Back to the future in Russia?

Russia's plans to be a 'world leader' in the information society: doomed to fail?

 

In the past few days, President Putin has declared that he wants Russia to be the world's leader in information production, and in the information society, by 2015. His declarations of the importance of 'technology transfers' and 'increasing democracy' appear at first to make this bold statement seem to be nothing more than an attempt to move on from the controversy surrounding Russia's recent diplomatic relations with Britain. Considering the British media dubbed the expulsion of two Russian spies from England as a return to 'Cold War diplomacy', it would be in Russia's interest to reaffirm its position as a player in the democratic, integrated West.

 

But these new proposals by Putin have more than a shade of the rhetoric and manoeuvrings of Russia's Communist past. The calls for 'parity of technology' and the appointment of a panel at the highest levels of government to deal with the problem are reminiscent of the days when the Politburo dealt with questions of farm management in the Urals region, and when nuclear parity was the dream of Khrushchev. Not only that but the problems that beset the Communist Party in the fulfilment of its aims are poised to rear their heads and stall Putin's wishes too.

 

As a recent report by the think tank 'Government on the Web' shows, Putin's belief that the government can direct the information potential of Russia's business world neglects the fact that in the more greatly developed Knowledge Economies, it is the world of e-Commerce that is leading governments in the implementation of user-friendly services and getting results.

 

It is important that Government on the Web has highlighted the tailoring of information towards personal needs as a triumph and model to be taken from the world of e-Commerce, as it is this area of democracy and individualism that could be the greatest obstacle to Russia's success as a world information leader. Just as in the days of Khrushchev and Solzhenitsyn's One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich, the empowerment of the individual that is made possible by the information society (for example, the influence of blogs) could prove a fatal blow to such a controlled, top-down society such as Russia's, in which Putin controls the vast majority of government appointments, and is (according to a recent article in the New York Times) expanding his influence in the populous through youth organisations.

 

Finally, as the debates at ICANN and in the cities in question heat up over the question of city-specific Top Level Domains, the question must be asked, is Russia too late in stepping in to the information society as a global player? The arguments of the New York and Berlin lobbies for city TLDs reflect the movement in the information society towards a more localised focus on information, a move that may not be taken into account by Russia's government in its rush to move from 57th on the Economist's 'e-Readiness' rankings 2007, into world leader, in just eight years.

One wonders if Putin has not bitten off more than he can chew.

DM

 

 

Purnell at DCMS

The dust has settled now on Gordon Brown's reshuffle of government ministers. Among the host of young up-and-comers, the biggest winner (excluding Ed Balls) seems to be James Purnell, who was promoted to Culture Secretary.

Great respect to Tessa Jowell for her work, but I think we can safely say the debate on the future of public service broadcasting is now going up a gear.

Purnell is as close as they come to a media policy specialist, having worked in the area at IPPR (where he is credited with 'inventing Ofcom'), advised Tony Blair on it, and been at the BBC. He has decided to retain personal charge of broadcasting in his brief as Culture Secretary.

What this points to surely, is that we are entering the end-game for this debate. There is no-one in political life more equipped to oversee it than Purnell, no-one with a better grasp of the issues. He will be keen not just to leave his mark but to finalise the fundamental direction of PSB for another generation. Let the games begin.

Journalistic responsibility? No thanks, we’re British

The ongoing discussions for the future of the European Union prompted a swathe of criticism from Britain’s tabloid newspapers, using any feint notion that negotiations had not proved successful to accuse the organisation of bureaucratic failure and the British government of failing to protect the national interest. Irrespective of one’s views regarding European integration, the overt Euroscepticism exhibited by both the black- and red-top rags presents worrying challenges to the potential for balanced political debate in a country where tabloids are read by in excess of 8 million people every day.

The left-leaning journal, Social Europe, was particularly critical of the Daily Mail’s reporting of the recent EU summit, commenting that “it really is sad that irrelevant facts and rumours are obviously more important to some parts of the British media than real politics”. True enough, the fact that Blair and Sarkosy dined at the exclusive Thiou restaurant has little to do with the intricacies of supranational cooperation and diplomacy, but more worrying are the factual inaccuracies in the same article, which suggest that the EU may be controlled by the French as and when they see fit and cut the number of member states from 27 to 25.

Sure, the Franco-German axis wields significant influence in Brussels, but in the British context, where despite constant scandal, the print media is generally trusted as a primary source of political knowledge for a significant proportion of the country’s population, the tabloid press should be more aware of its responsibilities to provide accurate information to its readers. The exaggeration of intra-European rivalries does little for the prospects for balanced debate, leaving governments torn between being seen to be pro-Britain domestically and pro-European in supranational negotiations.

Neutrality is not a goal the press has ever aspired to, nor should it, but factual accuracy is a cause worth striving for, even if we never will know the true impact of President Sarkosy’s choice of dessert on the balance of power in Europe.

SL

ICANN't?

Ridiculous pun for a headline, apologies. Some of you will be aware that ICANN, the American firm which governs certain aspects of the internet's technical infrastructure, has been having its latest public meeting in Puerto Rico over recent days.

Bill Thompson has produced an excellent piece for the BBC (read it here) on the issues raised, certainly in more detail than I can provide here.

ICANN has many critics, not only for its strange position as a private 'silicon valley' firm established by the US government in the late 80s (many question its legitimacy as global regulator) but also for some of the bungled decision-making coming out of the organisation.

One key aspect is the opaqueness of ICANN. We have seen alterneative developments, notably the UN-led Internet Governance Forum that point the way forward to a more open, even democratic way of governing the web. This is not to say the two can't co-exist, but we do need to look at the issue. Anyway, read Bill Thompson's report for some more discussion.

We'll be contributing to the debate (in terms of the domain name system ICANN regulates) in the near future with our much anticipated report on localism and the information society. This will have a special focus on the campaigns for city-based domains (.london, .berlin, etc). Interesting stuff - watch this space.

A brief update on something else. The think-tank Compass will shortly be publishing a new pamphlet by our Head of Policy Craig Berry on public service broadcasting in the digital age. More details will follow.

RB