RAND_MR1382

Case studies and an Internet activist survey 70 indicate that the Internet, including
electronic mail, the web, and its other facets, gives grassroots groups an important new
tool for attempting to foster political change. Some of these advantages appear to be
merely evolutionary improvements on “older” technologies such as the telephone and
fax machine in terms of speed and cost. Other advantages appear to be truly
revolutionary, reflections of the Internet’s unique nature. Of course, no technology by
itself guarantees a successful campaign, but the Internet gives its users more power
when other forces come into play.
The Internet is inexpensive and convenient. Sending messages via electronic mail is far less
expensive than using the telephone, fax machine, or other technologies, especially when
activists must communicate over long distances and reach members of the network who
live in remote areas (as in the case of Burma’s borders). Moreover, as we saw in the
PepsiCo case, organizers can distribute campaign materials (posters, photographs,
recordings, and the like) far more cheaply—and, of course, more rapidly and easily—
than would be the case if they used the postal mail or other means to distribute physical
copies of the materials.
While some start-up costs are necessary (a computer, a modem, an Internet account),
these are not beyond most individuals’ means. Our survey revealed that many activists
make use of freely provided university email accounts.
Cost and the labor of the core organizers are, of course, vital considerations to
grassroots groups and nongovernmental organizations that rely on grants and
donations that make up their shoestring budgets.
The Internet is an organizational tool “par excellence.” Without the Internet, it would have
been virtually impossible in the case of Massachusetts—or many other cases not cited
here—for activists to coordinate and bring the pressure to bear that they did. Burma
activists were dispersed around the United States and around the world; but, because of
the Internet, they might as well have been around the block. Neither did the fact that
Massachusetts has a minuscule Burmese population matter. A “virtual community” for
action was created and acted in concert once its members saw a target of opportunity in
the selective purchasing legislation. Coordinating such a campaign via traditional
telephone trees or fax machines would have been all but impossible because of the need
to act quickly and the sheer physical distances involved.
Moreover, because the Internet permits them to rapidly exchange messages or send the
same information to hundreds of recipients around the world, activists are better able to
coordinate with a greater number of individuals and refine ideas. “Listservs” like
BurmaNet are particularly suited for rapid brainstorming, because a single individual
can send an idea in an email and can rapidly receive feedback from many different
sources. 71 A handful of organizers can rapidly generate dozens of letters and emails to