Write: Impact of modernisation and new communication technologies on political processes of Afro-Asian countries. (1999)
Modernisation, meaning industrialisation, urbanisation, literacy and secularisation, and new communication technologies, from the transistor radio to the smartphone, have expanded political participation across Asia and Africa. The theory of the 1950s expected that expansion to produce stable participant democracy. The record shows otherwise: the same forces can lead to democratisation, decay or digital authoritarianism, and institutions decide which.
The Classical Expectation and Its Correction
- Daniel Lerner (The Passing of Traditional Society, 1958), studying the Middle East, traced a sequence from urbanisation to literacy, media exposure and participation. Its psychological key was empathy, the ability to imagine oneself in another’s role.
- Karl W. Deutsch (“Social Mobilization and Political Development”, 1961) showed modernisation loosening old commitments and making people available for new political loyalties.
- Samuel P. Huntington (Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968) warned that when mobilisation outruns institutionalisation, the result is political decay and a praetorian politics of riots, strikes and coups. The coups of the 1960s and 1970s bore him out.
Impact of Modernisation
- New actors. Students, urban workers and a salaried middle class weakened chiefs and landlords, and competition for the state often sharpened ethnic and communal identities instead of dissolving them.
- Tradition adapted. In India, caste associations became vehicles of democratic mobilisation, the modernity of tradition described by Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph.
- Religion returned. Iran’s 1979 revolution spread Ruhollah Khomeini‘s sermons on audio cassettes, turning modern technology against a secularising regime.
- Growth without democracy. China, Singapore and the Gulf states modernised rapidly under authoritarian rule, which contradicts the claim that development brings democracy.
Impact of New Communication Technologies
- Cheaper collective action. Social media helped spread the Arab Spring from Tunisia to Egypt in 2011. Kenya’s #RejectFinanceBill2024 campaign began on TikTok, circulated MPs’ phone numbers and forced the bill’s withdrawal in June 2024. Nepal’s September 2025 ban on 26 platforms set off Gen Z protests that brought down K. P. Sharma Oli’s government.
- Governance and inclusion. India’s digital public infrastructure, including Aadhaar-linked direct benefit transfers and UPI, and Kenya’s M-Pesa have brought the state and markets to people once beyond their reach.
- Digital authoritarianism. Access Now counted a record 296 internet shutdowns in 54 countries in 2024, led by Myanmar (85) and India (84). China combines censorship with surveillance.
- Misinformation. In 2018 the chair of the UN fact-finding mission on Myanmar said Facebook had played a determining role in hatred against the Rohingya. In India, WhatsApp rumours led to lynchings that year.
Assessment
Zeynep Tufekci (Twitter and Tear Gas, 2017) explains the pattern: networked movements scale quickly but lack the organisation to hold power. Egypt’s uprising ended in a military takeover in 2013, and Tunisia’s democracy was hollowed out after 2021. Nepal’s Gen Z mobilisation, by contrast, fed into the March 2026 election, in which the Rastriya Swatantra Party won 182 of 275 seats. In India, Anuradha Bhasin v. Union of India (2020) subjected internet shutdowns to a proportionality test.
Conclusion
Huntington‘s insight holds in digital form: technology speeds up participation but cannot provide institutions. Where elections, courts and parties can absorb new demands, connectivity deepens democracy. Where they cannot, it yields either street politics that burns out or more efficient surveillance.