lines as the competition for the president’s

office deepens. Precisely because they lack reliable

partners in party politics, however, they will most

likely get together again and return to street politics

when there is another serious breach of democratic

principle. Protest politics will continue in South

Korea.

Sun-Chul Kim is Assistant Professor of Korean Studies at the

Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, Emory

University, Atlanta, Georgia.

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared on the

E-International Relations website* on Feb 21, 2017

at:

http://www.e-ir.info/2017/02/21/south-koreas-blue

house-scandal/.]

South Korea’s Blue House

Scandal

Since October 2016, every weekend, Gwangh-

wamun Square in Seoul has been flooded with hun

dreds of thousands of people demanding the ouster of

current South Korean President Park Geun-hye. Park

faces allegations that she helped her close confidante,

Choi Soon-sil, extract money from South Korean

conglomerates to use for personal gain, while Choi

Soon-sil was arrested on charges of fraud and abuse

of power. Pundits outside South Korea tend to focus

on the unusual and sensational aspects of the issue,

such as Choi’s shamanism, how much control Choi

enjoyed over Park, or when and how Park would step

down. However, these aspects hardly give a clear

understanding of the Blue House

scandal and the

series of ongoing public demonstrations in South

Korea. The core issue amid the chronic scandals

engulfing South Korea is the country’s distorted

economy and immature democracy. The title of “11

largest economy in the world” is the wrapping paper

that covers the political discrepancies and socio-

economic disparities that South Korean society is

currently experiencing. Outsiders must understand

that what South Korean citizens are demanding is not

only the removal of an incapable and a pathetic ruler

but also meaningful changes to the rigged economic

and political structure.

More specifically, what South Koreans want

to achieve is the completion of the 1987 democracy

movement and revision of the chaebol-driven eco-

nomic system.

To fully grasp what is actually going

on in South Korea, people must understand how

defective and inefficient the South Korean political

system has been and how South Korean presidents

with their imperialist power have pursued economic

policies that have deteriorated economic justice and

social equality. This will allow people to understand

that the recent candlelight protests are an extension of

the pro-democracy movement that started decades

ago, how such detestable leaders were able to occupy

the Blue House, and why South Korean people call

Page 4

their home country “Hell Chosun.”

South Korea’s Democracy: Already but

Not Yet

South Korea is witnessing what I would call a

“civil revolution without bloodshed,” a citizen strug-

gle against authoritarian rule and for a true democ-

racy. Politically, South Korea has been under a quasi-

democratic system where public opinion is restrained

and manipulated. The recent Choi Soon-sil scandal

shows that the media was never free from political

pressure; the political parties neither respect public

sentiments nor represent public preferences; Park

Geun-hye was able to rule the nation as an imperialist

dictator.

All of these truths stem from the fact that

South Korea has yet to complete its democratization

process.

In its process of democratization, South Korea

has experienced a few nation-wide democratic upris-

ings. The first democratic protest, which occurred on

April 19, 1960, is known as the “April Revolution.”

Thousands of college students and citizens took to the

streets of Seoul, boldly demanding the resignation of

Rhee Syng-man, who was elected as the first presi-

dent through massive electoral fraud. The April up-

rising successfully toppled the Rhee regime, but the

Blue House was taken over by General Park

Chenghai, who seized the opportunity and political

uncertainty to lead a coup on May 16, 1961. Under

Park Chung-hee, democratization movements became

more intense. A series of protests developed into

massive uprisings in the southern cities of Busan and

Masan in October 1979, triggering internal conflicts

among the coup leaders, which led to the assassina-

tion of Park.

The brief period after the dictator’s assassina-

tion, often called the “Seoul Spring,” gave people

high hopes for a democracy. However, Major General

Chun Doo-hwan began maneuvering to gain control

over the Korean Central Intelligence Agency and

declared even more draconian forms of martial law.

In May 1980, the country exploded into protest

against the possibility of a renewed military dictator-

ship. Gwangju, the capital of South Jeolla province,

was the city that resisted until the end, but hundreds

of people were massacred during a military siege

tacitly approved by U.S. President Jimmy Carter,

whose top priority for South Korea was political

stability.

Chun’s government, which gained power

illegitimately, was never a very popular one.

Throughout its tenure it was dogged by

constant protests from dissident groups. In June 1987,

millions of citizens poured out onto the streets,

marking the final blow to Chun Doo-hwan’s dictato-

rial regime. Many scholars have commented that the

June Uprising of 1987 paved the way for South Korea

to emerge as Asia’s most vibrant democracy, but

unfortunately, due to a political split in the opposition

camp, the South Korean president-elect in 1987 was

none other than Chun’s long-time friend and accom-

plice to the Gwangju massacre, Roh Tae-woo. South

Korea would not have a true civilian president until

1993, and it was not until 1998 that an opposition

party won the presidential election.

As described above, for decades the South

Korean public has consistently protested against

undemocratic governance and oppression, yearning

for the socio-political transformation of their home-

land. The recent candlelight demonstrations against

the Park Geun-hye government also need to be seen

within a broader framework of public struggles

against nondemocratic forces. Yet, how could the

protests be so incredibly peaceful? I assume that civic

consciousness matured under the progressive govern-

ments of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun from

1998 to 2007, which did not attempt to control or

repress dissenting voices, while the Park govern-

ment’s authority has been weakened to the point

where it dares not use force against the public.

At any rate, though direct elections were

incorporated into the presidential voting system with

the Declaration for Democratization on June 29,

1987, a direct vote by the people alone could not

create a proper democratic system.

A single round of

voting with a first-past-the-post presidential election

made for many “wasted” votes. If there had been a

two-round system that prevented a less-popular

candidate who did not receive an absolute majority

from winning, South Korea would have had a differ-

ent outcome than Roh Tae-woo who won with only

36.6% of the votes in the presidential election of

1987.

Similar to South Korea’s presidential elec-

tions, its legislative elections also generate too many

“wasted votes.” Unlike many other countries that

introduced party-list proportional representation for

their parliamentary elections in their transition to

democracy, in 1988 South Korea adopted a plurality

Page 5

voting system with single-member constituencies

combined with a bit of proportional representation.

The plurality system was not introduced based on a

broad consensus between the major political parties at

the time, but rather unilaterally passed by the ruling

Democratic Justice Party, founded by Chun Doo-

hwan. Mechanically, the plurality rule imposes

formidable entry-barriers on minor parties with new

ideas, consequently leading to a two-party system

where diverse public opinions and preferences are not

effectively represented.

Though democratic leaders occupied the Blue

House for a decade from 1998 to 2007, the fundamen-

tals of legislative elections remained unchanged. Civil

society organizations have continually demanded

reform of the electoral system so that new and minor

parties can have a better chance to get seats in the

parliament, but the privileged successfully resisted

such reform that could lead to a loss of their power in

the national assembly. Worst of all, there is literally

no ideological distance between the two major politi-

cal parties of South Korea. Choi Jang-jip, the author

of “Democracy after Democratization,” characterizes

the South Korean political party system as a “monop-

olistic conservative party system” where people can

hardly find an inspirational candidate whom they can

expect to actually bring about change in their

country.

For the most part, with little exaggeration,

political parties, whether they identify as progressive

or conservative, are preoccupied with permanent

campaigning for the next presidential election. This is

because they know that the president has absolute

power to steer the country as he or she wishes. In fact,

this effectively explains both Choi Soon-sil-gate and

the sarcastic term “Hell Chosun.”

South Korea’s Economy on Shaky Ground

The expansion of presidential powers has been

a distinctive feature of South Korean democracy. The

South Korean president enjoys almost absolute power

over the executive, legislative, and judicial bodies.

One of the main sources of presidential power is the

authority to appoint or influence the appointment of

as many as 10,000 senior officials in the bureaucracy,

military, and government-affiliated organizations.

This accumulation of power in the hands of the

president was in fact gradual and usually done under

the demand or pretext of a national emergency. The

confrontation with North Korea has permitted a larger

concentration of authority in the presidency and has

given presidents the opportunity to exercise almost

royal prerogatives. What began as emergency powers

were soon consolidated into the ultimate cultural and

constitutional authority inherent in the presidential

office, which became the so-called “imperial presi-

dency.”

With volatile political parties, an ineffective

national assembly and weak civil society, South

Korea has every condition for the president to control

the nation through authoritative power. Worst of all,

when the president is fascinated with and addicted to

economic growth, South Korean society faces formi-

dable social problems. As any president, regardless of

which party he or she is from, believes that national

economic policy should be designed and operated

based on economic development and expansion, it has

become South Korean government’s unchanging goal

to make the country an ideal location for conglomer-

ates to do business.

Park Chung-hee was the one who made

chaebols become the backbone of the South Korean

economy. The Park regime offered them a variety of

incentives such as subsidized loans from state banks,

low interest rates, tax exemptions, import and export

licenses, and myriads of government contracts. In

return, chaebols were expected to achieve higher

levels of exports and to surreptitiously provide

kickbacks to the government. Although this system

helped the country reach double digit economic

growth rates, labor exploitation and human rights

abuses increased in the course of the country’s rapid

industrialization. In addition, by the late 1960s, the

financial structures of many companies had already

become fragile due to their heavy debts. However,

under the successive Chun Doo-hwan and Roh

Tae-woo eras, the chaebol continued to expand

without taking any steps to reduce their leverage. As

most of the new capital formation was financed by

major South Korean banks that were under effective

government control, the risks of debt financing rose.

In the early 1990s, with the recession of the

global economy, South Korea’s economic balance

rapidly deteriorated. By the end of 1996, South Ko-

rea’s external debt had grown to over $150 billion,

while usable gross international reserves were no

more than $30 billion. Needless to say, a major

portion of the foreign debt was borrowed by the

chaebol. When the Asian currency crisis first broke

out in Thailand in 1997 and swept through the South-

east Asian countries, South Korea could not avoid a

Page 6

wave of financial crises. It was the shaky financial

institutions that triggered the crisis, rather than

speculative attacks on the Korean won. Poor financial

regulation and supervision failed to deter financial

institutions’ reckless lending and investing, which

eventually made the economy increasingly vulnerable

to a foreign exchange crisis. Inevitably, the Interna-

tional Monetary Fund (IMF) became involved in

Korea’s financial crisis. The IMF’s conditions for

financial assistance ranged from macroeconomic

policies to structural reforms, especially in the finan-

cial sector and labor market. Under the IMF’s exces-

sive austerity programs, South Korea experienced an

avalanche of corporate bankruptcies, high interest

rates, and a sharp decline in growth rates. Social

instability was an inevitable outcome. South Korea’s

painful labor market reforms, conducted at a time

when adequate social safety nets had not yet been

developed, produced quiet desperation and a salient

increase in suicide deaths among people who sud-

denly became unemployed due to their company

downsizing and restructuring.

Without eradicating the root cause of the eco-

nomic crisis – the chaebol – both Kim Young-sam

and Kim Dae-jung hastily implemented financial

market liberalization and labor market reforms while

paying little attention to the possible incompatibility

of neoliberal economic policies and social welfare.

President Roh Moo-hyun, who was regarded as

progressive in his approach, also continued to pursue

his predecessor’s neoliberal economic policies that

further widened social gaps, while putting patches on

the social welfare system. Under the conservative

administrations of Park Geun-hye and her predecessor

Lee Myung-bak (2008-2013), polarization has wors-

ened in all areas.

A Need for Transformation

Unfortunately, South Koreans have become

victims of their country’s economic success under the

tenet of accelerating and sustaining economic growth,

and more recently that of promoting globalization. A

highly competitive environment with little tolerance

for failure has made people become overly self-

centered and lethargic at the same time. The sarcastic

term “Hell Chosun” frequently used among young

people reflects the dire social situation of South

Korea, where ordinary people feel more deprived than

ever. The thousands of people gathering in

Gwanghwamun Square are expressing that they will

no longer put up with the kind of society that asks

people to give their whole lives for the sake of the

nation’s trade surplus, even when fair distribution

cannot be expected. Outsiders need to understand that

it is not just a protest against an incapable leader but

an all-out struggle against an undemocratic and

inhumane system. The South Korean protesters de-

mand not only a different state leader but also a

different national community: a welfare state where

they feel secure raising their children. There is every

reason to sincerely hope that South Korea’s

revolutionary peaceful candlelight protests will

become a catalyst to finally transform the system that

gave birth to Park Geun-hye and Choi Soon-sil, and

lead to the development of a desirable state where

people can fully enjoy political rights, civil liberty,

and economic justice.

Notes:

1. Cheong Wa Dae, the residence of the South Korean president,

is commonly referred to as the “Blue House” because the main

building and its annexes are covered with traditional Korean blue

roof tiles.

2. Chaebols refer to a small number of conglomerates – for

example, Samsung, LG, and Hyundai, which are owned by the

chairman’s family. They have dominated the South Korean

economic landscape, making up a large portion of South Korea’s

GDP. For more information on chaebols and their role in the

South Korean economy, see Phil-sang Lee’s “Economic Crisis

and Chaebol Reform in Korea,” available at:

https://www8.gsb.

columbia.edu/apec/sites/apec/files/files/discussion/PSLee.PDF

3. Chosun is the name of a Korean dynasty that lasted for over

500 years from 1392 to 1910. Young people in South Korea

sarcastically call their homeland “Hell Chosun,” expressing their

anxiety over a society where they can find no hope unless they

were born with a silver spoon in their mouth.

4. See Arthur Meier Schlesinger, The Imperial Presidency

(Boston: Mariner Books, 2004). The South Korean presidential

system has a great possibility to give birth to what Schlesinger

characterizes as an “imperial presidency” by giving enormous

power and privilege to a president while lacking checks and

balances, and Park Geun-hye was a typical example of someone

who abused the system. See also the interview article “2017

Presidential Dreams” by Kyunghyang newspaper (9 January

2017), available at http://english.khan.co.kr/khan_art_view.html?

code=710100 &artid=201701091831257

5. For more information, see Tim Shorrock’s “Money Doesn’t

Talk, It Swears,” available at: http://timshorrock.com/?page_ id= 21

6. For the historical background of the South Korean electoral

system, see Aurel Croissant’s “Electoral Politics in South

Korea,” available at:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/01361008.pdf

7. Jang-jip Choi, Democracy after Democratization: The Korean

Experience (Seoul: Humanitas, 2012). For more details on the

dark side of Korea’s economic success, see The Miracle with a

Dark Side (2003), published by the Institute for International

Page 7

Economics.

Reserved. All content on the website is published under a

Creative Commons License which can be seen at:

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by-NC/4.0/.

[Editor’s Note: During the mass candlelight move-

ment of 2016-2017 in South Korea, several articles

appeared in the South Korean media analyzing the

demands of the protesters. The following article

points to some of these articles.]

Korean Candlelight Model for

More Democracy*

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

South Korea has reached a critical juncture.

The National Assembly voted to impeach the Presi-

dent, Park Geun-hye and then the impeachment went

to the Constitutional Court. There, eight of the eight

judges supported the impeachment for Park to be

removed from the presidency permanently.

The impeachment resulted from a corruption

scandal which had engulfed the administration of

Park Geun-hye. There were allegations that her

administration was plagued by corruption over the

past few years, and by October, 2016 various news

media were revealing evidence of that corruption.

Interviews published in the South Korean

newspaper Hankyoreh began to show how the Korean

government practices were being directly influenced

or even decided by forces outside of the government.

Hankyoreh interviews described meetings with other

people carried out by Choi Soon-sil, a long time

friend of President Park, discussing the President’s

upcoming schedule and national policy issues. This

was substantiated when a computer tablet was found

by reporters connected with the JTBC cable media.

The tablet’s memory contained many files that have

been alleged to prove that President Park subordi-

nated her presidency to Choi Soon-sil, who had no

official role in the South Korean government. The

allegation is that Park turned to Choi for advice and

decisions concerning government matters.

The involvement of Choi Soon-sil in govern-

ment matters was linked to her role in creating foun-

dations and using the President’s name and influence

to raise funds from the chaebols, the big corporations

dominating the South Korean economy. It is alleged

that some chaebol executives then expected and

received favorable decisions in government matters

relating to their businesses.

Other examples of government corruption

have emerged in areas like culture and sports. There

is evidence that government contracts were given to

those recommended by Choi Soon-sil or officials who

had been appointed based on her recommendation.

The news of these activities spread and the public

came to understand what appeared to be serious

systemic corruption involving the head of the South

Korean government.

By the end of October, large weekly public

demonstrations began to be held by South Korean

citizens calling on President Park to resign. The

demonstrations grew in size so that by December,

2016, over one million people of all ages and from

many walks of life rallied in Seoul with almost 2

million people protesting nationwide. President Park

made some attempts at what she claimed to be public

apologies, but the public was dismayed by what

appeared more as attempts at justifying her behavior.

By December 9, a vote was taken in the

National Assembly to impeach the President. The

result was 234 to support the impeachment resolution

and 56 against. The number voting to impeach Park

exceeded the 200 votes needed for the impeachment

resolution to pass. As required by the Constitution,

the impeachment resolution was taken to the Consti-

tutional Court, which had up to 180 days to review

the merits of the resolution.

Commentary in the media by scholars, jour-

nalists and citizens seeks to analyze what is happen-

ing in South Korea. The article “A Historic Juncture”

in the South Korean newspaper Joong Ang Ilbo by

Political Science Professor Jaung Hoon of Chung-An

University proposed that South Korea was at a critical

crossroads.

Describing this juncture, he wrote that

this was “a decisive moment at which the god of

history differentiates the fraying established power

from the new force of the future.”

He proposed that ending Park Geun-hye’s

presidency and finding a way to amend the constitu-

tion so no such corruption could be repeated was

important, but that this was not what he called “the

ultimate issues.” What the people truly want, he

Page 8

explained, is a new form of civic politics and political

platform that go beyond the representative democracy

of the 20

century in order to allow continuous

exchange and communication between the representa-

tive system and the general will of the people. Profes-

sor Hoon proposes the need to strengthen communi-

cation between the political system and the people.

Several other articles in the Korean media

express a similar urgency, but they propose the need

to change the political structures, not merely make

them more responsive. For example, the editorial

“Impeachment Means a New Dawn for South Korean

Democracy” in the Korean newspaper Hankyoreh

proposed the need for changing the political frame-

work that allowed such corruption to take place.

The Hankyoreh editorial argues:

If representa-

tive democracy is unable to adequately express the

demands of direct democracy, there is no reason for

it to continue. Politics has been distorted by political

interests that reject the will of the people, and it’s

time for that to stop. We hope that the politicians will

stop testing the protesters’ patience.

This Hankyoreh editorial notes, “This is an

opportunity not merely to remove the people who

appropriated state resources for themselves but to

replace the obsolete systems, conditions and struc-

tures that made such appropriation possible.” The

impeachment motion is viewed as but “the first step

on the long journey toward completing the civic

revolution in the truest sense of that phrase.”

The editorial “Candlelight Revolution Man-

dates Rebuilding of Nation” in the newspaper The

Korea Times, in a similar vein, explained that what

was happening in South Korea was a “candlelight

revolution” which mandates, “the rebuilding of the

nation.”

The editorial reports that people involved in

the protests “commonly pledged to support the funda-

mental reformation of society and continuously

participate in decision making.”

The editorial explained that, “The incompe-

tence of the political parties encouraged people to

participate directly.” It quoted as an example, one

demonstrator who said “We don’t have a clear plan

yet, but we all share in the belief that we need more

action for changes.”

The article “Three Points of the Constitutional

Court ‘Impeachment Trial’,” in the Korean newspaper

OhmyNews explained that what had happened in

South Korea is that citizens took the lead and led

political circles and the media. Although only 40 days

earlier it was expected that the impeachment vote

would be difficult, this writer observed how public

anger skyrocketed in the Park Geun-hye-Choi Soon-

sil Gate scandal, endlessly revealing more, like the

peeling of an onion. Citizens came out in the square

and declared “we are the sovereigns.” The article

argues that if it were not for these “sovereigns,” it

would not have been possible to pass the impeach-

ment resolution in the National Assembly on Decem-

ber 9, 2016.

The author of this article argues that there is a

need for citizens to remain strong. If the amazing

power of candles does not remain as memories of

winter, but continues, this author predicts, “Korea

should become a country of strong citizens…. The

role of the parliamentary elite is important, but I

dream of a society…in which ordinary people can

discuss constitutional principles.” The article argues

for the need for reflection and the involvement of the

ordinary people to determine the vision for the consti-

tutional change needed so as to lay the foundation for

change. The article proposes favoring the presidential

candidate who advocates many citizens discussing the

constitutional principles to be proposed, rather than

prematurely formulated constitutional amendments.

Other articles in the media and online caution

against allowing politicians to quickly formulate and

pass constitutional amendments that they claim deal

with the problems, but which have excluded citizens

from the formulation process.

The editorial “To Go Beyond June of 1987” in

the Korean newspaper Kyunghyang Shinmun explains

how such a process happened in 1987 excluding those

who had been the protesters from being part of formu-

lating the mechanisms that would provide a continu-

ing democratic process for them. Instead, a small

group of politicians formulated the constitutional

language to provide for direct election of the Presi-

dent, a process that did not provide for democracy for

the people.

Instead, the author explained now there is

the “need to introduce and expand direct democracy

and the participation of the citizens. What the Na-

tional Assembly should be doing is not to discuss

constitutional amendments but to enact a bill that will

establish the constitutional procedures for citizen

participation in (the process of) amending the constitu-

tion.”

The people protesting are concerned about the

structural weakness of the South Korean political

system where there are such weak safe guards against

Page 9

high level corruption. Therefore, there is a demand

among the protesters for a structural means for their

ongoing participation in the affairs of government.

People are expressing their recognition that

the so called “democratic institutions” have demon-

strated their weakness, and that there is a need for

what they refer to as a 21

century politics. Among

the Korean people, there is a recognition of the need

to create new forms of democratic institutions which

deal with the deficiencies of the current institutions

and provide for a form of ongoing citizen participa-

tion in government processes and decision making.

South Korea has an important legacy that can

help it to meet this challenge. It is a country that is

first in the world in the spread of the Internet and the

use of the Internet by people online. Many South

Koreans are netizens, those seeking to utilize the

empowerment made possible by the Net for a more

democratic and participatory society. During the past

two decades, netizens in South Korea have explored

various forms of online participation so they have a

rich experience to draw from toward creating the

forms and structures needed for the civic revolution

they realize is needed. Their mass participation in the

candlelight activities to expose the corruption and

failures of the current government demonstrates that

they have been mastering the need for the civic

participation of netizens and citizens in the affairs of

the society. Hence they are not looking for better

leadership, but for the participation of the citizens

themselves as leadership. Citizens of South Korea are

acting to change the governmental model. They are

not just looking for a next ‘great leader’ but for a

much enhanced participation of citizens in the deter-

mination and functioning of their political system.

Will what they envision be able to impact the future

political direction for South Korea?

Notes:

1. Jaung Hoon, “A Historic Juncture,” Joong Ang Ilbo, Novem-

ber 18, 2016, p. 31.

http://mengnews.joins.com/view.aspx?aid=

3026380

2. [Editorial] “Impeachment Means A New Dawn for South

Korean Democracy,” Hankyoreh, December 9, 2016.

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_editorial/e_editorial/7739

72.html

3. Cho Jae-hyon, Choi Ha-young, “Candlelight Revolution

Mandates Rebuilding of Nation,” The Korea Times, December

12, 2016.

http://m.koreatimes.co.kr/phone/news/view.jsp?req_

newsi dx=219894

4. (agent89), “Three Points of the Constitutional Court

‘Impeachment Trial’,” 16:12:12 09:51, OhmyNews, (in Ko-

rean).

http://m.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/Mobile/at_pg.aspx?CNT

N _CD=A0002268821 See also Article 1 of the Republic of

Korea (ROK) Constitution. “The sovereignty of the Republic

of Korea shall reside in the people, and all state authority shall

emanate from the people.”

http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@ed_protect/@prot

r av/@ilo_aids/documents/legaldocument/wcms_117333.pdf

5. Ha Seung-soo, “To Go Beyond June of 1987,” Kyunghyang

Shinmun, December 12, 2016.

*This is an edited version of an article, “Ban Ki-moon’s Idea

of Leadership or the Candlelight Model for More Democ-

racy?” that first appeared Dec. 12, 2016 on the netizenblog at:

http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/12/21/leadership-or-

candlelight-democracy/

[Editor’s Note: The following is a slightly edited

version of a talk give at the re:publica 2017

conference in Berlin, Germany on May 9, 2017. It is

a work in progress.]

The Candlelight

Demonstrations in

South Korea as a Laboratory

for Democracy

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Part I – Introduction

May 2017 marked the 20

anniversary of the

print publication of the book Netizens: On the History

and Impact of Usenet and the Internet, which I will

refer to as the Netizens book. This coincided with a

series of candlelight demonstrations that took place in

South Korea calling for and resulting in the impeach-

ment of the former President of South Korea, Park

Geun Hye, and her arrest on charges of corruption and

bribery.

From October 29, 2016 to April 29, 2017

there were 23 candlelight demonstrations. These

demonstrations succeeded in strengthening, first the

National Assembly and then the Constitutional Court

to rule in favor of Park’s impeachment. These

demonstrations also emboldened the Prosecutors

Office to call for the detention and then the arrest of

Park and of a number of other former government and

Page 10

corporate officials.

The significance of the candlelight demonstra-

tions is that they were made possible by the Internet

and by the citizens and netizens of South Korea, who

are taking up what is a critical issue for our times.

They are exploring how in practice to deal with the

lack of democracy experienced by the people in South

Korea. This is an all too common problem for people

around the world as well. If progress can be made

tackling this problem, it is important that this progress

be shared and understood by others who are also

suffering under its yoke.

In my talk I want to focus on two particular

aspects of networking developments:

1) The vision that helped to inspire the creation and

development of the Net.

2) The emergence and development of the Netizens.

The discussion of these two aspects of

network development will help to provide the context

for the importance of these and earlier South Korean

candlelight demonstrations.

Part II – Background

In 1992, Michael Hauben, one of the co-au-

thors of the Netizens book, was a student at Columbia

University. He was online as part of the Columbia

University connection at the time to the Internet. By

1992 the Internet had been in the process of being

built for 20 years, but it was only then spreading and

connecting up people around the world. Michael

posted a paper on what was at the time a network

known as Usenet, originally created for those using

the Unix Operating System.

Michael’s paper described an article, titled

“Liberty of the Press,” written for the Supplement to

the 1825 Encyclopedia Britannica by James Mill.

Mill argued about the need for people to be

able to keep watch over their government officials.

Mill maintained that “government will be corrupt if

the chance exists” and that “those in position to rule

would abuse their power.” In his paper Michael

proposes that computer networks give people a means

of publicly evaluating and spreading information

about the activities of government officials.

Michael referred to the experience he was

having on Usenet, as an important example of how to

provide for the open discussion about the workings of

government and government officials that Mill

proposed as critical for good government.

The article about James Mill and the need for

computer networks for citizens to provide oversight

over government officials became the final chapter in

the Netizens book titled “The Computer as a

Democratizer.”

A few months later Michael took a class in

computer ethics. For that course, he put together a

post on several mailing lists and on Usenet titled,

“The Largest Machine: Where it came from and its

importance to society.”

In it, Michael wrote: “I propose to write a

paper concerning the development of the ‘Net.’ I am

interested in exploring the forces behind its

development and the fundamental change it represents

over previous communications media…. I wish to

come to some understanding of where the net has

come from, so as to be helpful in figuring out where

it is going.” (Netizens, p 36)

In a short time after his post appeared online,

a number of e-mail responses arrived in his e-mail

account, welcoming his post and responding to it. The

people who wrote him in general shared their online

experiences, and their great appreciation of the value

they felt was now possible because they were able to

be online. Michael studied their responses. Gathering

them he put together a post which he titled “Common

Sense: The Net and Netizens”. He wrote: “Welcome

to the 21

Century. You are a Netizen (a Net Citizen),

and you exist as a citizen of the world thanks to the

global connectivity that the Net makes possible…”

He observed, “We are seeing a revitalization of

society. The frameworks are being redesigned from

the bottom up. A new, more democratic world is

becoming possible.”

Subsequently, in a talk Michael gave in Japan

he clarified that his view was that not all those online

are netizens. Michael identifies those public spirited

users who contribute to the Net and the bigger world

it is part of, as the online users he refers to as

netizens. He reserved the use of the word netizens to

describe such users.

The book Netizens grew out of the experience

of this research Michael was doing and the

complementary research I began influenced by the

fascinating material Michael was gathering and

continuing to write about. In 1994 we put a draft of a

book online. Then in 1997 a print edition of the

Netizens book was published in English and Japanese

editions.

Part III – Pioneering Vision

Page 11

In response to Michael’s question as to where

the Net had come from, online networking pioneers

pointed to the work of JCR Licklider as the scientist

who inspired and successfully set the research direc-

tion that made it possible to create the Internet.

In Chapter V of the Netizens book, Michael

refers to the vision that guided the origin and develop-

ment of the Internet, Usenet and the other associated

… networks, and he asked “What is that vision?” The

chapter points to the community that grew up around

the people who were linked together by computer

systems. Trained as a psychologist, Licklider

observed what was happening to the people who were

using the newly created computer systems. He

observed that communities formed as people

interacted and helped each other. A general phrase

Licklider used at the time was “intergalactic net-

works.” It was a phrase that captured the grandeur of

Licklider's vision for the future network.

Another key aspect of Licklider’s vision was

the need for the whole population to be connected if

the developing network would represent a benefit to

society.

Part IV – South Korea and Netizens

Over the years there have been many

examples of researchers referring to netizen

developments in various parts of the world. But what

I have found is that probably the most advanced

examples of both the research and practice of netizens

are in South Korea.

First, there is a proud tradition of protest and

sacrifice on the part of South Koreans to win the

minimal democratic rights they have gained. Sec-

ondly, South Korea is one of the most wired countries

in the world where a larger percentage of its popula-

tion, compared with many other countries, has access

to high speed Internet connectivity.

My connection to South Korea began in

February 2003 when I saw a headline on the front

page of the Financial Times newspaper that the new

President of South Korea had been elected by

Netizens. For me, of course, this was a surprising and

important headline.

I began to try to learn what was happening in

South Korea. Indeed many netizens in South Korea

had backed Roh Moo-Hyun who was a candidate for

the South Korean Presidency from outside the politi-

cal mainstream. Roh Moo-Hyun won the election in

December 2002. That event and subsequent events I

learned about led me to understand that already in

2003 netizens had become an important phenomenon

in South Korea.

I learned, too, that the word for netizen in the

Korean language is pronounced the same as the

English word, though spoken with a Korean

pronunciation. I was also encouraged to see that our

book was known in South Korea.

One example is in an English language

research paper. The reference explains:

[Michael] Hauben (1997) defined the

term Netizen as the people who

actively contribute online towards the

development of the Internet.... In

particular, Usenet news groups or

Internet bulletin boards are considered

an ‘agora’ where the Netizens actively

discuss and debate upon various

issues.... In this manner, a variety of

agenda are formed on the ‘agora’ and

in their activity there, a Netizen can

act as a citizen who uses the Internet

as a way of participating in political

society.

Part V – Mark Poster and the Need for

Netizens

Over the years, several commentators have

written about the importance of the concept of

netizens.

One example is the discussion of the potential

impact of netizens and the Internet on globalization

by Mark Poster, a media theorist. Poster was

interested in the relationship of the citizen to

government, and in the empowering of the citizen to

be able to affect the actions of one’s government.

With the coming of what he calls the age of

globalization, however, Poster wondered if the

concept of “citizen” can continue to signify

democracy. He wondered if the concept is up to the

task. “The deepening of globalization processes strips

the citizen of power,” he argues. “As economic

processes become globalized, the nation-state loses its

ability to protect its population....” In this situation,

“the figure of the citizen is placed in a defensive

position.”

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,” he

notices, the name often given to the political subject

constituted on the Net is “netizen.”

Page 12

There is a need, however, to find instead of a

defensive position, an offensive one. “The netizen,”

Poster proposes, “might be the formative figure in a

new kind of political relation, one that shares alle-

giance to the nation with allegiance to the Net and to

the planetary political spaces it inaugurates.” Thus for

Poster, the netizen may make possible the offensive

position needed to challenge globalization.

This new phenomena Poster concludes, “will

likely change the relation of forces around the globe.

In such an eventuality, the figure of the netizen might

serve as a critical concept in the politics of democrati-

zation.”

One example that helps to demonstrate how

Netizens can fulfill the role that Poster envisioned are

the 2008 candlelight demonstrations in South Korea.

The following case study of the 2008 candlelight

demonstrations explores how netizens were able to

challenge the harmful effects of globalization.

Part VI – 2008 Candlelight Demonstrations

By 2008 the U.S. had pressured the OIE, an

international animal health regulatory body to change

the evaluation criteria for beef to be considered safe

enough to import to a country like South Korea. In

April 2008, the newly inaugurated South Korean

President Lee Myung-bak met with the U.S. Presi-

dent. On April 18 President Lee signed an agreement

to end the former restrictions on the import of U.S.

beef into South Korea.

The new beef import agreement provided that

beef of any cut, any age and with bone in, could be

imported into South Korea from the U.S. This was a

striking departure from the previous beef agreements

which since 2003 had required U.S. imports to meet

requirements designed to protect the South Korean

public against exposure to the human version of Mad

Cow Disease. Posts critiquing the new beef agreement

appeared online at Daum Agora, a South Korean

networking site.

On April 29, a South Korean TV station aired

a documentary exposing the poor U.S. safety

practices in inspecting U.S. beef for Mad Cow

Disease. Following the program there was increased

online discussion about the problem of importing U.S.

beef, given the minimal U.S. government inspection

of this beef. In response to a lot of online discussion

about the beef deal, the first candlelight

demonstration for May 2, 2008 was called by middle

school girls and high school students using their cell

phones and a fan website among other online sites.

When a large turnout, estimated as at least 10,000

protesters appeared at the demonstration, many were

surprised.

Then for more than 100 nights candlelight

demonstrations were held in South Korea protesting

the Lee Myung-bak actions and asking for regulations

against the import of what much of the South Korean

public deemed potentially unhealthy beef imports

from the U.S.

These demonstrations were nonviolent

evening vigils with candles. People of all ages and all

walks of life took part, from students to families, to

older people. Though called to protest the U.S.-South

Korean beef agreement, the underlying demand of the

demonstrators was that the program of South Korean

President Lee and his conservative party not be al-

lowed to take South Korea back to the days of auto-

cratic rule.

In contrast to the somber and militant

demonstrations in South Korea in the 1980s and

1990s, the 2008 candlelight vigils, instead, were

treated like a festival with people bringing their

instruments and playing them, dancing, singing,

having heated discussions, and participating in new

institutions such as the free speech stage. Also some

of the participants would stay late into the night and

through to the next morning.

Another new aspect was that protestors would

come with their laptops and digital cameras and send

out reports on the Internet to other netizens in South

Korea and around the world as the demonstrations

were in progress.

One report by the international TV channel

France 24 describes what happened: “In South Korea

a new form of democratic expression has emerged via

the Internet. Its followers call themselves Netizens

and when demonstrating against the government they

carry their laptops to broadcast the event live....”

The report explained that netizens, “first voiced their

discontent in cyberspace before taking to the streets.

One man sitting on the floor in front of his laptop is

writing a live transcript of what is being said on the

stage for a website.”

“What I want to do is inform people through

the Internet,” he said, to “provide them with detailed

information on the situation and tell them the facts the

government is hiding.”

People participated both online and in person

at the demonstrations. Among the participants were

Page 13

“members of a cooking club, a classical music

society, a fashion club, a U.S. major league baseball

watching club,” and other similar groups on the

Internet. “Some of them joined the protests with their

flags, distributed snacks and water to fellow protesters

and started fund raising for paid advertisements in

daily newspapers.” One researcher who described

these various participants and their activities noted

that such online clubs and groups had not previously

engaged in politics. But remarks made by some in the

group led others to join the online discussion and

participate in trying to get what they considered to be

a bad government policy changed.

Part VII

A theory and practice of a more participatory

form of democracy was being developed by netizens

online and in the streets of South Korea. In looking at

the 2008 candlelight demonstrations, however, a

particularly salient example of the significance of the

experience of Candlelight 2008 is a set of events that

occurred during the early hours of June 10 to 11,

2008.

June 10, 2008 was going to be the largest

demonstration in recent history in South Korea. The

police prepared for the demonstration by erecting a

barrier to prevent the demonstrators from marching

on the President’s compound. The police brought

eight 40-ton shipping containers, filled them with

sand and soldered them together to blockade the

President’s compound.

Netizens observing the building of this

blockade named it Myung-bak’s castle. An entry was

created in the Korean Wikipedia for “Myung-bak’s

Castle” as a landmark of Seoul. Some people brought

styrofoam blocks to the demonstration. These blocks

later became the subject of a lengthy outdoor

discussion as to whether to use them to build a

staircase to make it possible for protesters to go over

the barricade.

Part VIII – The Outdoor Forum

On June 11, from midnight to 5:30 a.m.

netizens and citizens held an outdoor forum to

determine whether or not demonstrators should try to

climb over the barrier to march to the President’s

compound. Through the process of a 5-1/2 hour

outdoor discussion, with people around the world

watching online and with many commenting online as

the discussion was taking place, the demonstrators

came to a widely supported decision to climb to the

top of the barrier to show they could go over it if they

chose, but that they had decided not to march on the

Blue House.

This was an important demonstration of the

fact that even those with different views of what

should be done were able to communicate with each

other to determine what course of action would be

most in the public interest. Several participants then

created the styrofoam block structure they needed,

and some went up to the top of the structure, parading

across the top with their banners and flags, including

a banner that indicated what they wanted was to

communicate with the government.

The demonstrators who went up on the barrier

installed a large banner which read “Is this how MB

communicates with his People?” Also the banners of

some of the major groups at the demonstration were

brought up on the barrier, with the online forum

Agora Daum as one of the banners.

This image was in sharp contrast to the other

side of the shipping containers, the area around the

Blue House. The Blue House, the home and office of

the head of the government, was surrounded by

police, ready to attack anyone who came into the area.

The message there clearly was that no communication

between the citizens or netizens and the government

was desired by the government. Describing the event,

one netizen writes:

Through this demonstration, many netizens

comment on the significant meaning of this event to

ask what is democracy, and what are the rights of

citizens. Steps that participants made in order to climb

on the container boxes showed what they wanted was

not being against the government in a riot, but being

in mutual communications...with the government.

Another explained:

Honestly, I assumed that people would try to

find a way to climb over the container boxes when

they had been piled up during the day. But when I

learned that steps of styrofoam were built up after

arguments and discussion by participants, not by a

few extreme elements, I was really impressed. Even

though we learn that problems should be solved by

dialogue in textbooks, we are not used to having

discussions and are not willing to have arguments....

The netizen continued: “I am impressed that there was

a nice result after peaceful dialogue. This is real

democracy.”

Page 14

One researcher, Min Kyung Bae poses the

problem as the contrast between “Analog

Government, Digital Citizens.” He documents how

the South Korean government continues to follow old,

outmoded ways from pre-digital days. While the

netizens, the digital citizens are acting in line with the

new capabilities and advances of the times. Min

argues that, “The gap between Lee’s 1980’s style

analog government and the digital citizens of 2008 is

huge.” He gives as one example that the “Lee

administration was more interested in knowing who

paid for the candles than in understanding why people

were holding them.” Min explains that when Lee

Myungbak closed off the Plaza to the public, the

netizens took on to create an online public square and

from that online commons to move the public back

onto the offline public square.

Min ends his article with the call, “Analog

politicians must realize that the Internet offers an

opportunity for a breakthrough to improve Korea’s

stagnant political culture. The candles lighting up

Gwanghwamun Plaza are carrying the demand that

representative democracy evolve into a new form

suitable to the Internet age.”

[Editor’s Note: The following article is a 2017

revision of a presentation made on May 1, 2012 at a

small celebration in honor of the 15

Anniversary of

the publication of the print edition of the book

Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and

the Internet.]

Considerations on the

Significance of the Net and

the Netizens

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

Abstract:

The book Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet celebrates in 2017 the 20

anniversary of its publication in English and Japanese

in 1997. The book documents how along with the

development of the Internet came the emergence of a

new form of citizen – the netizen. In his pioneering

online research in the early 1990s Michael Hauben

gathered data and did analysis demonstrating that not

only the Internet but also the netizen would have an

important impact on society. This article explores

Hauben’s research recognizing that netizens are a new

social force. The article also looks at other contribu-

tions which help to provide a conceptual framework

to understand this new social force. Media theorist

Mark Poster’s work about netizens is discussed, as is

Karl Deutsch’s theoretical understanding of the role

of communication in creating a new model for good

government. But it is the candlelight revolution by

citizens and netizens in 2016-2017 in South Korea

which demonstrates in practice the importance of the

netizen forging a new governance model for

participatory democracy.

Introduction

With the introduction of the Internet, the

question has been raised as to what its impact will be

on society. One significant result of the impact

already is the emergence of the netizen. Michael

Hauben’s work in the 1990s recognized the

significant impact not only of the development of the

Internet but also of the role of the netizen in forging

new social and political forms and processes.

While the role of netizens in working for

social change has been documented around the world,

the role of netizens in working for social and political

change has been an especially important aspect of

South Korean experience for nearly the past two

decades. Most recently, however, widespread political

and economic corruption at the highest levels of the

South Korean society has led citizens and netizens to

take part in peaceful but massive candlelight demon-

strations advocating the need for fundamental change

in the political and economic structures of South

Korean society. The question has been raised whether

there are models for such change. In such an environ-

ment there is a need to consider the importance of the

Internet and of the netizen in helping to forge the new

forms for grassroots participation in the governing

structures of society. At such a time it seems

appropriate to consider the conceptual framework for

the role of the netizen in contributing to a new

governing model for society.

These developments in South Korea come at

a time when the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet celebrates the 20

Anniversary since its publication in 1997, making a

review of the significant contribution of the book

Page 15

particularly relevant to the events of our time.

Looking Back

Twenty years ago in May 1997, the print

edition of Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet was published in English.

Later that year, in October, a Japanese translation of

the book was published. In 2017, we are celebrating

the occasion of the 20

Anniversary of these

publications.

In honor of this occasion I want to both look

back and forward toward trying to assess the signifi-

cance of the book and of Michael Hauben’s discovery

of the emergence of the netizen. I want to begin to

consider what has happened in these 20 years toward

trying to understand the nature of this advance and the

developments the advance makes possible.

By the early 1990s, Hauben recognized that

the Internet was a significant new development and

that it would have an impact on our world. He was

curious about what that impact would be and what

could help it to be a beneficial impact. He had raised

a series of questions about the online experience. He

received responses to these questions from a number

of people. Reading and analyzing the responses he

explained:

There are people online who actively

contribute to the development of the

Net. These people understand the

value of collective work and the

communal aspects of public

communications. These are the people

who discuss and debate topics in a

constructive manner, who e-mail

answers to people and provide help to

newcomers, who maintain FAQ files

and other public information

repositories, who maintain mailing

lists, and so on. These are the people

who discuss the nature and role of this

new communications medium. These

are the people who as citizens of the

Net I realized were Netizens.

The book was compiled from a series of

articles written by Hauben and his co-author Ronda

Hauben which were posted on the Net as they were

written and which sometimes led to substantial

comments and discussion.

The most important article in the book was

Hauben’s article, “The Net and Netizens: The Impact

the Net Has on People’s Lives.” Hauben opened the

article with the prophetic words, which appeared

online first in 1993:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are a

Netizen (a Net Citizen) and you exist as a citizen of

the world thanks to the global connectivity that the

Net makes possible. You consider everyone as your

compatriot. You physically live in one country but

you are in contact with much of the world via the

global computer network. Virtually, you live next

door to every other single Netizen in the world.

Geographical separation is replaced by existence in

the same virtual space.

Hauben goes on to explain that what he is pre-

dicting is not yet the reality. In fact, many people

around the world were just becoming connected to the

Internet during the period in which these words were

written and posted on various different networks that

existed at the time.

But now twenty years after the publication of

the print edition of Netizens, this description is very

much the reality for our time and for many it is hard

to remember or understand the world without the Net.

Similarly, in his articles that are collected in

the Netizens book, Hauben looked at the pioneering

vision that gave birth to the Internet. He looked at the

role of computer science in the building of the earlier

network called the ARPANET, at the potential impact

that the Net and Netizen would have on politics, on

journalism, and on the revolution in ideas that the Net

and Netizen would bring about, comparing this to the

advance brought about by the printing press. The last

chapter of the book is an article Hauben wrote early

on about the need for a watchdog function over

government in order to make democracy possible.

By the time the book was published in a print

edition, it had been freely available online for three

years. This was a period when the U.S. government

was determined to change the nature of the Net from

the public and scientific infrastructure that had been

built with public and educational funding around the

world to a commercially driven entity. While there

were people online at the time promoting the

privatization and commercialization of the Internet,

the concept of netizen was embraced by others, many

of whom supported the public and collaborative

nature of the Internet and who wanted this aspect to

grow and flourish.

The article “The Net and Netizens” grew out

Page 16

of a research project that Hauben had done for a class

at Columbia University in computer ethics. Hauben

was interested in the impact of the Net and so he

formulated several questions and sent them out

online. This was a pioneering project at the time and

the results he got back helped to establish the fact that

already in 1993 the Net was having a profound impact

on the lives of a number of people.

Hauben put together the results of his research

in the article “The Net and Netizens” and posted it

online. This helped the concept of netizen to spread

and to be embraced around the world. The netizen, it

is important to clarify, was not intended to describe

every net user. Rather netizen was the

conceptualization of those on the Net who took up to

support the public and collaborative nature of the Net

and to help it to grow and flourish. Netizens at the

time often had the hope that their efforts online would

be helpful toward creating a better world.

Hauben described this experience in a speech

he gave at a conference in Japan. Subsequently in

1997, his description became the Preface to the

Netizens book, Hauben explained:

In conducting research five years ago

online to determine people’s uses of

the global computer communications

network, I became aware that there

was a new social institution, an

electronic commons, developing. It

was exciting to explore this new social

institution. Others online shared this

excitement. I discovered from those

who wrote me that the people I was

writing about were citizens of the Net

or Netizens.

Hauben’s work which is included in the book

and the subsequent work he did recognized the

advance made possible by the Internet and the emer-

gence of the Netizen.

The book is not only about what is wrong with

the old politics, or media, but more importantly, the

implications for the emergence of new developments,

of a new politics, of a new form of citizenship, and of

what Hauben called the “poor man’s version of the

mass media.” He focused on what was new or emerg-

ing and recognized the promise for the future repre-

sented by what was only at the time in an early stage

of development.

For example, Hauben recognized that the

collaborative contributions for a new media would far

exceed what the old media had achieved. “As people

continue to connect to Usenet and other discussion

forums,” he wrote, “the collective population will

contribute back to the human community this new

form of news.”

In order to consider the impact of Hauben’s

work and of the publication of the book, both in its

online form and in the print edition, I want to look at

some of the implications of what has been written

since about netizens.

Mark Poster on the Implications of the

Concept of Netizen

One interesting example is in a book on the

impact of the Internet and globalization by Mark

Poster, a media theorist. The book’s title is Informa-

tion Please. The book was published in 2006. While

Poster does not make any explicit reference to the

book Netizens he finds the concept of the netizen that

he has seen used online to be an important one. He

offers some theoretical discussion on the use of the

“netizen” concept.

Referring to the concept of citizen, Poster is

interested in the relationship of the citizen to govern-

ment, and in the empowering of the citizen to be able

to affect the actions of one’s government. He

considers the Declaration of the Rights of Man and

the Citizen as a monument from the French

Revolution of 1789. He explains that the idea of the

Rights of Man was one effort to empower people to

deal with governments. But this was not adequate,

even though he recognizes the concept of the rights of

the citizen was an important democratic milestone.

“Human rights and citizenship,” he writes,

“are tied together and reinforce each other in the

battle against the ruling classes.”

He proposes that

“these rights are ensured by their inscription in

constitutions that found governments and they persist

in their association with those governments as the

ground of political authority.”

But with the coming of what he calls the age

of globalization, Poster wonders if the concept

“citizen” can continue to signify democracy. He

wonders if the concept is up to the task.

“The conditions of globalization and net-

worked media,” he writes, “present a new register in

which the human is recast and along with it the

citizen.”

“The deepening of globalization processes

strips the citizen of power,” he writes. “As economic

Page 17

processes become globalized, the nation-state loses its

ability to protect its population. The citizen thereby

loses her ability to elect leaders who effectively

pursue her interests.”

In this situation, “the figure of

the citizen is placed in a defensive position.”

succeed in the struggle against globalization he

recognizes that there is a need to find instead of a

defensive position, an offensive one.

Also he is interested in the media and its role

in this new paradigm. “We need to examine the role

of the media in globalizing practices that construct

new subjects,” Poster writes: “We need especially to

examine those media that cross national boundaries

and to inquire if they form or may form the basis for

a new set of political relations.”

In this context, for the new media, “the impor-

tant questions, rather, are these:” he proposes, “Can

the new media promote the construction of new

political forms not tied to historical, territorial pow-

ers? What are the characteristics of new media that

promote new political relations and new political

subjects? How can these be furthered or enhanced by

political action?”

“In contrast to the citizen of the nation,”

Poster notices, the name often given to the political

subject constituted on the Net is “netizen.”

The observations that Poster makes of how the

concept of “netizen” is used online represents a

recognition of the significant role for the netizen in

the future development of the body politic. “The

netizen,” Poster writes, “might be the formative figure

in a new kind of political relation, one that shares

allegiance to the nation with allegiance to the Net and

to the planetary political spaces it inaugurates.”

This

new phenomena, Poster concludes, “will likely

change the relation of forces around the globe. In such

an eventuality, the figure of the netizen might serve as

a critical concept in the politics of democratization.”

The Era of the Netizen

Poster characterizes the current times as the

age of globalization. I want to offer a different view,

the view that we are in an era demarcated by the

creation of the Internet and the emergence of the

netizen. Therefore, a more accurate characterization

of this period is as the “Era of the Netizen.”

The years since the publication of the book

Netizens have been marked by many interesting

developments that have been made possible by the

growth and development of the Internet and the

spread of netizens around the world. I will refer to a

few examples to give a flavor of the kind of develop-

ments I am referring to.

An article by Vinay Kamat in the Reader’s

Opinion section of the Times of India referred to

something I had written. Quoting my article “The

Rise of Netizen Democracy,” the Times of India

article said, “Not only is the Internet a laboratory for

democracy, but the scale of participation and contri-

bution is unprecedented. Online discussion makes it

possible for netizens to become active individuals and

group actors in social and public affairs. The Internet

makes it possible for netizens to speak out independ-

ently of institutions or officials.”

Kamat points to the growing number of

netizens in China and India and the large proportion

of the population in South Korea who are connected

to the Internet. “Will it evolve into a 5

estate?”

Kamat asks, contrasting netizens’ discussion online

with the power of the 4

estate, i.e. the mainstream

media.

“Will social and political discussion in social

media grow into deliberation?” asks Kamat. “Will

opinions expressed be merely ‘rabble rousing’ or will

they be ‘reflective’ instead of ‘impulsive’?”

One must recognize, Kamat explains, the new

situation online and the fact that it is important to

understand the nature of this new media and not

merely look at it through the lens of the old media.

What is the nature of this new media and how does it

differ from the old? This is an important area for

further research and discussion.

Looking for a Model

When visiting South Korea in 2008, I was

asked by a colleague if there is a model for

democracy that could be helpful for South Korea – a

model implemented in some country, perhaps in

Scandinavia. Thinking about the question I realized it

was more complex than it seemed on the surface.

I realized that one cannot just take a model

from the period before the Internet, from before the

emergence of the netizen. It is instead necessary that

models for a more democratic society or nation, in our

times, be models that include netizen participation in

the society. Both South Korea and China are places

where the role not only of citizens but also of netizens

is important in building more democratic structures

for the society. South Korea appears to be the most

advanced in grassroots efforts to create examples of

Page 18

netizen forms for a more participatory government

decision making process.

But China is also a place

where there are significant developments because of

the Internet and netizens.

In China there have been a large number of

issues that netizens have taken up online which have

then had an impact on the mainstream media and

where the online discussion has helped to bring about

a change in government policy.

In looking for other models to learn from,

however, I also realized that there is another relevant

area of development. This is the actual process of

building the Net, a prototype which is helpful to

consider when seeking to understand the nature and

particularity of the evolving new models for

development and participation represented in the Era

of the Netizen.

In particular, I want to point to a paper by the

research scientist who many computer and network-

ing pioneers credit with providing the vision to inspire

the scientific work to create the Internet. This scientist

is J C R Licklider, an experimental psychologist who

was particularly interested in the processes of the

brain and in communication research.

In a paper Licklider wrote with another

psychologist, Robert Taylor, in 1968 a vision was set

out to guide the development of the Internet. The title

of the paper was “The Computer as a Communication

Device.”

The paper proposed that essential to the

processes of communication is the creation and

sharing of models. That the human mind is adept at

creating models, but that the models created in a

single mind are not helpful in themselves. Instead it is

critical that models be shared and a process of cooper-

ative modeling be developed in order to be able to

create something that many people will respect.

Nerves of Government

In his article comparing the impact of the Net

with the important impact the printing press had on

society, Hauben wrote, “The Net has opened a chan-

nel for talking to the whole world to an even wider set

of people than did printed books.”

I want to focus a

bit on the significance of this characteristic, on the

notion that the Net has opened a communication

channel available to a wide set of people.

In order to have a conceptual framework to

understand the importance of this characteristic, I

recommend the 1966 book by Karl Deutsch, Nerves

of Government. In the preface to this book, Deutsch

writes:

This book suggests that it might be

preferable to look upon government

somewhat less as a problem of power

and somewhat more as a problem of

steering; and it tries to show that

steering is decisively a matter of

communication.

To look at the question of government not as

a problem of power, but as one of steering, of

communication, I want to propose is a fundamental

paradigm shift.

What is the difference?

Power has to do with the ability to exert force

on something so as to affect its direction and action.

Steering and communication, however, are related to

the process of the transmission of a signal through a

channel. The communication process is one related to

whether a signal is transmitted in a manner that

distorts the signal or whether it is possible to transmit

the signal accurately. The communication process and

the steering that it makes possible through feedback

mechanisms are an underlying framework to consider

in seeking to understand what Deutsch calls the

“Nerves of Government.”

According to Deutsch, a nation can be looked

at as a self-steering communication system of a

certain kind and the messages that are used to steer it

are transmitted via certain channels.

Some of the important challenges of our times

relate to the exposure of the distortions of the

information being spread. For example, the

misrepresentations by the mainstream media about

what happened in Libya in 2011 or what has been

happening in Syria since 2011.

The creation and

dissemination of channels of communication that

make possible “the essential two-way flow of

information” are essential for the functioning of an

autonomous learning organization, which is the form

Deutsch proposes for a well functioning system.

To look at this phenomenon in a more

practical way, I offer some considerations raised in a

speech given to honor a Philippine librarian, a speech

given by Zosio Lee. Lee refers to the kind of

information that is transmitted as essential to the well

being of a society. In considering the impact of

netizens and the form of information that is being

transmitted, Lee asks the question, “How do we detect

if we are being manipulated or deceived?”

Page 19

The importance of this question, he explains,

is that, “We would not have survived for so long if all

the information we needed to make valid judgments

were all false or unreliable.” Also, he proposes that

“information has to be processed and discussed for it

to acquire full meaning and significance.”

Lee

writes, “When information is free, available and

truthful, we are better able to make appropriate

judgments, including whether existing governments

fulfill their mandate to govern for the benefit of the

people.”

In his article “The Computer as a Democ-

ratizer,” Hauben similarly explores the need for

accurate information about how government is

functioning. He writes, “Without information being

available to them, the people may elect candidates as

bad as or worse than the incumbents. Therefore, there

is a need to prevent government from censoring the

information available to people.”

Hauben adds that, “The public needs accurate

information as to how their representatives are fulfill-

ing their role. Once these representatives have abused

their power, the principles established by [Thomas

Paine] and [James] Mill require that the public have

the ability to replace the abusers.”

Channels of accurate communication are

critical in order to share the information needed to

determine the nature of one’s government.

Conclusion

The candlelight revolution is still in process in

South Korea. It is demonstrating in practice that we

are in a period when the old forms of government are

outmoded. The paper by Licklider and Taylor pro-

poses that the computer is a splendid facilitator for

cooperative modeling. It is such a process of coopera-

tive modeling that offers the potential for creating not

only new technical and institutional forms, but also

new political forms. Such new political forms are

more likely to provide for the democratic processes

that are needed for the 21

century. Hence it is the

efforts of citizens and netizens who are involved in

collaborative modeling to create the more participa-

tory forms and structures as is happening during the

candlelight processes being explored in South Korea

that provide for the development of a more equitable

and democratic society.

Notes:

1. Hauben, M., R. Hauben. (1997). Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Com-

puter Society Press, p. 3. Also available online in an earlier draft

version,

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/. Retrieved on Jan. 18,

2017.

2. IBID., p. ix.

3. IBID., p. 233.

4. Poster, M., (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke Uni-

versity Press, p.68.

5. IBID.

6. IBID., p. 70.

7. IBID., p. 71.

8. IBID.

9. IBID., p. 77.

10. IBID., p. 78.

11. IBID.

12. IBID., p. 83.

13. Kamat, V. (2011, December 16). “We are looking at the Fifth

Estate.” Reader’s Opinion, Times of India, p. 2.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/edit-page/ampnbspWe-are-

looking-at-the-fifth-estate/articleshow/11133662.cms. Retrieved

on Jan. 10, 2017. The quote is taken from Hauben, R. “The Rise

of Netizen Democracy: A Case Study of Netizens’ Impact on

Democracy in South Korea.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/

other/misc/korean-democracy.txt, Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

14. In South Korea there are many interesting examples of new

organizational forms or events created by netizens. For example,

Nosamo combined the model of an online fan club and off line

gathering of supporters who worked to get Roh Moo-hyun

elected as President in South Korea in 2002. Also, OhmyNews,

an online newspaper, helped to make the election of Roh

Moo-hyun possible. Science mailing lists and discussion

networks contributed to by netizens helped to expose the

fraudulent scientific work of a leading South Korean scientist.

And in 2008 there were 106 days of candlelight demonstrations

contributed to by people online and off to protest the South

Korean government’s adoption of a weakened set of regulations

about the import of poorly inspected U.S. beef into South Korea.

The debate on June 10-11, 2008 over the form the demonstration

should take involved both online and offline discussion and

demonstrated the generative nature of serious communication.

See for example, Hauben, R. “On Grassroots Journalism and

Participatory Democracy.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

/other/netizens_draft.pdf. Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

15. Some examples include the Anti-CNN website that was set

up to counter the inaccurate press reports in the western media

about the 2008 riot in Tibet. The murder case of a Chinese

waitress who killed a Communist Party official in self defense.

The case of the Chongqing Nail House and the online discussion

about the issues involved. See for example, Hauben, R. (2010,

February 14). “China in the Era of the Netizen.” http://blogs.

taz.de/netizenblog/2010/02/14/china_in_the_era_of_the_

netizen/. Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

16. IBID., Netizens.

17. “The Computer as a Communication Device,” (1968, April)

Science and Technology.

http://memex.org/licklider.pdf, 21-41.

Retrieved Jan. 21, 2017.

18. The Licklider and Taylor paper also points out that the

sharing of models is essential to facilitate communication. If two

Page 20

people have different models and do not find a way to share

them, there will be no communication between them. IBID.,

21-30. IBID., Netizens, p. 299

19. IBID., Netizens, p. 299

20. Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves19. Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves of

Government. New York: The Free Press, p. xxvii.

21. See for example, Hauben, R. (2012, Winter). “Libya, the UN

and Netizen Journalism,” The Amateur Computerist, Vol. 21,

No. 1, http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn21-1.pdf. Retrieved Jan.

10, 2017 and Hauben, J. (2007). “On the 15

Anniversary of

Netizens: Netizens Expose Distortions and Fabrication.”

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/Book_Anniversary/presentat

ion_2.doc. Retrieved on Jan. 10, 2017.

22. Lee, Z. (2011). “Truthfulness and the Information Revolu-

tion,” JCL 31, p. 105.

23. IBID., p. 106.

24. IBID., p. 108.

25. IBID., Netizens, p. 316.

26. IBID., Netizens, p. 317.

27. Hauben explains: “Thomas Paine, in The Rights of Man,

describes a fundamental principle of democracy.” Paine writes,

“that the right of altering the government was a national right,

and not a right of the government’.” (Netizens, Chapter 18, p.

316)

28. Hauben, R. (2016, December 21). “Ban Ki-moon’s Idea of

Leadership or the Candlelight Model for More Democracy?”

taz.de . http://blogs.taz.de/netizenblog/2016/12/21/leadership-or-

candlelight-democracy/. Retrieved on Jan. 21, 2017.

Bibliography

Deutsch, K. (1966). Nerves of Government. New York: The Free

Press, New York.

Hauben, M & Hauben, R. (1997). Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE

Computer Society Press. Online edition:

http://www.

columbia.edu/~rh120, Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Hauben, R. (2005). “The Rise of Netizen Democracy: A Case

Study of Netizens’ Impact on Democracy in South Ko-

rea.” Unpublished paper. Retrieved from:

http://www.

columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/Rise_of_Netizen_

Democracy.pdf, Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Komat, V. (2011, December 16, p. 2). Reader’s Opinion: “We’re

Looking at the Fifth Estate,” Times of India. Retrieved

from:

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/

edit-page/We-are-looking-at-the-fifth-estate/opinions/

11133662.cms. Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Lee, Z. E. (2011) “Truthfulness and the Information Revolu-

tion,” Journal of Philippine Librarianship, 31, 101-109.

http://journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/jpl/article/viewF

ile/ 2779/2597. Retrieved on Jan. 11, 2017.

Licklider, JCR, & Taylor, R. “The Computer as a Communica-

tion Device” (1968, April) Science and Technology.

http://memex.org/licklider.pdf, 21-41. Retrieved Jan.

21, 2017.

Poster, M. (2006). Information Please. Durham: Duke Univer-

sity Press.

[Editor’s Note: This article written in 2005 can be

seen online at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/

ronda 2014/Rise_of_Netizen_Democracy.pdf]

The Rise of Netizen

Democracy: A Case Study

of Netizens’ Impact on

Democracy in South Korea

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

The history of democracy also shows

that democracy is a moving target, not

a static structure.

John Markoff

What does it mean to be politically en-

gaged today? And what does it mean

to be a citizen? The transformation of

how we engage and act in society

challenges how we perceive the

concepts of civic engagement and

citizenship, their content and

expression. The introduction of new

information technologies, most

notably in the form of internet, has in

turn reinvigorated these discussions.

Ylva Johansson

Someone may construe that in South

Korea politics the major source of

power moved from ‘the muzzle of a

gun (army)’ to ‘that of the emotion

(TV)’ and then to ‘that of logic

(Internet)’ in a short time.

Yun Young-Min

Abstract

South Korean netizens are exploring

the potential of the internet to make an

extension of democracy a reality. The

cheering during the World Cup games

in Korea in June 2002 organized by

the Red Devils online fan club, then

the protest against the deaths of two

Page 21

Korean school girls caused by U.S.

soldiers were the prelude to the

candidacy and election of Roh

Moo-hyun, the first head of state

whose election can be tracked directly

to the activity of the netizens.

This is a case study of the South

Korean netizen democracy. This case

study is intended as a contribution to a

needed broader project to explore the

impact netizens are having on

extending democratic processes today.

I – Preface

In the early 1990s, a little more than two hun-

dred years after the French Revolution, a new form of

citizenship emerged. This is a citizenship not tied to

a nation state or nation, but a citizenship that embod-

ied the ability to directly participate in the decisions

that govern one’s society. This citizenship emerged

on the internet and was given the name ‘netizenship.’

The individuals who practice this form of citizenship

refer to themselves as ‘netizens.’

In the early 1990s, Michael Hauben,

recognized the emergence and spread of this new

identity. In the book Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet, he describes how

he came to recognize that not only was there a new

technical development, the internet, but also, there

was a new identity being embraced by many of those

online. Hauben writes:

The story of Netizens is an important one. In

conducting research five years ago (in 1992-1993-ed)

online to determine people’s uses of the global

computer communications network, I became aware

that there was a new social institution, an electronic

commons developing.

It was exciting to explore this new social

institution. Others online shared this excitement….

There are people online who actively contribute

toward the development of the Net. These people

understand the value of collective work and the

communal aspects of public communications. These

are the people who discuss and debate topics in a

constructive manner, who e-mail answers to people

and provide help to new-comers, who maintain FAQ

files and other public information repositories, who

maintain mailing lists, and so on. These are people

who discuss the nature and role of this new

communications medium. These are the people who

as citizens of the Net, I realized were Netizens.…

[T]hey are the people who understand it takes effort

and action on each and everyone’s part to make the

Net a regenerative and vibrant community and

resource…. The word citizen suggests a geographic or

national definition of social membership. The word

Netizen reflects the new non-geographically based

social membership. So I contracted net.citizen to

Netizen.

Just as many different meanings have

developed for ‘citizen,’ so ‘netizen’ has come to have

several meanings. The early concept of ‘netizen’ is

‘one who participates in the affairs of governing and

making decisions about the internet and about how

the internet can impact offline society.’ A further

development of this concept is ‘one who is

empowered by the net to have an impact on politics,

journalism, culture and other aspects of society.’

This

article will explore this new socio-political-cultural

identity, the identity of the netizen in the context of

recent developments in South Korea.

While there is a large body of literature about

the internet and its impact on society, there has been

considerably less attention paid to those who are

empowered by the internet, to the netizens, who are

able to assume a new role in society, and to embody

a new identity. This article will explore how the

netizens of South Korea are helping to shape the

democratic practices that extend what we understand

as democracy and citizenship. Their experience

provides an important body of practice to consider

when trying to understand what will be the future

forms of political participation.

II – Introduction

In his article “Where and When was

Democracy Invented?,” the sociologist John Markoff

raises the question of the practice of democracy and

more particularly of the times and places where

innovations in democracy are pioneered.

Markoff writes that a dictionary in 1690

defined democracy as a “form of government in

which the people have all authority.” (p. 661) Not

satisfied with such a general definition, Markoff

wants to have a more concrete definition or

conception of democracy. He wants to investigate the

practices that extend democracy. He proposes looking

for models or practices that will help to define

democracy in the future. Such models or practices, he

cautions, may be different from what we currently

Page 22

recognize as democratic processes. “We need to

consider,” he writes, “the possibility that somewhere

there maybe still further innovations in what

democracy is, innovations that will redefine it for the

historians of the future.” (p. 689)

Markoff suggests that researchers who want to

understand the means of extending democracy in the

future not limit themselves to the “current centers of

world wealth and power.” (p. 663) Similarly, he pro-

poses that the poorest areas of the world will not be

the most fruitful for researchers looking for innova-

tions in democracy.

Considering Markoff’s guidelines, South

Korea fits very appropriately with regard to the size

and environment likely to innovate democratic

practices. Events in South Korea confirm that indeed

there are pioneering practices that can give

researchers a glimpse into how democracy can be

extended in a practical fashion.

III – The South Korean Netizens Movement

Various factors have contributed to

democratic developments in South Korea. For

example, the activities of Korean non governmental

organizations (NGOs) have played an important role.

Similarly, the student movements at least since1980

have served to maintain a set of social goals in the

generations that have grown up with these

experiences. Government support for the spread and

use of computers and the internet by the South

Korean population has also played a role.

For the purposes of this article, however, I

want to focus on the practice of the Korean netizen.

Along with the pioneering of computer networking in

South Korea (1980s) and internet technology (1990s),

there was the effort to maintain internet development

for public purposes. This is different from how in the

1990s, for example, the U.S. government gave com-

mercial and private interests free reign in their desires

to direct internet development.

A – South Korean Networking as a Social Function

This case study begins in 1995.

In 1995, the U.S. government privatized the

U.S. portions of the internet backbone. The goal of

the U.S. government was to promote private and

commercial use. At the same time the concept of

netizen was spreading around the U.S. and the

international networking community, partially in

opposition to the trend of privatization and

commercialization.

In South Korea, however, there was a commit-

ment to “prevent commercial colonization” of the

South Korean internet. The effort was to promote the

use of the internet for grassroots political and social

purposes, as a means of democratizing Korea. In a

paper presented in 1996, “The Grassroots Online

Movement and Changes in Korean Civil Society,”

Myung Koo Kang,

documents the netizen activity in

South Korea to “intervene into the telecommunication

policy of the government which is pushing toward

privatization, and to build an agenda for non-market

use of the electronic communications technology.”

Kang describes the formation of the Solidarity

of Progressive Network Group (SPNG) in 1995. He

wrote, “It is now estimated that the South Korean

online community is populated by as many as 1.5

million users.” (p. 117) In the early1990s, commercial

networks like Chollian, Hitel, and Nowururi were

main providers of internet access in South Korea.

Those interested in developing the democratic

potential of the internet were active in these networks

in newsgroups devoted to specific topics or on

internet mailing lists. Online communities developed

and the experience was one that trained a generation

in participatory online activity. Describing the

experience of being online in one of these

communities in the early1990s, a netizen writing on

Usenet explains:

There were Hitel, Chollian, Nownuri,

three major text based online services

in Korea. I think they boomed in early

90's and withered drastically as the

Internet explosion occurred in mid and

late 90's.

They provided the bbs, file up/

download, chatting and community

services.

Their community services were very

strong. I also joined some such groups

and learned a lot. Community

members formed a kind of connection

through casual meeting, online

chatting, study groups and etc. The

now influential Red Devils...was at

first started as one of such

communities. It introduced new forms

of encounter among the people with

the same interest.

Page 23

They also had some discussion space,

similar to this news group and people

expressed their ideas....

B – How the Net Spread

When the Asian economic crisis hit South

Korea in 1997, the Korean government met the crisis

partially with a commitment to develop the

infrastructure for high speed access. It gave support

for the creation of businesses to provide internet

access and to provide training to use computers and

the internet. Describing the program of the South

Korean government, Kim, Moon and Yang write:

“It

invested more than 0.25% of the GDP to build a

high-speed backbone and is also providing more than

0.2% of GDP in soft loans to operators from 1999 to

2005.”

Along with the financial and business invest-

ment, the government supported training programs in

internet literacy. One such program was called the

“Ten Million People Internet Education” project to

provide computer and internet skills to 10 million

people by 2002. Unemployed South Korean house-

wives were particularly targeted and reports indicate

that one million were provided with courses as part of

the 4.1 million people who participated in government

initiated programs. Primary and secondary schools

were also provided with high speed internet access.

Internet cafes with highspeed access called PC-bangs

spread widely, offering another form of cheap internet

access.

C – Netizen Events

Several developments in the first few years of

the 21

Century demonstrate the impact the spread of

the internet has had on South Korean society. A key

result of widespread access to the internet in South

Korea has been the emergence of the netizen and of

examples of netizen democracy.

1) The Red Devils and World Cup Cheering

The Red Devils is a fan club for the South

Korean national soccer team. It developed as an

online community. The club became the main soccer

cheering squad. Its original name had been “Great

Hankuk Supporters Club” when it was created in

1997. It was renamed “Red Devils” after an online e-

mail process “collecting public views through e-mail

bulletins.”

The group utilized the internet for the

2002 World Cup cheering. Describing how the

internet was utilized, Yong-Cho Ha and Sangbae Kim

write:

[T]he Web was a thrilling channel for

many soccer fans across the country to

satisfy their craving for information

on the Cup. The 2002 World Cup

provided Koreans with an opportunity

to facilitate the dynamic exchange of

information on the Web. In particular,

the existence of the high-speed

Internet encouraged the dynamic

exchange of information about World

Cup matches, players and rules. The

Internet, which has become an

essential part of everyday life for the

majority of Koreans, helped raise

public awareness about soccer and

prompted millions of people to

participate in outdoor cheering

campaigns.

Major portal sites were flooded with postings

on thousands of online bulletin boards. Online users

scoured the Web to absorb detailed real-time match

reports, player-by-player descriptions, disputes about

poor officiating and other soccer information. Instant

messenger also played a role in spreading real-time

news and lively stories to millions of people. Korea

has more than 10 million instant messenger users and

many of them exchanged views and feelings about

World Cup matches though the new Internet

communications tool.

During the World Cup games held in June

2002, crowds of people gathered in the streets in

South Korea, not only in Seoul. The Red Devils

organized cheering and celebrating by 24 million

people.

Sang Jin Han describes how the Red Devils

carefully planned for the massive cheering “through

on-line discussions about the way of cheering,

costumes, roosters’ songs and slogans, and so on.”

The Red Devils functions democratically and has

online and off-line activities. “Anyone who loves

soccer can be a member of the Red Devils,” Sang-Jin

Han explains, by going to the website, logging on,

and filling out their form. The website is

(http://reddevil.or.kr) When the club started they had

200 members. During the world cup events, they had

a membership of 200,000.

Page 24

The massive street celebrating during the

soccer games has been compared in importance with

the victory of the June 1987 defeat of the military

government in South Korea.

To understand this assessment, it is helpful to

look at an article written during the event by the

Gwak Byuyng-chan, the culture editor of Hankyoreh,

a South Korean newspaper. I will quote at length from

this article as it provides a feeling for the unexpected

but significant impact that the world cup event in

2002 had on Korean society. Gwak Byuyng-chan

writes:

To be honest with you, I was annoyed

by the critics who compared the

cheering street gatherings in front of

the City Hall in June 2002 to the

democratic uprising in June 1987.

Much to my shame I criticized the

foolish nature of sports national-

ism…and even encouraged others to

be wary of the sly character of

commercialism…. However as time

passed, I began to wonder whether I

w a s n ’ t b e i n g e l i t i s t a n d

authoritarian…. I was blind to a

changed environment and to a

changed sensibility. I assumed that

people were running around because

o f bl i n d n a t i o n a l i s m an d

commercialism.

However, this was not a group that

was mobilized by anybody nor a

group that anyone could mobilize….

On June 25, I wandered around

Gwanghwamoon and in front of City

Hall trying to get an understanding of

the future leaders of this country.

Otherwise, my clever brain told me, I

would end up an old cynic confined to

my own memories. After spending a

long day wandering amongst young

people, I finally understood. Although

trying to understand their passion

through this experience was like a

Newtonian scientist trying to

understand the theory of relativism, I

understood. What we had experienced

at that moment was the experience of

becoming a ‘Great One.’ In a history

with its ups and downs, we had more

than our share of becoming this ‘Great

One’ The 4.19 Revolution and 6.10

Struggle are two examples. So are the

4.3 Cheju Massacre and the 5.18

Democracy Movement. The gold

collection drive during the IMF

financial bailout was part of this effort

too – trying to find a ray of hope in a

cloud of despair....

The flood of supporters in June 2002,

however, was no longer about finding

hope. It was about young people

dreaming dreams that soared higher

and further than those of the past

generations. Unlike the older

generation, the younger generation is

ready to meet the world with open

hearts. They have the imagination to

reinvent it and the flexibility to come

together and then separate as the

occasion calls for it. The whole world

was rapt with attention on ‘Dae-han

Min-gook (Great Korea)’ not just

because of our soccer ability but

because of this young generations’s

passion and creativity. Does this mean

that their dreams have come true? No.

Does this mean that all this was

nothing more than one summer night’s

feast? No. These dreams will continue

to flourish and the responsibility for

making sure that they do belongs to

the older generation, which has had

the experience of becoming a Great

One through such events as the 6.10 or

4.19….

Not only did the cheering crowds joyously

celebrate the Korean team victories in the World Cup

events, they also helped clean the streets when the

event was over. Another aspect of the Red Devils

achievement was to remove the stigma attached to the

color red. Previously, avoiding the color red was a

form of anti-communism in South Korea. The Red

Devils’ organization of the street cheering is a demon-

stration of how communication among netizens that

the internet makes possible had a significant impact

on the whole of South Korean society as the

celebration unfolded off-line.

Page 25

Recognizing the importance of analyzing this

experience to the people of Korea, a symposium was

held on July 3, 2002 by the Korean Association of

Sociological Theory shortly after the World Cup

events.

The title of the symposium was “World Cup

and New Community Culture.” The theme was

“Understanding and Interpreting the Dynamics of

People (National People) Shown at the 2002 World

Cup.” Sang-jin Han described the dynamics of the

culture that emerged from the World Cup events. Cho

Han Hae-joang writes (p. 13):

What Han found during the collective

gathering was a new community that

possessed values of open-mindedness

and diversity, of co-existence and

respect for others…. Impressed by the

cheering crowds, Han Sang-jin

suggested looking for a point where

the values of individualism and

collectivism can synergize rather than

collide. He wrote ‘If there is a strong

desire for individual self-expression

and spontaneity blooming in the

on-line space on one hand, there must

be a strong sense of cohesion and

desire for unity in the socio-cultural

reality on the other. The new

community culture will be equipped

with the ability to harness these two

forces into a symbiotic relationship.’

In fact, at the symposium, many

sociologists confessed to having been

astounded at witnessing what they had

considered to be impossible ‘the

coming together of the generations

and the coexistence of the values of

collectivism and individualism.’

Influenced by the joy of the World

Cup experience, the committee of

Munhwa Yondae (the Citizens’

Network for Cultural Reform)

organized a campaign. They sought to

reclaim the streets for public purposes,

and to designate July 1 as a holiday.

Also they gave support to the

campaign to establish a 5-day work

week and one month holidays for

Koreans.

2) Candle-light Anti-U.S. Demonstrations

On June 13, 2002, while the World Cup games

were being held in South Korea and Japan, two 14

year old Korean school girls were hit and killed by a

U.S. armored vehicle operated by two U.S. soldiers

on a training exercise. Once the games were over,

many of those who had been part of the soccer cele-

brating took part in protests over the deaths, demand-

ing that those responsible be punished. In November,

2002, the two soldiers were tried by a U.S. military

court on charges of negligent homicide. The verdict

acquitting them was announced on November 19,

2002. Some protests followed. Then on November 27,

2002, at 6 a.m., a netizen reporter with the logon

name of Ang.Ma posted a message online on the

OhmyNews website saying he would come out with a

candle to protest the acquittal of the soldiers. On

Saturday, November 30, four days later, there were

evening rallies in 17 cities in South Korea including

thousands of people participating in a candlelight

protest in Seoul. They demanded a retrial of the

soldiers and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South

Korea. In subsequent weeks, candlelight demonstra-

tions spread and grew in size. Protesters also de-

manded that the Status of Forces Agreement Treaty

(SOFA) between the U.S. and South Korea be amend-

ed to give the Korean government more control over

the activities of the U.S. troops in Korea.

The impact of the “candlelight vigils that

started from one netizen’s [online-ed] suggestion last

month,” is described in a newspaper account:

In Gwanghwamun, Seoul, the candles,

lit one by one, form a sea. Tonight, on

the 28

, without exception, the

candles have gathered. About 1200

citizens gathered in the ‘Open

Citizen’s Court’ beside the U.S.

embassy in Gwanghwamun sway their

bodies to the tunes of ‘Arirang’ which

also played during the World Cup

soccer ma t ch e s las t J u n e .

Middle-school student Kim Hee-yun

says, ‘Every Saturday, I come here.

There is something that attracts me to

this place.’

Opposition to SOFA and to the presence of

U.S. troops in South Korea continued to grow. The

most well known outcome of this movement and the

event most often cited as a result of the power of

Page 26

Korean netizens, is the election of Roh Moo-hyun as

President of South Korea on December 19, 2002.

The internet and netizens played a critical role in

Roh’s election.

An article in a women’s newspaper on Dec 7,

2002, refers to the importance of netizens in South

Korea:

The netizens of the Korean Internet

powerhouse are magnificent. They are

reviving the youth culture of the Red

Devils and the myth of the World Cup

to create a social movement to revise

SOFA.

3) Korean Netizens and the Election of President Roh

Of the candidates potentially running for the

Presidency in South Korea in 2002, Roh Moo-hyun

had been considered the underdog and least likely to

win. He had made a reputation for himself by his

willingness to run for offices where he was unlikely

to win, but where his candidacy might help to reduce

regional antagonisms.

Another basis for Roh’s

popularity was his campaign plank advocating citizen

participation in government. Roh had opened an

internet site in August 1999 and his site was one of

the successful candidate websites at the time. In the

April 2000 election, Roh ran for a seat to represent

Pusan in the National Assembly as a means of

continuing his struggle against regional hostilities.

Though he lost that election, thousands of

people were drawn to Roh’s website and the discus-

sions that followed the failed election effort. Through

these online discussions, the idea was raised of

starting an online fan club for Roh. The Nosamo

Roho fan club was started by Jeong Ki Lee (User ID:

Old Fox) on April 15, 2000.

Nosamo also transliter-

ated as ‘Rohsamo,’ stands for ‘those who love Roh.’

The fan club had members both internationally

and locally with online and offline activities orga-

nized among the participants. When Nosamo was

created, a goal of the organization was a more partici-

patory democracy. Sang-jin Han, reports that using

the internet, the online newspaper OhmyNews, broad-

cast “live the inaugural meeting of the club held in

Daejon on June 6, 2000 through the Internet.”

In Spring 2002, the Millennium Democracy

Party (MDO) held the first primary election for the

selection of a presidential candidate in the history of

South Korea. Nosamo waged an active primary

campaign. “In cyberspace, they sent out a lot of

writings in favor of Roh and Nosamo to other sites

and placed favorable articles on their home pages.”

(p. 9) The internet activity of the fan club made it

possible for Roh to win the MDP nomination. Never-

theless, he was still considered a long shot to win the

Presidency.

Early in the 2002 campaign, the conservative

press attacked Roh. In response, more and more of the

public turned to the internet to discuss and consider

the responses to these attacks. Analyzing how these

attacks were successfully countered via online discus-

sion and debate, Yun Young-Min writes, the “politi-

cal influences” in discussion boards “comes from

logic, and only logic can survive cyber-debate. This

is one of the substantial changes that the internet has

brought about in the realm of politics in South Ko-

rea.”

Also Yun documents that as the attacks in-

creased, so did the number of visits recorded by Roh’s

website and other websites supporting the Roh candi-

dacy. (pp. 148-149) In a table comparing visits to

websites of the two main candidates, Yun documents

a significantly greater number of visits to the Roh

website and Roh related websites as opposed to the

websites of his opposing candidate. (p. 151)

Along with the Roh websites, the online

newspaper OhmyNews was helpful to the Roh

candidacy. OhmyNews developed a form of

participatory citizen journalism. The online

newspaper helped Roh counter the criticism of the

conservative press. Roh gave his first interview to

OhmyNews after winning the presidency.

The night before the election, a main supporter

of Roh, Chung Mong-joon who had formed a

coalition with Roh for the election, withdrew his

support. That night, netizens posted on various

websites and conducted an online campaign to discuss

what had happened and what Roh’s supporters had to

do to repair the damage this late defection did to the

campaign. An article in the Korea Times describes

how the online discussion helped to save Roh’s

candidacy:

The free-for-all Internet campaign also helped

Roh when he lost the support of Chung Mong-joon

just a day before the poll. Unlike other conventional

media such as newspapers and televisions, many

Internet websites gave unbiased views on the political

squabble between Roh and Chung, helping voters to

form their reaction…. The Internet is now the liveliest

forum for political debate in Korea, the world leader

Page 27

in broadband Internet patronized by sophisticated

Internet users….

The Korea Times reporter describes the

activity of netizens to get out the vote on election day

in support of Roh:

As of 3 p.m. on voting day, the

turnout stood at 54.3 percent,

compared with 62.3 percent at the

same time during the presidential

election in 1997. Because a low

turnout was considered likely fatal for

Roh – the young often skip voting –

many Internet users posted online

messages to Internet chatting rooms,

online communities and instant

messaging services imploring their

colleagues to get to the voting booth.

The messages spread by the tens of

thousands, playing a key role in Roh’s

victory.

During Roh’s election campaign, netizens

turned to the internet to discuss and express their

views, views which otherwise would have been

buried. “The advent of the Internet can bring, by

accumulating and reaching critical mass in

cyberspace, a political result that anyone could hardly

predict. No longer is public opinion the opinion of the

press…. In fact the press lost authority by their

criticisms,” Yun concludes.

Because of the internet, Kim Yong-Ho

observes, there is the “shift from party politics to

citizen politics.”

The attitude of the two main

candidates toward the internet proved to be a critical

factor determining the outcome of the election. Roh’s

main opponent approached the internet as a “new

technology.” For Roh and his supporters, however,

the internet became “an instrument to change the

framework and practice of politics.” (p. 235)

“Certainly, politics in Korea is no longer a monopoly

of parties and politicians,” conclude Yong-Cho Ha

and Sangbae Kim.

4) High School Students Protest Hair Length Restrictions

An example of how the younger generation in

South Korea found the internet helpful was the

struggle of high school students to oppose hair length

restrictions set by the government and enforced by

their schools. Teachers in some South Korean schools

cut the hair of students who have hair longer than the

school regulations permit. Such mandatory hair

cutting, students explained, was not only humiliating,

but also can leave them with a hair cut that is un-

seemly. Considering the many pressures that high

school students in South Korea are under, an editorial

in the Korea Times, explains:

Most egregious of all are their

hairstyles – buzz cuts for boys and

bob cuts or ponytails for girls…. At

some schools, teachers still make

narrow, bushy expressways on the

crowns of boys’ heads with hair clip-

pers, and lay bare girls’ ears with

scissors. They say these are for the

proper guidance of students by

preventing them from frequenting

adult-only places and focusing on only

studies. But this is nothing but

violence and abuse.

High school students opposed these restric-

tions and practices with a website to discuss the

problem and how to organize their protests. Over

70,000 people signed an online petition protesting the

hair length restrictions and practices. Also there were

demonstrations organized online against these prac-

tices. The demonstrations were met with a significant

show of force by police and from high school teach-

ers.

5) Government Online Forums

Netizen activities in South Korea had an effect

on official government structures. Government offi-

cials are under pressure to utilize the forms that are

being developed online. For example, the online

website for the President of Korea had a netizen

section. Netizens could log on and post their problems

and complaints. These could then be viewed by any-

one else who logged onto the website. The open

forum section of the website was left relatively free of

government restrictions or interference for a while.

Uhm and Haugue provide a description of the

participatory sections of the President’s website. They

write:

Behind the outwardly chaotic Open

Forum of the BBS on the Presidential

Website, a team works quietly,

browsing all the messages received

through the BBS and other channels

for user participation, and sorting

them in terms of the need for specific

attention and governmental follow-up.

Page 28

One of the main jobs the team

conducts is to transfer each of the

messages to the relevant section of the

Presidential Office, or to the ministry

in charge of the policy area concerned.

The other main job is to make a daily

report to the President, based on the

issues not necessarily ripe for media

attention but showing signs of

potential that could push the

government into difficulties. These

interactive channels function as a

dynamic store of political issues,

spanning the gamut of societal

interests, ranging from key policy

issues like the amendment of

education acts to essentially private

matters like a boundary dispute

between neighbors.

Korean government ministries similarly had

websites where anyone could post a message, “even

anonymously, and share them with others.” (p. 28)

These websites where offered as a place where “all

public opinion” can be expressed. (p. 28)

Posting to an official site is not necessarily

without concern about retaliation however. Recently,

a high school student reported:

We have no channel to convey our

opinions to the education authorities.

If we post a petition to a Web site of a

provincial education office, the

message is delivered to our school and

teachers give us a hard time because

of it.

There are other events which demonstrate the

power of the net and the netizen in contemporary

Korean politics. For example, there was the Defeat

Campaign for the April 2000 election. NGO’s used

the internet to wage a protest against the reelection of

a number of politicians they proposed were too

corrupt or incompetent to continue in office. They

called this a blacklist. Several of the politicians they

opposed did not get reelected.

Rather than gathering further examples, how-

ever, there is the challenge to understand the nature of

the practice to extend democracy that has emerged in

South Korea.

D – The Netizen and Netizen Democracy in

South Korea

One aspect identified as important for netizen

democratic activity is that the netizen participation is

directed toward the broader interests of the commu-

nity. Byoungkwan Lee writes:

People who use the Internet for certain

purpose are called ‘Netizens’ and they

may be classified in various groups

according to the purpose that they

pursue on the Internet. While some

people simply seek specific

information they need, others build

their own community and play an

active part in the Internet for the inter-

est of that community. [Michael]

Hauben (1997) defined the term

Netizen as the people who actively

contribute online toward the

development of the Internet…. In

particular, Usenet news groups or

Internet bulletin boards are considered

an ‘agora’ where the Netizens actively

discuss and debate upon various

issues…. In this manner, a variety of

agenda are formed on the ‘agora’ and

in their activity there, a Netizen can

act as ‘a citizen who uses the Internet

as a way of participating in political

society’….

Another component of democratic practice is

to participate in discussion and debate. Discussing an

issue with others who have a variety of views is a

process that can help one to think through an issue

and develop a thoughtful and common understanding

of a problem. The interactive nature of the online

experience allows for a give and take that helps

netizens dynamically develop or change their

opinions and ideas. Several Korean researchers

describe the benefit of online discussion. For

example, Jongwoo Han writes:

Another aspect of

online is that participating in a discussion with others

with a variety of viewpoints makes it possible to

develop a broader and more all sided understanding of

issues.

Jinbong Choi, offers a similar observation:

By showing various perspectives of an

issue the public can have a chance to

acquire more information and

understand the issue more deeply.

Byoungkwan Lee observes how the net

Page 29

provides “a public space where people have the

opportunity to express their own opinions and debate

on a certain issue.”

Comparing the experience online

with the passive experience of the user of other

media, Lee notes, “Further the role of the internet as

a public space seems to be more dynamic and

practical than that of traditional media such as

television, newspapers, and magazines because of its

own distinct characteristics, namely, interactivity.”

(pp. 58-59)

An important function of the internet is to

facilitate netizens’ thinking about and considering

public issues and questions. Byoungkwan Lee

explains some of how this occurs:

Various opinions about public issues,

for instance, are posted on the Internet

bulletin boards or the Usenet news-

groups by Netizens, and the opinions

then form an agenda in which other

Netizens can perceive the salient

issues. As such it is assumed that not

only does the Internet function as the

public space, but it can also function

as a medium for forming Internet

users’ opinions.

Through their discussion and participation,

netizens are able to have an impact on public affairs.

Hyug Baeg Im argues that the internet even makes it

possible for Korean netizens to provide a check on

government activity:

[The] Internet can deliver more and

diverse information to citizens faster

in speed and cheaper in cost, disclose

information about politicians in cyber

space that works 24 hours, transmit

quickly the demands of people to their

representatives through two-way

cyber communication, and enable

politicians to respond to people’s

demands in their policymaking and

legislation in a speedy manner. In

addition, netizens can make use of

Internet as collective action place of

monitoring, pressuring and protesting

that works 24 hours and can establish

the system of constant political

accountability.

The impact the internet is having on the

younger generations of Korean society has impressed

several researchers. For example, Jongwoo Han

observes that younger netizens are more quickly able

to participate in political affairs than was previously

possible. Jongwoo Han writes:

Due to its effectiveness as a communi-

cations channel, the Internet shortens

the time in which social issues become

part of the national agenda, especially

among populations previously

excluded from the national discourse.

The time needed for one generation to

learn from the previous one is also

shortened. In newly created Internet

cyberspace, the young generation,

which did not use to factor in major

social and political discourses in

Korean society, is becoming a major

player. The political orientation of the

offline 386 generation was smoothly

handed on to the 2030 apolitical

young generation through the 2002

World Cup and candle light anti-U.S.

demonstrations.

(Note: The 386 generation refers to those who were

university students in the 1980s. Also they were the

first generation of Korean students who had access to

computers for their personal use. The 2030 generation

refers to students currently in their 20's and 30's and

who have grown up with the internet.)

Jongwoo Han argues that online discussion

has brought a needed development in Korean

democracy. All can participate and communicate:

Due to the revolutionary development

of information technology, the

transition of power from one

generation to the next will accelerate,

thus maximizing the dynamics of

changes in political systems. The

duration of the overall learning and

ed u ca t i on pr o ce s s b e t w e e n

generations will also be shortened.

Especially, the Netizen transcends the

boundaries of age, job, gender and

education as long as participants share

individual inclinations on topics.

Explaining how the participatory process

works, Kim, Moon, and Yang provide an example

from Nosamo’s experience:

Their internal discussion making

Page 30

process was a microcosm of

participatory democracy in practice.

All members voted on a decision

following open deliberations in

forums for a given period of time.

Opinions were offered in this process

in order to effect changes to the

decision on which people were to

vote.

Such online discussion and decision making

was demonstrated when members of Roh’s fan club

disagreed with his decision to send South Korean

troops to Iraq in support of the U.S. invasion. Even

though they were members of a fan club, they did not

feel obligated to support every action of the Roh

Presidency.

The fan club members held an online

discussion and vote on their website about the U.S.

war in Iraq. They issued a public statement opposing

the decision to send South Korean troops to Iraq.

Several researchers are endeavoring to investi-

gate the netizens phenomenon and the conscious

identity that is being developed. They believe that the

internet is providing an important way to train future

citizens. For example, Sang-jin Han writes:

I argue that a post-traditional and

hence post-Confusian attitude is

emerging quite visible particularly

among younger generations who use

the Internet, not simply as an

instrument of self-interest, but as a

public sphere where netizens freely

meet and discuss matters critically.

In his research, Sang-Jin Han is interested in

the impact the internet is having on the democratic

development of South Korean society. He argues that

the online experience provides an alternative

experience to the authoritarian and hierarchical

institutions and practices that are prevalent in society

offline. The online experience in itself is a form of a

laboratory for democracy. In the process of

participating in the democratic processes online, a

new identity is forged. One begins to experience the

identity of oneself as a participant, not observer.

Contributions online are appreciated or the subject of

controversy. This is a different world than the one the

ordinary person experiences offline and one that is a

more dynamic and creative experience. Sang-Jin Han

refers to research by Sunny Yoon about the impact of

the internet on South Korean youth. Yoon writes:

In short, the Korean new generation

experiences an alternative identity in

cyberspace that they have never

achieved in real life. The hierarchical

system of ordinary social reality turns

up side down as soon as Korean

students enter cyberspace. In

interviews, most students claim that

the Internet opened a new world and

new excitement. This is not only

because the Internet has exciting

information, but also because it

provides them with anew experience

and an alternative hierarchical. It is

something of an experience of

deconstructing power in reality,

especially in Korean society, which is

strongly hierarchical and repressive

for young students.

IV – Conclusion

In this case study I have explored several

aspects of the online experience that generally are

given little attention. South Korean netizens utilize

the internet forums to let each other know of a prob-

lem or event, to discuss problems and to explore how

to find solutions. This form of activity is a critical part

of a democratic process. It involves the participant not

in carrying out someone else’s solution to a problem,

but in the effort to frame the nature of the problem

and to understand its essence.

The internet doesn’t require that one belong to

a particular institution. A netizen can express his or

her opinion, gather the facts that are available, and

hear and discuss the facts gathered and opinions

offered by others. Not only is the internet a laboratory

for democracy, but the scale of participation and

contributions is unprecedented. Online discussion

makes it possible for netizens to become active

individual and group actors in social and public

affairs. The internet makes it possible for netizens to

speak out independently of institutions or officials.

The netizen is able to participate in an experi-

ence that reminds one of the role that the citizen of

ancient Athens or the citoyen just after the French

Revolution could play in society. The experience of

such participation is a training ground in which

people learn the skills and challenges through the

Page 31

process. Considering the potential of the internet, the

Swedish researcher Ylva Johansson refers to the

potential of technology as contributing to political

participation and the concept of citizenship on a

higher societal level.

Describing this important benefit of being

online, Hauben writes:

For the people of the world, the Net

provides a powerful means for

peaceful assembly. Peaceful assembly

allows people to take control of their

lives, rather than that control being in

the hands of others.

This case study of Korean netizens provides a

beginning investigation into the impact that wide-

spread broadband access can bring to society.

The

practices of South Korean netizens to extend democ-

racy is prologue to the changes that netizenship can

bring to the world, to the rise of netizen democracy as

a qualitative advance over the former concept of the

citizen and democracy.

Appendix A

The Early Development of Computer Networking in Korea

South Korea’s first networking system was the

connection of two computers on May 15, 1982, one at the

Department of Computer Science, at Seoul National University

and the other to a computer at the Korean Institute of Electronics

Technology (KIET) in Gumi (presently ETRI ) via a 1200 bps

leased line. In January1983, a computer at KAIST (Korea

Advanced Institute of Science and Technology) connected to the

other two computers. These three computers at different

networking sites used TCP/IP to connect. This is the

communication protocol which makes it possible to have an

internet. This early Korean computer network was called System

Development Network (SDN).* In August 1983, the Korean

SDN was connected to the mcvax computer in the Netherlands

using the Unix networking program UUCP (Unix to-Unix Copy).

And in October 1983 the Korean network was connected to a site

in the U.S. (HP Labs).

A more formal connection to the U.S. government spon-

sored network CSNET was made in December 1984. In 1990,

the Korean network joined the U.S. part of the internet.

*See “A Brief History of the Internet in Korea,”

https://net.its.hawaii.edu/history/Korean_Internet_History.pdf

Notes:

1. See for example, Michael Hauben, Preface, in Michael

Hauben and Ronda Hauben, Netizens: On the History and Impact

of Usenet and the Internet, IEEE Computer Society Press, 1997,

p. ix.

2. IBID., Chapter 1, p. 3.

3. This is a concept that Michael Hauben developed in an article

“What the Net Means to Me,” online at:

http://www.ais.org/~hauben/Michael_Hauben/Collected_Work

s/Amateur_Computerist/What_the_Net_Means_to_Me.txt

4. “Where and When was Democracy Invented,” Comparative

Studies in Society and History 41(4), 1999, pp. 660-690.

Online at: http://pscourses.ucsd.edu/ps200b/Markoff%20Where

%20When%20Democracy%20Invented.pdf

5. A significant caveat about this case study is that computer

networking and the internet were developed relatively early in

South Korea. (See Appendix A) The country is a showplace for

the spread of broadband internet access to a large percentage of

the population. A study of the spread of the internet in South

Korea is a study of an advanced situation which allows one to

see into the future. This study raises the question of whether

knowledge of the practices of the South Korean netizen move-

ment can help to extend democracy elsewhere around the world.

6. See note 1, Chapter 12, pp. 214-221.

7. Myung Koo Kang, “The Grassroots Online Movement and

Changes in Korean Civil Society,” Review of Media, Information

and Society 3, 1998, pp. 107-127.

8. Jongseon Shin, soc.culture.korea, April 10, 2005. Online at:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/soc.culture.korean/

gbZORadACPQ/IxrUYb7FuE8J

9. Heekyung Hellen Kim, Jae Yun Moon and Shinkyu Yang,

“Broadband Penetration and Participatory Politics: South Korea

Case,” Proceedings of the 37

Hawaii International Conference

on System Sciences, 2004, p. 4.

10. IBID., p. 5.

11. Sang-Jin Han, “Confucian Tradition and the Young Genera-

tion in Korea: The Effect of Post-Traditional Global Testing,”

International Symposium Dialogue among Youth in East Asia

Project, Yingjie Exchange Center of Peking University, deliv-

ered January 14, 2004.

12. Yong-Cho Ha and Sangbae Kim, “The Internet Revolution

and Korea: A Socio-cultural Interpretation,” International

Conference on Re-Booting the Miracle? Asia and the Internet

Revolution in the Age of International Indeterminacy, Seoul,

South Korea, December 4, 2002. Online at:

http://www.sangkim.net/it&korea.pdf

13. See Hyug Baeg Im, From Democratic Consolidation to

Democratic Governance: 21

Century South Korean Democracy

in Comparative Perspective, p. 28.

14. See note 11, p. 10.

15. Translated and quoted in Hae-joang Cho Han, “Beyond the

FIFA World Cup: An Ethnography of the ‘Local’ in South Korea

around the 2002 World Cup,” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Vol.

5, No. 1, 2004, p. 11.

16. IBID., p. 5.

17. IBID., pp. 17-18.

18. See Korea Times articles: Na Jeong-ju, “Anti-U.S. Protests

Held Nationwide Over Acquittals of GIs,” Korea Times, Novem-

Page 32

ber 27, 2002 and Na Jeong-ju, “Entertainers, Priests Join Anti -

U.S. Protests,” Korea Times December 3, 2002

19. See note 15, p. 22.

20. Kim Hyong-eok, “The Two Koreas: A Chance to Revive,”

Korea Times, December 27, 2002. This article in the Korea

Times attributes Roh’s election to the euphoria generated by the

World Cup Soccer Games, the hostility to the U.S. generated by

the deaths of the two Korean school girls and the inadequacy of

the U.S. response.

21. See note 15, p. 14.

22. Yun Young-Min, “An Analysis of Cyber-Electioneering

Focusing on the 2002 Presidential Election in Korea,” Korea

Journal, Autumn 2003, pp. 141-164.

23. Jongwoo Han. “Internet, Social Capital, and Democracy in

the Information Age: Korea's Defeat Movement, the Red Devils,

Candle Light Anti-U.S. Demonstration, and Presidential Election

during 2000-2002,” p. 15, (no longer online). See also, Han

Jongwoo, Networked Information Technologies, Elections, and

Politics: Korea and the United States, Lanham, Maryland, Lex-

ington Books, 2012, p. 85.

24. See note 11, p. 8.

25. See note 22, p. 157.

26. Kim Deok-hyun, “Roh’s Online Supporters Behind Victory,”

Korea Times, December 23, 2002.

27. IBID.

28. See note 22, p. 143.

29. Kim Yong-Ho, “Political Significance of the 2002

Presidential Election Outcome and Political Prospects for the

Roh Administration,” Korea Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2, 2003, p.

233.

30. Yong-Chool Ha and Sangbae Kim, “The Internet Revolution

and Korea: A Socio-cultural Interpretation,” paper deliveredDec.

4, 2005 at the conference Re-Booting the Miracle? Asia and the

Internet Revolution in the Age of International Indeterminacy,

Seoul, South Korea, December 4-5, 2005, p. 8.

31. “No Forced Haircut, Please,” Korea Times, May 5, 2005.

32. Seung-Yong Uhm and Rod Hague, “Electronic Governance,

Political Participation and Virtual Community: Korea and U.K.

Compared in Political Context,” paper presented at European

Consortium for Political Research, Joint Workshops, Workshop

on “Electronic Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and

Participation via new ICTs,” Institut d’Etudes Politiques de

Grenoble, France, 6-11 April 2001, p. 24.

33. Bae Keun-min, “High School Students Stand Up for Rights,”

Korea Times, May 10, 2005.

34. Byoungkwan Lee, Karen M. Lancendorfer and Ki Jung Lee,

“Agenda-Setting and the Internet: the Intermedia Influence of

Internet Bulletin Boards on Newspaper Coverage of the 2000

General Election in South Korea,” Asian Journal of Communica-

tion, Vol. 15, No 1, 2005, p. 58.

35. See note 23, 17.

36. Jinbong Choi, “Public Journalism in Cyberspace: A Korean

Case Study,” Global Media Journal, Vol. 2, No 3, 2003, p. 27.

Online at:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f61/7a8501127c4

c99621569d649d6e49b8688c5.pdf?_ga=2.120817920.9669382

31.1501521414-2089356332.1501521414.

37. See note 34, pp. 58-59.

38. IBID.

39. Hyug Baeg Im, “Democratic Consolidation and Democratic

Governance: 21

Century South Korean Democracy in Compara-

tive Perspective,” Sixth Forum on Reinventing Government,

Seoul, South Korea, May 24-27, 2005.

40. See note 23, p. 4.

41. Han Jongwoo, 2002, pp. 16-17.

42. See note 9,

43. An article in the Korea Times on March 24, 2003, quotes a

member of the fan club: “When we say we love Roh Moo-hyun,

we do not mean Roh is always right. We simply mean that we

love his ideas for new politics and a democracy in which the

people are the real owners of the country.” Byun Duk-kun,

“‘Nosamo’ Opposes Assistance to Iraq War.”

44. See note 11, p. 4.

45. Sunny Yoon, “Internet Discourse and the Habitus of Korea’s

New Generation,” Culture, Technology, Communication, edited

by Charles Ess with Fay Sudweeks, State University of New

York, 2001, p. 255.

46. Ylva Johansson, “Civic Engagement in Change – The Role

of the Internet,” European Consortium for Political Research,

Edinburgh, U.K., 2003.

47. See note 1, for example, Chapter 18, “The Computer as a

Democratizer,” pp. 315- 320.

48. Hauben quotes Steve Welch who recognized the importance

of all having access (IBID., p. 27): “If we can get to the point

where anyone who gets out of high school has used computers to

communicate on the Net or a reasonable facsimile or successor

to it, then we as a society will benefit in ways not currently

understandable. When access to information is as ubiquitous as

access to the phone system, all Hell will break loose. Bet on it.”

Bibliography

Cho Han, Hae-joang. “‘You are entrapped in an imaginary well’:

the formation of subjectivity within compressed

development – a feminist critique of modernity and

Korean culture.” Inter-Asia Culture Studies. Vol. 1, No.

1, 2000. Pp 49-69.

ChoHan, Hae-joang. “Youth, Internet and Culture: Based on the

Haja Experimental Project.” Oceans Connect: Maritime

Perspectives In & Beyond the Classroom. John Hope

Franklin Center for International Studies Conference.

Duke University. Feb. 28 - March 3, 2002.

Cho Han, Hae-joang. “Youth, Temporary Autonomous Zone,

and Internet in South Korea. From the Book to the

Internet: Communications Technologies, Human

Motions, and Cultural Formations in Eastern Asia.”

Paper Presented at Oregon University Freeman

Conference. October 16-18, 2003.

Cho Han, Hae-joang. “Beyond the FIFA’s World Cup - Ethnog-

raphy of the ‘Local’ in South Korea around the 2002

World Cup.” Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. Vol. 5, No. 1.

Pp. 9-26.

Choi, Jibing. “Public Journalism in Cyberspace: A Korean Case

Study.” Global Media Journal. Vol. 2, No. 1. 2003.

Online at:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/5f61/7

Page 33

a 8 5 0 1 1 27 c4 c 99 6 2 1 56 9d 64 9 d 6 e 4 9 b 8 6 8 8 c 5 .

pdf?_ga=2.120817920.966938231.1501521414-

2089356332.1501521414

Chon, Kilnam, Park, Hyunje, Kang, Kyungran, and Lee,

Youngeum. “A Brief History of the Internet in Korea.”

Korea Internet History Project. July29, 2005.

htt p s:/ / s i t e s . g o o gl e . c o m/ s i t e/ ko r e a inte rne t

history/publication/brief-hi story-korea-eng-ver

Ha, Yong-Chool and Kim Sangbae. “The Internet Revolution

and Korea: A Socio-cultural Interpretation.” Paper

delivered Dec 4, 2005 at the conference Re-Booting the

Miracle? Asia and the Internet Revolution in the Age of

International Indeterminacy. Seoul, South Korea. Dec.

4-5, 2005. Online at:

http://www.sangkim.net/it&

korea.pdf

Han, Jongwoo. “Internet, Social Capital, and Democracy in the

Information Age: Korea’s Defeat Movement, the Red

Devils, Candle Light Anti-U.S. Demonstration and

Presidential Election During 2000-2002.” September

2002.

Han, Jongwoo. Networked Information Technologies, Elections,

and Politics: Korea and the United States. Lanham.

Md. Lexington Books. 2012.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Paradoxical Modernity and the Quest for Neo

Communitarian Alternative.”Prepared for the workshop

on The Normative Case of Modernity and its Cultural

Contextualization. German Institute for Japanese

Studies, Tokyo, Japan. Nov. 16-17, 2004.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Modernization and the Rise of Civil Society:

The Rule of the ‘Middling Grassroots’ for

Democratization in Korea.” Human Studies, Vol. 24.

2001. Pp. 113-132.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Confucian Tradition and the Young Generation

in Korea: The Effect of Post-Traditional Global

Testing.” International Symposium Dialogue among

Youth in East Asia Project, Yingjie Exchange Center of

Peking University. Delivered January 14, 2004.

Han, Sang-Jin. “Three Prime-Movers in the Contested Civil

Society: Why and How Social Transformation Occurs

in Korea.” Keynote Speech 36

ITS World Congress of

Sociology. Beijing. July 7-11, 2004.

Im, Hyug Baeg. “Democratic Consolidation and Democratic

Governance: 21

Century South Korean Democracy in

Comparative Perspective.” 6

Forum on Reinventing

Government. Seoul, South Korea. May 24-27, 2005.

Johansson, Ylva. “Civic Engagement in Change – The

Role of the Internet.” European Consortium for

Political Research. Edinburgh, U.K. 2003.

Kang, Myung Koo. “The Grassroots Online Movement and

Changes in Korean Civil Society.” Review of Media,

Information and Society. Vol. 3. 1998. Pp. 107-127.

Kim, Heekyung Hellen, Moon, Jae Yun and Yang Shinkyu.

“Broadband Penetration and Participatory Politics:

South Korea Case.” Proceedings of the 37

Hawaii

International Conference on System Sciences. 2004. Pp.

1-10. Kim, Junki. “Electronic Advocacy by Non

Governmental Organizations in Korea: Changing the

Practice of Political Advocacy.” March 15-16, 2001.

Kim, Yong-Ho. “Political Significance of the 2002 Presidential

Election Outcome and Political Prospects for the Roh

Administration.” Korea Journal, Vol. 43, No.2. 2003.

Pp. 230-256.

Kwon, Haesoo and Lee, Jong Youl. “NGO’s Political Reform

Movement Process via the Internet: Focusing on‘Elect-

ion Defeat Movement’ in Korea.” International Review

of Public Administration. Vol. 8, No. 2. 2004. Pp.

49-57.

Lee, Byoungkwan, Lancendorfer, Karen M. and Lee, Ki Jung.

“Agenda-Setting and the Internet: the Intermedia Influ-

ence of Internet Bulletin Boards on Newspaper

Coverage of the 2000 General Election in South

Korea.” Asian Journal of Communication. Vol. 15, No

1. 2005.

Lee, Jae Joung. Political Changes and Challenges in Korean

Society, Session 1, Council of Asian Liberals and

Democrats, 2002.

Markoff, John. “Where and When was Democracy Invented?”

Comparative Studies in Society and History. Vol. 41,

No. 4, 1999. Pp. 660-690. Online at:

ht t p : / /p s co u r se s. uc s d . e d u/ p s 2 0 0 b / M a r k o f f

%20Where%20When%20Democra cy%20Invented.pdf

in 1996. Pp. 109-127.

Shin, Jongseon. “Online community of the 1990s and Korean

Netizens movement.” soc.culture.korea April 10, 2005.

Online at:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/

soc.culture.korean/gbZORadACPQ/IxrUYb7FuE8J

Uhm, Seung-Yong and Hague, Rod. “Electronic Governance,

Political Participation and Virtual Community: Korea

and U.K. Compared in Political Context.” Paper

presented at European Consortium for Political

Research, Joint Workshops, Workshop on “Electronic

Democracy: Mobilisation, Organisation and

Participation via new ICTs,” Institut d’Etudes

Politiques de Grenoble, France, 6-11 April 2001.

Yoon, Sunny. “Technological Choice and Transnational Capital

Power: Disputes on the European or the U.S. model of

Digital Television in South Korea.” Paper presented at

IAMC. Porto Alegre. July, 2004.

Yoon, Sunny. “Internet Discourse and the Habitus of Korea’s

New Generation.” Culture, Technology,

Communication. Edited by Charles Ess with Fay

Sudweeks. State University of New York. 2001. Pp.

241-260.

Yun, Young Min. “An Analysis of Cyber-Electioneering Focus-

ing on the 2002 Presidential Election in Korea.” Korea

Journal. Autumn 2003. Pp. 141-164.

Page 34

[Editor’s Note: The following appeared on various

Usenet newsgroups on Feb. 7, 1996. It was first

written for a class at Teachers College, Dept. of

Communications, Columbia University, N.Y., N.Y.]

What Is of Value to

Me On the Net

by Michael Hauben

[Author’s Note (1996): This was thoughts I wrote up

in response to a computer and writing class in which

I participate. I felt it worthwhile to share with others

outside the class, and to hear people’s responses.

Please respond to the newsgroup so we can keep a

discussion going. However, if possible please e-mail

me a response so I know in which newsgroup to

check.]

I was curious to hear my TA [Teaching Assis-

tant] speak about the “What’s hot!” lists on Yahoo

and the various web search tools. The reason is that

for me these represent “What’s not!” In fact the media

hype surrounding the World Wide Web (WWW) is

being driven by the desires of commercial entities to

make as large a profit as possible. This is not why I

have used the Net, and not why I decided to make it

my area of study. I am not saying that the web is not

useful; I find it a valuable way to self-publish my

writings and other creations. However, it is not what

the media is hyping it to be. At some point in the

future, I believe the hype will cause the bubble to

burst. I predict that on-line advertising will dissipate

when it is found it does not produce results. Already

I have read articles on how people skip the ads by

turning graphics off. Ha!

The reason why “What’s hot” is not is I am

not interested in the presence of big media companies

on the Internet, WWW or otherwise. Fox, Sony, the

Gap and the like already hold reign over the

conventional media of TV, Radio, print advertisement

and other mass medias. I am sick of the billboards

around New York City, the magazine and subway

advertisements and the commercials polluting

television. I am also sick of the effect this has on our

society as a whole.

The Internet has represented a rebellion

against these forces, a way for the little person to find

an area free of commercial waste. I like to use the

model of Central Park, as a public space, a public

commons where people can escape from the giant

media moguls to have some fresh air and space to be

themselves. A cooperative global community has

developed on-line in the communication channels

which exist – in particular Usenet and mailing lists.

The value of online has been in the social value. You

come and join the community and make your

voluntary contributions – whether it be responding to

Usenet posts, compiling FAQs or ftp sites, now

setting up valuable web pages, helping newbie’s,

protecting the Net from different kinds of attacks,

contributing new technological developments in

computer code, etc. These contributions are in a sense

selfless. While they might help the individual, they

are given to the community as a contribution to the

whole of the community. And in return, since others

are doing the same, one eventually gets value. This is

a community where the concept of a ‘stranger’ does

not exist.

This is the world of the Net (Internet, Usenet,

etc) and the world of the Netizen, or citizen of the

Net. This is what I am a part of and where I feel that

I am connected to a larger part of the world. Being

part of a world community is important, and very

different from surfing the Net to read the latest

multimedia advertisement for Disney or Sony – I’m

sick of movie previews, thank you. In fact, I have a

music index of web pages off my home page that is

getting harder to maintain. This is true as I am getting

more and more requests to put on major labels and

artists that flood out all of the fledgling artists or fan

based pages which deserve much more of a chance to

be heard. I am interested in the “new” contributions of

the new person.

The Net is the chance for the little person, all

of us, to gain more control over our lives from large

corporate entities which have grabbed control of all

past mass medias. Here is a chance for people to

communicate with each other, for each other, and

with each other against those that have interest in

preventing us from organizing ourselves. Here we can

distribute/broadcast our academic and creative works

around the world for others to see, and for us to

receive comments, questions and criticisms. Mediums

of communication represent power and control. Here

Page 35

is a chance to organize to protect and keep the Net in

the control of the people. Please join this fight.

The places where I see this medium

developing for the people is in the “communication”

as opposed to “information.” Clinton/Gore get it all

wrong when they look toward the future of the

Information Super highway. What we have is a

communications interconnection. The give and take

in the public discussion areas and forums on-line

bring the potential for real participatory democracy.

It is important for the future of our society to make

literacy of discussion on-line important, and to make

time in people’s lives to join that ever-flowing

discussion.

The underground has become mainstream by

highlighting the bottom-up rather than top-down. This

is important to preserve as a place, a public commons

for the individual to make his contribution to society.

I could go on, but I am losing my stream of

thought. I would be interested in hearing thoughts and

comments about this. I also hope in this class to work

toward studying how writing plays a part in this since

the communication channels I speak of are primarily

text-based.

I feel it is important to spread access and

knowledge of the Net. As a network of different

contributions, ideas and thoughts, it is important that

all possible parts can become interconnected to the

Net. Commercial providers will not strive for this as

all points are not profitable to provide access to.

There will always be someone who lives too far a way

or who has a special problem to make it less of a

profit maker. I feel it is important for society to

understand the social value of connecting all its parts,

giving all of its parts equal access to the information

and communication out there and at the same time

allowing those parts to provide their unique

contribution. To me, the only way for society to make

access and knowledge of the Nets and computers

available to all is through the combined efforts of

governments. The government is the social form for

making things available to the masses. There are

historical reasons for this as well.

In addition, to understand why the Net is the

way it is, and how it can be this way, I feel it is

important to understand the historical origins and

development of the Net. Like I mentioned earlier in

class, Usenet was developed in 1979 in order to help

further the development of the Unix operating system.

In addition, technology requires a community of

people active, a cooperative community, for its

development. Technology only develops through the

working together of people, not the competing of

people.

Lastly, if you are interested in previous

writings and research I have about the Net, you can

look to

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/papers/

Thanks,

See also: Amateur Computerist Newsletter at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ and WWW Music Index at:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/music/

[Editor’s Note: The following paper was prepared for

a program at the UN Headquarters in New York City

on May2, 2014. It can be seen online at: http://www.

columbia.edu/~hauben/ronda2014/May2.pdf]

Netizen Journalism

The Emergence of New

Forms of News that Can

Improve the Policy Making

Process

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

I – Preface

In this paper I want to explore the new news

that is emerging and how this new form of news is

making it possible to improve the policymaking

process. This new news is part of the phenomenon I

refer to as netizen journalism.

In exploring this question I will discuss a case

study as an example to consider toward looking at the

potential for both the present and future of journalism

that this new phenomenon represents.

II – First some background

In October of 2006, I began covering the

United Nations as a journalist for the English edition

Page 36

of the South Korean online newspaper, OhmyNews

International. When Ohmynews ended its English

edition in 2010, I became a correspondent covering

the UN for an English language blog – http://blogs.

taz.de/netizenblogat the web site of the German

newspaper Die Tageszeitung. Both OhmyNews

International and my blog at the taz.de web site are

online publications.

With Michael Hauben, I am co-author of the

book Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet (Hauben & Hauben, 1997). The book

was first published online in January 1994. Then, on

May 1, 1997, the print edition of the book Netizens

was published in English and in October, a Japanese

translation was published. This was the first book to

recognize that along with the development of the

Internet, a new form of citizenship, called netizenship

has emerged. This is a form of citizenship that has

developed based on the broader forms of political

participation and empowerment made possible by the

Net.

I want to share a brief overview of the origin,

use and impact of the netizen concept and its relation

to what I call netizen journalism before presenting a

case study about the impact netizen journalism has

had on the UN Security Council’s conflict resolution

process.

III – Introduction

While now many people are interested in the

impact of the Internet on society, pioneering research

was done by my co-author Michael Hauben in the

early 1990s when the Internet was first beginning to

spread and to connect people around the world. In his

research, Hauben recognized that there were people

who appreciated the communication the Internet made

possible and that these people worked to spread the

Net and to do what they felt needed for it to help to

create a better world. Taking the common network

term, ‘net.citizen’ used online at the time, Hauben

proposed that these people who worked to contribute

to the Net and the bigger world it was part of were

‘netizens.’

In an article he wrote on the impact of the Net

on journalism, he recognized that many people online

were frustrated with the mainstream media and that

the netizens would be creating a broader and more

widespread media. As Hauben recognized in the early

1990s “the collective body of people assisted by (the

Net)…has grown larger than any individual newspa-

per….” (Hauben, M., 1997b: 233). Predicting the

important impact the Net and Netizens would have on

the future of journalism and the media, Hauben

(1997a: 3-4) wrote:

A new world of connections between

people – either privately from

individual to individual or publicly

from individuals to the collective mass

of many on the Net is possible. The

old model of distribution of

information from the central Network

Broadcasting Company is being ques-

tioned and challenged. The top-down

model of information being

distributed by a few for mass-

consumption is no longer the only

news. Netnews brings the power of

the reporter to the Netizen. People

now have the ability to broadcast their

observations or questions around the

world and have other people respond.

The computer networks form a new

grassroots connection that allows the

excluded sections of society to have a

voice. This new medium is

unprecedented. Previous grassroots

media have existed for much smaller

sized selections of people. The model

of the Net proves the old way does not

have to be the only way of net-

working. The Net extends the idea of

networking – of making connections

with strangers that prove to be

advantageous to one or both parties.

This broader collective of netizens and journal-

ists empowered by the Net are participating in gener-

ating and transmitting the news toward creating a

better society. This is a basis for developing a concep-

tion of netizen journalism.

I want to look at a news event about Korea and

the UN in the context of this description of the news

the Net makes possible and then consider the implica-

tion of this case study for the kind of journalism that

I propose netizens and the Internet are making possi-

ble.

IV – Korea

First some background about South Korea and

Page 37

the Net and Netizen. In February of 2003, I was

glancing at the front page summaries of the articles in

an issue of the Financial Times. I saw a surprising

headline for an article continued later in the issue. The

article said that in 2002 netizens in South Korea had

elected the President of the country, Roh Moo-hyun.

He had just taken office on February 25, 2003. The

new President promised that the Internet would be

influential in the form of government he established.

Also I learned that an online Korean newspaper called

OhmyNews and South Korean netizens had been

important making these developments possible.

Colleagues encouraged me to get in contact with

OhmyNews and to learn more about the netizens

activities in South Korea and about OhmyNews.

I subsequently learned that both South Korea

and China are places where the role of netizens is

important in building more democratic structures for

society. I began to pay attention to both of these

netizen developments. South Korea, for example, has

been advanced in grassroots efforts to create

examples of netizen forms for a more participatory

decision making processes. I wrote several research

papers documenting the achievements and activities

of Korean netizens (Hauben, R., 2005; 2006a; 2007a)

V – Reporting on the UN

By October 2006 the second five year term for

Kofi Annan as the Secretary General of the United

Nations was soon to end. One of the main contenders

to become the 8

Secretary General of the UN was the

Foreign Minister of South Korea, Ban Ki-moon. By

2006, I was writing regularly as a featured columnist

for OhmyNews International, the English language

edition of OhmyNews. On October 9, 2006, Ban Ki-

moon won the Security Council nomination. This

nomination was to be approved by the General

Assembly on October 13. I thought this would be a

historic event for South Korea. I asked the Editor of

OhmyNews International (OMNI) if I could cover the

UN for it. He agreed and I was able to get my creden-

tial in time to go to the General Assembly meeting

when the General Assembly voted to accept the

Security Council’s nomination of Ban Ki-moon.

I was surprised that some of the speeches wel-

coming Ban Ki-moon as the Secretary General elect

were meaningful speeches referring to actual

problems at the UN such as the need for reform of the

Security Council. A significant focus of the comments

to the new Secretary General from member states

emphasized the importance of communication at the

UN. That it was critical for the incoming Secretary

General to listen to all states and to hear their views

Witnessing the vote for a new Secretary General who

was from South Korea, I wondered if the Internet

would be able to have any impact on the new

Secretary General and on what happened at the

United Nations, since the Internet had been able to

make it possible for netizens in South Korea to impact

politics.

The very next day, on October 14, the Security

Council took up to condemn the recent nuclear test by

North Korea. This had been North Korea’s first nu

clear test. The Security Council imposed sanctions on

North Korea, not giving the North Korean Ambassa-

dor to the UN, Pak Gil Yon a chance to respond until

after the sanctions had been voted on. When the North

Korean Ambassador responded, he referred among

other issues, to financial sanctions that the U.S. had

imposed on North Korea. No one in the Security

Council asked him what he was referring to or how

this affected the issues the Security Council had just

acted on. (Hauben, R., 2007c)

It impressed me that just as a new Secretary

General from South Korea was being chosen at the

UN, at the same time sanctions were being imposed

on North Korea. The Security Council acted against

North Korea before hearing its views on the issue

they were considering. This was in sharp contrast to

the emphasis member nations put on the importance

of hearing the views of all members when they

welcomed Ban Ki moon to the United Nations in the

meeting just one day earlier in the General Assembly.

The article I wrote for OhmyNews

International described this situation. It explained:

The urgent problem facing the UN at

this juncture in history is not whether

North Korea has developed and tested

a nuclear device. It is the breakdown

reflected by the lack of participation

and investigation by the international

community into how a crisis will be

handled once it develops, and whether

the concerns and problems of those

involved in the crisis will be consid-

ered as part of the process of seeking

a solution. It is how the UN functions

when tensions reach a point where

Page 38

serious attention is needed to help to

understand and solve a problem.

(Hauben, R., 2006b)

VI – The Phenomenon of Netizen Journalism

In the research I have been doing and the

experiences I have had exploring the potential of what

I call netizen journalism, several questions have been

raised:

What is this new form of news and

what are its characteristics?

Is this something different from

traditional journalism?

Is there some significant new aspect

represented by netizen journalism?

Traditionally, the press can function as a

watchdog for society by exposing the use and abuse

of power. Or, the press can act to support the abuse of

political power. If netizen journalism can provide a

more accurate understanding of conflicts, it can help

make more likely the peaceful resolution of these

conflicts.

VII – The Cheonan – Some Background

The Cheonan conflict which was brought to

the UN in 2010 provides an important example of

how netizen journalism has helped to make a

significant contribution to a peaceful resolution of a

conflict by the Security Council. The Cheonan

incident concerns a South Korean naval ship, a Navy

Corvette, which broke in two and sank on March 26,

2010. Forty-six of the crew members died in the

tragedy. At the time the Cheonan was involved in

U.S./South Korea naval exercises in an area in the

West Sea/Yellow Sea between North Korea and

China. The sinking of the Cheonan and the South

Korean government’s investigation have been the

subject of much discussion on the Internet.

Initially, the South Korean government and

the U.S. government said there was no indication that

North Korea was involved. Then at a press conference

on May 20, 2010, the South Korean government

claimed that a torpedo fired by a North Korean

submarine exploded in the water near the Cheonan,

causing a pressure wave that was responsible for the

sinking. Many criticisms of this scenario have been

raised.

First, there was no direct evidence of any

North Korean submarine in the vicinity of the

Cheonan. Nor was there any evidence that a torpedo

was actually fired causing a pressure wave

phenomenon. Hence the South Korean government

had no actual case that could be presented in a court

of law to support its claims. In fact, if this claim of a

pressure wave were true, even those involved in the

investigation of the incident acknowledge that “North

Korea would be the first to have succeeded at using

this kind of a bubble jet torpedo action in actual

fighting.” (Lee, Y., 2010)

VIII – The Cheonan Press Conference

and the Local Election

A press conference was held by the South Ko-

rean government on May 20, to announce that North

Korea was responsible for the sinking of the Cheonan.

May 20, it turns out, was also the start of the local and

regional election period. Many South Koreans were

suspicious that the accusation was a ploy to help the

ruling party candidates win in the elections. The

widespread suspicions about the government’s mo-

tives led to the ruling party’s losing many of the local

election contests. These election results demonstrated

the deep distrust among the South Korean population

of the motives behind the South Korean government’s

accusations about North Korea’s responsibility for the

sinking of the Cheonan.

In their article, “Blogging as ‘Recoding’: A

Case Study of the Discursive War over the Sinking of

the Cheonan”, Kim, Jeong, Khang and Kim (2011),

document that in the period between the day of the

accident, March 26, 2010 and June 16, 2010 there

were more than 120,000 posts by netizens about the

sinking of the Cheonan. Though they reduced these to

a sample set of 354, they found that the majority of

the posts were critical of the Korean government’s

claims about the sinking of the Cheonan. Many

netizens were critical of the investigation that the

South Korean government conducted and sought to

challenge the conclusions.

Significantly, netizens demonstrated how they

were able to have an impact on the framing of the

Cheonan story. They also were to have an impact on

how the issue was to be treated at the UN Security

Council.

IX – The Cheonan and Netizen Journalism

Page 39

While there was a substantial response to the

Korean government’s claims among Korean netizens,

the issue also spread internationally. Netizens who

live in different countries and speak different lan-

guages took up to critique the claims of the South

Korean government about the cause of the sinking of

the Cheonan. This netizen activity appears to have

acted as a catalyst affecting the actions of the UN

Security Council in its treatment of the Cheonan

dispute.

Among the responses were substantial

analyses by non-governmental organizations like

SPARK, PSPD, Peaceboat and others, which were

posted on the Internet, either in English, in Korean, or

in both languages. Some of these online posts were in

the form of letters that were also sent to the members

of the UN Security Council (Hauben, R., 2010a;

2010c).

At the time, I saw discussions and critiques

of the Korean government’s claims at American,

Japanese and Chinese web sites, in addition to

conversation and postings about the Cheonan on

South Korean web sites.

One such critique included a three part

analysis by the South Korean NGO People’s

Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD).

This

analysis raised a number of questions and problems

with the South Korean government’s case. The PSPD

document was posted widely on the Internet and also

sent to the President of the United Nations Security

Council for distribution to those Security Council

members interested and to the South Korean Mission

to the UN.

While there were many blog comments about

the Cheonan incident in Korean, there were also some

bloggers writing in English who became active in

critiquing the South Korean investigation and the role

of the U.S. in the conflict. One blogger, Scott Creigh-

ton who uses the pen name Willy Loman, or

American Everyman, wrote a post (Creighton, 2010a)

titled “The Sinking of the Cheonan: We are being lied

to.” The South Korean government had claimed that

a diagram it had displayed at the press conference on

May20 was from a North Korean weapons sales

brochure which offered a torpedo similar to the

torpedo part it claimed to have found near where the

ship sank. The torpedo was identified as the

CHT-02D. In a post he titled “A Perfect Match?”,

Creighton showed how there was a discrepancy

between the diagram displayed by the South Korean

government in the press conference, and the part of

the torpedo it had on display in the glass case below

the diagram (http://willyloman.files.word press.com/

2010/05/not-a-perfect-match-updated2.jpg). He

demonstrated that the diagram did not match the part

of the torpedo on display. He pointed out several

discrepancies between the two. For example, one of

the components of the torpedo shown was in the

propeller section, but in the diagram, the component

appeared in the shaft section. There were many com-

ments in response to this post, including some from

netizens in South Korea. Also the mainstream conser-

vative media in South Korea carried accounts of this

blogger’s critique. Three weeks later, at a news

conference, a South Korean government official

acknowledged that the diagram presented by the

South Korean government was not of the same

torpedo as the part displayed in the glass case. Instead

the diagram displayed was of the PT97W torpedo, not

the CHT-02D torpedo as claimed.

In a post titled “Thanks to Valuable Input”

describing the significance of having documented one

of the fallacies in the South Korean government’s

case, Creighton (2010b) writes:

(I)n the end, thanks to valuable input

from dozens of concerned people all

across the world…. Over 100,000

viewers read that article and it was

republished on dozens of sites all

across the world (even translated). A

South Korean MSM outlet even

posted our diagram depicting the

glaring discrepancies between the

evidence and the drawing of the CHT-

-O2D torpedo, which a high-ranking

military official could only refute by

stating he had 40 years military

experience and to his knowledge, I

had none. But what I had, what we

had, was literally thousands of people

all across the world, scientists,

military members, and just concerned

investigative bloggers who were

committed to the truth and who took

the time to contribute to what we were

doing here.

‘40 years military experience’ took a

beating from ‘we the people World-

Wide’ and that is the way it is

Page 40

supposed to be.

This is just one of a number of serious

questions and challenges that were raised about the

South Korean government’s scenario of the sinking of

the Cheonan.

Other influential events which helped to chal-

lenge the South Korean government’s claims were a

press conference in Japan held on July 9 by two

academic scientists. The two scientists presented

results of experiments they did which challenged the

results of experiments the South Korean government

used to support its case. These two scientists also

wrote to the Security Council with their findings.

Another significant challenge to the South

Korean government report was the finding of a

Russian team of four sent to South Korea to look at

the data from the investigation and to do an independ-

ent evaluation of it. The team of naval experts visited

South Korea from May 30 to June 7. The Russian

team did not accept the South Korean government’s

claim that a pressure wave from a torpedo caused the

Cheonan to sink.

Acquiring a leaked copy of the

Russian Team’s report, the Hankyoreh newspaper in

South Korea reported that the Russian investigators

determined that the ship had come in contact with the

ocean floor and a propeller and shaft became

entangled in a fishing net. Also the investigators

thought it likely that an old underwater mine had

exploded near the Cheonan adding to the factors that

led to the ship sinking.

Such efforts along with online posts and

discussions by many netizens provided a catalyst for

the actions of the UN Security Council concerning the

Cheonan incident.

When the UN Security Council took up the

Cheonan issue in June, I learned that some of the

members of the Council knew of the critiques of the

South Korean government investigation which

blamed North Korea for sinking the ship.

X – The Cheonan and the UN Security

Council

After doing poorly in the local and regional

elections in South Korea, the South Korean govern-

ment brought the dispute over the sinking of the

Cheonan to the United Nations Security Council in

June 2010. A Presidential Statement was agreed to a

month later, in July (Hauben, R., 2010b).

An account of what happened in the Security

Council during this process is described in an impor-

tant article that has appeared in several different

Spanish language publications (Guerrero, 2010) The

article describes the experience of the Mexican Am-

bassador to the UN, Claude Heller in his position as

president of the Security Council for the month of

June 2010. (The presidency rotates each month to a

different Security Council member.)

In a letter to the Security Council dated June

4, South Korea asked the Council to take up the

Cheonan dispute (United Nations Security Council,

2010a). Park Im-kook, then the South Korean

Ambassador to the UN, requested that the Security

Council consider the matter of the Cheonan and

respond in an appropriate manner. The letter

described the investigation into the sinking of the

Cheonan carried out by South Korean government

and military officials. In the letter South Korea

accused North Korea of sinking the South Korean

ship. How would the Mexican Ambassador as

President of the Security Council during the month of

June handle this dispute? This was a serious issue

facing Ambassador Heller as he began his presidency

in June 2010.

Ambassador Heller adopted what he referred

to as a “balanced” approach to treat both governments

on the Korean peninsula in a fair and objective

manner. He held bilateral meetings with each member

of the Security Council which led to support for a

process of informal presentations by both of the

Koreas to the members of the Security Council. He

arranged for the South Korean Ambassador to make

an informal presentation to the members of the

Security Council. Ambassador Heller also invited the

North Korean Ambassador to make a separate infor-

mal presentation to the members of the Security

Council. Sin Son Ho was then the UN Ambassador

from North Korea.

In response to the invitation from the

President of the Security Council, the North Korean

Ambassador to the UN sent a letter dated June 8 to

the Security Council, which denied the allegation that

his country was to blame (United Nations Security

Council, 2010b). His letter urged the Security Council

not to be the victim of deceptive claims, as had

happened with Iraq in 2003. It asked the Security

Council to support his government’s call to be able to

examine the evidence and to be involved in a new and

Page 41

more independent investigation of the sinking of the

Cheonan.

In its June 8 letter to the Security Council,

North Korea referred to the widespread international

sentiment questioning the conclusions of the South

Korean government’s investigation. The North

Korean Ambassador to the UN wrote: “It would be

very useful to remind ourselves of the ever-increasing

international doubts and criticisms, going beyond the

internal boundary of south Korea, over the ‘investiga-

tion result’ from the very moment of its release….”

What Ambassador Heller called “interactive

informal meetings” were held on June 14 with the

South Koreans and the North Koreans in separate

sessions attended by the Security Council members,

who had time to ask questions and then to discuss the

presentations. At a media stakeout on June 14, after

the day’s presentations ended, Ambassador Heller

said that it was important to have received the de-

tailed presentation by South Korea and also to know

and learn the arguments of North Korea.

He com-

mented that “it was very important that North Korea

approached the Security Council.” In response to a

question about his view on the issues presented, he

replied, “I am not a judge. I think we will go on with

the consultations to deal in a proper manner on the

issue.” Ambassador Heller also explained that, “the

Security Council issued a call to the parties to refrain

from any act that could escalate tensions in the region,

and makes an appeal to preserve peace and stability in

the region.”

Though at the time, it was rare for the North

Korean Ambassador to the UN to hold press

briefings, the North Korean UN delegation scheduled

a press conference for Tuesday, June 15, the day

following the interactive informal meeting. During

the press conference, the North Korean Ambassador

presented his government’s refutation of the

allegations made by South Korea.

Also he explained

North Korea’s request to be able to send an

investigation team to the site where the sinking of the

Cheonan occurred. South Korea had denied the

request. During its press conference, the North

Korean Ambassador said that there was widespread

condemnation of the South Korean government’s

investigation in both South Korea and around the

world. The press conference held on June 15 was a

lively event. Many of the journalists who attended

were impressed and requested that there be future

press conferences with the North Korean Am-

bassador.

During his presidency of the Security Council

in the month of June, Ambassador Heller held

meetings with the UN ambassadors from each of the

two Koreas and then with Security Council members

about the Cheonan issue. On the last day of his

presidency, on June 30, he was asked by the media

what was happening about the Cheonan dispute.

Ambassador Heller responded that the issue of

contention was over the evaluation of the South

Korean government’s investigation. Ambassador

Heller described how he introduced what he refers to

as “an innovation” into the Security Council process.

As the month of June ended, the issue was not yet

resolved, but the “innovation” set a basis to build on

the progress that was achieved during the month of

his presidency.

The “innovation” Ambassador Heller referred

to, was a summary he made of the positions of each of

the two Koreas on the issue, taking care to present

each objectively. Heller explained that this summary

was not an official document, so it did not have to be

approved by the other members of the Council. This

summary provided the basis for further negotiations.

He believed that it had a positive impact on the

process of consideration in the Council, making

possible the agreement that was later to be expressed

in the Presidential statement on the Cheonan that was

issued by the Security Council on July 9 (United

Nations Security Council, 2010c). His goal,

Ambassador explained, was to “at all times be as

objective as possible” so as to avoid increasing the

conflict on the Korean peninsula. Such a goal was

consistent with the Security Council’s obligation

under the UN Charter.

In the Security Council’s Presidential

Statement (PRST) on the Cheonan, what stands out is

that the statement follows the pattern of presenting

the views of each of the two Koreas and urging that

the dispute be settled in a peaceful manner (United

Nations Security Council, 2010c). In the PRST, the

members of the Security Council did not blame North

Korea. Instead they refer to the South Korean

investigation and its conclusion, expressing their

“deep concern” about the “findings” of the

investigation. The PRST explains that “The Security

Council takes note of the responses from other

relevant parties, including the DPRK, which has

Page 42

stated that it had nothing to do with the incident.”

With the exception of North Korea, it is not indicated

who “the other relevant parties” are. It does suggest,

however, that it is likely there are some Security

Council members, not just Russia and China, who did

not agree with the conclusions of the South Korean

investigation.

Analyzing the Presidential Statement, the

Korean newspaper Hankyoreh noted that the state-

ment “allows for a double interpretation and does not

blame or place consequences on North Korea.”(Lee,

J., 2010) Such a possibility of a “double interpreta-

tion” allows for different interpretations.

The Security Council action on the Cheonan

incident took place in a situation where there had

been a wide ranging international critique, especially

in the online media, about the problems of the South

Korean investigation, and of the South Korean

government’s failure to make public any substantial

documentation of its investigation, along with its

practice of harassing critics of the South Korean

government claims. The Security Council action

included hearing the positions of the different parties

to the conflict. The result of such efforts is something

that is unusual in the process of recent Security

Council activity. The Security Council process in the

Cheonan incident provided for an impartial analysis

of the problem and an effort to hear from those with

an interest in the issue.

The effort in the Security Council was

described by the Mexican Ambassador, as upholding

the principles of impartiality and respectful treatment

of all members toward resolving a conflict between

nations in a peaceful manner. It represents an

important example of the Security Council acting in

conformity with its obligations as set out in the UN

Charter.

In the July 9 Presidential Statement, the

Security Council urged that the parties to the dispute

over the sinking of the Cheonan find a means to

peacefully settle the dispute. The statement says:

The Security Council calls for full

adherence to the Korean Armistice

Agreement and encourages the

settlement of outstanding issues on the

Korean peninsula by peaceful means

to resume direct dialogue and

negotiation through appropriate chan-

nels as early as possible, with a view

to avoiding conflicts and averting

escalation.

The mainstream U.S. media for the most part,

chose to ignore the many critiques which have ap-

peared. These critiques of the South Korean govern-

ment’s investigation of the Cheonan sinking have

appeared mainly on the Internet, not only in Korean,

but also in English, in Japanese, and in other lan-

guages. An article in the Los Angeles Times on July

23 noted the fact, however, that the media in the U.S.

had ignored the critique of the South Korean

government investigation that was being discussed

online and spread around the world (Demick &

Glionna, 2010).

In this case, the netizen community in South

Korea and internationally were able to provide an

effective challenge to what they believed to be the

misrepresentations by the South Korean government

on the Cheonan incident.

In his article “Social Sciences and the Social

Development Process in Africa,” Charly Gabriel

Mbock (2001) proposes that there is a need for

netizens in different countries to work together across

national borders to solve the problems of our times.

Perhaps the response of netizens to the problems

raised by the investigation of the Cheonan incident is

but a prelude to the realization of this potential.

XI – Conclusion

Much of the research about journalism is con-

cerned with the elements of creating and spreading a

narrative, with concepts like “framing,” “agenda set-

ting” and “news diffusion” providing a means to

analyze and understand the processes that are compo-

nents of the news process. For example, if the framing

of a news story relies on officials of the government

or of powerful corporations, the story is likely to be

significantly different from where the framing focuses

on the perspective of the victim of some abuse by

government or corporate entities. Similarly, students

or workers are likely to have a different perspective of

a conflict from that of an investment banker or real

estate tycoon. The broad range of online posts about

the Cheonan incident provided a diversity of informa-

tion and views that enriches the news environment.

(Touri, 2009, 177)

In South Korea, there is ready access to

posting on the Internet and responding to others

views. (Im, et al., 2011, 606-607). In the Cheonan

Page 43

incident, netizens were active offering their critiques

of the summary report the government released.

(Kim, 2011, 101) A blogger with a background in

reading blueprints made his views known about the

illegitimacy of the claims by the South Korean

government that the part of the torpedo they produced

and the diagram they presented to demonstrate the

torpedo’s North Korean origins were from the same

torpedo. (Creighton, 2010a)

With academic scientists evaluating the South

Korean government’s scientific claims and finding

them faulty, (Lee & Suh, 2010; Cyranoski, 2010) with

NGO’s studying the investigation claims and writing

analyses which they then send to the UN Security

Council members by e-mail, these are the signs that

there is an important process at play.

What had formerly been a process with static

components is being transformed into a process where

the components are now dynamic and changing. (Im

et al: 608-609)

Traditionally the news event is framed by the

journalist and his or her editor. That narrative is then

spread by the news channels of that media. The

narrative was traditionally static. When the Internet

and the netizens are part of the news process, this is

no longer the case. (Zhou and Moy, 2007:82-83; Im

et al.: 608-609) And the growing power and capabil-

ity of communication processes and of how the news

is reported and disseminated (diffused) has an effect

on how policy is created and how it is implemented.

(Gilboa, 202: 736-7,743; Touri, 2009: 174)

Those responsible for making policy can be

influenced by the news, by distortions spread as the

news or by a more accurate framing of the news

which the net and netizens at times can make

possible.

If it is clear that there are conflicting

narratives at the roots of a conflict, the effort to

determine the accurate narrative can help lead to a

resolution or at least a calming of the conflict.

The widespread discussion of diverse views of

the Cheonan conflict helped to support the effort by

Ambassador Heller to realize that he wasn’t to act as

a judge, but he would try to determine an

understanding of the conflict, of the issues that were

in contention. The widespread public discussion in

this situation helped to clarify the issues and what was

in contention, and hence led to a policy at the Security

Council of hearing all sides of the issue, much as the

member states of the UN had urged Ban Ki-moon to

do when he was being welcomed to the UN.

In this case study of the Cheonan incident, my

earlier question of whether it was possible for South

Korean netizens to have an impact on what happened

at the UN was answered in the affirmative. And the

South Korean netizens were supported by other

netizens from around the world. This is an important

example of the UN, of the Security Council, function-

ing in a way to help to calm a conflict. And the wide-

spread public discussion online of the conflict was, I

argue, a helpful support for this process.

References

Creighton, Scott (2010a, May 24). “The Sinking of

the Cheonan: We Are Being Lied To.”

(American Everyman blog). Retrieved from

http:// willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/05/24/

the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-we-are-being-lie

d-to/

Creighton, Scott (2010b, June 20). “PCC-772

Cheonan: South Korean Government Admits

the Deception (and then Lies About It).”

(American Everyman blog). Retrieved from:

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2010/06/ 30/

pcc-772cheonan-south-korean-govern-

ment-ad mit s-the-d ecep tio nand- then-

lies-about-it/

Cyranoski, David (2010, July 8). “Controversy over

South Korea’s sunken ship.” Nature. 10

(1038) Retrieved from: http://www.nature.

com/news/2010/100708/full/news.201

0.343.html.

Demick, Barbara, & Glionna, John M. (2010, July

23). “Doubts Surface on North Korean Role in

Ship Sinking.” Los Angeles Times. Retrieved

from :http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jul/23/

world/la-fg-korea-torpedo-20100724.

Frank, Rüdiger, Hoare, James E., Köllner, Patrick, &

Pares, Susan, editors (2007). Korea Yearbook

(2007): Politics, Economy and Society.

Berlin: Brill.

Gilboa, E. (2002). Global communication and foreign

policy. Journal of Communication, 52(4),

731-748.

Guerrero, Maurizio (2010, July5). “Heller media-

cionde Mexico en conflict de Peninsula de

Page 44

Corea.” La Economia (Notimex). Retrieved

from: http://enlaeconomia.com/news/2010/

07/05/69561

Hankyoreh (2010a, July 27). “Russia’s Cheonan

investigation suspects that the sinking

Cheonan ship was caused by a mine in water.”

(modified July 28). Retrieved from:

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e

_northkorea /432232.html

Hankyoreh (2010b, July 27). “Russian Navy Expert

Team’s analysis on the Cheonan incident.”

(modified July 29) Retrieved from:

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edit-

ion/e_northkorea/432230.html

Hauben, Michael (1997a). “The Net and Netizens:

The Impact the Net has on People’s Lives.” In

Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet. Michael Hauben &

Ronda Hauben. Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE

Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Michael (1997b). “The Effect of the Net on

the Professional News Media: The Usenet

News Collective – The Man-Computer News

Symbiosis.” In Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Michael

Hauben & Ronda Hauben. Los Alamitos, CA:

IEEE Computer Society Press.

Hauben, Ronda (2005). “The Rise of Netizen

Democracy: A case study of netizens’ impact

on democracy in South Korea.” Retrieved

from:

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh

120/other/misc/korean-democracy.txt

Hauben, Ronda (2006a, Oct 17). “The New

Dynamics of Democratization in South Korea:

The Internet and the Emergence of the

Netizen.” OhmyNews. Retrieved from:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/art

icle _view.asp?no=323351&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2006b). “The Problem Facing the

U.N.: Can Ban Ki-moon help solve the

problem with the Security Council?”

Retrieved from: http://www.ais.org/~ronda/

new.papers/articles/paperdraft.txt

Hauben, Ronda (2007a). “Online Grassroots

Journalism and Participatory Democracy in

South Korea.” In Korea Yearbook (2007):

Politics, Economy and Society. Rüdiger

Frank, James E. Hoare, Patrick Köllner and

Susan Pares (editors). Berlin: Brill.

Hauben, Ronda (2007b). “North Korea’s $25 Million

and Banco Delta Asia: Another abuse under

the U.S. Patriot Act (2001).” OhmyNews.

M a r c h 2 1 . R e t r i e v e d f r o m :

http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/

article_view.asp?no=351525&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2007c, May 19). “Behind the

Blacklisting of Banco Delta Asia: Is the

policy aimed at targeting China as well as

North Korea?” OhmyNews. Retrieved from:

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/

article_view .asp?no=362192&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2010a, June 8). “Netizens Question

Cause of Cheonan Tragedy,” OhmyNews.

R e t r i e v e d f r o m :

http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/art

icle_view .a sp?no=386108&rel_no=1

Hauben, Ronda (2010b. Sept 5). “In Cheonan Dispute

UN Security Council Acts in Accord with UN

Charter.” Retrieved from: http://blogs.taz.de/

netizenblog/2010/09/05/in_cheonan_dispute_

un_security_council_discovers_ un_charter/

Hauben, Ronda (2010c, June 29). “Questioning

Cheonan Investigation Stirs Controversy

South Korean Government Threatens to

Penalize NGO for Utilizing UN Security

Council Procedure.” OhmyNews. Retrieved

from: http://english.ohmynews.com/article

v i e w / a r t i c l e _ s a n g v i e w . a s p ? n o =

386133&rel_no=1

Hauben, Michael, & Hauben, Ronda (1997).

Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos, CA:

IEEE Computer Society Press.

Im, Y. H., Kim, E. M., Kim, K., & Kim, Y. (2011).

“The emerging mediascape, same old

theories? A case study of online news

diffusion in Korea.” New Media & Society,

13(4), 605-625.

Kim, Yeran, Jeong, Irkwon, Khang, Hyoungkoo, &

Kim, Bomi (2011, Nov.). “Blogging as

‘Recoding’: A Case Study of the Discursive

War Over the Sinking of the Cheonan.” Media

International Australia. 141: 98-106.

Lee, Jae-hoon (2010, July10). “Presidential Statement

allows for a ‘double interpretation’, and does

not blame or place consequences upon North

Korea.” Hankyoreh. Retrieved from:

www.hani.co.kr/arti /english_edition/

Page 45

e_national/ 4297 68.html

Lee, S., & Suh, J. J. (2010). Rush to Judgment:

Inconsistencies In South Korea’s Cheonan

Report. The Asia-Pacific Journal, 12.

Retrieved from: http://apjjf.org/-JJ-Suh/3382/

article. html

Lee, Yong-inn(2010, July3). “Questions linger 100

days after the Cheonan sinking.”Hankyoreh.

Retrieved from: http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/

english_ edition/e_national/428715.html

Mbock, Charly Gabriel (2001, June). “Social

Sciences and the Social Development Process

in Africa.” Social Sciences and Innovation.

OECD: 157-171

Touri, M. (2009, March). News blogs: strengthening

democracy through conflict prevention. In

Aslib Proceedings (Vol. 61, No. 2, pp.

170-184). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

United Nations Security Council (2010a, June 4).

“Letter dated 4 June, 2010 from the

Permanent Representative of the Republic of

Korea to the United Nations addressed to the

President of the Security Council.”

S/2010/281. Retrieved from:

http://www.

s e c u r i t y c o u n c i l r e p o r t . o r g / a t f /

cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

C F 6 E 4 F F 9 6 F F 9 % 7 D / D P R K % 2 0 S %

202010%20281%20SKorea%20Letter%20and

%20Cheonan%20Report.pdf

United Nations Security Council (2010b, June 8).

“Letter dated 8 June, 2010 from the

Permanent Representative of the Democratic

People’s Republic of Korea to the United

Nations addressed to the President of the

Security Council.” S/2010/294. Retrieved:

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/

atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/NKorea%20S%20201

0%20294.pdf

United Nations Security Council (2010c, July 9).

“Statement by the President of the Security

Council.” S/PRST/2010/13. Retrieved from:

http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/

cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6

E4FF96FF9%7D/NKorea%20SPRST%2020

10%2013.pdf

Zhou, Y., & Moy, P. (2007). “Parsing framing

processes: The interplay between online

public opinion and media coverage.” Journal

of Communication, 57(1), 79-98.

Notes:

1. About letters to UN Security Council, records at the UN show

that the practice of sending such correspondence to the Security

Council dates back to 1946. This is the date when the symbol

S/NC/ was introduced as the symbol for “Communications

received from private individuals and non-governmental bodies

relating to matters of which the Security Council is seized.” The

Security Council has the practice of periodically publishing a list

of the documents it receives, the name and organization of the

sender, and the date they are received. The Provisional Rules of

Procedure of the Security Council states that the list is to be

circulated to all representatives on the Security Council. A copy

of any communication on the list is to be given to any nation on

the Security Council that requests it. There are over 450 such

lists indicated in the UN records. As each list can contain several

or a large number of documents the Security Council has

received, the number of such documents is likely to be in the

thousands. Under Rule 39 of the Council procedures, the

Security Council may invite any person it deems competent for

the purpose to supply it with information on a given subject.

Thus the two procedures in the Security Council’s provisional

rules give it the basis to find assistance on issues it is considering

from others outside the Council and to consider the contribution

as part of its deliberation.

2. PSPD Report that was Sent to Security Council was posted

online in three parts:

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584228

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584287

http://www.peoplepower21.org/Peace/584296

3. The press conference was held on July 9 at the Tokyo Foreign

Correspondents Club. The program was titled “Lee and Suh:

Inconsistencies in the Cheonan Report”.

http://www.japantimes.

co.jp/news/2010/07/10/news/scholars-doubt-cheonan-finding/

#.WX973SmQwdc. See also, (Cyranoski, 2010), (Lee, S., & Suh,

J. J. 2010).

4. The Russian team proposed a different theory for how the

Cheonan sank. They had observed that the ship’s propeller had

become entangled in a fishing net and subsequently that a

possible cause of the sinking could have been that the ship had

hit the antennae of a mine which then exploded. “Russian Navy

Team’s Analysis of the Cheonan Incident,” (Hankyoreh, 2010b).

The Russian Experts document is titled “Data from the Russian

Naval Expert Group’s Investigation into the Cause of the South

Korean Naval Vessel Cheonan’s Sinking.” See also “Russia’s

Cheonan Investigation Suspects that Sinking Cheonan Ship was

Caused by a Mine,” (Hankyoreh, 2010a).

5. Media Stakeout: Informal comments to the Media by the

President of the Security Council and the Permanent

Representative of Mexico, H. E. Mr. Claude Heller on the

Cheonan incident (the sinking of the ship from the Republic of

Korea) and on Kyrgyzstan. [Webcast: Archived Video – 5

minutes]

http://web

6. Video of North Korean Ambassador Press Conference:

http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/ondemand/pressconference/

Page 46

2010/pc100615am.rm

[Editor’s Note: This article appeared on July 9, 2003

on Telepolis at:

https://www.heise.de/tp/features/

Doing-Democracy-3430319.html]

Doing Democracy

Reflections on the 10 Year

Anniversary of the Publication of

“The Net and Netizens”

by Ronda Hauben

[email protected]

This is a period marked by serious political

dissatisfaction around the world. There is the promise

of democratic societies, but the promise too often is

far removed from the reality of people ‘s lives. Yet

there is the widespread yearning for a better world,

for a society where democracy is practiced, not

merely pretended. In this situation the question is

raised: “What does democracy look like? How does

it function? Are there any operational models to

observe and learn from?”

Fortunately, there is a model to be examined,

a practice to be investigated. Ten years ago, on July 6,

1993, a student, Michael Hauben,

posted a paper on

the Net. The title of the paper was “Common Sense:

The Net and Netizens.” The first sentences were:

Welcome to the 21

Century. You are

a Netizen (Net Citizen), and you exist

as a citizen of the world thanks to the

global connectivity that the Net gives

you. You consider everyone as your

compatriot. You physically live in one

country but you are in contact with

much of the world via the global

computer network. Virtually you live

next door to every other single netizen

in the world. Geographical separation

is replaced by existence in the same

virtual space.

It was a long paper so it was posted in three

separate parts: Preface,

Paper.

Appendix.

st.un.org/

ramgen/ondemand/stakeout/2010/ so100614pm3.rm

The paper introduced a concept, which has

since spread around the world, both online and off

(see also Netizens: On the History and Impact of

Usenet and the Internet

). This concept can provide a

practical operational framework to explore a model

for democracy. Describing how he hoped to focus the

paper, Hauben wrote:

The Net and Netizens: A

Revitalization of People Power, a

Strengthening of People Power.

Bottom Up is the Principle of this

paper.

The interesting aspect of “The Net and Net-

izens” is that it identifies and describes the important

role of the online user in creating the new social

treasure that had come to be known as the Net. The

net.citizen, or netizen, as Hauben writes, was the

active agent in creating something new, the demo-

cratic online content and form of the 1993 network of

networks. The netizen contributed information and

viewpoints that made it possible to consider an issue

or problem and come to a reasoned judgment or

decision. Netizens would help other netizens if they

deemed it worthwhile.

The initiative that was being developed was

from the netizens themselves. Examples included a

mailing list by a person in Ireland summarizing the

weekly news and sending it out to over 1000 people

around the world who wanted to stay current with

Irish news; Usenet newsgroups like misc.news.

southasia and soc.culture.india which made it possible

for people from an area to continue contact with what

was happening; a mailing list to watch the prices of

gas in California to warn against price gouging. There

were many other examples that Hauben provided

which he had learned from his research online.

The key aspect, however, of this new form of

democracy, was that the previously disenfranchised

reader could now broadcast to others around the

world news and views from a grassroots perspective.

Previously, there had been central control of the mass

media. Now the participant himself or herself, could

provide information to the online world about an

event or an area of knowledge. Netizens also had the

ability to be citizen reporters, to offer a more wide

ranging set of view points and perspectives on issues

or problems, a broader basis from which to form

one’s own opinion, than hitherto had been possible.

Netizens could meet online, discuss issues and

problems, and from the process decide on the goal or

direction to pursue. Hauben saw this process as a way

Page 47

of revitalizing society, as a way that those previously

disenfranchised could gain power over both their

society and over their personal lives.

In this operating model of democracy, there

were no elections or representatives. Rather this

embryo of democracy was focused on the active

participation and contributions of the many in a

manner not hitherto possible. Hauben described some

of the broad ranging ages and occupations of the more

than 10 million computer users who, by 1993, were

connected around the world. At the time the computer

networking connections were made possible by

gateways between different networks, like the

scientific and educational Internet, the academic

BITNET, the technical research Unix UUCP and

Usenet network, the Cleveland Freenet for

community people, and other networks.

While the netizen was an active contributor to

the developing social treasure, Hauben realized the

need to make it possible for everyone to have access

to this new communication paradigm to realize its

potential. He writes:

This complete connection of the body

of citizens of the world does not exist

as of today, and it will definitely be a

fight to make access to the Net open

and available to all. However, in the

future we might be seeing the possible

expansion of what it means to be a

social animal. Practically every single

individual on the Net today is

available to every other person on the

Net…. International connection

coexists on the same level with local

connection. Also the computer

networks allow a more advanced

connection between the people who

are communicating.

Although the path was difficult, Hauben also

appreciated the importance of the goal. He writes:

Despite the problems, for people of

the world, the Net provides a powerful

way of peaceful assembly. Peaceful

Assembly allows for people to take

control over their lives, rather than

control being in the hands of others.

This power has to be honored and

protected. Any medium or tool that

helps people to hold or gain power is

something special and has to be

protected.

The focus of democracy, as described in “The

Net and Netizens,” is on the people themselves, and

on their ability and achievements in determining the

nature and development of their society. It is on

support for the ever increasing contributions of more

of the populace in the process.

Notes:

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/

2. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense1.txt

3. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense2.txt

4. http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/CS/Common_Sense3.txt

5. Hauben, M., R. Hauben. (1997). Netizens: On the History and

Impact of Usenet and the Internet. Los Alamitos: IEEE Com-

puter Society Press, p. 3. Also available online in an earlier draft

version,

http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/.

[Editor’s Note: The following article appeared in the

Korean Herald on July 18, 2007 and can be seen at:

http://web.international.ucla.edu/asia/article/74171.]

Netizens Celebrate a Decade

of Activism: Michael

Hauben’s Legacy Lives On,

Ten Years After the Release

of the Book Netizen

by Claire George

On a sunny afternoon last weekend in

Manhattan a group of well-wishers met to celebrate

Page 48

the 10

Anniversary of the print edition of Netizens:

On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet

by the late Michael Hauben and his mother and co-

author, Ronda Hauben.

Netizens, which first appeared online in

January 1994 was one of the earliest books to

examine the development of the internet as a social

network. In it, Michael Hauben expressed his hope for

the internet’s use as an aid to global human

cooperation.

At Saturday’s gathering Michael’s father Jay

told listeners: “The lesson for me is to learn from

Michael to have confidence in the wonders the net

can produce. Whenever I read some chapter in

‘Netizens,’ I always have the same sensation. I want

to participate more on the net. I still want to be a

netizen.” [See next article in this issue.]

Michael Hauben invented the term netizen by

combining the words citizen and internet. He defined

citizens of the net as people who, “understand the

value of collective work and the communal aspects of

public communications. These are the people who

discuss and debate topics in a constructive manner,

who e-mail answers to people and provide help to

new-comers, who maintain public information reposi-

tories. They are not people who exploit the web for

their own personal gain.”

The new word spread across the world and is

now in common use in English, Korean, Japanese,

Italian and other languages. Michael Hauben died in

June 2001 at the age of 28 from injuries sustained in

a car accident in 1999. But his legacy lives on in an

idea that has become an inspiration for people who

believe that the internet is a force for good.

Speaking to The Korea Herald from her home

in New York, Ronda Hauben expressed her “delight”

in the achievements of Korean netizens. She says that

Koreans should be proud of the role played

by“netizen scientists” in the affair of the stem cell

researcher Hwang Woo-suk and cites Korea’s

contribution to the development of citizen journalism

as being of particular importance.

“There are conservative forces in the U.S.

trying to create another attack on the United Nations

like the scandal they created around supposed

corruption in the U.N. in the ‘oil for food program.’

I haven’t seen this challenged in the U.S. press, but it

was challenged by netizens in Korea,” she said.

“There are many similar examples,” Hauben

continued, “I can only read English accounts of what

is happening, but even so when I look I see valuable

examples of netizen activity.”

In her own life as a netizen journalist and fea-

tured writer for OhMyNews International Ronda

Hauben covers the U.N. and U.N. related develop-

ments. She believes that U.N. Secretary-General Ban

Ki-moon needs press coverage like that provided by

progressive netizens in order to operate effectively.

“If only the conservative press such as the

Wall Street Journal and Fox News and so on, didn’t

focus so much on supposed scandals that aren’t

scandals, then he would not be trapped into

responding to things that are being made into issues

but aren’t the real issues,” she said.

[Editor’s Note: The following was read on May 1,

2007 at a small gathering to mark the 10

Anniversary

of the print edition of the book Netizens: On the

History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet written

by Michael Hauben and Ronda Hauben in the early

1990s and published in 1997. A version of that book

is online at: http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/]

Welcome to the 21

Century

and to the Wonderful World

of the Net

by Jay Hauben

[email protected]

Ten years ago on July 14, 1997, 40 people

Page 49

gathered in a bookstore near Columbia University in

NYC to help launch the hard cover edition of the

book, Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet

and the Internet. They came to a book reading party

with the authors, Michael and Ronda and a represen-

tative of the IEEE Computer Society Press, the

publisher.

The amazing thing they heard and to which

some there objected was how solid was the demo-

cratic foundation of the newly emerging Internet and

how pervasive might be the changes facilitated by the

Net. Michael had written of his vision of a 21

Cen-

tury where each netizen could be an active global

citizen thanks to the connectivity the net makes

possible. He saw that a large part of the necessary

infrastructure was in place and a more democratic

world is becoming possible. He read from his chapter

Exploring NYC’s online Community: A Snapshot of

NYC.general. The reading stimulated a vigorous and

contentious discussion with some welcoming the

Internet and others disbelieving that the net would be

a positive force for greater democracy.

Now we are here today ten years later.

Perhaps the discussion can continue as we look again

at the concept of and the book Netizens. Ronda and

Michael gathered in the book solid historical evidence

and contemporary practice for their thesis that

something big was happening which would take a

mighty fight to defend but which could profoundly

change the media, politics, social life and even

economics. Big things have happened: e-mail, World

Wide Web, citizen journalism, Google searches and

blogging to name a few. But except for e-mail and

citizen journalism these were only the lessor part of

what Michael foresaw. He was envisioning more

profound human to human communication and

intense discussions like those on Usenet. I wonder

when more of Michael’s vision will come.

My guess is that it might not be necessary to

wait a few generations for more new big changes.

Maybe they are beginning to happen and we don’t see

them. The cartoon at the beginning of Netizens shows

what we are looking for might be so big we might not

be looking in the right way to see it.

There is in the U.S. an election next year,

2008. In the last election the big surprise was Howard

Dean and 400,000 “Deaniacs.” What might the

surprise be next year? Also, Ronda has worked to see

an OhmyNews in the U.S. Might that ever happen?

I think the lesson for me is to learn from

Michael to have confidence in the wonders the net

can produce despite the hard fight they will take.

Whenever I read some chapter in Netizens, I always

have the same sensation. I want to participate more on

the net. I still want to be a netizen.

Welcome to the 21

Century and to the

wonderful world of the net.

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:

jrh29@columbia.edu

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 from1988 to present of the Amateur Computerist

are on-line at:

http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/NewIndex.pdf

Page 50