View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by LSE Research Online Gregory, Asmolov Dynamics of innovation and the balance of power in Russia Book section (Accepted version) Original citation: Originally published in: Hussain, Muzammil M. and Howard, Philip N., (eds.) State Power 2.0: Authoritarian Entrenchment and Political Engagement Worldwide. Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon, UK : Routledge, 2013, pp. 139-152. © 2013 The Author This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/68001/ Available in LSE Research Online: October 2016 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on t his site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s submitted version of the book section. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. Dynamics of Innovation and the Balance of Power in Russia Gregory Asmolov, London School of Economics and Political Science Suggested citation: Asmolov, G. (2013). “Dynamics of Innovation and the Balance of Power in Russia.” In Hussain, M. M. & P. N. Howard (Eds.), State Power 2.0 Authoritarian Entrenchment and Political Engagement Worldwide. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 139-152. Introduction In recent years information technologies have played a variety of different roles in social and political movements. Information and communication technologies (ICTs) suggest new ways of manifesting both symbolic power, for example new ways of framing and agenda setting, and material power, for example new opportunities for simplifying the organization of collective action. Manuel Castells explores the role of ICTs in power relationships through the notion of mass self-communication. According to Castells (2007: 251), mass self-communication is a “building of autonomous communication networks to challenge the power of the globalized media industry and of government and business controlled media” and, more generally, “the capacity by social actors to challenge and eventually change the power relations institutionalized in society.” (2007: 248). The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the Russian protests of 2011 – 2012 as a case study for examining the role of ICTs in the relationship between authoritarian power and citizens. From the mass self-communication perspective, the protests suggest another case study of the role of ICTs in the emergence of political counter-power. In this case, the question that should be asked is to what extent the application of a particular technology was able to challenge the balance of power. This chapter, however, suggests that an analysis of the role of ICTs role in political and social mobilizations should also focus on the process of emergence of new tools, rather than on analyzing functions of particular applications and platforms. Examining the dynamics of the process can help to understand the role of ICTs in a particular sociopolitical environment and to respond to the question of whether ICTs erode or strengthen authoritarian power. The process under investigation is political innovation, in other words the capacity of participants in a political conflict to create new tools that seek to challenge or protect the balance of power. Addressing the dynamics of political innovation requires us to address the following questions: 1. To what extent are oppressed groups able to adapt to new political challenges and introduce new tools, doctrines and forms of organization? 2. To what extent is a government able to introduce or respond to innovation? 3. What is the nature of the dynamic in a balance of power, and do ICT innovations favor one side or eventually preserve the status quo? Does innovation suggest a temporary advantage for a particular side or does it lead to permanent changes in the balance of power? There are a several reasons why Russia, and in particular the Russian electoral cycle of 2011 – 2012, provides a good case study for the analysis of the political innovation process. First, Russia provides a fruitful environment for innovation due to the relatively high penetration of the Internet and the degree of ICT literacy, especially in the big cities which are considered to be where the politically active middle class lives. Second, historically, since the end of the 1990s, the Internet has had a consistently significant political role in Russia. While the traditional media, and in particular television, are controlled by government, the Internet remains a relatively free space. Unlike the traditional media, the Russian online space has tended to have a more oppositional agenda and to suggest a contestatory framing of political events (Etling, et al. 2010). In addition, Russian Internet users have already had experience of using online tools for the facilitation of collective actions to address social issues (Machleder and Asmolov 2011). Third, the period between the two rounds of voting in December 2011 and March 2012 constitutes a timeframe with a high concentration of political challenges and this served to accelerate the innovation process. A Framework for the Analysis of Political Innovation The role of innovation in the balance of power between the sides in a conflict is analyzed in the field of security studies, and particularly in terms of the Revolution in Military Affairs (RMA) concept. One of the questions for RMA concerns when a particular technology is able to empower one side in such a way that this substantively erodes the power of the other side. RMA refers to the “major change in the nature of warfare brought about by the innovative application of new technologies which, combined with dramatic changes in military doctrine and operational and organizational concepts, fundamentally alters the character and conduct of military operations.” (Marshall cited in McKitrick, et al. 1995). Similarly, the analysis of the dynamics of political innovation seeks to understand the extent to which ICTs can change the nature of political conflict and lead to substantial change in a balance of power between state and protesters. In the case of political conflict, the role of innovation is significant only if it is supported by changes in the organizational and doctrinal dimensions. For instance new tools can lead to new forms of protest. The framework for the analysis of the dynamics of political innovation suggests three layers: a. The Structure of Political Challenges The political environment is shaped by the structure and diversity of political challenges. Innovation is triggered, inspired and driven by these challenges. Therefore understanding the functions and dynamics of political ICT innovations requires an analysis of the structure of the political challenges. If the challenges are not considered sufficiently significant, this may mean there is a lack of incentive for innovation. In a situation of crisis and political instability, the challenges tend to become more significant. Innovation by the opposition side creates political challenges for the authorities, which may also respond with innovation. b. The Structure of Innovation Opportunities While innovation is led by the nature of the challenges, there are factors that may lead to opportunities being taken or cause them to be missed. Social movement literature introduces a variety of definitions of political opportunity structures. For instance, according to Garret, opportunity structures are “attributes of a social system that facilitate or constrain movement activity” (Garret 2006). In order to understand the role of ICT, we need to examine what capacity exists for using technology to address political challenges, in other words the innovation opportunity structure. That requires mapping the factors that allow or restrict innovation. The innovation opportunity structure is associated with two factors. The first is whether the particular political challenge can be addressed through ICT-based tools. The second is whether the oppressed group has the technical capacity to develop such tools. This can include the capacity of programmers and activists to collaborate, the degree of information literacy and tech- savviness among political protesters, the level of Internet penetration, the degree of Internet freedom, the local legislation, and so on. We must also differentiate between two types of innovation. The first type is the development of original solutions by local programmers and activists. The second is the adaptation of existing solutions, including platforms, political strategies or tactics, from other countries. The latter requires the existence of “bridge persons”— a term coined by Ethan Zuckerman (2008) —who are able to take experience from one political environment and apply it to another context. c. The Role of the Balance of Power between Protesters and Authorities An innovation process is a chain that starts with a challenge to one side in a conflict that provides new opportunities for the application of ICT and in turn creates a challenge for the other side. The degree of challenge to both sides depends on the extent to which a particular innovation changes the existing balance of power and thus the status quo. Innovation contributes to this dynamics, but also emerges as a part of the dynamics, while any response by the authoritarian power (whether it uses technological innovation or traditional forms of power) to innovation leads to the creation of a new political challenge that can be addressed by a new innovation. Consequently, innovation is a mutually reinforcing process, where both sides may use various applications or tools to increase their own power or decrease the empowerment of the other side.