Digital technology is fundamentally changing politics.

It is 2025, and modern human civilization finds itself at the heart of a fourth industrial revolution. The first industrial revolution led to the redistribution of political power into the hands of industrial capitalists; the second saw the expansion of colonial empires; the third redefined global politics with the advent of the nuclear energy era; now, the rapid technological development in AI, data, and internet of the fourth industrial revolution is changing politics again. Admittedly, politics is ever-evolving, but has digital technology fundamentally changed politics in our world today? This essay will thus examine the transformation of politics, specifically within the context of international relations and war, from both global and individual perspectives. By examining the intersection of global politics and personal engagement, this essay concludes that digital technology is fundamentally changing politics: it made politics more accessible, narrowed the international power imbalance and reoriented political priorities toward moral concerns. 

To answer this question, this essay will first examine the definition of two key terms. “Fundamental change” means a change in structure, including the shift of platform, focus, and purpose of politics. In addition, while it is important to recognize that there are many potential meanings for “politics,”  for the purpose of this essay, politics embodies mainly international power balances between countries and domestic power balances between the government and the people. 

On a global scale, digital technology has shifted the mechanism of control and influence from overt, direct colonial rule to subtler, indirect means of domination through neocolonialism. It has changed the nature of power balances in international politics, as seen in China’s Belt and Road initiative. Launched in 2013, the BRI utilized digital technology to increase China’s influence in political development across the globe. China would supply digital infrastructure and platforms that incorporate surveillance and censorship components and offer a parallel model to other states, such as Venezuela and Cuba, about how to deploy digital repression to control citizens through a watch-and-learn approach. For example, in Venezuela, the government under Hugo Chávez and later Nicolás Maduro used the Chinese safe city systems and the “carnet de la patria” or homeland card to bolster its surveillance state and to manage dissent. Chinese technology companies, such as ZTE, provided the Venezuelan government with equipment to track opposition activity, monitor internet usage, and control social media platforms. Over time, Beijing would insert itself into data governance regimes overseas, thereby shaping the conditions under which certain states transition toward digital economies and societies. Easily, China exploited digital technology in its international relations and diplomatic strategy to support its political ideologies without the need to physically control and conquer, implying the change of politics in the digital age. 

One might argue that neocolonialism is as exploitative as traditional colonialism as it reinforces political dependency and limits national sovereignty, evident in the United States’ digital technology projects in the Global South. For example, the South African government needs to rely on the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty to access private information about legal citizens of its own. The lack of data sovereignty impedes the South African government’s ability to exercise full control over the data generated within their borders. This explains how digital technology is not fundamentally changing politics, as power imbalance and exploitation have never changed since the traditional colonial age. However, the nature of political dependency caused by traditional colonialism and neocolonialism today is different. Traditional colonialism allowed the “mother country” to control most aspects of the colony’s economy, thereby restricting the economic freedom developing countries have. Neocolonialism, on the other hand, though still involves power imbalances and a culture of dependency, does not forcefully implement economic policies and instead allows local governments to leverage digital technology for policy making. This enables developing countries to retain most of their economic freedom and gives them more choices in international politics, showing that neocolonialism is less exploitative than colonialism. 

Moreover, neocolonialism can even be helpful for the “colonies.” Access to BRI telecommunication infrastructure has allowed interconnection among African countries, which makes political blocs more effective by presenting a united front, further increasing political influence and reducing international power imbalance. For example, the Department of Political Affairs of the African Union Commission adopted digital platforms to conduct a virtual meeting on the COVID-19 Pandemic and Transitional Justice in Africa on 3rd June 2020. This facilitated engagement with global audiences, enhanced diplomatic outreach and real-time communication, thereby strengthening its collective bargaining power. Now, the less developed countries can utilize the digital technologies they accessed through neocolonialism to improve their status and position in global politics, reducing the digital divide and power imbalances. Fundamentally, neocolonialism allows both the “colonizer” and the “colonized” to flourish at the same time, shifting politics from a “developed country’s game” to an equal playing field for all. 

Narrowing our scale to our personal lives, we see that digital technologies made politics more accessible. From digital vigilantes to cancel culture, people started to hold more power in their own hands. For example, Los Angeles City Council president Nury Martinez resigned after her racist claims in a leaked recording on social media received thousands of criticism and backlash from netizens. The proliferation of social media and internet has democratized information dissemination, enabling people to document, share, and amplify instances of misconduct within politics. This is especially the case in times of conflict, where digital technology causes an increase in political participation when advocating for what people believe in, such as recent series of university campus protests for the Israel-Palestine War. Hence, digital technology has made politics less distant from people’s lives instead of being exclusive to the elites. 

Nevertheless, it can be argued that politics has been accessible even before the emergence of digital technology, reflected through the phenomenon of cult of personality among politicians. For example, Stalin’s leadership in the Soviet Union was marked by a pervasive cult of personality mainly targeted at the working class, where his image was omnipresent in public spaces, literature, and art, making him the “Father of Nations.” This adulation translated into mass mobilization for state projects like industrialization and collectivization, with many citizens actively involved in these initiatives and participating in politics. Therefore, without digital technology, cult of personalities can still exist, which can only happen when politics is already accessible and relatable to ordinary people. 

Responding to the argument, digital technology further increased the actual participation of ordinary citizens in wars, thereby blurring the line between civilians and soldiers, reflecting a fundamental change in politics. The Ukraine-Russia War has been described as history’s “most internet accessible” war, where digital technology has helped Ukraine to offset Russia’s conventional military advantage. For example, Ukraine’s Minister of Digital Transformation, Fedorov, established the “Ukrainian IT Army” on the Diia app, in which over 400,000 international and Ukrainian volunteer hackers target Russian banks and government websites. Moreover, over 1,000 civilian drone operators also surveilled Russian assets and relayed crucial information to Ukrainian military units for artillery strikes. This has changed the ethical judgments of war politics by leaving them more ambiguous. Suppose civilians provided direct support to one of the warring parties; in that case, humanitarian law may not be applicable due to the principle of distinction, where parties in a conflict can only direct their operations to military objectives. 

Moreover, this political accessibility has reshaped the focus of conflicts, making moral conversations central to political discourse. Unlike in the past, where ideas of warfare were more confined to those directly affected, digital technology has allowed people far away from conflict zones to form opinions. Protests on university campuses have shown how opinions on war focus on the issue of human rights violation as ethics have inherent universality and approachability: they do not demand specialized expertise in understanding the political impacts, making them a powerful tool for mobilizing public opinion on war. This has a significant impact on voting —people prioritizing ethical concerns tend to favor cooperation with international organizations and multilateral efforts to address global challenges. A study by Kertzer found that a 1-unit increase in concern for harm results in a strong increase in support for international cooperation (0.60 units) and a decrease in support for military interventions. A growing emphasis on morality when voting among citizens compels politicians to adapt their strategies to rely on more pathos and humanitarian narratives on political platforms, evident in Kamala Harris’ 2024 US presidential campaign. In this era, where information and participation are democratized, the ethical dimensions of politics have gained unprecedented prominence, fundamentally changing how conflicts are perceived and addressed.

In 2025, as rapid advancements in digital technology redefine our technological landscape, we are witnessing another seismic shift in politics. In the global landscape of power, neocolonialism has evolved alongside the diminishing dominance of traditional political powers. On a personal scale, digital technology contributed to a more accessible political platform, moving the focus of discourse toward moral and ethical considerations, particularly in matters of international relations and war. By examining the intersection of global politics and personal engagement, digital technology has fundamentally changed the platform, structure, and focus of politics in today’s world.