Source: http://www.panos.org.uk/iwitness/summit/shanmugavelan.asp WSIS is over, but the debate has just begun Murali Shanmugavelan “The big relief is that the debate around the information society no longer needs to be tied to the WSIS process,” said communications expert David Souter at Panos London’s final briefing in Tunis. Very true. The information society is broader than the agenda of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) could ever have hoped to cover. And the resulting non-binding Tunis Declaration has produced little in concrete terms for developing countries. Everyone knew this before the Tunis phase of WSIS even started. So why did some 20,000 delegates bother to turn up? At the end of the day, was it worth it? Was it worth it? There is no doubt that WSIS has provided a valuable backdrop for civil society organisations (CSOs) that have been working on information and communications issues for the last 25 years. Seán Ó Siochrú, spokesman for Communication Rights in the Information Society, pointed out that “the Summit process has helped us to refine our communication rights arguments by learning from different CSOs around the world”. The context offered by WSIS — together with the very information and communication technologies (ICTs) that dominated the Summit — have helped CSOs to share their experiences more than ever before. WSIS provided a unique platform for governments, donors, activists and practitioners to come together and understand each others’ points of view. The participation of various heads of state and high-level diplomats signified the political importance of WSIS. But the commitments adopted at the Summit are largely meaningless unless national governments take initiatives to implement them. Challenges such as promoting good governance and transparency through the use of ICTs, or increasing access to information for the poor and the marginalised, require clear policies and actions. An international meeting such as WSIS can provide ideas and encouragement. But it cannot force governments to fulfil their promises (the host country’s poor record on media freedom being a case in point). Changes at a national level require political will, and civil society has a crucial role in influencing governments and holding them accountable. Beyond technology This brings us to the next issue: the de-politicisation of information society issues. Most ICT projects — from telecentres to community media centres — are isolated from other social and political processes. But information and communication flows are all about democracy and participation, and not just about making technologies available and affordable. It is widely acknowledged that good governance is key to the success of Poverty Reduction Strategies and other development approaches. And ICTs can be instrumental in helping to eliminate intermediaries, increase transparency and hold local governments accountable. At the same time, the credibility and usefulness of ICT-enabled development projects can only be fully realised when the poor and marginalised are able to use these tools to voice their needs and access their entitlements. For example in some Indian states computerisation has greatly simplified the issuing of birth and death certificates, which would otherwise cost individuals two days (without pay) plus bribes for local civil servants. We need more examples of ICTs applied at the grassroots level to demonstrate the real power of the information society. Unfortunately the Tunis ‘ICT 4 All’ exhibition failed to deliver on this front. Instead there was a fascination among both participants and exhibitors with cutting-edge technologies and gadgets — one of highlights being a project that aims to provide every poor child with a laptop. The Economist’s annual foresight report is optimistic about this $100 laptop, saying that cheaper technology will bring hope to the world’s poorer countries in 2006. It is certainly a great idea, but we will have to wait and see if it works in practice. This is not a criticism of technologies per se. But there is, perhaps, a greater need to invest in infrastructure (including electricity and roads) and internet backbones to make the information society work. What lies ahead The so-called Summit of Solutions has failed to produce anything concrete, and in truth no one expected it to. In the end only one issue commanded substantive debate at WSIS: internet governance. It was agreed that the question of political legitimacy — whether or not the US should control (or ‘oversee’) the internet — be handed over to a new Internet Governance Forum, a partnership between governments, CSOs, business and inter-governmental organisations whose role remains vague. Meanwhile, on financing and infrastructure, WSIS was essentially used as a platform for donors and international agencies to launch new activities in rolling out investments in infrastructure. The real work lies ahead on two levels. Internationally, some of the debates emerging from WSIS, such as proprietary software and intellectual property rights, will be discussed in other intergovernmental forums such as the World Trade Organisation. Nationally, CSOs and others will have to take note of the fact that efforts to build an inclusive information society are influenced by many non-ICT policy instruments. For example, the right to equality has a direct bearing on women’s participation in the information society. Similarly the right to assembly and free speech cannot be overcome by merely bridging the digital divide (as demonstrated by China, which has the largest number of mobile subscribers in the world), As with the first phase of WSIS, only lip-service was paid to the role of the media in the making of the information society. Indeed, Panos was one of the few organisations highlighting the importance of including the media in the debate. CSOs and others would do well to reflect on how they engaged with the media at WSIS. After all, freedom of expression and information and the fight against corruption have historically been core issues for the ‘traditional’ media. Ultimately, for any of these issues to be moved forward, the media must be regarded as a key partner in the information society. Murali ShanmugavelanMurali Shanmugavelan heads Panos London's information society project. His expertise - grounded in academic training and fieldwork in telecentres in South India - lies in how ICTs can be used for development and how international policies on internet governance, telecoms and ICTs affect flows of communication.