Donald Trump and the Age of Tweetocracy

Last year I had an enjoyable conversation with some of my students from Saudi Arabia who, while bemoaning their country’s lack of political freedom, explained that the Kingdom had evolved its own uniquely quaint form of direct democracy.

They told me that in a country where there are no elections, no parties and no free press, citizens were permitted, within reason and in a certain tone, to voice displeasure with the princes and their acolytes who run the government ministries. They do this on Twitter.

Twitter is huge in Saudi Arabia, with an estimated 2.4 million active accounts, which accounts for 40% of all Arab users. My students explained to me that while criticism of the royal family and “disrespect” was not tolerated, and certain topics, such as the war of atrocity being conducted against Yemen were no-go areas, criticism of an individual politician by a sizeable number of citizens online had often led to a change in policy or even a dismissal of the minister himself.

We jokingly suggested that this new style of government could be named a ‘tweetocracy’. Given that the Oval Office is now occupied by such a voracious tweeter, with such a low opinion of the press, the question has to be: Is Donald Trump in the process of transforming America into a tweetocracy?

His advisors like the witless Kellyann Conway champion his prodigious use of Twitter as an example of direct democracy, a politician who is accessible to his supporters and open about how he feels. (I have to concede to her on this; Trump never leaves you in any doubt about his opinion).

But think for a moment why a tweetocracy persists in the Kingdom. In Saudi Arabia, one of the most violent and repressive states on Earth, this is a permitted form of protest because it is manageable and can be carefully monitored. The authorities alone decide when a 140 character declaration has gone too far, and they control the response very carefully.

With their use of “alternate facts” and savage hatred of the press, just think how such a system would appeal to Trump and his team: if he is only contactable in one way, he has total control over who he hears from, what he sees, and what he says.

Of course the Internet giveth, and it taketh away. Trump is slowly transforming a generation of Americans into very vocal and determined activists, and they are the most well-armed activists in history in terms of ability to openly voice their discontent en-masse. We also know that even the most gentle criticism of him sends him into an insomniac Twitter tantrum.

Of course all Donald Trump has to do avoid this, and any news, commentary or opinion that he doesn’t like, is hit “block”. But given his already capacious ability to “block” so much science, reason, doubt and criticism, we all have a right to be concerned by a president who adopts a Nixonian attitude towards his enemies, and the idea of a conspiracy among reporters and minorities to undermine and delegitimise him, as his Press Secretary has already claimed.

A president who is surrounded by sycophants and loyalists, who we know doesn’t read books (who almost certainly couldn’t read some books), and who believes any outlet that doesn’t slavishly praise him is out to get him, is vulnerable to delusions of the most extreme and frightening nature, the consequences of which are hard to imagine, but will certainly not be good for either him or the republic whose constitution he has sworn to uphold (another document where I would like to know if he has managed to sit down and go through it).