There is an emerging second superpower, but it is not a nation. Instead, it is a new form of international player,constituted by the “will of the people” in a globalsocial movement. The beautiful but deeply agitated face of this second superpower is the worldwide peace campaign, but the body of the movement is made up of millions of people concerned with a broad agenda that includes social development, environmentalism, health, and human rights. This movement has a surprisingly agile and muscular body of citizen activists who identify their interests with world society as a whole—and who recognize that at a fundamental level we are all one. -The Second Superpower rears its beatuiful head. By James Moore

One of today's posts at Omnium reminded us of the potential and the delicacy of our free blogosphere:

The inherent power of that capacity has to be terrifying to govts everywhere--it may be the biggest single threat to their power that they've ever faced. It is almost inevitable that they will try to control it to their own advantage when that threat becomes more than a mere annoyance.

...It is the planetary voice of the people, nothing less, and it must be guarded and protected as the precious resource it is. We have not even begun to see what this thing can do; the possibilities are endless--international coalitions, international co-ordinated movements, international online meetings, preparations, and discussion.

This is the voice we've never had before in history, the tool we've never had that will allow us to come together. We can't risk losing it.

The Aspen Institute 2004 Roundtable summery: Communications Technologies and the New International Politics seconded Mick's claim (albiet from the viewpoint of paniced governments):

Yet despite the winds of change stimulated by fresh and unfettered flows of information, the new communications technologies do not necessarily usher in new, more enlightened political orders. Authoritarian governments from China to Saudi Arabia have imposed new systems of control over the Internet. It is unclear, over the long term, just how powerful Internet-based communications will be in reshaping the exercise of power.

What is clear is that the emerging communications infrastructure— the Internet, satellite television, cellular telephony, and more—is the exoskeleton of a new sort of global politics and culture. Growing evidence suggests that by changing how people communicate, think, and interact, the new electronic technologies are forging new cultural values, identities, and loyalties. In their influence on politics, economics, and culture, the new media channels represent something of a slowmotion, geopolitical tsunami.

The new communications systems are not simply conduits of information; they constitute a wholly new sort of global nervous system. They enable new sorts of virtual social communities to arise and flourish and facilitate unmediated flows of transnational communication. They are
changing art and culture, affecting the moral credibility of societal institutions, and reconfiguring political power, including those of national governments, the military, and other hierarchical organizations.

Some legal scholars warn that the fragmantation of info and views in the blogosophere could cause the collapse of democracy. Cass Sunstein, warned in his book Republic.com of the "egocentric custimization of infromation", or "the daily me". Sunstein Asserts that, "democracy depends on shared experiences and requires citizens to be exposed to topics and ideas that they would not have chosen in advance."

That opinion was seconded by Monroe Price:

"Communal symbols reinforce cohesion, affect the duration and nature of any particular hegemony, and, therefore, have a central place in the idea of the state," writes Monroe Price, director of the Howard M. Squadron Program in Media, Law, and Society at the Cardozo School of Law,Yeshiva University."The structure and capacity of communications and the fate of governments," he writes, "are inextricably intertwined."

Both the views of Price, and Sunstein struck me as arrogant, totalitarian, and utterly devoid of historical knowledge. Sunstein's argument seems to imply that citizens are sheep, who must have a sheperd. I'd ask Sustein:
a. Who choses the topics which citzens should be exposed to?
b. Are you implying that commercial media is noble, patriotic, and a public service? In American media, advertisers already act as the de-facto censors. I've found my fellow bloggers (from all continents and all ideological spectrums) more honest than anything I've seen on TV.

However, compare the arguments of Sunstein and Price with Mussolini:

In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State

.

Who will decide the communal symbols, or views to which they should be exposed? Without answering that question, bear in mind Mussolini's answer: "It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State." Our blogging friends in South Korea are no doubt aware of this. While the only clear conclusion is that we face an uncertain future, I think David Bollier's conclusion gives us a place to start:

Although nation-states and the mass media remain the dominant players in international politics, the exercise of their power has become more problematic and complex. The new media have empowered a wide array of “bottom-up” newcomers to participate directly in politics and culture. For the most part, clashes between the newcomers and established powers have been episodic and inconclusive, so it is premature to identify patterns that will govern future engagements. Yet it is clear enough that the Internet and other digital technologies are greatly intensifying tensions—between hierarchical organizations and networks; between hard power and soft power; and between legal systems and social norms.

Successful future strategies in international relations are likely to revolve around these antinomies. It remains an open question, however, who will be the first to understand these deep structural tensions and orchestrate an effective rapprochement. A great deal rides on meeting this
challenge.