To understand Iranian politics, ask a search engine.
Berkman Center for Internet and Society
Open conversation: Now more than ever, Iranians are taking their political debates to the Web.
In recent weeks, the likely winner of Iran's looming
presidential elections has gone from a foregone conclusion to anyone's best
guess. The two front-running presidential candidates, current President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, are vying for vital
ground in a ballot too close to call. Polling in Iranian is notoriously
unreliable. Yet Google Trends, stocked with data from 64 million Internet users
in the Middle East -- half of whom live in Iran -- might be able to help us
learn what potential Iranian voters are thinking right now. Looking at the Web
tells us much about the candidates' domestic strongholds and their
international support. Online behavior, from Twitter to search engines, offers
clues about where supporters are congregated.
Internet penetration in Iran has increased more than 9,000
percent since 2000. Today, more than one third of all Iranian citizens are
online. And those online citizens are interested in politics; Over the past 90
days, Farsi-language Google searches for "Ahmadinejad" have increased by 350 percent, "election" by 950
percent, "Mousavi" by 1,300 percent, and "debate" (as in the televised ones
between candidates) by what Google Insights for Search -- a site that allows
you to compare global search volumes -- calls "breakout" proportions.
Worldwide, Mousavi has received only about half the search
volume as Ahmadinejad over the last 30 days. Iran, not surprisingly, is the
location of the most searches of the two rivals, followed by Indonesia, Canada,
Sweden, and Switzerland -- the last three of which are home to moderately-sized
Iranian diaspora populations. By city, Tehran's traffic numbers come in first,
followed by Jakarta, Washington, Toronto, and Los Angeles. Persian is the most common language used in
global searches, with Indonesian (Bahasa), English, and Swedish next in line.
Indonesians' interest is particularly interesting to note. With no Iranian
diaspora there, it is likely religious transnational solidarity driving the attention.
Within Iran, it is telling that Mousavi has had a greater
share of the English-language search volume in the last 30 days, while
Ahmadinejad dominates searches in Persian. This might be because Mousavi, who
has been touted as a reformist candidate, appeals to a demographic more likely
to speak English. Consistent with this pattern, Mousavi's search-query
strongholds are in Tehran and Shiraz -- places where you're more likely to find
urban elites. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad's appeal is highest among those less
likely to have English as their default Internet browser language. Ahmadinejad
remains a big player in all prominent Iranian cities but only completely dominates
the less-cosmopolitan cities of Qom, Karaj, and Mashhad.
The 400,000-strong Farsi blogosphere is a good place to get
an overall picture of the substance of Iran's political debate. On June 5, the
Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, which maps
the Persian blogosphere according to thematic linkage patterns, found seven
major groupings: poetry, mixed network, reformist politics, secular/expatriate,
conservative politics, religious youth, and cyber-Shiism. Key terms for
conservative political bloggers, for example, include Palestine, Iranian
Revolution, Mohsen Rezaee (another presidential candidate), Seyyed Hossein
Borujerdi (a Islamic jurist from the mid 20th century), and Masoud
Dehnamaki (a conservative activist, journalist, and filmmaker). This conservative
blogging cluster is one concerned with power politics and current events -- one
not monolithically supportive of government institutions and political
leaders.
Social networking sites, too, are hosting conversations, and
here, like the blogosphere, all ideological sides are involved. Orkut, Google's
social networking site, has traditionally been most accessible to average
Iranians for its easy loading on slow Internet speeds. (Iran's Ministry of
Communications and Information Technology has historically impeded the adoption
of broadband, making it prohibitively expensive for users.) Writing on Orkut,
groups comment aggressively, assigning blame for grievances and laying out
their desires in strong language. Facebook, by comparison, tends to attract
more reform-minded online interest groups. The split may well be explained by
varying Internet speeds that trace socioeconomic lines.
Equally important, however, is what does not take place
online in Iran. The OpenNet
Initiative, a collaborative research initiative across four academic
institutions, estimates that Iran maintains "pervasive filtering" in political,
social, and Internet tools, with only a "medium" level of transparency and
consistency. Information is not always accessible and debate is not always
free. Facebook, for example, was intermittently blocked in May 2009, presumably
to limit the tool's influence on election outcomes. Online groups such as
"Supporting Iranians Access to Facebook" proliferated in response, gaining more
than 24,000 supporters. According to Google Insights for Search, over the past
90 days, Iranian searches for "Facebook" have increased 250 percent.
But if traffic monitoring makes anything clear, it is that
Iranians are increasingly determined to hold political conversations online.
Over time, technology will come to their aid, making such impediments as
Internet speed and filtering less important. Innovative aggregators such as
Lebanon's Sharek961.org empower citizens to promote transparency by sending
election-related reports via SMS, e-mail, or Twitter -- all without the need for
broadband. Whoever wins on Friday, it appears inevitable that in elections to
come, the mouse will be even more predictive of the ballot box pen.
Scott E. Hartley is a researcher
at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and a joint-degree graduate student at Columbia University.
FOREIGN POLICY welcomes letters to the editor. Readers should address their comments to Letters@ForeignPolicy.com.