Whenever people discuss the Internet and democracy, they tend to be impatient to find out the bottom line.

Is the Internet causing a revolution that will overturn the status quo? What are the Internet penetration numbers, and are they enough to make a difference in elections?

These are obviously important questions. But being overly concerned with them creates a kind of mental block that I call bottom-lineism.

Bottom-lineism blinds us to two fundamental features of political activism: long-term change and ideological struggle.

Political change

First, consider the long-term nature of political change. Look at history, at some of the major transformations in human political consciousness and in political structure over the past 200 years: the end of colonial rule, the end of apartheid, women's suffrage, or the rise of labour movements.

Take any of these movements and ask yourself how wrong observers would have been if they applied bottom-lineism prematurely. What was the state of the campaign for women's rights in 1875? What did the numbers say about independence of the colonies in Asia in 1920? Or about the struggle against apartheid in 1975?

In all these cases, pundits impatient to see the bottom-line would probably have concluded that these were hopeless causes. Only with hindsight do we know how wrong such conclusions would have been.

History tells us that momentous changes happen slowly. Things do happen faster now, as political processes have been compressed by the increased speed of communication. However, by the standards of the 24-hour news cycle, it's still the case that a rushed snapshot of the bottom-line is going to tell us little about long-term change.

Ideological struggle

Second, bottom-lineism is poor at capturing the dynamics of ideological struggle.

Yes, of course, we want to spot who's winning, right now. But that's really the wrong lens with which to observe these kinds of struggle.

It's important to recognise that even when activists are not winning, they may still be pointing to cracks at the centre. A movement is usually reacting to genuine problems, even if its chosen agenda and methods do not have mass appeal. The centre may be winning, but that does not mean it is right.

Bottom-lineism tries to freeze a snapshot of what is an inherently dynamic process, of action and reaction, between activists constantly looking for creative opportunities, and their opponents who with equal creativity try to block off those opportunities.

It must also be said of activism that the activists themselves do not trap themselves with bottom-lineism.

The Matrix

Let me quote from one of the great classic texts of cyberactivism, The Matrix.

In the second of this trilogy of films, there's a scene in which Morpheus, one of the leaders of the resistance, is being queried by his more skeptical commander. Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne) is a believer in the special powers of Neo, 'The One', played by Keanu Reaves.

The commander tries to tell Morpheus that he's being irrational: "Goddamnit, Morpheus! Not everyone believes what you believe!"

Morpheus replies without missing a beat: "My beliefs do not require them to."

That line encapsulates the activist mindset. Activists don't require the bottom-line to be in their favour before they take action. That's why bottom-lineism so often fails to predict political change: it doesn't account for the courage and creativity that human actors apply to their endeavours.

CHERIAN GEORGE is a post-doctoral fellow at the Asia Research Institute, National University of Singapore, where he studies media activism. He is also editor and publisher of an independent monthly newspaper for children. He can be contacted at mailto://cherian@pacific.net.sg.

This article is adapted from remarks at the Feb 7 book launch of Asian Cyberactivism in Singapore.