By Jan Servaes*
BANGKOK, Thailand | 29 January 2025 (IDN) — Southeast Asia exhibits a wide range of political structures, cultural systems, depths of political engagement, and histories. Nearly four decades since the advent of the Internet in the region, the online population has grown substantially, hand in hand with increased government capacity to exert control over technology. At the same time, this digital landscape, with most of the population active on social media, has brought with it increased commercialization and a greater reliance on algorithms. This has affected how citizens engage with politics, how political actors engage with citizens, and ultimately the trajectory of political developments.
This complex tapestry makes it difficult to easily align with the historical timelines or categories typically used to assess political change in Western settings. The unique constellation of forces at work highlights different political configurations across the region’s nation-states. It is therefore crucial to produce knowledge and critical insights that emerge from the empirical contexts of the region, argues Merlyna Lim, professor at Canada’s Carleton University and Canada Research Chair in Digital Media and Global Network Society, in this relatively short but illuminating overview.
Using an interdisciplinary approach, she bases her theoretical and analytical contributions on two primary sources. First, she draws on as yet unpublished empirical material from research collected (mainly from 2018 to 2023) on recent grassroots progressive and regressive activism, political campaigns, and electoral politics. Second, she incorporates analytical and empirical insights on social media and activism in the region based on algorithmic dynamics. She focuses specifically on three critical domains: network society and democracy, social media and public spheres, and, more recently, polarization and disinformation.
This book shows how the intricate interplay between social media and politics in Southeast Asia is multifaceted and co-constitutive, shaped by dynamic technological, socio-political, and contextual arrangements. It is situated within and shaped by distinctive national contexts, ever-evolving civic engagement, and a dynamic political landscape.
Network society versus democracy
Lim first argues that the ‘rich-gets-richer’ tendency of scaleless social media networks contributes to inequality and consolidation of power.
In Southeast Asia, this means that, parallel to the exponential growth of digital networks over the past two decades, governments, as the most powerful entities in the region, have also emerged as the strongest nodes within the networks with an increased capacity to control and influence political trajectories.
Scholarly work on the intersection of digital media and politics has largely revolved around the idea that network society and democracy are mutually reinforcing. Lim considers Manuel Castells as the foremost authority on this. In his trilogy, ‘The Information Age: Economy, Society, and Culture (1996, 1997, 1998)’, Castells examines how the rise of information and communication technologies has led to significant societal shifts. He emphasizes the crucial role of networks in shaping modern social, economic, and political structures, and argues that networks have replaced traditional hierarchies as the primary organizing principle in society. Castells thus argues that digital communication technologies allow these networks to reconfigure political power dynamics, potentially negatively affecting the political situation.
Table: Freedom in Southeast Asia (2023) (Lim, p. 22).
Social Media and Public Spheres
Since 2024, contemporary social media networks are more unequal than their earlier versions. At the intersection of social media and politics, these networks amplify the influence of larger political entities, thereby reinforcing power dynamics. This continued growth of social media networks contributes to the accumulation of power over time by those who were initially left out of control during the early stages of the Internet, such as governments in Southeast Asia, including authoritarian regimes. In the region, governments are currently among the strongest nodes within the scaleless networks of social media.
Democratization through increased citizen participation and the emergence of networked social movements has also increased. In the ever-evolving social media networks, various actors, ranging from individuals and activists to politicians and states, continue to turn to and reshape digital media to advance their agendas.
In Southeast Asia, grassroots activism, particularly the progressive wing of the youth, has also deftly navigated the complexities of communicative capitalist platforms for productive communication and engagement. For this, Lim refers to a second source of inspiration: Jurgen Habermas and his concept of the public sphere.
However, Lim acknowledges that inequality of access can hinder democratization by creating political engagement and influencing inequalities.
Therefore, Lim argues, secondly, that social media embody the platform capitalism model rather than fostering the democratic public sphere. Social media are the epitome of the platform capitalism model. They function with a bias towards marketing culture, treating users more as consumers than as citizens. Political engagement on social media is thus intertwined with communicative capitalism, where algorithmic marketing culture takes precedence over civic discourse and engagement.
In recent scholarly discussions, alternative perspectives have emerged that argue that the promise of a digital public sphere has been hampered by autocratic challenges, transforming social media from an engine of protest into a potential mechanism for authoritarian resilience. The US Trump election and the UK pro-Brexit campaign are elaborated as examples.
Polarization and Disinformation
Southeast Asian cases of grassroots activism demonstrate that activists and citizens have the power to shape the outcomes of their social media activities, while continuing to negotiate their positions vis-à-vis algorithmic and marketing biases. Therefore, Lim argues that in Southeast Asia, the rise of algorithmic politics, deployed by political actors with undemocratic motives, is the most important factor in deepening polarization and escalating disinformation, which furthers autocratic trends.
The political implications of social media platforms are multidimensional. While scaleless networks contribute to inequality and the consolidation of power, the underlying platform capitalism model prioritizes marketing culture over democratic discourse.
While social media platforms were originally designed with marketing intentions, this does not mean that marketing logic governs all activities on these platforms. They do not predetermine the outcomes of users’ actions.
Users are not merely passive spectators without agency. Instead, users collectively have the potential to shape the course of events on social media as active citizens rather than passive agents, while simultaneously negotiating their positions vis-à-vis algorithmic and marketing predispositions.
Amidst the evolving social media landscape, characterized by algorithmic biases that tend toward extreme content, challenges for civil society and citizen activism emerge. Algorithmic marketing culture can hinder alignment with democratic and civic goals. Social media platforms have the potential to cultivate solidarity, shared emotions, and a collective sense of victimhood.
Nevertheless, with the rise of an affective binary framework facilitated by algorithmic dynamics, these platforms can be used for hyper-/ultranationalist, anti-democratic, and radical right politics. Social media can amplify both progressive and regressive voices, underscoring the importance of distinguishing them from the political collectivism that they tend to amplify.
Screen interactions have the dual capacity to bring people together and create divisions. They can shape forms of political engagement and collective activism or potentially intensify polarization as users segregate into exclusionary algorithmic enclaves. Within these enclaves, multiple forms of tribal nationalism can emerge, bringing people together through exclusionary solidarity that affirms their privileges while denying the rights of “the others.”
Critics characterize this period as an era of disinformation, information disorder, or post-truth politics. This view aligns with the prevailing perception that digital media has become autocratic, transforming social media from a diverse landscape of liberal freedoms into a troubling domain of anti-democratic threats.
While this narrative of technological pessimism captures certain crucial aspects, it paints a somewhat simplified picture that portrays social media as a separate domain with certain characteristics that exacerbate real politics.
Those engaged in algorithmic politics are exploiting the algorithmic tendency toward extreme affect within algorithmic marketing culture. They capitalize on the binary nature of politics and enhance their online visibility not only for electoral gain, but also to perpetuate their power and control by segregating citizens into polarized algorithmic enclaves.
In Southeast Asia, the binary dynamics reflected in electoral politics, combined with the influence of algorithmic marketing culture, pose a significant challenge to communities and individuals whose positions differ from extreme binary positions.
As algorithmic enclaves around binary positions become more prominent, social media users with dissenting views become increasingly reluctant to voice their opinions, reflecting a spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974), where a reluctance to discuss political issues arises due to a higher perceived dissonance with social ties. The prevalence of algorithmic politics is poised to intensify, potentially leading to more disinformation and deeper polarization.
Therefore, unlike early utopian internet scholars, proponents of this perspective do not see platforms as tools for democracy. Instead, scholars recognize the dual nature of technology, which can support both democratization and autocratization. Lim acknowledges this potential for both democratic and undemocratic practices facilitated by digital platforms.
Empirical cases from various Southeast Asian contexts reveal a historical pattern where social media platforms and their predecessors, such as the static internet, have been used by diverse societal actors, including extremist and violent groups, pursuing progressive versus regressive interests.
Platform Capitalism and Marketing Culture
At the core of platform capitalism lies the acquisition and monetization of user data. These platforms collect extensive information about user behavior, preferences, and interactions, and use data to target advertising to generate revenue.
Furthermore, platform capitalism thrives on network effects, where the value of a platform increases with more users, creating a self-reinforcing cycle. The ultimate goal of platform capitalists is to continuously increase dominance in various markets, making global connectivity a compelling objective. To maximize performance, automation and algorithmic decision-making are integrated into platform capitalism, affecting content recommendation, user targeting, and the overall functionality of the platform.
According to Lim, the fundamental design principle of social media algorithms is primarily about generating revenue through targeted advertising. Such a principle aligns with the inherent platform capitalism model of social media platforms, which adheres to the principles of marketing culture.
Therefore, she introduces the term “algorithm ic marketing culture” as a conceptual framework to clarify the interplay between algorithmic operations and marketing principles that authoritatively shape the circulation, visibility, and popularity of content among social media users. At its core is branding, which encompasses the symbolic value and psychological representation of a product, with achieving virality as the ultimate marketing goal. Here, algorithms do not make a distinguish anymore between content produced and distributed by commercial brands and ordinary users.
Algorithmic politics thus encompasses a range of political manoeuvres that exploit existing algorithmic biases to influence the public. In Southeast Asia, it becomes prominent when political actors use algorithms to influence citizens’ decisions during elections and everyday political affairs. Therefore, Lim argues that the use of algorithmic politics by political actors plays a key role in undermining democracy and contributing to the autocratization trend in the region.
Structure
Lim has neatly structured her book based on 6 chapters or sections.
Section 1 starts from an overview of existing debates and literature, and presents the analytical framework rooted in three key domains: network society and democracy, social media and public spheres, and recent concerns about polarization and disinformation.
Section 2 delves into the state of social media in the region, and provides a socio-political and technological background for the analysis. It situates the nexus of social media and politics within three contextual factors: the rise of Southeast Asia as the social media marketplace, the intertwining of politics in social and personal spheres, and the increased control and autocratic tendencies of governments.
Section 3 provides a panoramic view of social media and politics in Southeast Asia. By examining each country, it provides a regional overview of different approaches and levels of digital freedom and state control, and describes the use of the platforms for mobilization, activism, campaigning, and dissemination of disinformation.
Section 4 examines how activists and citizens in Southeast Asia benefit from the opportunities offered by social media, contribute to increased grassroots activism, present insights from various country cases, and discuss the binary and affective nature of activism.
Section 5 empirically and analytically examines the role of social media platforms in political communication, campaigning, and electoral politics. It discusses the use of algorithmic politics to manipulate audiences, spread disinformation, and deepen polarization.
Section 6 provides a reflective summary of the extensive analysis discussed in this book. It summarizes the key findings and insights derived from exploring the intricate relationship between social media and politics in Southeast Asia.
Thus,
Insights from Southeast Asia highlight the crucial role of social media in campaigns and reveal a consistent pattern of increased division, polarization, and a prevalence of disinformation. This pattern emerges from and correlates with three primary factors: (1) from the socio-technical implications of social media and their algorithm; (2) it is grounded in the binary politics of the regions; and (3) it is significantly influenced by political actors who manipulate audiences through algorithmic politics.
The effects of polarization and disinformation emerge socio-technically from algorithmic marketing culture, a dialectical interplay between algorithmic operations and marketing principles, that is, primarily branding.
In this culture, the visibility and popularity of content depend on brand performance. This dynamic extends to electoral politics, revealing that political content is examined through the lens of algorithmic marketing culture, with emotionally charged content—such as that produced within the populist style—being favored over informative political messages.
Furthermore, the escalation of algorithmic politics in electoral politics adds fuel to the mix, characterized by the professionalization of campaigns, financial support, the adoption of dual formal and covert strategies, and the incorporation of paid campaign networks, with negative campaigning and algorithmic white-branding as dominant strategies.
Recently, alongside a significant increase in social media advertising spending, there has been an increase in the involvement of social media campaign consultants, who may use advanced technologies such as artificial intelligence.
Dilemma?
In the tumultuous arena of Southeast Asian politics, social media emerges as a formidable tool for political actors, with election campaigns featuring a potent mix of division, polarization, and disinformation. As elections unfold, algorithmic politics takes center stage, with professional campaigns, substantial financial backing, and the covert maneuverings of paid networks. This orchestrated production is accompanied by a marked increase in spending on social media advertising, with consultants using skills and tools to manipulate the narrative, particularly through the deployment of negative and positive disinformation strategies.
In Southeast Asia, citizens, activists, and opposition figures have used the potential of platforms to build networks, disseminate information, organize, and mobilize masses to challenge existing power structures. However, it is essential to recognize that technological systems, as embodied in social media platforms, cannot inherently conjure up a domain conducive to the flourishing of progressive democratization where such conditions do not yet exist. More importantly, by themselves, these systems cannot bring about reforms in authoritarian regimes that are resistant to change, especially those that are adept at using the same platforms for autocratic and repressive purposes.
Conversely, these technological systems also lack the capacity to automatically shift the political landscape toward authoritarianism if a counterforce, both institutional and grassroots, resists and persists. Lessons from recent history show that this resistance can come from oppositional forces and/or the progressive digital youth.
“For Southeast Asia, hope lies not in the hypothetical algorithms of future technological platforms but in the hands of those who adeptly utilize every tool, including technological and digital platforms, to resist looming hegemony. In the dance between technology and politics, the cadence of change may reveal itself. Though the shadows that threaten democracy loom, the unwavering collective fighting for justice may endure” (p. 81).
Reference
Merlyna Lim, Social Media and Politics in Southeast Asia, Cambridge Elements, Cambridge University Press, December 2024, 96 pp. ISBN 978-1-108-71934-6v DOI: 10.1017/9781108750745
*Jan Servaes, ph.d. | 9freenet9@gmail.com | https://authory.com/JanServaes
https://authory.com/JanServaes/certificate/bd834aa5af135409fa70bed47acb9a1f0
Recent books: Jan Servaes & Muhammad Jameel Yushau (eds.), SDG18 Communication for All, Volume 1, SDG18 Communication for All, Volume 2, The Missing Link between SDGs and Global Agendas: https://link.springer.com/book/9783031191411, Handbook on Communication for Development and Social Change: https://link.springer.com/referencework/10.1007/978-981-10-7035-8 [IDN-InDepthNews]
