IT'S PARLIAMENT OF SOCIAL MEDIA, STUPID

By Philip M. Lustre Jr.

Author's Notes: I wrote the following commentary two years ago. That was the time when forces against the outgoing President Noynoy Aquino kept on holding protest rallies and demonstrations to press him to leave the presidency. They did not succeed though. I ascribed their failure to kick him out of office to the changing times. Protest street actions were becoming passes during those days. They had become outmoded during those days. In the light of the many red flags raised in anticipation of the assumption into office of a new president, it becomes an act of supreme vigilance to see how legitimate dissent would reshape in the coming days ahead. This is part of the civic duty of every patriotic citizen. 

Those protest demonstrations and street rallies that cause horrendous traffic jams and loss of precious man hours are getting passe, outmoded, antiquated, or anachronistic.

They have become unnecessary aggravations imposed by people, who think they have the divine right to define for the people what should be agreed, asserted, and fought before the arena of public opinion.

The so-called "parliament of the streets" is no longer attuned to the modern times and, in its stead, the "parliament of the social media," has emerged to become the new venue of what could be regarded an ongoing social and political revolution.

In the battle for sound bites (or "teledemocracy" as political theorists aptly call it), the street is a poor arena. It is suited for Arab nations, where the information superhighway, or Internet, has yet to take a deeper root.

But for modern and emerging democracies, or a restored democracy like the Philippines, the street represents a passing era, or just one of the stages in the dynamic process of strengthening their democratic institutions and processes.

Nontraditional media, particularly social media, has emerged as the better venue than those streets. Issues are better discussed and debated in major social media sites. Public resolve is developed on the pages of Facebook, Twitter, Linkedup, among others. Signature campaigns are better pursued in social media than in the streets.

Even the first Million March Rally attracted at least 100,000 netizens in the Luneta Park, when the issues were defined and tackled in social media. But the next rallies fared poorly when netizens showed doubts on their authenticity and integrity.

Pressure politics could hardly be pursued by holding frequent protest demonstrations in the major thoroughfares of Metro Manila and other major cities. The "parliament of the streets" hardly serves as a barometer of the people's pulse.

At best, the "parliament of the streets" is being resorted by groups and people, who have lost touch with political realities, or those with dubious agenda, thinking they could best express their advocacy by shouting on top of their voices, brandishing placards, and scuffling with law enforcers.

It is senseless for the leaders of those protest demonstrations to call those mass actions, if they could not mobilize at least tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of people to express their views on certain nagging issues or press the political leadership to listen to their advocacy. Their effectiveness could only be measured by drawing huge crowds.

Times have changed. Protesters are no longer exactly thrilled to join those street rallies and demonstration, when they know they are only hurting the people and themselves too. The inconvenience of calling rallies, and other mass actions that require physical presence in the streets do not appear palatable for the citizens.

In brief, social media would continue to evolve as the main venue for conflict resolution and issue management. In short, street mass actions becomes virtual confirmation of what have been discussed, agreed, and resolve in social media.

What we now have is the parliament of the social media, stupid.