Digital Politics in Mongolia

Lauren Bonilla, Rebekah Plueckhahn, Rebecca Empson, Department of Anthropology, University College London

This post is written by researchers on an ERC-funded project entitled ‘Emerging Subjects of the New Economy: Tracing Economic Growth in Mongolia’ based at the Department of Anthropology, University College London.

Our project focuses on the mineral-rich country of Mongolia, once heralded as the world’s fastest growing economy but now experiencing sharp economic slowdown. We trace the kinds of subjects and activities that are emerging out of this economy of flux – when promises of economic growth are continually referenced but never seem to materialize; when people are forced to live with the rhetoric of hope and potential which everyday reality never approximates – leading to alternative experiences and imaginaries.

Through ethnographic studies of the mining industry, ownership and property regimes, the bank and credit market, free trade zones, and environmental and nationalist movements, we examine how different subjectivities, temporal perspectives, politics, and environments are produced through engagements with different economic visions and promises.

This post examines the reception and implementation of a poll that circulated through mobile phones in Mongolia seeking to gauge the opinion of the population at a critical economic juncture. We pay particular attention to the language used in the poll and the way it presented choices for economic futures as well as masking potential decisions.

Photograph of the text message received from the government on a mobile phone

Photograph of the text message received from the government on a mobile phone

What happens when a dispersed population in a country the size of Western Europe suddenly receives a text message on their mobile phones from the government asking them to vote on the future of the country’s economy? This is exactly what happened on Friday, January 30th, 2015, when Mongolians opened a text message on their phones asking them to vote on furthering large mining projects (like Oyu Tolgoi) or ‘disciplining the economy’ and resorting to austerity measures, neither being particularly inviting solutions.

The economy in Mongolia, as elsewhere, is something that is at the forefront of people’s minds. Last February, Mongolia’s President, Tsakhiagiin Elbegdorj, welcomed the year of the ‘Blue Wooden Horse’, calling it a ‘victorious’ year. According to the Buddhist Lunar calendar, horse years mark times of monumental change and Mongolia was to ‘gallop forward’ to a prosperous future fuelled by the discovery of its vast mineral reserves.

The year of the Blue Wooden Horse has, however, been far from victorious. The country had the world’s fastest growing economy in 2011 due to foreign investments in mining. But it is now experiencing a sharp economic slowdown. Over the last 3-4 years, global commodity prices in coal and copper have fallen and foreign investments have stalled or declined. As public and private debt mount, inflation rises, and jobs disappear, Mongolians are increasingly questioning the motives of foreign investors and politicians who once heralded their country’s mineral wealth as key to their national development.

Now as the new Lunar Year is here, the government under Prime Minister Chimediin Saikhanbileg is attempting what appears to be last-ditch efforts to end the Year of the Horse on a fortuitous footing. Instead of the government imposing a decision on the populace, Saikhanbileg has turned to the Mongolian public. Posing a question to Mongolians on national television, he invited them by text message to vote for one of two key directions for Mongolia’s Development Path for 2015-2016.

The text from the Mongolian government read:

‘Together let’s choose our pathway of development for Mongolia 2015-2016.’
Mongol ulsiin 2015-2016 onii högjiliin zamaa hamtdaa songoyie.

The message asked people to reply by text on two economic policy options:

  • Set the price [meaning to reverse the depreciation of the Mongolian currency and rising inflation] by deciding on Oyu Tolgoi [a copper and gold mine] and other big construction projects.
    Oyutolgoi bolon buteen baiguulaltiin tom töslüüdiig shiideh zamaar hanshaa togtooh.
  • Set the price by reducing our spending and consumption, and discipline the economy.
    Zardal heregleegee buuruulj, ediin zasgaa sahilga batjuulah zamaar hanshaa togtooh.

The message asked people to reply by text at no cost between 10:00am on January 30th (a Friday) and 10:00pm on February 3rd (a Tuesday).

 

Image of the political question and conditions for voting

Image of the political question and conditions for voting

 

In a country where mobile phone use is ubiquitous across rural and urban areas, and where using a mobile phone to participate in competitions like ‘Mongolian Idol’ is familiar among many, the Mongolian government’s decision to harness mobile technology to reach citizens should not be read as particularly surprising.

Indeed, there have been a number of moves to promote ‘direct democracy’ in Mongolia via mobile technology. For example, as Julian Dierkes notes, the Mayor of Ulaanbaatar, E. Bat-Uul, has gone to residents on three occasions to seek their input via SMS. The former Prime Minister, Noroviin Altankhuyag, who parliament expelled from government last November for ineffectively reviving the economy, began direct communications with citizens starting in 2012. He created a free telephone line, ‘11-11’, that allowed citizens to call to provide their thoughts and opinions on a wide array of issues from everyday life to government policies.

What is intriguing and important about this SMS poll is: 1) the type of politics it created as people engaged with the text message, as well as 2) the implications of the text message for future political and economic development interventions.

Engaging the Text

The language used in the text message is striking. The two options are polarized in terms of the language used and the solutions presented.

The heading of the text message, ‘Together let’s choose our pathway of development for Mongolia 2015-2016’ presents the view that national development as a collective endeavour. The phrasing of this statement is reminiscent of socialist-era propaganda posters and slogans, which appealed to Mongolians to become agents of socialist development and modernization. Such development language is familiar to people today and used in everything from commercials on television, music videos, and governmental speeches.

The two options that the text message presents as ‘pathways of development’ were unequally phrased. This SMS poll was not just about Mongolians choosing their preference for ‘mining’ or ‘austerity’ to revitalize the economy. Rather, one option was arguably presented as far more appealing than the other.

The language of the first option to ‘Set the price by deciding on Oyu Tolgoi and other big construction projects’ conjures a positive pathway. When Mongolians we spoke with read the phrase, ‘buteen baiguulaltiin tom töslüüdiig’ (‘big construction projects’), they imagined a prosperous future of industry and production. This differs starkly from the phrase, ‘zardal hereglee buuruulj’ used in the second option, meaning ‘to reduce our costs and consumption.’ The second question calls for a reduction – specifically a ‘disciplining’ (sahilga) of the economy, and, interestingly, people’s own consumptive behaviour. The use of the reflexive on the word consumption (heregleegee) puts the onus of this austerity not just into the hands of the collective but also the individual, suggesting it could likely lead to personal reduction and loss of economic autonomy.

Furthermore, both ‘pathways to development’ are couched in economic terms. Each of the two options ends with ‘zamaar hanshaa togtooh’, which roughly translates to ‘by which pathway should we choose to set the price?’ The use of the word ‘hansh’ or ‘price’ here is important, as well as a bit awkward. There is the implication that setting the price refers to addressing inflation and the depreciation of the Mongolian currency, which recently hit an all-time low in February 2015, measuring 1960.50 Tögrög to the US Dollar. Thus, the poll was more about addressing economic health vis-à-vis the currency rate rather than national development more broadly.

A Gesture of Democratic Politics

 What kind of neoliberal democratic gesture was this SMS poll? Certainly, Saikhanbileg might want to be demonstrating that he is reaching out to the public, to have their voices counted in the direction of their country’s economy. Since the mid-2000s, mining has been central to the public imagination as a way forward to create a better economic future for Mongolia since its transition to a democratic market economy in 1990. However, the development of the extractive industry has been mired with debate. There has been a growing protest base questioning the government’s policies in relation to mining, with concerns centred around the impact of the extractive industry on the environment and herder livelihoods, Mongolia’s national autonomy in relation to foreign investors and capital markets, and socio-economic inequality.

Last summer, the former Prime Minister Altankhuyag attempted to revive and intensify the economy with an ambitious ‘100 Day’ plan. The plan effectively pursued both the policy options put forward in the SMS poll, calling for an upsurge in investment in the mining, infrastructure, and construction sectors while simultaneously decreasing government spending. Unlike the SMS poll, however, this was a top-down approach, where all accountability for the success of the policy program was on Altankhuyag. Once it became clear that the economy was not turning around, the Mongolian parliament ousted Altankhuyag from government in November 2014 on the grounds of economic mismanagement, corruption, and nepotism.

The use of mobile phones to reach people and invite them to take part in a poll does a number of things. First, it redistributes and decentralizes responsibility, in effect throwing the decision out to the people. Here, the government appears to be pursuing the option voted on, and if it does not work, it is not accountable. Second, it gives the government greater legitimacy to pursue risky options. If the government can say that the public voted in favour of a particular policy option, it potentially gives the government leverage to pursue this option regardless of whether it is favourable to the public or not. For example, it might allow the government to take greater risks in acquiring debt from foreign lenders, or it might pursue controversial mining projects.

Third, though a national SMS poll can be interpreted as a direct democracy initiative, it can also represent a democratic gesture lacking in real democratic politics. The poll was not a legal referendum, nor was it a policy option presented in the lead-up to a national election. In and of itself, it does not present a clear mandate to the government, however they choose to act on it. Additionally, other actors, like the media and mining companies, might construe the outcome of the poll as evidence of public consensus around a particular policy option, which could generate significant economic effects.

The actual results of the poll present a mixed picture. Compared to typical turnouts at Mongolian elections, participation was arguably low. However, given the fact that there was a five-day turnaround, perhaps this turnout was fair, especially given that many rural Mongolians have intermittent mobile network coverage and access to electricity. Overall, perceptions widely vary about whether this was a good turnout or not.

In all, 356,841 votes were cast, with 302,008 counted as valid. 56.1% voted for pursuing mining and big construction projects while 43.9% expressed a preference for austerity measures. With around 1.6 million Mongolians eligible to vote that would be a turnout of less than 25%. It is difficult to ascertain how many people voted because people could have voted multiple times using different cell phone lines. Additionally, as Julien Dierkes notes, a vote of 56/44 is by no means a clear endorsement for either option, and does not exactly present a unanimous consensus. Instead, it raises considerable questions about the mixed, uncertain and perhaps conflicting views that citizens have of Mongolia’s economic future and their place within it.

Given the polarized phrasing of the two options, we speculate that the SMS poll might have been part of a larger political strategy to sell the first option to the wider public. Considering some key recent events in Mongolia sheds light on the role of the SMS poll in the larger political landscape. At around the same time as the poll, Saikhanbileg sent a letter to the International Monetary Fund to request economic support. He signed the letter on January 26th, just days before he announced the poll to the nation. Someone leaked the letter on Twitter at the close of the poll, causing it to be widely circulated on social media. This suggests a public desire to share and understand political machinations occurring within government in the background of the SMS polling initiative.

During the first week of February, Saikhanbileg also proposed an amendment to the Mineral Resources Law that would allow the government to exchange state-owned equity in Oyu Tolgoi for higher royalty payments. Furthermore, parliament is currently pursuing a tacit strategy to change the terms of potentially high-royalty generating mining projects in order to override the ‘Law with the Long Name’ that bans mining in ‘no-go’ zones. This latter move has sparked widespread social mobilization. Religious, environmental, and nationalist groups are currently protesting decisions in parliament to list the controversial Gatchuurt gold deposit on the list of ‘Strategically Significant Mineral Deposits of Mongolia’. This would allow Canadian-owned Centerra Gold’s large Gatchuurt mine project, whose operations the government banned in June 2010, to move forward with mining on the sacred and historically significant Noyon Mountain in northern Mongolia.

How are Mongolian people interpreting the democratic ‘gesture’ of the SMS poll? Aside from the inconclusive nature of the poll itself, responses to this initiative have been mixed. Based on our conversations with Mongolians, as well as our observations of social media coverage, we see some common themes. Some viewed the poll with trepidation. There is the view that the poll could give the government license to follow an uncertain or risky path, and blame the public if it does not work. Others felt that that the poll did not offer effective solutions to the current economic situation, especially the second choice regarding austerity measures. As one Mongolian we spoke with put it: ‘How can people tighten their belts when they have no belt to tighten?’ Many Mongolians acutely feel the downturn of the economy, and worry what their future will be like if they, and the government, have greater economic restrictions. There were also concerns that the poll was not handled well. Not only were the questions strangely worded, but the fast turnaround of the poll announcement and closing of votes did not bode well in creating the impression that the government is truly considering peoples’ decisions.

 

Overall, we get the impression that this poll was understood as a ‘show’, hinting at a larger distrust in government, as can be seen in the following cartoon that circulated on social media:

Cartoon of SMS poll

Cartoon of SMS poll

 

This cartoon circulated by Darkhan Mongol Nogoon Negdel (Sacred Mongol Green Association) presents the two options in the SMS poll as two corridors leading to only one place: ‘slaughter’. Below, the caption reads, ‘Ch. Saikhanbileg’s Mongolian people confronting a “crossroads”’. Such a bleak picture speaks of a much wider public pessimism and scepticism over whether Mongolia will be able to create a better economic future, no matter what direction they take.

 

So what will the new Sheep year bring? On the eve of the new Lunar Year on February 19th, the Mongolian public waits to see what decisions and directions the government might take. Whatever the potential ineffectiveness of the SMS poll, it has garnered speculation, engagement and criticism from a wide range of people, as they see the government making quite a number of dramatic steps in a short period.

Cartoon depicting economic options in terms of animal husbandry

Cartoon depicting economic options in terms of animal husbandry

The poll also reveals particular Mongolian perspectives on economic futures, especially relating to what constitutes growth and austerity. In a nation of mobile pastoralism, maintaining a form of equilibrium is an essential part of herd management. This last image arguably presents a tongue-in-cheek (or not so) take on what austerity could mean. Like the previous cartoon, these are representations of the options provided in the text message. The first one, implying the adding of something new and taking a risk (such as pursuing mining projects with foreign investors) increases the herd the following year, but only by five sheep. The ‘austere’ alternative, however, presents not so bad a picture. The herd maintains itself without much intervention. Things remain the same. In this vision, holding the line and not acting may just seem like the best possible option when committing to change would mean relinquishing more than one gains.

 

 

Acknowledgements

 

This blog has benefited from conversations with Hedwig Waters, Dulamgiin Bum-Ochir, Shagdarsurengiin Nomindari,Uranchimeg Ujeed, Lhagvajav Erdenebileg, and Terbishiin Baasanjav. It forms part of an on-going research project based at UCL tracing the kind of subjects emerging out of the new economic landscape in Mongolia. The project is funded by the European Research Council and is entitled ‘Emerging Subjects of the New Economy: Tracing Economic Growth in Mongolia,’ ERC-2013-CoG, 615785, Emerging Subjects.

Download PDF

, , , ,

17 Responses to Digital Politics in Mongolia

  1. Oto Tsogt February 24, 2015 at 12:03 am #

    It upsets me how does politicians promises turned out opposite way becoming pretenders. Just before Mongolian new year Mongolian president gave big interview on TV. He widely promoting democracy on surface. He strongly pointed out how is important peaceful political protest rather than using violence, specially when it comes subject environmental extremist jail sentence case. But today they sent police force to hunger strikers instead engaging talk with them. Public run out all political measure to stop fiddle historically and archeologically important mountain will be licensed for mining company. Even president was promised Noyon uul won’t be touched without public permission before his election.
    Prime minister Saikhanbileg was the person who brought the idea to control public political movement on social media a year ago . Finding out and block key words related demonstration, public critic toward governors etc . His digital pole idea itself was against Mongolian law related voting and poling system on certain area. such as voters/pole age limit and mental status, eligibility etc. As article above mentioned multiple vote by multiple phone for favor of the political or oligarchy group would try influence public opinion. Majority of the public did not respond because pole itself was followed with scare tactic if not choose no1 possibly public will more suffer.

  2. Julian Dierkes (@jdierkes) February 24, 2015 at 12:24 am #

    Having tried to figure out what this SMS poll was all about myself, I really appreciate this analysis. One thing that I didn’t get to in my own analysis (blogs.ubc.ca/mongolia/2015/poll-results-direct-and-indirect/ also cited above, thank you!) is the linguistic part so this was particularly valuable (though it confirmed my own sense of the somewhat careless way in which the question was crated).
    The part I’m most interested in is your sense of the poll as a “democratic gesture”. This term implies that the poll was perhaps MERELY a gesture, and not a sincere effort at democratic engagement. I do think that that is the case. When I first saw the announcement of the poll I thought that perhaps this was part of the Pres Elbegdorj’ agenda at grassroots democratization (citizens’ halls, local development fund, etc.) but it seems pretty clear that PM Saikhanbileg had less lofty goals. In the end I felt that subsequent events confirmed my suspicion that Saikhanbileg was ready to move on a radical shift vis-a-vis resource projects (i.e. forgo the government equity stake on strategic deposits) and wanted to have some way to legitimize that move and inoculate himself against populist attacks.
    BUT (now I come around to my comment/question), how is this gesture “neoliberal” in its intent or origins? To me that is a bit of a red herring that suggests a particular motivation that I don’t necessarily see in Saikhanbileg or other politicians. Is he acting on behalf of international capitalism? Yes, of course he is in part, as investors are interested in generating returns from their version of economic development in Mongolia, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that Mongolians a) might not favour such a position, and b) might not benefit in the end. Perhaps this is a small and largely rhetorical point, but I learned much more from your comment about a “democratic gesture” than I did by thinking about this as a neoliberal gesture.

    • Oto Tsogt February 24, 2015 at 12:58 am #

      Exactly!

  3. Marissa J. Smith (@marissa_j_smith) February 24, 2015 at 3:26 am #

    As I suggested earlier on one of Julian’s posts, the wording of the vote’s choices struck me as referring to actions that the government would also take it upon itself to “reduce” and “discipline.” Of course one has good reasons to interpret it as a “show,” but Saikhanbileg has been taking actions to reduce expenses. (I saw this, for example circulating earlier today on Facebook, Oto Tsogt was there as well actually! www.medee.mn/main.php?eid=59252) Also, ultimately, actions to “fix the exchange rate” (khansh togtokh) would be taken by government, though I agree that the poll seems a “democratic gesture” to try and secure/suggest support. I think it would be hard to blame the populace for those actions, however (and I am hesitant in general to automatically ascribe the dark motives to government that the “neoliberal” theoretical frameworks generally presume. Not that there is no evidence in many Mongolian cases to support that interpretation however.)

    • Oto Tsogt February 24, 2015 at 8:55 am #

      Yes, I’ve seen! They have to take some action because they were over spending, public were complaining unfairness. The question is how far they can do in their own side. If they can’t take further action cutting unnecessary spending they will definitely lose next election.

  4. James McCormack February 24, 2015 at 7:12 pm #

    Interesting perspectives.
    One can agree that all of these things should have been considered before any mining had ever been started in Mongolia.
    Be that as it may, be it choice, corruption, persuasion, coercion or whatever, Mongolia is what it is now. They have to move from here forward.
    There are two main highways: continue in their historic past with basic changes to cure their years of little to no growth while trying to adapt to being in a United Nations World.
    Or, join the world and adapt to the current, more modern world and enjoy the opportunities presented by others centuries of advances which Mongolia has heretofore shunned under their old regimes.

  5. Thank you all for these wonderful comments!

    Oto Tsogt’s responses reveal apprehensions about political transparency and growing public fears of state power. We wonder how this climate of apprehension will give rise to new social-material interactions and economic decision-making?

    Julian Dierkes blog was critical in prompting our thinking about the politics of this poll. Regarding Julian’s and Marissa Smith’s questions about our use of the term ‘neoliberal’, we used this term in a general sense to suggest that people are often presented with political innovations or gestures (often involving new technologies), but these tend to mask the fact that politics itself remains very much the same. In our project we have been reading, discussing, and thinking about neoliberalism not just as relating to a specific form of global capitalism, but as part of other practices of modern governance. Here ‘politics’ seems to be increasingly foreclosed by managerial, technocratic, and consensus-seeking approaches and procedures, producing political actions that don’t fundamentally question the status quo. In this light, the text poll could be seen as an example where the state brokers a new kind of politics with its populace. By attending to the varied technological innovations that arise out of periods of political and economic change, we may learn something about new forms of politics and the kind of subjects they give rise to. These are some theoretical interpretations of neoliberal governance that we are exploring. Some of the works that we have engaged with include Evans and Reid (2014), Reeves (2014), Ferguson (2006, 2010).

    • Julian Dierkes (@jdierkes) February 25, 2015 at 8:50 pm #

      I like your emphasis here of a conceptualization of neoliberal that undermines “real discussion” by offering technological fixes. This doesn’t have to have the connotation of neoliberal = capitalist conspiracy that I often associate with the term.
      But even that version of neoliberal is not something that can be examined empirically because we’re not going to be able to tell whether discussions would have proceeded differently had the technological or neoliberal intervention not occurred, do we? Put differently, would the potential contribution that natural resources can make to Mongolia’s development (a more comprehensive/holistic notion of development than just GDP or per capita income) have been discussed differently had Mongolia not suddenly been branded as the “world’s fastest-growing economy” in 2011 with all the (international investor) attention this label brought with it?

  6. Chris Fletcher February 25, 2015 at 5:05 pm #

    Great blog post! I found this to be a very helpful piece–especially for someone like me that doesn’t work on Mongolia issues–that is intelligent, yet accessible and not overly academic. You managed to provide an interesting take on the nexus of development, mining, and technology, all while noting the pros and cons of the government taking its approach. My sense is that anyone working in the extractives industry in Mongolia would benefit from reading this.

  7. En February 26, 2015 at 7:52 am #

    This is a very interesting article.

    …it gives the government greater legitimacy to pursue risky options. If the government can say that the public voted in favour of a particular > policy option, it potentially gives the government leverage to pursue this option regardless of whether it is favourable to the public or not. What a truth!

    The Mongols thought that the poll results had already been fixed. Plus they question why third option was not available to them.

  8. Marissa J. Smith (@marissa_j_smith) February 26, 2015 at 9:38 am #

    I also heard Mongolians calling it downright illegal, an “illegal vote” (not making a poll/vote distinction).

  9. Oto Tsogt February 26, 2015 at 10:47 pm #

    Re:Marrissa J.Smith (Saikhanbileg has been taking actions to reduce expenses. (I saw this, for example circulating earlier today on Facebook, Oto Tsogt was there as well actually! www.medee.mn/main.php?eid=59252) -Just found this on today’s news that officials not keen on reduce expenses, give up their cars. article says except this proposal put on several times it didn’t happen on the ground. What a shame if screwed up after cutting elderly and children’s benefit! www.24tsag.mn/content/74064.shtml

  10. Lauren Bonilla March 4, 2015 at 8:31 pm #

    You can now find a Mongolian version of this blog piece on our new ‘Emerging Subjects’ project blog.

    Энэхүү нийтлэлийн монгол хэл дээрх орчуулгыг “Шинээр бий болж буй сэдвүүд : Монгол дахь эдийн засгийн өсөлтийг мөшгөхүй” судалгааны төслийн блогоос уншина уу.

    Блог:
    blogs.ucl.ac.uk/mongolian-economy/

    ‘Монгол дахь Дижитал Улс төр’:
    blogs.ucl.ac.uk/mongolian-economy/2015/03/04/%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%BE%D0%BB-%D0%B4%D0%B0%D1%85%D1%8C-%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%B6%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BB-%D1%83%D0%BB%D1%81-%D1%82%D3%A9%D1%80/

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. ‘Digital Politics in Mongolia’ | UCL Emerging Subjects of the New Economy - March 2, 2015

    […] Bonilla, Rebecca Plueckhahn, and Rebecca Empson explore ‘Digital Politics in Mongolia‘ on the Material World blog.  This piece examines the reception and implementation of a poll […]

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes

%d bloggers like this: