In our current digital age, the average citizen has access to a variety of technological tools and applications, the number of which grows by the second. In addition to its role in everyday life, technology has also assisted protests around the globe: Black Lives Matter (BLM), the Hong Kong protests, Belarus, and so on. 

Looking back on history, movements can be traced to prominent leaders. The rhetoric and actions of these leaders oftentimes represented the entire movement and what it hoped to accomplish. Movements assembled and developed concrete demands based on their ideals. Leaderless movements, on the other hand, were not as prominent due to a variety of issues with effective organization, information distribution, and platform creation. However, with the wide adoption of social media and the advent of encrypted forms of communication, it appears that technology has made leaderless movements more viable. Technology offers the ability to crowdsource ideas quickly, provide identity protection, and disperse digestible information more easily. Not only can movements reach a wider audience, but they can also more easily communicate with their base. As a result, protests are now able to gain widespread support on a collection of related ideas without requiring a single leader to take charge.

Prior to this technological shift, leaderless movements were difficult to launch and sustain. There was no way to efficiently organize protests, disperse information, or agree on a solid call to action. That is why it was previously so pertinent to have leaders presiding over these movements: they acted as a voice for the people, by the people. However, there are also downfalls to this method. It is much easier for opponents to target a single leader and then assert that their followers are victims of deception and lies. Perhaps they could claim that the leader is creating a movement based off of lies and exaggerations. In other words, the movement may be more vulnerable as the leader becomes the focal point for critique. When one person largely develops the movement’s platform, there is also the possibility of creating more distinct factions as rival leaders emerge, creating rifts within the movement. Single leaders offered the opportunity for movements to cross the caveats of leaderless movements, but it seems that those benefits came with many negatives as well. 

For example, Booker T. Washington was a prominent leader in championing the freedoms of African Americans and was largely seen as one of the representatives of the race. With racism and discrimination rampant, Washington rose as a spokesperson and activist for his people. However, as lesser-known critic William Monroe Trotter pointed out in one of his articles, his words appeared to be a surrender and adherence to the institutions that suppressed their people. His respected position enabled that sentiment to be blanketed over the whole of the movement. I wonder how non-colored citizens would have viewed the movement if the sentiments of others were seen as well, something technology now allows. 

Washington’s widely spread words angered those like Trotter who believed that the best way forward was not to adapt to segregation and other similar policies, but rather to engage in other methods such as civil disobedience. Only Washington was seen, and so his beliefs were apparently accepted as those of the whole movement even though there were large branches that thought differently. The existence of leaders, despite providing strength and guidance, also presented several pitfalls. Technology offers the opportunity to move past these problems and develop a more cohesive and efficient system that fits in well with our increasingly digital society.

Beginning in 2019, Hong Kongers began downloading Telegram, a communication app, in huge numbers as they began protesting against the proposed extradition bill introduced in February 2019. One reason Telegram is so special to Hong Kong protestors is because of its uncensored nature. Certain news stories or information snippets that were not available on approved media outlets can be shared on Telegram’s platform. More importantly, it provides a communication medium where users can act anonymously and through encrypted messaging. This feature is a necessity for protestors that face possible crackdown from the government. Through this tool, the decentralized movement is able to crowdsource ideas online and spread sensitive information to other participants. 

In addition to Telegram, Hong Kongers made use of an online forum called LIHKG. Community members are able to post ideas for protests or other ideas relating to the movement, and others can upvote or downvote that post. The most highly upvoted posts will be plastered onto the front page of the forum. Using the most favored ideas, users reconvene in Telegram and discuss further before beginning the development of various posters and flyers for the next step of the movement. Not only this, but the protests evolved into a very complex and elaborate movement in which there was a specified division of labor. Using online forums and encrypted messaging apps, they designated specific roles to individuals and groups, such as monitoring police movement or broadcasting updates. There are a multitude of smaller Telegram channels that facilitate communication and roles in specific areas like legal advice or first-aid assistance as well. The movement, despite not having a clear leader to follow, was able to develop an impressively elaborate structure and idea pipeline. The forums and applications have been vital to this success.

Likewise, Belarus has adopted Telegram for similar reasons in recent months. For them, too, anonymity is essential as they risk being singled out and arrested by authorities. Due to government censorship, Telegram has acted as the only medium where they are able to spread sensitive information without fear of rebuttal or consequence. With Belarusians able to communicate and organize, the government has been unable to prevent these mass protests from taking place, nor are they able to identify the protestors by their online activity. The movement’s most important Telegram group, NEXTA Live, has around 25 percent of the population signed up. That is 1.3 million people connected through Telegram. Even when President Alexander Lukashenko and his government attempted to cut off the internet and prevent protestors from organizing online, they began using VPNs as well. Again, the channel of communication of community organizing was sustained through adoption of various technologies.

In the not-too-recent past, movements were generally organized and sustained through clear leadership. Without a single individual to rely on to act as a representative, it would have been difficult to organize participants and disseminate information effectively and efficiently. Technology has provided a remedy for this shortfall of leaderless movements. Through tools like online forums, messaging apps, and social media, movements have been able to galvanize the populace without the need of a specific leader. Communication channels are readily available, including in instances where identity needs to be heavily guarded such as in Hong Kong and Belarus. We have seen the success and longevity these movements were able to achieve. While many factors are at play, technology certainly plays a role in enabling the movement to rise and continue. As we move forward with more advanced technologies being developed by the day, movements worldwide will have increasing access to a readily available audience and an energized base.