In the Swedish daily Svenska Dagbladet, there was yesterday a full page article arguing for letting the Internet continue to be ruled more or less the way it is today. It pointed out that some changes may be needed, but that today’s system essentially works well and is already changing from within.
What then is the threat? I was a bit startled when I saw the headline, which translates to “The strive for democracy threatens the Internet”. How can that be? The Internet that is such a great tool for spreading democracy?
On reading the text it becomes clear that what the article warns against is that the Internet would be more centrally controlled by politicians, and that influence from national interests would increase through the ‘Internet Governance’ ambitions of the United Nations.
In the article the authors talk about the present order being ‘democratic and pragmatic’, and later that they do not want a ‘global zeal for democracy’ to cause that individuals are shut out from the Internet, or that the way it is being developed would change.
I sympathize with the text, but the threat has got nothing to do with democracy. The headline need not be the author’s own, but the use of the word is unfortunate wherever.
Political control is not the same as democracy.
These are too often mixed up, particularly by those who are aided in their political agenda by the confusion. Therefore those who argue for limitations to political control need to be even clearer that democracy is not the issue.
It is very common in Sweden, and maybe elsewhere, to try and argue for ever deeper penetration of political control by calling it increased democracy. No wonder. If they get away with it, who could then argue against? You like democracy, no?
Democracy requires some political control. It also requires that this be strictly limited.