Governments worldwide increasingly resort to shutting down the Internet as a political tool to control information and silence dissent. This alarming trend is not limited to developing nations grappling with civil unrest or political transition. Indeed, it is gaining traction in developed nations, suggesting a global phenomenon transcending geographical boundaries and socio-economic development levels.

In Ethiopia, the Internet government shutdown, meant to control information outflow amidst violent clashes in the Amhara region, contradicts the principle of universality—an idea that any network, anywhere, should be able to connect with any other network. In France, amidst protests denouncing systemic racial injustices, the government’s decision to restrict Internet access tampers with the principle of neutrality, which mandates that all Internet traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination.

When governments restrict Internet access, they make a troubling statement about the interpretation and application of the foundational principles that guide the functioning of the Internet.

These principles include universality, neutrality, and freedom from central control. The concept of Internet universality, the idea that all networks, irrespective of their geographical location, should be able to connect with any other network—is brazenly flouted when governments strategically sever Internet services. They effectively impend the free flow of information and ideas.

The impacts of such decisions ripple far beyond just political implications. They have tangible effects on the lives of everyday citizens. The Internet is essential for communication, expression, education, and survival.

Ethiopia and France have already hosted the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Hosting such a significant forum communicates a nation’s commitment to these principles and places the host under scrutiny regarding its digital practices. Yet, the actions taken by both countries in the face of internal unrest present a discord with the IGF’s ideals. A more nuanced view suggests that these situations can also be emblematic of changing times. It raises the question: is the multistakeholder model now under threat? The multistakeholder model’s essence is to incorporate various stakeholders, from governments to civil society, in decision-making processes to ensure a holistic and democratic approach to Internet Governance.

It is imperative to understand these Internet shutdowns not just as isolated national actions but as reflective of broader global trends that could be signaling a pivot in how the Internet is governed. As we navigate this digital age, there is a pressing need to reaffirm the multistakeholder model’s core tenets and ensure it remains resilient against the shifting sands of realpolitik and international diplomacy.

Such pragmatism extends to the Global North’s reaction to these shutdowns. While they quickly critique similar practices in the Global South, they overlook their transgressions, as evident in France’s recent actions. This double standard betrays a realpolitik approach to Internet Governance, where powerful states maintain their hegemony, bending principles as needed. f nations wield overwhelming power in digital realms, where does that leave the voices and interests of these other crucial stakeholders? Where is the commitment to the rights of citizens by the states?

These actions should not be viewed in isolation but within the broader context of international relations and realpolitik. Governments use Internet shutdowns as a control tool, much like how states use political or military power to establish dominance.

Does this signify a world where the state reclaims its preeminence in the digital domain? The ripple effects of such a shift could be profound.

Considering these potential trajectories, we must ponder the future we envision for the Internet. Will it remain the open frontier of innovation, communication, and shared knowledge? Or will it morph into a realm heavily controlled by state interests, limited in scope and potential? The actions and decisions made in the present will inevitably shape the answers to these questions for future generations.