The joys of online activism

Internet campaigns can mobilise national or global pressure to call for justice and common sense in our globalising village.

There are many worrying trends in this modern era of globalisation, most notably the ease with which companies can operate and banks move money around, apparently outside any democratic parameters set by nations or an international community struggling to catch up with a rapidly liberalising context. But I have never been part of the "anti-globalisation" movement because there are so many positive aspects to globalisation. The most important are those related to the incredible improvements in communication that the world has witnessed in the last two or three decades, largely down to the internet. If governments and the UN are failing to keep the excesses of private capital and corruption in check, these new global communities could be an important part of the answer.

Some in the UK would mark Michael Buerk's broadcast about the famine in Ethiopia as a turning point in their consciousness, but there are many other examples of when people in one part of the world realise that suffering and injustice thousands of miles away is of concern to them. Whereas once we cared only about the poor and homeless in our own villages, the world is now our village. Nowhere is this more evident than in an internet campaigning phenomenon that in the space of four years has announced a new vision for what kind of world community is possible: Avaaz. Since my cousin forwarded me an email from the the organisation about a year ago, I have clicked in support of campaigns ranging from banning cluster munitions, stopping a woman being stoned to death in Iran, protecting the oceans and, this week, calling on chocolate companies to boycott Ivory Coast until Laurent Gbagbo steps down. So I've been busy. But not that busy. The beauty of Avaaz, of course, is how easy it is – you just click your support and within days 800,000 people are calling on the US and the EU to ban a pesticide they have probably never heard of, but that kills bees and thus endangers the ecosystem.

Some have criticised this kind of "clicktivism", claiming that it is a shallow form of protest compared with the interlocked arms of marchers of the famous campaigns of the last century. But it is not an either/or situation. All the campaigns Avaaz supports depend on deeply committed campaigners for their heart, evidence and credibility. But Avaaz gives me and its 6.5 million members worldwide a chance to say we care as well. Imagine how much more effective campaigns would have been in the past with this ability to mobilise national, regional or global pressure. Apartheid, Vietnam, women's rights.

Ecpat is a small British charity that fights the trafficking and abuse of children. Last year Avaaz decided to give a boost to Ecpat's pioneering work by focusing on the Hilton hotel chain's refusal to sign a basic code of conduct to train its staff to end possible abuse in its hotels. Rather than deliver the petition to the company headquarters, Avaaz announced that it would put up billboards in the home town of the CEO – boldly linking professional responsibility for a massive business with personal responsibility as a member of the human race. Risky, but it worked. One week and 310,000 signatures later, the Hilton group promised to sign (before the billboards went up).

Last year the Brazilian congress voted on a measure to bar politicians convicted of corruption from standing for office. Most thought the vote would fail, as so many of those in congress were themselves corrupt (estimated at 25%). But in the largest internet campaign in Brazilian history, 2 million people signed a petition supporting the legislation. It passed.

These and many other successes could make a real difference to millions of people. What is attractive about engaging in this way is that it combines surprising perspectives (not the same old gripes) with a stark understanding of the reality of politics. The common theme is reining in power – one of my favourites was a campaign against the Murdoch press taking more of a monopoly grip of British media. This is not about giving, it is about participating. While charity fatigue is a well-known phenomenon, I have yet to come across solidarity fatigue. In an age of "accountability", some have suggested that the small team that runs Avaaz and send us its latest campaign obsessions are unaccountable. But the key to Avaaz's success is precisely its accountability model, one that some of the traditional NGOs (who must be delighted and more than a little envious as they watch this phenomenon) might want to copy. Each potential campaign is trialled on a sample of a few thousand members before it goes live. If there is low take-up, it is dropped. Avaaz responds to its members as much as it informs and leads them.

One funky gimmick Avaaz has is allowing you to see the names of signatories who support a particular campaign. "Jane from Canada, Vikram from India, Colin from Wales". I have wasted plenty of time looking at these names as they roll in, strangers in another part of the planet demonstrating that they care about things I care about. In real time. In my mind, I think: "Nice one Jane, nice one Vikram." Like the neighbourhood watch group operating in my street, Avaaz makes you realise that there is a global community calling for justice and common sense in our globalising village.

via The Guardian by Jonathan Glennie, Tuesday 18 January 2011 07.00 GMT

[via]