CONTROLLING THE INTERNET: HOW AND UNDER WHAT CONDITIONS STATES CONTROL THE DIGITAL FLOW OF INFORMATION Baurzhan Rakhmetov A thesis is submitted to the School of Law and Politics, Cardiff University in requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in Politics and International Relations December 2020 STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS STATEMENTS 1. This thesis is being submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of PhD. 2. This work has not been submitted in substance for any other degree or award at this or any other university or place of learning, nor is it being submitted concurrently for any other degree or award (outside of any formal collaboration agreement between the University and a partner organisation). 3. I hereby give consent for my thesis, if accepted, to be available in the University’s Open Access repository (or, where approved, to be available in the University’s library and for inter-library loan), and for the title and summary to be made available to outside organisations, subject to the expiry of a University-approved bar on access if applicable. DECLARATION 1. This thesis is the result of my own independent work, except where otherwise stated, and the views expressed are my own. Other sources are acknowledged by explicit references. The thesis has not been edited by a third party beyond what is permitted by Cardiff University's Use of Third Party Editors by Research Degree Students Procedure. Signed: Rakhmetov Baurzhan Date: 31.12.2020 WORD COUNT: 72 741 (excluding summary, acknowledgements, contents pages, appendices, tables, diagrams and figures, references, bibliography, footnotes and endnotes). i SUMMARY This thesis addresses tactics and conditions of state control over the internet. Internet control is defined as the implementation by states of censorship, disruption, propaganda, and other means to shape and restrict the digital flow of information within national borders. First, I conduct a comparative analysis of sixty-five countries to identify to what extent and under what conditions states seek control of the internet. The main novelty of my study is the inclusion of democratic states in the analysis. In addition, I resort to two in-depth case studies (Kazakhstan and Ukraine) to further scrutinise and refine the findings drawn from the comparative analysis. Overall, two main conditions of state control over the internet were found. These are (1) the extractive (authoritarian) nature of domestic political institutions and (2) political instability and/or a leadership contest within inclusive (democratic) institutional settings. These findings supplement internet control scholarship, which tends to focus largely on authoritarian countries. I demonstrate that many democracies also seek to substantially control digital information. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis will not be possible without support from my family and friends, guidance from my supervisors and colleagues, and funding from my sponsor. First, I want to thank my parents, who supported me throughout the whole period of the PhD program. I appreciate your love and faith in me. I dedicate this doctoral study to my parents, Zhanat and Bakhytzhan. I am deeply grateful to Dr Brandon Valeriano, my first supervisor, who has been very helpful during my 4-year PhD journey. I learnt and keep learning a lot from you. I also want to thank Dr Andrea Calderaro and Professor Sergey Radchenko for helping me to understand the specifics of internet control and post-Soviet politics. I greatly benefited from your supervision. I am indebted to you for your support, patience, and contribution, which facilitated my growth as a researcher. And I am very thankful to Dr Hannes Hansen-Magnusson for reading my chapters and giving insightful comments on how to improve the main arguments of the thesis. This thesis also benefited from continuous discussions and debates with my colleagues from 32 Park Place, especially with Tony, Tia, and Rhianwen. That was a fun time! Last but not least, my study at Cardiff University won’t be real without funding from my sponsor, the Centre for International Programs (Bolashak). It is an honour to be a holder of the Bolashak Scholarship and I hope to conform to high standards of Bolashak graduates back in Kazakhstan. I have met many wonderful people in Wales. My time and study in Cardiff will always be one of the most interesting periods of my life. iii CONTENTS: STATEMENTS AND DECLARATIONS ......................................................................... i SUMMARY ................................................................................................................... ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .............................................................................................. iii LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... vii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................... viii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1 2. RESEARCH PROBLEM ........................................................................................ 1 3. BACKGROUND: HOW STATES CONTROL INFORMATION ONLINE ................. 4 4. WHY STUDY INTERNET CONTROL? .................................................................. 7 5. CONTRIBUTIONS OF THE STUDY ...................................................................... 8 6. STRUCTURE OF THE THESIS .......................................................................... 12 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW: INTERNET CONTROL .................................. 15 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 15 2. BACKGROUND: THE INTERNET, INFORMATION, AND DEMOCRACY ........... 16 2.1. Cyber-optimism ............................................................................................. 17 2.2. Cyber-pessimism .......................................................................................... 20 3. INTERNET CONTROL ........................................................................................ 23 3.1. Classifications of internet control................................................................... 24 3.2. Authoritarian nature of internet control .......................................................... 28 3.3. Authoritarian control of the internet as a rule ................................................. 32 3.4. Conditions of internet control ........................................................................ 35 4. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 39 CHAPTER 3. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE INSTITUTIONALISM AND CONTROL OF INFORMATION .................................................................................. 42 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 42 2. BACKGROUND: INSTITUTIONAL THEORY ...................................................... 43 2.1. What do institutions mean? ........................................................................... 44 3. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND CONTROL OF INFORMATION ...................... 46 3.1. Institutions and political outcomes ................................................................. 47 3.2. Institutions and information control ................................................................ 51 4. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 58 CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY: A QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...... 61 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 61 2. RESEARCH QUESTIONS, AIMS, AND HYPOTHESES ..................................... 62 iv 3. QUALITATIVE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ........................................................ 63 4. CONCEPTUALISATION AND OPERATIONALISATION ..................................... 68 4.1. Model of internet control ............................................................................... 68 4.2. Defining the nature of political institutions ..................................................... 70 5. CALIBRATION .................................................................................................... 73 5.1. Calibration of the outcome ............................................................................ 73 5.2. Calibration of the condition............................................................................ 74 5.3. Calibration of the additional condition ........................................................... 77 6. CASE STUDIES .................................................................................................. 78 7. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... 80 CHAPTER 5. POLITICAL INSTITUTIONS AND INTERNET CONTROL: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ...................................................................................... 81 1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 81 2. INTERNET CONTROL .......................................................................................