.png)
Of all the questions in the world, I chose this one: "Who, whom?" It’s a simple question, first made famous by Vladimir Lenin, but it packs a punch. If you’re unfamiliar with the phrase, don’t worry — you’re not alone. At its core, it’s about power: who’s calling the shots, and who’s following them. And if you’re wondering how a century-old phrase connects to digital diplomacy, I invite you to read on.
In today’s hyper-connected world, Lenin’s question feels as relevant as ever. It’s not just about who influences whom but how that power shapes the narratives we see, the priorities we focus on, and the agendas that dominate the digital stage.
The way I see it, digital diplomacy takes this old question and gives it contextual meaning. It’s where influence plays out in tweets, policies are hinted at in hashtags, and entire global narratives can shift with a viral post. So, who’s really in control here? And how do they secure compliance in a digital age that’s all about connection and speed?
Let’s unravel these questions together and explore what’s really at play when power meets the digital world.
"Who, Whom?": The Question of Power
At its core, digital diplomacy can reflect a subtle interplay of influence—shaping narratives, platforms, and even the global agenda. It’s less about outright control and more about guiding priorities, often in ways that aren’t immediately visible. The participants in this evolving landscape are as diverse as the tools they use, spanning nation-states, multinational corporations, and even prominent individuals. And the tools? From viral memes and social media campaigns to cybersecurity policies and AI-driven strategies.
Who holds the power to set the agenda, and who is forced to follow it?
How Power Shapes Agendas in the Digital Sphere
The ability to shape the agenda holds a quiet yet profound power. In digital diplomacy, it’s not just about deciding what gets attention—it’s about influencing how conversations unfold and subtly steering priorities to align with certain interests.
1. Narrative Control as Agenda-Setting:
Those who dominate the narrative often dictate what becomes a global priority. For example, during global crises, states and corporations invest heavily in framing their actions as not only necessary but beneficial. This framing ensures their agenda takes center stage while dissenting voices struggle to gain traction.
Think of the climate diplomacy discussions—who decides what stories are told, and who shapes public opinion? Those with control over the narrative ensure their agendas are seen as urgent and inevitable.
2. Data Leverage and Agenda Alignment:
Data is the currency of power. Social media giants like Meta, X, and Google hold immense power in shaping the digital agenda. Algorithms determine visibility, amplifying certain issues while muting others. Governments and organizations operating on these platforms often find themselves aligning their priorities with platform policies to ensure engagement and reach.
Who owns the platforms, and who adapts to their rules? The powerful shape the digital ecosystem, while others are forced to conform.
3. Technological Innovation, Cyber Coercion and the Agenda Gap:
Nations and corporations at the forefront of technological innovation set the global agenda by defining the terms of engagement. From AI regulations to cybersecurity norms, technological leaders decide what matters most, leaving less powerful actors to play catch-up.
Who leads the technological race, and who is left behind? From my perspective, the agenda is often dictated by those who innovate first.
4. Soft Power and Norm Creation:
The creation of global norms—whether in digital governance, cybersecurity, or content moderation—serves as another mechanism for shaping agendas. Powerful actors establish these norms not just to guide behavior but to entrench their own priorities as global standards. Smaller actors comply to signal legitimacy, even at the cost of autonomy.
Securing Compliance in the Digital Age
Another reason I find it so relevant and timely to understand the current landscape of the digital world is this: the question of “Who, whom?” almost forces us to consider how compliance is secured in a world where physical force has given way to more subtle tools of influence:
Agenda as Compliance: By framing their agendas as universal, the ones who hold the power make compliance appear inevitable. For example, multinational tech companies often present their policies as neutral, even though they align with their corporate priorities. Smaller actors comply because it feels like there’s no alternative.
Dependency as Leverage: Reliance on platforms, technologies, or data-sharing agreements creates structural compliance. Governments dependent on tech giants or less technologically advanced nations reliant on digital infrastructure are compelled to align with the priorities of those in control.
Coercion and Exclusion: Cyber coercion, from surveillance to the threat of technological exclusion, can force compliance. Nations fearing cyberattacks or exclusion from key platforms often align with the demands of more dominant players.
Power in Agenda-Setting: A Tactical Perspective
For digital diplomacy practitioners, understanding agenda-setting is key to navigating the complexities of power:
Identify the Agenda-Setters: Map the stakeholders shaping the conversation and determine whose interests they represent.
Analyze Influence Mechanisms: Look beyond direct power to understand how agendas are framed and compliance secured. This includes the role of platforms, algorithms, and emerging technologies.
Anticipate Agenda Shifts: Power is fluid. Monitor trends, innovations, and policy changes that could reshape the global digital agenda.
The Human Element
Amid this web of power dynamics, it’s easy to forget the human element. Digital diplomacy isn’t just about states or corporations—it’s about people. It’s about those affected by narratives, policies, and technologies. From activists silenced by algorithms to entire nations grappling with their digital vulnerabilities, the question of “Who, whom?” touches every facet of our interconnected lives.
As practitioners and observers of digital diplomacy, it’s essential to recognize that power dynamics are not static. Influence shifts. Narratives evolve. Compliance can turn into resistance.
As much as Lenin's “Who, whom?” asks us to analyze external power struggles, it also invites self-reflection: Who is shaping your agenda? Are you amplifying narratives that align with your goals, or are you inadvertently serving the priorities of more dominant actors?
In digital diplomacy, self-awareness is as critical as strategy. Recognizing how your actions and decisions fit into broader power dynamics can help practitioners navigate influence more effectively.
What Do You Think?
The essence of Lenin’s question challenges us to think critically about the dynamics of power and agenda-setting in the digital age. As states, organizations, and individuals navigate this landscape, they must engage with these fundamental questions:
How can smaller actors resist domination without sacrificing access or legitimacy?
What strategies can ensure a fairer, more collaborative approach to setting global agendas?
The floor is yours.
Share your thoughts, challenges, or strategies in the comments below.
Together, let’s explore how to turn the digital world into a platform for shared progress and collaboration.
Comments