INTERNET AND DEMOCRACY
Internet and Democracy
The internet has an impact on all aspects of life. Its impact on democracy is quite evident. Thus, the Internet should not be viewed as a single asset of interconnected computers with links and relevant protocols but a powerful tool that can impinge on almost every aspect of life. While some people may use it for different purposes, it can be said that the internet has a great effect on democracy. However, the biggest puzzle is whether it enhances democracy or contributes to its decline. However, most research carried out is rather normative as opposed to being empirical. Several studies have however, documented the effects in great detail.
Democracy causing theories explain how the internet has supported democracy. It is indeed true that in less than a generation, the explosion of internet across the globe cannot be ignored. It has affected the daily lives of individuals in ways that were unimaginable before. There are several aspects of the internet such as blogs, tweets, email groups and myriad other social networking sites that create a communication citizenry in enormous proportions. From these sites, the information sharing is of a magnitude never thought of before. In fact, credible research shows that the internet has surpassed the traditional press when it comes to information. For people seeking international as well as national news their preference has been the internet. A case is told of how Barrack Obama used the internet to reach millions of eligible voters, during his presidential campaign. Also, it has been recorded that his administration has put in place various innovative ways of using the internet to govern the country (Peter, 2002).
The “dictator's dilemma" is a theory that views the Internet as supporting democracy. Due to the need for globalization and global markets, most governments have been forced to keep their communication networks open so that they can interconnect with the rest of the world. This leads to the consequent free flow of information that includes both commercial information as well as information about democracy. This means that in the process of the free circulation of information that includes both commercial information and information about democracy is also shared. It also indicates that in the course of that free flow of information, citizens may expose several forms of government abuses of power. No government would like to be portrayed as abusive or dishonest to the world community. The need for good image projection is what drives many governments wish to get favorable coverage (Billig, 1995). Thus, in this particular case, the internet shall have played its role in advancing democracy. But the internet may conversely inform the particular citizenry about what is happening in less democratized countries. It may further expose to the people how people are flourishing in more democratized societies, and this may bolster them into demanding for democratic change in their home countries (Peter, 2002).
The Internet is an amplifier of trends in the world. This is because it acts as a neutral player in international affairs. As such it neutrally amplifies the political events across the globe. In an authoritarian regime, it may still amplify the situation as it would have done in a democratically political environment. In fact, studies have shown that democracy has been on the rise 1970s. It is therefore very likely that the internet has been the one behind this exponential increase. First, the internet has helped gather individual information which they may use to make a significant judgment. Also, the internet can as well help individuals to organize themselves collectively to effect change. Citizens in most cases act as a huge single body when dealing with day to day issues that touch on their lives (Butsch, 2007).
It has been established that the internet has helped in forming a multicentric structure globally. In this state the pre-eminence of the nation-states has been on a steady decline while more non-government players have taken control. With this expansion of people can now choose from a wider range of groups or entities to associate with. This pulls the states into striving to look more like one another. This could be done by states striving to expand their democratic space or their citizens to remain attractive. This will eventually lead to states building their legitimacy on a global stage (Peter, 2002).
The internet has reduced barriers when it comes to identifying as well as coordinating individuals who are like-minded in forums, blogs, Facebook and even tweeter. The Twitter hash tags enable these niche groups of people to establish thriving online communities. Further, these communities can host inconspicuous "every day" politics that may not be favored by other purposes and end up being used by the groups to once in a while share political arguments The public engagement suffices with media leading in providing the needed platform (Craig, 2004).
Studies that have evaluated digital platforms and democracy show that the internet supports deliberate as well as representative democracy. This could be by reducing the cost of coordination and the fast ay of exchanging information through real time. Thus, elements such as crowd sourcing have substantially managed to put expertise together who may work from different locations. By these networks, these experts may exchange information about democracy on top of what their core responsibilities entail. Most studies have found the difficulty in linking private action and with public sphere. (Habermas, 1974).
The internet as a research tool has had a great impact on the democratization of nations. This is because it comprises impressive data amounts upon which innovative means are created. Thus on top of the internet being the internet tool for democratic engagement, it can equally be a useful tool from which to evaluate such engagement. The public’s action and media come into play (Butsch, 2007). For instance, the London School of Economics has conducted several pieces of research to gain insights into the conditions under which individuals are most likely to participate in collective action like joining a protest or even donating for a cause. They eventually found that there are several psychological factors at play as well as social ones. In a nutshell, the web serves as an excellent source of collecting information to understand political engagements and the insights gained can better be used to design several engagement initiatives (Peter, 2002).
Also, the web serves as an excellent source of new tools and data that spur citizens' democratic participation. For instance, the data provided by the institutions may help the citizens understand those institutions and hence know well what is expected of those institutions. This may contribute to holding the institutions to account. Also, as governments continue to increase their online presence, it is easy for citizens and researchers to tell the type of information particular states are sharing as well as the kind of information they are withholding (Peter, 2002).
In countries in which there are low levels of political participation, the internet has been seen as the best cure. Even in America the political participation is particularly low with among the poor and lowly educated people. These are in most cases unlikely to vote. This is because studies suggest that the internet will provide a new platform for political engagement hence increasing participation. For example, those who feel like going to a voting station is quite inconvenient will be able to vote online in the comfort of their homes. The online referenda may further bolster participation as more citizens will be able to discuss issues en-masse without having to go through other intermediary bodies such newspapers, parties, and even legislatures (Peter, 2002). Thus, the web gives the citizens a greater control on the government decisions to be made. The internet can be seen as "the great equalizer" as its shifts the power balance that exists between the citizens as well as the power barons. In fact it has been suggested that the web may end up rendering government bodies irrelevant in the long run thereby permitting direct rule This is in line with the debate on media impact and public sphere which has lasted for decades. (Habermas, 1974).
Many people need information all the time. The internet has now put more information at the touch of a button. Many people now have access to millions and millions of databases from which they can access information. This information is crucial in that many voters need information to participation in democracy. For example people need to have enough information to know which positions to take.
Several studies have documented that the internet can serve as an extension of the ruling class machinations. They have averred that since the internet is being used as an extension of the ruling class, it does not promote democracy change in such political systems is not easy to achieve. It has been established that outside the Western countries very few countries have embraced open network. Most of the countries are ruled by some elites who view the internet as a threat to their firm grip on power. Though it is true that internet has affordances in relation to communications and democracy, these powerful affordances can also be used to undermine democracy. Civic participation is said to be taking place almost in all corners of the world. (Rheingold, 2000).
Governments can use the internet to put in place an expansive surveillance network imagined before. Countries have used the internet technologies to survey on perceived opponents thereby making people feel an element of intrusion into private life. From such surveillance they can tell where one is, whom they communicate with as well as what they talk about. The internet has amplified privacy violations thereby even killing the citizens will to participate in democratic engagement. This further kills trust in the government institutions. Its guarantees of privacy are not assured; then it becomes utterly impossible for citizens to engage in organizing collective action such as protests. This further puts the security of the dissidents in jeopardy (Habermas, 1974).
Access to the internet is not the same globally. Different countries have different provisions for the access to internet. In some countries, the internet is severely censured. Its citizens can access only selected sites. In such countries, the internet may be even used as a propaganda tool by the government to allow access to sites which favor their content only. That is why civic culture seems to be manifesting itself all over as governments cannot be trusted any more (Rheingold, 2000).
The Internet has been seen to blur the very participatory action it is said to promote. Most platforms include people of disparate views. Everyone speaks in these forums but if everyone speaks it can be tough for them there to be a listener. In essence, these online platforms end up as places where people just make noise and nothing else. This view is further enhanced from previous researches carried out which show that initially internet was an effective tool for coordinating political activities. The studies show that the only people who ended up being empowered by the web are those with the requisite skills and means. The rest were left to positions they were before. Big governments, as well as businesses, have been seen as the greatest beneficiaries of the internet (Lutovac, 2012).
Also, another argument against the web is the quality of information available. The fact that there are billions of databases online does not mean that most of the information availed are of quality. With the rise of the amount of data online, there is the challenge of quality (Bansal, 2009). Thus, the data may not prove useful as most of the messages available end up being distorted thereby making the tool unusable for democratic engagement. This is perhaps due to the lack of intermediation. Thus, there are no gatekeepers to assure the quality of information. This information may end up being either too simplistic to be taken seriously or largely quite misinforming. Screening and branding of information could be the only way through which democracy could be helped by the information on the internet. Otherwise unregulated information can prove disastrous in the long run.
Uncensored information can prove quite destabilizing. Stability and peace are the necessary prerequisites for democracy to flourish. Since the web has much information, there are chances that there is much destabilizing and radical information that can lead to coups and civil wars. Though it has been known that access to information is a good thing, it has also been documented that most radicals and terrorists are using the internet to destabilize and advance their selfish ends. In fact, civil war situations do not occur because of lack of information (Hodkinson, 2013).
The internet is awash with all manner of information that very few will take note of any political issues contained. Research carried out on the USA populace indicates that the internet does not engage the American citizen in politics. This is because many internet news-seekers do not bother with the political stories as would be done with traditional media. With the internet, everybody chooses whatever they feel in "juicy" to them. This scenario, therefore, undermines democracy as most people end up being disconnected with politics. However, apathy does not mean disinterest (Kellner, 2000)
According to Kellner (2000) the public seems to determine what they what to pay attention to. New media are concerned with and are more interested in entertainment rather than providing a platform and content that encourage rational debate since they feel that is what the public desires. By this, many people have taken to entertaining themselves online rather than politically engaging on the web. Rational discussion and reflective thinking that cause deliberate action are the cornerstones of democracy.
Internet can also be used to dull democratic engagement by several public officers. Though several portals have been put in place for the public to access public officers, most of the enquiries go unanswered or get automated responses; which may give the public the false illusion that they are engaging the government. As the government schemes, the internet provides the public an alternative which helps objectify any information given (Hutchinson, 2014).
Conclusion
The Internet has significant effects on democracy. This is bases on several studies documented. For example, it exposes the citizenry to an array of alternative information through several databases and networking sites among other effects. However in several instances, it has been established that the internet can dull democratic engagement. This could be through government censorship, lack of gatekeeping for online information as well as providing unregulated information that can lead to coups and other forms of instabilities. All in all, the internet is a good tool if used properly and the population is enlightened on its responsible use.
References
Bansal, S. (2009). Technology Scorecards: Aligning IT Investments with Business Performance.New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Billig, M. (1995). ‘Flagging the homeland daily’, Banal Nationalism. London, UK: Sage.
Butsch, R. (2007). Media and public spheres. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Craig, G. (2004). ‘The public’, The media and the public sphere, Allen and Unwin, Sydney,
122(6), 47-65.
Habermas, J. (1974), ‘The public sphere: An encyclopedia article’, trans. Lennox, S &. Lennox,
F, New German Critique, 80(8), 49-55.
Hodkinson, P. (2013). Media, culture and society. Los Angeles, LA: Sage.
Hutchinson, B. (2014). ‘Habermas and the public sphere’ and ‘The global public sphere’,
Sociology, 34(5), 84-88.
Kellner, D. (2000). ‘Habermas, the public sphere, and democracy: A critical intervention’, in
Hahn LE (ed.), Perspectives on Habermas, 40(3), 259-287.
Lutovac, M. (2012). The Successful Methodology for Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Implementation. Journal of Modern Accounting and Auditing, 8(12), 1838-1847.
Peter, L. (2002). Can the internet Rescue Democracy? Toward an On-line Commons. Retrieved
Rheingold, H. (2000). ‘Disinformocracy’, The virtual community: Homesteading on the
electronic frontier, Cambridge, MA: MIT.
Thompson, J. (1995). ‘The theory of the public sphere: A preliminary assessment’, The media
and modernity: A social theory of the media, Cambridge, CA: Polity Press. pp. 69-75.
