Verified by 
What is the meaning of the chain of events that started with the Tunisian uprising, led to the fall of Hosni Mubarak, the current bloody uprising in Libya and the protests in Syria? Do the new social media empower Homo globalis and increase the push towards democratization? Or does politics and political change continue to depend on people taking to the streets, as Malcolm Gladwell has argued recently in an article entitled "Why the Revolution will not be tweeted?"
We can say for certain that the internet and social media are not sufficient conditions for a successful revolution, as the failure of Iran's Green movement to successfully contest the rigged election results of 2009 shows. The social media played a great role in these election protests, and the image of Neda Soltani, killed by Iranian security forces became an icon of this movement and was broadcast and uploaded throughout the world; so was footage of the brutal tactics of the police and the paramilitary Basji.
There was widespread, worldwide support for the Green movement, and international condemnation of the brutal repression of the protests. But Ahmadinejad stayed in power, and the regime of Islamic Republic remained intact, even though Iran's educational and economic level of development is higher than Egypt's. Hence a developed middle class together with the use of social media and the internet are not sufficient for successful democratization.
The crucial difference between the failed Iranian protests and the successful toppling of Hosni Mubarak seems to be that Mubarak strongly depended on public opinion in the Free World and the support of the US government. It was part of his power-base that his regime was perceived as pro-Western. When he realized that the Free World had taken the protester's side, he stepped down. The support and solidarity of those connected to the social as well as the global mainstream media was instrumental first in convincing the White house to side with democracy, and then in making clear to Mubarak that his cause was lost.
As opposed to that the Iranian regime cared little for the Free World's support: While claiming to be a democracy, its internal legitimacy did not depend on international recognition. It had built its image on its opposition to Western values and its ability to stare down US pressure on nuclear development.
Hence it could afford to do what Mubarak refrained from doing, because he could not disregard international opinion: it cracked down brutally on the protesters, and continues to suppress dissent viciously. It is estimated that currently executes up to three people a day are executed in Iran, thus creating an atmosphere of terror and enormously increasing the risks of those who openly oppose the regime. The fact that such executions can be seen on YouTube seems not to have any influence on Iranian theocrats: the internet's impact on its actions is negligible.
Libya's Gaddafi similarly cares little about world opinion. In his case the slaughter of civilian population has led to an UN sanctioned imposition of a no fly zone by NATO. Gaddafi's obvious disdain for human rights seemed to leave little choice but to intervene.
So, on the one hand, then, solidarity of Homo globalis indeed has a great political impact. Images of physical courage, great determination and the quest for freedom can mobilizes world-opinion, and, in the case of Egypt, generate international pressure that provides protesters with crucial support. No longer dependent on mainstream media, people from around the globe feel that they can be of use to causes they believe in. In some cases, the social media also provide political activists with an insurance policy: they can let their followers know where they intend to be, and thus make sure that people know if they have been incarcerated by the regime.
On the other hand, totalitarian regimes that are largely cut off from the rest of the world like Iran and North Korea, and powers strong enough to be global players like China and Russia so far withstand pressures towards the protection of human rights.
The internet and social media certainly empower Homo globalis politically in one, crucial respect: each and every one of us can nowadays ascertain the veracity of information. The social media provide Homo globalis with the tools to interact with each other directly across boundaries. Bloggers communicate with each other directly, and the information they gather flows into the mainstream media, and plays a crucial role in mobilizing world-opinion.
In the long run I am optimistic about the internet's political impact, particularly in zones of conflict. Prejudice and mutual distrust are mostly fed by distance and ignorance. Anti-Semitism correlates negatively with actually knowing Jews, and Islamophobic people are unlikely to know any Muslims. The social media allow human interaction across boundaries that cannot be crossed physically, and are therefore likely to lower thresholds of as their impact increases.
Internet penetration in the Middle East is already high, and it has been growing exponentially in the Arab world - and the impact is beginning to show, not just in Egypt. Stories of ongoing communication between Iranian activists and Israeli bloggers, as well as ongoing communications between Israelis and Lebanese citizens during the second Lebanon war cannot but strike a chord in those of us who believe that humanity can do better
The struggle for global justice and democracy will always encounter resistance fuelled by ignorance, bigotry, fear, prejudice and sheer inertia. Nobody can predict at this point whether the wave of protests sweeping through the Arab world will lead to democracies, to Islamist regimes, or a mix between the two. Nevertheless Homo globalis must not stop being vigilant, and support democratic forces throughout the Middle East. Maybe it will indeed turn out that Homo globalis can develop new forms of solidarity that will transform the world in positive ways.
