When studied closely, the definition of an activist or activism can be very ambiguous. In the majority of cases, the government is usually the one being opposed against. However, governments can indeed be activists in their own right. Government activism is defined as any action taken by a government, beyond the basic regulation of its economy or society. A government’s activism may be as varied as intervening in an international crisis or promoting equality, but that activism is becoming increasingly reliant on modern technology.
Government activism does not have to be carried out just by passing laws; it can also include the implementation of the common citizens to become activists for their cause. A recent example of this has been the concept of ‘The Big Society’, the brainchild of the Conservative British prime-minister David Cameron.
Due to the widespread availability of modern technology we are experiencing a level interconnection that we have never seen before. Through things such as smart phones, wi-fi and social networking, Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ uses them as tools to bring all communities in the U.K. together and unite them into one (Cabinet Office, 2010). However, critics of government activism argue that the scale of the activism can change how a government perceives the action being taken, and there appears to be a fine-line between desirable and anarchistic. For example, Jason Derounian writes that “citizens getting together to run the library is hardly contentious, but a mass occupation of public spaces, such as Occupy London are less well received by the government.” These are both examples of people power, but the big question is where does community stand in relation to the national government?” In this supposed ‘big society’, community development services act as a means to support local activism, yet that wider community is directly influenced by the government.
Another form of governments using modern technology in their activism is during humanitarian missions. During a crisis or disaster, they raise the awareness of the public through television spots and internet campaigns, and with television air time being so expensive it is out of the reach of the vast majority of people. Plus very large and orchestrated internet campaigns can demand huge resources, and aside from corporate giants and large NGO’s, the governments are the ones who can provide them. Also, governments are often the only ones able to provide resources such as helicopters and boats, which are not only used to transport vital supplies, but they are used to transport troops and aid workers into an area.
However, there are many who question the credibility of governments being activists, as they may just be using it as a front for personal gain. As a report by the UN shows, only 7% of reconstructive aid pledged by the U.S. to the Haitian government after its earthquake in 2010 has gone through Haitian institutions, the rest has gone to American institutions and companies (Provost, 2012). Therefore the U.S. is being criticised as using Haiti as a clever excuse to feather its own nest, rather than providing the aid for the Haitians to use as they see fit. This is just one example how people can come to distrust government activism, and the honesty and integrity of that activism is clearly questionable.
References:
Cabinet Office. (2010). Government launches Big Society programme. Available: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-big-society-programme–2. Last accessed 06/05/2013.
Derounian, J. (2013). The real big society: why we need activism and open dissent. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/local-government-network/2013/mar/25/real-big-society-local-activism-open-dissent. Last accessed 06/05/2013.
Provost, C. (2012). Haiti earthquake: Where has the aid money gone?. Available: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/datablog/2012/jan/12/haiti-earthquake-aid-money-data. Last accessed 06/05/2013.
Technology In Activism 