Aashish Mishra

Virtual" is the buzzword of the day. Thanks to the coronavirus pandemic, nearly all forms of human contact we had in our lives have become “virtual”, from virtual classrooms and virtual workspaces to virtual festivals and virtual family events like weddings. Virtual is in the trend. And as with anything trending, it needs to be studied, analysed and governed.

In the simplest sense, the word “virtual,” in the sense we are using it now, means the use of technology to facilitate human interaction without the need for physical proximity. This technology usually falls within the realm of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) and helps in setting up an effective digital environment for people-to-people contact.

Governance, on the other hand, has been best described by Dr. Mary Darking, senior lecturer in social policy and innovation at the University of Brighton, as the constitution of relationships between different social groups and the processes of decision-making through which rights and responsibilities are established and defined. While the term is usually associated with government and politics, it moves well beyond and finds its scope in other contexts as well.

It is important to discuss the issue of governance when discussing the virtual reality we are surrounded by today and it is important to discuss the issue of digital divide when talking about governance. In simple words, digital divide is the gap between those who have access to ICT and those who do not. And this gap plays a huge role in a society’s ability to go “virtual.”
One error policymakers and researchers often make is the assumption of wealth. ICTs are comparatively cheaper to set up and adopt, both for nations and individuals, than other infrastructure projects. However, these costs, no matter how low, can still prove too high for societies struggling with poverty. The choice they would face would be between food and internet and obviously, it is food that will be prioritised. So, ICT governance would have to include components of subsidies and aid. Otherwise, the benefits of such technology would just get pooled in the small group that can afford it, furthering the already prevalent social inequalities and expanding information poverty, much to the detriment of countries.

Furthermore, ICTs are not a single piece of equipment or machinery but are rather systems. Thus, as systems, they require certain prerequisites before they can be implemented – electricity and the internet being two of the main ones. However, both of them are what many areas around the world lack. Electricity, while taken for granted in the developed world, is quite a commodity in the developing world. Many countries in Africa and Asia lack a stable electrical supply and have to depend on expensive alternatives like solar panels and diesel generators. In such a scenario, an ICT system that depends completely on electricity would prove impossible to set up. The scenario isn’t any better for the internet as well. Wired internet access would be unaffordable for people, as explained above, while wireless internet access is unreliable at best. And with the internet being central to the “virtual” world we are talking about, such a situation would prove a big hindrance to the ICT system’s implementation.

Also, we must not view the people as passive consumers, willing and able to adopt everything we give them. Any ICT system coming from outside first has to fit into the pre-existing socio-cultural setup. Otherwise, there will be resistance to its adoption. However, most “virtual” systems are, by default, designed in English and for English-speaking users. They carry a western perspective that is wildly different from the countries they need to be implemented in. Thus, various anthropological factors also kick in which affect its adoption and use as intended.