Egyptian blogger Eman AbdelRahman aka LastoAdri. Courtesy of Oso on Flickr.

Why did the Mubarak regime turn the internet off?

That was the question I asked the attendees of a gathering recently at the Oxford Internet Institute looking at the role of the internet in the revolutions sweeping the Middle East. The question gives us, I suggested, a route into understanding the other side of the equation, ie. How authoritarian regimes maintain their power. It therefore connects us to a long standing debate that has encompassed media studies, cultural anthropology, political science and more.

My provisional response was to suggest that turning the internet off was more than anything a gesture of power that shed light on how an authoritarian regime perceived its ability to exercise control. Yes, turning off the internet was an attempt to stop activists using free publishing tools online to organise protests and share information. Yes, turning off the internet worked to prevent information reaching the outside world and so perhaps preserved for one more day alliances with powers who were not going to like the violence and repression that had to be meted out to protect regime interests. But perhaps more importantly, turning off the internet was a gesture of a power relation. We can do this. You cannot stop us. We are in power, you are not. Targeting the internet as a way of stating the existence of a relationship of power just goes to show how embedded the internet had become in Egyptian society, and that its long term role had been to help render the tools of authoritarianism far less effective. In a paradoxical way then, the Egyptian government’s decision was a statement of its powerlessness in the face of the long term impact of the internet.

A number of caveats are necessary. A revolution depends on many factors coming together at the same time: the fuel of long term economic grievances and repression, a cadre of young people willing to die, the fuse of a revolutionary setting – in this case that incredible moment broadcast on Al Jazeera and other satellite networks when President Ben Ali fled Tunisia in the face of the unstoppable force of public protests. Perhaps more importantly for this debate is the caveat that illiteracy and poverty exclude many millions of people from social media in Egypt. Despite these caveats, and without wanting to be trapped in the eddies of the causality debate, social media was influential enough for it to be worth discussing. According to statistics shared by the impressive Noha Atef – founder of a blog documenting torture and Twitter user extraordinaire – there are perhaps as many as 21 million internet subscriptions in Egypt, a figure that demonstrates how the internet has come to play an important role in the country. A middle class phenomenon perhaps, but powerful in its reach.

In taking the longer term view, rather than focusing on the immediate examples of how social media were used in the protests, we can look at the role of social media in helping to undermine the tools of authoritarianism. Three areas are of particular interest: 1) the ways in which authoritarian states obstruct the Freedom of to assemble, 2) the way in which authoritarian regimes control public space with propaganda, objects of fear and the cult of personality, and 3) the ways in which repressive regimes attempt to block critical thinking and freedom of expression.

Freedom of Assembly

Many of the protest movements sweeping the Middle East have gathered pace in towns outside the capital. Sidi Bouzid, Suez, Daraa, Benghazi. But in each case, the protest movement needs to also take hold in the capital, and more specifically in a symbolic location and central gathering place. Only that way could the protest take on the regime in a national sense – a blow to the heart. The best example of this was Tahrir Square which became effectively proto-liberated space for the protesters. It represented what you might describe as ‘sacred national space’ where peace and fraternity reigned amongst those committed to the revolution and both Muslims and Christians could pray alongside one another. A junction at the heart of the capital city, Tahrir became the beating heart of the revolution, so much so that Al Jazeera and other news networks had to broadcast the scene there almost continuously to all corners of the country and beyond. By reclaiming Tahrir Square and fighting every regime attempt to clear it, the Egyptian protesters reclaimed the heart of Egypt for themselves.

Facebook pages and Twitter hashtags provided similar gathering places. These were assembly points that attracted the focus of the many (in the case of Twitter the focus of the most active activists and international networks). On Facebook Kulina Khaled Said and the April 6 Youth Movement were prominent throughout. So too was the January Revolution Day against Torture Poverty Corruption and Unemployment. On Twitter, the hashtag that gathered most attention was #jan25. To be prominent, hashtags and Facebook pages necessarily required wide community participation – just as holding Tahrir required a big number of dedicated protesters in it for the long haul. The impact and attention of these gathering places forced the regime to acknowledge the protesters. Unlike regime media that could largely ignore the protests at the start, to interrupt these gathering points either required using them – thereby acknowledging them – to spread the regime line, or removing access to them altogether (by blocking the service or turning the internet off).

The focus here on date and time is particularly interesting. Why use a date for a revolutionary hashtag? Many other protest movements have used a date on Twitter too – Tunisia, Libya, Bahrain, Syria. So the trend is deeply rooted. A date is important because it suggests rupture. Although – as Noha Atef pointed out – the revolution began many years before in the gradual activism of a new cohort of web-savvy young people, the symbolic date of rupture was January 25 in Egypt. Before this date, Mubarak reigned supreme. After this date he was effectively ruined. The date announced the rebirth of the nation, the narrative moment in which Egyptians took history into their own hands, purging themselves of the past ills imposed on them by a corrupt regime. This date of rebirth was in many ways more significant than the date on which Hosni Mubarak stepped down – as the continued use of the hashtag attests.

Dates, landmarks and national narratives are deeply interrelated in Egypt, inscribed as they are into the history books and the geography of Cairo. Many of the bridges and major thoroughfares are named after important historical dates (October 6, May 15, July 26). The hashtag had a similar connection to Tahrir. It was both a space, a landmark and a new national narrative, written by the community outside of the control of the regime. In using it, Egyptians broke through the atomization enforced on them through years of Emergency Law preventing them from freely assembling to demand their rights and influence policy. Just as the community collectively broke through the barrier of fear by taking to the streets in such numbers on 25 January, numbers so large that individually the Egyptian protesters faced a greatly reduced risk of reprisal from the regime, so Egyptians took courage in collectively joining Facebook pages and contributing to the #jan25 hashtag on mass.

Propaganda and the Cult of Personality

Authoritarian regimes flourished in the days of old media in large part because the one-to-many paradigm of radio, television and print favoured central control on the distribution of information and ideas. Just as public space could be cluttered with the paraphernalia of the ruler (statues, portraits, banners, insignia on cars), so public media could be cluttered with the propaganda of the regime. This helped to spread fear and furnish the idea that everyone else was wildly supportive of the ruling regime (a process in sharp focus in Bashar Al-Assad’s speech to parliament on 30 March 2011). Some scholars have suggested that the effectiveness of this propaganda quickly wears thin with the people; it is not so much then that Egyptians believed everything Mubarak said or Al Ahram told them, rather they had no power to prevent this propaganda intermediating between their lives and the lives of their fellow citizens. Rather, propaganda acted as a code for describing acceptable behaviour and denied the viability of alternatives to regime rule. As political parties, syndicates and other public bodies are quickly co-opted by the regime, so ‘independent’ mass media are co-opted to distribute regime messages and sideline challenges. Public debate largely ceases to exist or is marginalised, so there is little opportunity to take part in public debate. The regime flourishes in this environment.

But what happens when you have publishing tools that provide for dense inter-connected networks? Egyptian use of Twitter is the perfect example of this. Twitter is the fruition of trends in the web that emphasize networked inter-linked information where everything is social. Everything is linked: users are hyperlinks, topics (hashtags) are hyperlinks, tweets are hyperlinks, replies are connected hyperlinks. Moreover, Twitter is a gateway to other content through traded links. So tools like Discus allow you to see all the users gathering around a particular url on Twitter. Retweets and suggested links broaden and enrich the connections users are willing to take part in between one another. Egyptian activists took this opportunity to build their own web of people and information which was integrated over time into the global link economy.

The point here is not to eulogize the brilliance of Twitter, but to show that its functions – which are the result of evolving trends in the social web – and the breadth of its global community provide for a dense network of people and information which is a direct threat to the stability of regime propaganda through old media. In their own way, Wordpress, Facebook, YouTube and all the other popular web services do a similar thing. In a multi-polar networked paradigm that crosses barriers of location, culture and ideology it is much harder for any one set of interests to take full control. The atomizing effect of regime propaganda is sorely undermined. Simply put, social tools escape the authoritarian suppression of sociability (unless you turn the internet off).

Governments can’t be ‘social’ – only people in communities can. The US Defence Department is surely learning this. So the Mubarak regime’s efforts to insert itself into the evolving online network was doomed to failure. Just as it could not stir enough people onto the streets to counter the revolutionary demonstrations, so it could not tackle the weight of community action online when the floodgates truly opened (#jan25). The regime’s decision to send threatening text messages through the Vodafone network are a case in point. They did not stem the tide of the Egyptian Revolution. Similarly, Mubarak’s televised addresses had the feeling of watching history, literally. This is how the regime treated Egyptians for so long. It was captivating for western audiences to see a dictator in the act of dictating. The content of those speeches could never have met protester expectations precisely because protesters called for Mubarak to go, and in the absence of any meaningful progressive political platform from the regime (was there ever one?), the televised addresses were surely designed simply to show who was in power. But they actually worked the other way. They provided fuel for the community to enervate its critiques and lampoon a dictator. The addresses enhanced the sense of the clumsy powerlessness of the regime, its crass ineptitude, its emptiness. The display demonstrated that the regime’s power had long since evaporated. Suddenly the idea of ruling a country for 30 years looked something incredible and unlikely.

Freedom of Speech

When I was living in Egypt in 2006, I came to know two middle class female bloggers (muhagabat) in their early twenties who blogged anonymously. My interest in their blog stemmed from the fact that they were not tackling overtly ‘political’ topics, but nevertheless their blog was deeply political. They used the blog as a critique of their family life, and particularly to vent against their parents and wider social norms. Why can’t we live in a place of our own outside the family home? Why are we expected to get married and have children? Why won’t my dad let me come back to the house when I want? Around this agenda gathered a community of peer bloggers who offered support and self-affirmation. This small community worked to take on bloggers with opposing world views who stumbled across the blog from the wider public.

The interesting point here was that by blogging and gathering anonymously in this way, the group began to formulate and disseminate a social critique that previously could not have been propagated in public space. So the blog acted for them as a node of critique. This kind of interaction was being repeated among the young educated Egyptian middle class right across Egypt, creating new avenues for free expression and debate, though largely ignored by the media pundits interested more in activists fighting torture. The long term repercussions of this evolution in the Egyptian public sphere cannot be underestimated. Though gradual in terms of the life span of social media, this change is rapid and profound in the broader social history of the Middle East, and surely its impacts will be felt for a long time to come.

Conclusion

We cannot boil revolutions down to a simple equation such as [social media + young people + grievances = revolution]. But then nor can we ignore social media use as an important and growing trend that has direct implications for the way in which authoritarian regimes exercise power. We should be cautious about many aspects of social media – linguistic hegemony, increased status competition, the erosion of privacy protections. Nevertheless, we should celebrate the long term impact of social media use that has created a more networked, community-led, editable public sphere.

On Wednesday 8 September, with the ninth anniversary of the 9/11 attacks still three days away, Kabul police went on high alert for violent protests in the Afghan capital. The move was triggered not by the repercussions of a local conflict, but the actions of a little-known American church pastor thousands of miles away in Florida who was planning to burn copies of the Qur’an in a protest against what he called ‘radical Islam’.

The crisis, which elicited stark warnings from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan General David Petraeus, and NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, followed weeks of intense debate in the United States about the viability of establishing a mosque and inter-faith center in the Manhattan district adjacent to Groud Zero. Detractors of the plan spoke in apocalyptic terms, referring variously to the ‘Ground Zero mosque’ as a plan to establish a ‘Muslim Caliphate on the ashes of Ground Zero’ and a ‘center for training terrorists’.

Just a week before Pastor Terry Jones’ controversial move, bottles, cans, stones and three smoke bombs were thrown in the northern English town of Bradford at a protest by the English Defence League (EDL), a far right group that aims to counter the ‘Jihad movement based in England’. The group has rallied in many British cities, each time bringing wide media attention to its actions. The reason broadcasters make sure to cover EDL events, even though protests are often small, is that they are almost guaranteed to result in pictures of violence. The EDL’s founder, Tommy Robinson, in turn admitted that his movement in part grew up in response to a tiny vociferous protest by some very extreme Muslims who greeted the homecoming of the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment with banners reading “Butchers of Basra” and “Anglian soldiers go to hell”.

Picture courtesy Yannig Van de Wouwer under creative commons license.

In an interconnected world, mass media can lose sight of the boundaries between the local and obscure on the one hand, and the global on the other. A pastor’s tiny and inane protest becomes an issue of global significance. But really it shouldn’t be.

George discussing Meedan's approach to collaborative translation at the Centre for Translation Studies

There was a great turn out, particularly from Arabic students, and I was absolutely amazed be the quality of the feedback.

We discussed Meedan’s approach and how to get started using the tools, and I tried to demonstrate how getting involved would increase translators’ opportunities by boosting their profile, increasing their technology awareness and honing their translation skills with a live audience.

I used a delicious tag to organize pages for discussion and then used the new beta Delicious browsebar to scroll through them (with one or two minor slip-ups). You can see my notes on this google doc.

The students were really interested in ensuring quality and resolving disputes.

Students get to see Meedan's cross-language news sharing site for the first time

One suggested we should have a translation discussion page alongside the translation history of any comment – a great idea. Another suggested a feed of human translated content – a feature we’ve had in the pipeline for some time at Meedan.

There was also a suggestion that you should be able to receive updates for any piece of content you create on Meedan. Perhaps you’ve written a comment or posted a link and want to know when someone translates it. Or maybe you’re a translator and you’d like to be informed if someone modifies your edits.

These seem like such brilliant ideas – and it is always refreshing to hear them live from an audience.

So I hope we can take this presentation to other universities and translation studies centres in the coming months because it has proved to be a great way for us to learn, and get the Meedan message out at the same time.

We’ve so far spoken in the UK at London Metropolitan, Westminster, and SOAS in addition to Leeds – let us know if you’d like to hear from us at your university.

We are @meedan on Twitter or I am gweyman [at] meedan.net.

A typical front page of the Daily Mail with shrill anti-immigrant headline. Image by Malias.

One of Britain’s leading right wing newspapers, The Daily Mail, appears to have lost touch with its readers over its criticism of the fascist Islamophobic British National Party and its leader Nick Griffin.

In recent days, Mail readers have overwhelmingly voiced support for Griffin and the BNP on the paper’s website, despite trenchant attacks on the party by the outlet’s leading commentators.

The clash comes on the back of Griffin’s first ever appearance on the BBC’s flagship political debate programme, Question Time, on Thursday night in which the extremist defended his description of Islam as ‘vile and wicked’, repeated his view that homosexuals were ‘creepy’, and failed to refute that he had a record of Holocaust denial.

The Daily Mail, which is renowned for its ability to provide what its right-leaning readers want to hear, will undoubtedly be concerned by the comments, some of which cite Mail reporting as part of an establishment conspiracy against Griffin and his party.

“Most of the idiots writing pieces such as this live in large houses , miles away from towns that no longer look British but more like third world slums,” wrote one reader called Sammy.

“Shops, market stalls,and language are all foreign,” she continues.  ”That is why the BNP are popular and these so called writers have no real concept of what is happening in the UK , rather like the thieving , too busy filling in my fraudulent expense claims to worry about what the voters want , politicians.”

Writing in today’s Mail Online, Edward Heathcoat Amory attempts to debunk Nick Griffin’s ‘empty rhetoric’ casting  a critical eye on the BNP leader’s claims on Question Time.

Amory says: ‘The BNP’s immigration policy is voluntary repatriation of ‘immigrants’ (ie non-whites) regardless of whether they were born here. There is no evidence that any but a tiny minority of British people support such a plan.”

Greg from Coalville in Leicestershire responds: “Well mr amory i dont know where you get this “tiny minority” you mention who want repatriation, i suggest you get out and about a bit more to where the real people live and you will find that ii is a lot lot more than a tiny minority.”

Cedric from Hickinbottom says: “I am totally fed up with this “witch-hunt”.”

“In the past you have stood up for nearly all the points Nick Griffin as said his party would do if elected, all but in a less extreme way.

“You should be criticising the Libs,Labs& Cons. for not pursuing the things that matter most to the British people!”

A Richards in London says: “Mr Heathcoat Amory, where have you been, on holiday? We’ve heard all this before – the usual lies, smears and innuendos wearing thinner every time they’re wheeled out. ”

John Gray in Stamford says: “Reality. Their policies are representative of the mainstream which apparently does not include the author of this skewed dross.”

Earlier, star commentator Max Hastings described Griffin as an ‘empty vessel’ who had nothing to say, and was easily made to seem ’slippery and repugnant’ when asked about his attitude to the Holocaust.

But, in a difficult balance to strike with angry readers, Hastings tried to address their concerns on immigration.

On Tory Baroness Warsi’s suggestion of a cap in immigration numbers, Hastings said: “At last almost everybody in the studio could address what they know is the real issue. ”

“Nobody except Nick Griffin wants to send every immigrant in Britain home. But almost everybody outside the current government knows that the current policy of allowing unrestricted entry has been a catastrophe.”

He also attacked the Labour representative, Jack Straw.

” It was a very bad night for Straw, and for the Government on an issue of vital concern to millions of people.”

But it wasn’t enough for readers.

A reader from Glasgow commented: “Well, I won’t be tuning for Max Hastings worthless opinions on anything in future. Ever”

B Brodie said: “Max Hastings I thought journalists were supposed to report facts! This is a biased and inaccurate piece of writing.”

“Griffin was hounded last night by the so called ‘acceptable’ political parties and a ‘historian’ who came across as an idiot.

“The BNP will continue to do well until people are alowed to state what they really think, NO MORE IMMIGRATION of any colour.”

“I think the Daily Mail should employ Nick Griffin as a columnist,” said Ivor Wynard from Nantwich, Cheshire.

“How about listening to what the man actually said, he was brilliant and represents a growing number of people,” said Hugo in London.

The criticism of Hastings focused on the fact that – in the minds of readers – the Question Time panel and audience was set up to be biased against the BNP by the BBC and that the words ‘repugnant’ and ’slippery’ should be applied to Jack Straw instead.

John Salkfield in Sheffield said: “Last night, as expected, was a concerted effort to shout down Griffin. The establishment will not allow the people a voice.”

Mike in Alicante said: “Sorry Max, all that was exposed yesterday was the levels to which the liberal left stoop.”

“And tonight we abandon the normal Question Time and present the ‘Nick Griffin is a very bad man show’”,” said Patrick Harrington in Edinburgh.

“Mr Hastings – firstly a man of your intelligence should have seen that last nights Question Time, was nothing more then a political show trial, aimed at one man to knock him back from where he came,” said Michael West in Yeovil.

Others described the BBC programme as an ‘asbsolute stitch up’, ‘biased’ and ‘in breach of charter’.

One went as far as to say: “Griffin was clearly set up, hundreds of people onto one man, the room was full of foreigners masquerading as Brits who showed their true colours with their lack of the British sense of fair play, a principle any true Brits would of shown without hesitation.”

The comments suggest the Daily Mail is struggling to keep up with the increasingly right wing, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant readership that it has long tried to stir with articles like ‘Muslim student, 18, banned from college because she refuses to remove her burkha’ which appears on the front page today.

Muslims in particular feature as a source of agitation for the Daily Mail, which seeks to present Muslims as foreign, monolithically determined to undermine Britain’s culture, and incapable of integrating.

But it appears the position has stirred a readership more right wing than the Daily Mail is prepared to go.

One reader, Mike Slaw from Manchester, summed up the growing chasm between readers and the paper’s editorial line: “The Daily mail columnists, almost to a man (and woman) bleat on about immigration, Islamism and Europe and how these are the key issues of the day. But..they never provide any credible course of action.”

The Daily Mail responded to the fracture today by publishing an article turning the focus of its ire away from Nick Griffin to the BBC, stoking MPs’ concerns that the public service broadcaster was  ’playing into Nick Griffin’s hands by stage-managing the Question Time onslaught.’

It is not clear, however, how many commenting readers over the past three days have been BNP supporters defending their man.  The challenge the comments present to Mail coverage would suggest its columnists should engage with readers in a style in keeping with bloggers, rather than remaining aloof.

On an article reporting Griffin’s claim he had been unfairly treated on the show, Simon from Oxford said: “ I was happy that he was going to appear, because it would reveal how his policies are either repellant or non-existent (I’d love it if they’d asked him how his party would handle national debt, or the environment, or anything other than their single-policy of immigration).

“And, having watched it, I felt sure that nobody could come away thinking the BNP viable or anything other than morally reprehensible.”

“And then I come here, and see that the most popular comments are those supporting the BNP, whereas the least popular is a completely innocuous one in support of (the rather wonderful) Bonnie Greer!”

“How incredibly worrying. It just goes to show that people will see what they want to see – did you really see a future prime minister on that programme last night?? Oh, I hope not.”

The comment was one of the most negatively ranked in the thread.

DISCLAIMER: I used to work as a Mail Online producer.  The staff were from different backgrounds, friendly and supportive.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Question Time slot gives BNP “legitimacy they don’t deserve” (netnewsdaily.com)
• Dear Britain, please stop helping the fascists (boingboing.net)
• ‘Disgusting’ Griffin Defends Ku Klux Klan (news.sky.com)
• Lone voice freezes Griffin’s grin (guardian.co.uk)
• MPs warn of poll boost for BNP after Question Time (guardian.co.uk)

Menassat - the Beirut-based independent news source and media watchdog which closed this week

The Beirut-based news outfit Menassat has closed after its Dutch backers Free Voice withdrew funding support.

The closure brings to an end two years of quality journalism at Menassat which built a reputation for monitoring and investigating Arab media news.

In a statement posted on its website, Menassat’s staff said they were given less than 24 hours notice of the closure.

‘Our reporters were given no notice of this impending closure,’ the statement read.

‘For this, we are deeply sorry. We hope to work with you again soon.’

On Friday a visit to the news outfit’s website  produced only a holding page stating in English and Arabic: ‘Menassat is currently under maintenance. We should be back shortly.’

In a press release, media development organization Free Voice said: ‘ There are no reasons for Free Voice to terminate its efforts with regard to content.

‘We highly value the dedication and work of the editorial team and they have furthermore always enjoyed full editorial freedom.’

‘The Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs has provided – through Free Voice – the initial funding until August 1st 2008.

‘It was agreed upon that efforts would made from Beirut to be financially independent after this date.

‘Because this had not been successful, Free Voice has decided to provide, from its own means, additional funds for a number of times under the agreement that additional funds would be actively sought for from Beirut.

‘Sadly, Free Voice has to acknowledge that these have not been secured and Free Voice is now forced to terminate its support, in line with these agreements.’

Despite staff perceptions of a rapid demise, funding concerns existed at Menassat for some months.

In May, staff staged a protest at the delayed payment of their salaries.

Reporters also spoke of working on a ’shoestring’ budget.

When Free Voice responded to staff demands, they in turn requested the outfit take steps to improve its editorial output over a three month period, according to Layal Haddad writing in the Lebanese Al-Akhbar.

Managing director Lina Sahab achieved strong progress with more varied editorial content and up to 4,000 hits per day.

But these successes were not enough to secure the financial future of a promising alternative media source.

The closure has already sparked conspiracy theories, but reporters were more frank.

One reporter, Rita Barotta, wrote: ”The question that haunts my conscience today is: Why do the Lebanese always believe that the solutions to their problems must come from abroad?’

‘Why assume that the basic requirement to launch a unique media platform is the presence of an external financier to support it?’

Menassat has taken a leading role in reporting press, democracy and Human Rights issues in the Middle East. Picture by *RICCIO "il colore del ricordo inganna"

The Middle East online news site Menassat is facing an uncertain future today after its leading funder threatened to pull out.

Menassat reporters were considering their options on Wednesday as the company’s Dutch backers, Free Voice were reviewing whether it would fund for another month.

According to Menassat staff, Free Voice – a media advocacy group that supports press freedoms and balanced journalism in the Middle East – had long running financial concerns, following irregularities surrounding a former CEO.

The news will come as a shock to the Middle East media community which holds Menassat in high regard.

The site is based in Beirut with correspondents around the region and seeks to support Arab media professionals to exchange opinions and information free of censorship.

It also took a innovative online approach setting up a community platform on Ning for networking and publishing its content in Arabic and English.

Menassat has also taken a leading role in nurturing talent, including the reporters Saseen Kawzally, Alexandra Sandels and Simba Russeau.

Do you think Menassat should survive? Tell Muez i Diin Street what you think.

President Hosni Mubarak (left) and son Gamal at the World Economic Forum this year. Picture courtesy the World Economic Forum.

He’s widely tipped to be the next President of Egypt.  He’s the policy chief in the ruling National Democratic Party (the NDP). And now he’s talking to Egyptians directly through the social web.

Today Gamal Mubarak, son of incumbent President Hosni Mubarak, will address questions posted on Facebook through a live video webcast.

It’s all part of an effort to build Mubarak junior’s credibility and support base, ahead of any future tussle for the presidency.

It may sound new, but the spectacle fits well within a long standing communications drive from within the NDP.

The Egyptian regime has long learnt to be media savvy as part of an effort to present itself as modern, democratic and open.

Back in the presidential elections of 2005, Hosni Mubarak’s communications were slick and ubiquitous.

Brand Mubarak was built as stable, formidable, progressive and authentic. His slogan was ‘Leadership … and the passage to the future.’

Linking his image and party to the color green and the crescent – both symbols of Islam – built his brand as authentic. He was presented as a friendly father businessman figure.

Allied to this was a mammoth communications campaign that presented the party as open and responsive.

A reporter covering the campaign in 2005, Vivian Salama, wrote:

Gone are the days, the party proclaimed, where politicians dodge questions, act aloof and brush off the need for responses. The scheme was simple—a journalist who needed a quote, a response, or any information concerning the NDP would get all he/she needed with a simple phone call.

Inside the campaign, media professionals were hired to grow web and mobile outreach right up to election day.

Usama Najeeb was one of them.  He described how the campaign was ‘was carefully planned and built on a scientific basis’.  The NDP went to great lenghts to monitor media and respond through more than one channel.

Fast forward four years and Gamal Mubarak is adopting a similar approach.

His website is called ‘Sharek’ (partcipate) to suggest that his politics are participatory and responsive to the needs of Egyptians.

He’s using social media like YouTube, Flickr and Facebook to interact with an increasingly important middle class that has jumped on new social networking opportunities online.

To some extent this reflects a need to compete with opposition groups – notably the Muslim Brotherhood – who have similarly adopted new media techniques to communicating their agenda.

But will his politics be any different under the spotlight of social media?

This is a big test.  Blogs and networking tools have dramatically increased the potential for new communities of thought to emerge online.  They have given opportunities for activists to fine-tune their communication techniques and for many other web users to engage in participatory debate.

Yet the policies of Hosni Mubarak’s regime since 2005 do not suggest that new media have had the impact many assumed they would.

If there was ever a good opportunity to test the well trodden argument about the potential for social media to breathe new life into the participatory politics of developing countries, it is here.

Join the webcast at http://www.sharek.eg/ from 7pm local time tonight.