Nepal earthquake: Proof online activism works
Two weeks after the earthquake, with more than 8,000 killed and many more injured, people from Nepal, India and the rest of the world have been trying to work out how best to respond, both online and offline.
Getting clearance from the Indian government to work in Nepal has been difficult - Oxfam India is one of the few organisations to have managed this - but despite bureaucratic hurdles, much amazing work has happened to help survivors. Cash-strapped Indian NGOs have raised donations. International organisations such as Care, Oxfam and Save the Children mobilised over £30 million within one week of the earthquake. Companies and citizens around the world are generously donating, and countries closeby such as Bhutan and Pakistan have pitched in while global powers - right from the US to the UK, through to smaller countries like the Czech Republic and Burundi and many more nations around the world - have also been involved.
Yet, much of this has not translated into speedy action on the ground. Part of the problem lies in the poor systems used to manage disasters and provide relief, by governments, aid workers, NGOs and other organisations. But is it also a problem caused by those of us supporting from farther away? Is it our thinking, that we have done our bit by donating some money or signing a support petition while sitting in our living rooms? Are we truly helping or are we actually undermining serious engagement with disasters?
Action online
Online activism is changing the world around us. Opinion is split, though, on whether this is a force for the good or the bad. Optimists point to the role social media played in toppling repressive governments during the Arab Spring or to the creative, crowd-sourced responses to disasters. Pessimists say that "clicktivism" (just a lazy shortcut for armchair activists) satisfies our simple need to respond and reduces people's desire to take more serious and important action.
While activism and society are being changed so much by the internet, it's premature to make any definitive pronouncement. What we've seen so far definitely supports the optimistic view, but this doesn't mean we can ignore the risks that the pessimists raise.
Viewing these changes positively makes sense if we take a moment to consider that the idea of a new, completely different world of solely "online action" is clearly a myth. People who want to bring change have always used the technology of their day; printing presses to make posters, postal services to send invites, maps for house-to-house campaigning, or even telephones to stay in contact and mobilise others for a cause they care about. In fact, in Ashoka Gupta's book In the Path of Service: Memories of a Changing Century, there is a reference to people in Bengal raising money in the 1920s for the earthquake(s) in Japan. Despite the technology of the time, there has also, always, been an option for more "casually" supportive activism. Whether it was the signing of a paper petition or simply talking to friends, activism has never been a binary choice between not caring and dying for your cause. In the case of Nepal, the poor and rich alike in different countries have taken a whole range of really positive actions of varying degrees of "commitment".
Platforms such as email, Facebook, WhatsApp, online news, SMS and Twitter have been key for mobilising resources and spreading awareness about the damage in Nepal. These channels are used daily by billions of people to socialise and communicate, and they are how we communicate about disasters too. So the idea that using the internet for basic activism is a new frontier misses the point that supporting a cause online is simply the natural result of our online existence - which brings a lot of benefits. During emergencies, when time is of the essence, people can now almost instantly set up an e-action and reach out to millions with the click of a button.
Democracy online
But a word to the pessimists. Of course, reading, clicking and donating are only a small part of what democratic participation should be; discussion, debate, dialogue, protests - these are all part of what makes up "democracy" and "activism". With this new era of instant status updates, it's easy to see why people worry that we are losing our more serious political voice. If "clicktivism" replaces real participation, whether in democratic debate or effective disaster relief, we should be concerned. And because online activism feels easy, it's natural to worry that this might be happening. These are serious worries, but there is little evidence, so far, that online activism has watered down other forms of change. Indeed, the opposite may be true.
Democracy as we know it can benefit hugely from online activity. Geography, language, and other traditional barriers to participation are slowly being eroded. As mobile access grows, more and more people who were once excluded from political debates have the chance to be heard. The very idea of modern democracy is based on a system of taking a basic action (voting) and using that to call for political action by supporting a candidate or party, but full participation requires much more involvement. The same goes for online action.
There has always been low-level engagement in democracy - it has never been a perfect world where everyone is fully engaged in changing the system around them. The fact then that people taking the simple action of clicking on a petition to support a cause they believe in is seen as having no value, is hugely reductive. An online petition isn't the end goal - no more than simply voting; it is the start of making change.
There are no shortcuts to lasting change. Online activism isn't perfect, but rather than seeing it as undermining an ideal system, we can think of it as a new way of connecting that gives us - the people - even more power if used correctly. Anything worth having never came easy - but from the salt marches in British India to the Civil Rights movement in the US, amazing things can happen when people come together to fight for change and for solidarity. As much as online activism offers us new tools to do this, we should be excited about the possibilities opening up to us.
As the survivors in Nepal continue to suffer, you have the ability right now to connect with them by offering your support. The United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) have highlighted the unmet needs for funds to rehabilitate those affected and to begin the mammoth task of rebuilding places and communities affected - so wherever you are reading this, you can be at the forefront of the relief response by clicking a button and offering your support in solidarity for those suffering.