Pull Quote: ‘In my opinion, no modern government can afford to ignore the impact of social networking and other Internet technologies.  With the exception of China (which has a unique combination of almost monolithic political control, an enormous economy (second only to the US), and a gigantic population that it can use as leverage to negotiate special arrangements with communications tech companies), no government interested in the social development of its citizens can exercise any sort of repressive controls on the Internet’
THIS PAST week, Egypt has been in the midst of socio-political upheaval, brought to the world not by mainstream news organizations, but primarily by social networking sites like Twitter, YouTube and Facebook.  This was, in part, as a result of Hosni Mubarak’s government’s decision to terminate access to the Internet, and, by extension, the sites at reference in an effort to restrict mobile communication. The knee-jerk reaction, of course, was to see this as a crackdown on democracy, and in a general sense, it is. But the more relevant questions are: What were the strategic aims of this move in the context of the mass demonstration, and were they achieved?
In my opinion, no modern government can afford to ignore the impact of social networking and other Internet technologies.  With the exception of China (which has a unique combination of almost monolithic political control, an enormous economy (second only to the US), and a gigantic population that it can use as leverage to negotiate special arrangements with communications tech companies), no government interested in the social development of its citizens can exercise any sort of repressive controls on the Internet.
The sensitivity towards the political ‘motives’ of sites like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook – indeed all with the exception of Wikileaks – comes from the fact that they are all owned by US corporations and hence subject to US government influence and control. Indeed, it has been reported that the US State Department has budgeted around $30 million for Internet projects which promote democracy around the world.  But the counter-balance to that, as a matter of fact, is that there exist enough competing loyalties within the corporate and political arenas in the US, that a sustained policy of overarching government influence on the use of communications technology for international political influence is well nigh impossible. 
What is left therefore for developing countries to do is simply to embrace the technology, indeed use it to promote their policies not only to their people but also to the world at large.  One example I could cite is that of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who has a Twitter account – updated from his Blackberry – which he uses to post messages about a variety of topics, from wishing Venezuelans a Happy New Year, to congratulating Brazilian President Dilma Roussef on her ascension to the Presidency, to publishing positive statistics on various state-run companies.  He even congratulates the Egyptian people on rising up, using the Web, despite the imposition of imperial interests on their sovereignty, a hint no doubt at the West’s support, until recently, of Mubarak.
With specific reference to Guyana, there is extensive access to the internet and there has been continuous efforts to develop this platform (infrastructural and otherwise) in all facets of life such as e-government, e-commerce, e-learning etc. More recently, we have seen steps taken towards a government-sponsored and supported promotion in the form of laptop distribution to some 90,000 families over the next few years. 
Managed properly, I can see no greater single tool for overall expression and development than the one-laptop-per-family initiative.  Imagine a group of people living at the side of a lake.  Only a few people have boats and nets to sail out in the centre of the lake to catch fish, while the others have to settle for what’s on the shore.  Now imagine someone providing nets and boats to those who don’t have.  This will revolutionise the fates of families in Guyana: from providing them with the tools to manage their money better, to ensuring that their children receive a higher quality education, both by being computer literate as well as by providing access to information via the world wide web among others.  Indeed, education is the sector that naturally stands to develop the most from this initiative.
The transformative potential that this can have in various communities and among various groups of people is incalculable.  In some sectors of our economy, we have generations of people caught up in the same cycle of activity, without the option of diversifying, and without the possibility of growth.  What the one laptop per family initiative will ultimately do is offer them a choice to break out of that cycle, or even if they choose, to develop themselves within their specific area of employment.

Of course there are some pitfalls to watch out for.  Provided that the process of distribution is efficient and there are no logistical hangups, there are still the potential social dangers to navigate.  Last year I wrote about the need for parents to be aware of their children’s use of the Internet, and I am sure this year I will have cause to develop  that theme.  I believe that the distribution of the laptops should be accompanied by simplified printed instructions on how to establish parental controls on surfing – from pornography to violence – the Internet can be a parent’s nightmare.
For me, what is a good sign is the enthusiasm with which the government is pushing through this initiative.  I believe it’s a sign of our political maturity that a sitting government, in an election year, is basically providing the means of potential dissent and opposition that countries like Tunisia and Egypt have been cracking down on in the past few weeks.  As it is, Guyanese have no political or other restrictions on the Internet, despite the free-for-all comments that are placed on some politically-themed websites, and in my mind, that is better than censorship any day.