The Internet and the Growth of Participatory Democracy

The Internet is a relatively new form of communicative technology, which rose to full effect in the 1990's. This essay will analyse the uses and limitations of the Internet for exercising democracy. We will analyse how the Internet has changed the notions of both the community and the public's view of the political. The essay, will argue that the Internet can be used to increase participatory democracy whilst keeping in mind the fact that, the excision of democratic rights via the Internet, is largely limited to the influence of government bodies and or those who have the knowledge to control the system.

The nature of community in society has arguably been affected by the Internet. What used to be regarded as the primary factors for 'political socialisation', the family and or communal group, has lessened in importance, because of new media. (Heywood, p237, 2008). The Internet, often, puts less emphasis on the local, and more on global significance. (Cain, 2002). Many see this as a negative aspect relating the Internet to the growth of globalization, which is said to cause a loss of identity for communities. (Heywood, p236, 2008). Though, the Internet allows for interaction of like-minded groups, on a scale which is unfathomable to any other medium. (Thornton, 2002). Therefore communities, link together due to shared interests. What can be said to have occurred is that the 'community' has become much larger. These communities can meet online, communicate shared view points and ultimately 'build alliances on the Internet', in order to realise their democratic rights. (Woolpert et al, p23, 1998). Though, this is limited to those who are able to afford a computer and Internet access. (Jacobs, 1998). According to Heywood (p237, 2008), ‘through the use of the Internet anti-globalization or anti-capitalism, protesters have been able to disrupt the activities and affect the actions of bodies such as the world trade organisation and G8’. In no doubt, much quicker and cost affective ways than ever before possible. The Internet also has the capacity to facilitate wide information for union groups, their debates and meetings. (Noyles, 2002). Though another limitation of the net is, because of its grand scale information is often unable to be verified. (Kohanski, 2009). But with the Internet there is also the risk that employers can monitor their employee’s online communication, which often occurs freely in Australia. (Noyles, 2002).

The major limit the Internet imposes against democracy is its potential to be used for both censorship and surveillance. Governments and other knowledgeable bodies, often have the power to track various information they gather from Internet orientated activity. (Thornton, 2002). The laws that allow such things can be said to be undemocratic. They are often hidden under anti-terrorism laws, such as the ‘American Patriot Act’. (Mackinnon, 2009). In America a man was arrested after communicating via the social networking site, Twitter, to other G-20 protesters. (Monyihan, 2009). Similarly, Internet censorship, an impending threat now to Australia, limits democratic participation in much the same way. It is likely ‘to cast a shadow over the internet's potential as a tool to revitalise the public sphere’. (Thornton, 2002). It signifies capacity for control. Though, in China, citizens are finding ways around the censorship. (Mackinnon, 2009). In the words of David Kohanski (2009), ‘the Internet views censorship and routes around it’. Because, there is always the capacity for a cyberpunk to hack into the system. (Stockwell, p2, 2009). In general the Internet, also allows the user to become more politically informed. (Cain, 2002).

The Internet has also changed the way people interact with both politicians and politics in general. Because of it, politicians are often watched by the public around the clock. (Heywood, 345, 2008). The Internet, also allows for a lower cost alternative for politicians to reach target audiences. (Ferdinand, p2, 2000). It can also give a voice to smaller political groups, who in the past could never have afforded the same virtues as the dominant parties. Allocating in turn, more room for democracy. An example of how a more participatory form of democracy can be used because of the Internet is the example of the Obama campaign. Much of the campaign's success can be credited to the clever use of the new medium, by communicating with and creating online network links via news feeds, and posting over 1800 videos on YouTube. (Mathur & Bakata, 2009). Obama also communicated, and continues to communicate with voters via the social networking site Twitter. The Internet also allows politicians to gage how affective their campaigns have been like never before. Though, the campaign’s reach, in this case, would largely be limited to like-minded groups. This is due to the fact that the Internet allows the user to often freely choose what they access. But rather, the campaign did only have the capacity to reach the undecided and non-participatory voters. The Obama campaign helped implement a more participatory form of democracy, as it brought together groups who would not have necessarily voted in the past, but who were drawn together in a community of sorts, because of shared socio-economic values. (Tapia & James, p34, 2008). Furthermore, there is according to Heywood (p234, 2008), in general a link between the growth of the Internet's use in democratically underdeveloped parts of the world, as ‘the highest usage growth is in Africa, the middle east, and Latin America’. (Heywood, p344, 2008).

We have noted that the Internet has changed both the communal sphere and the way in which we view the political. The Internet ultimately makes it easier for groups to both realise their democratic rights and actively participate in them. The Internet enhances the spread of a more participatory democracy, but is largely limited by government regulations which ultimately deprecate the force of the communicative technology. ‘Whether the Internet eventually serves either democratic or non-democratic purposes will depend open the institutions and norms that govern and protect Internet users and communities’. (Cain, 2002)





References

Ferdinand, P 2000, 'The Internet, Democracy and Democratization',
Routledge Publishing, United States of America

Heywood, A 2008, 'Politics', 3rd ed, Macmillan Press Ltd, London

Stockwell, S 2008, 'We're All Hackers Now: Doing Global Democracy',
Create World, AUC-Griffith Univeristy Publication

Tapia, L James, T 2008, 'Why Barack Obama Won My Vote', Texas
Publishing House, United States of America

Woolpert, S Slaton, C Schwerin, E 1998, 'Transformational Politics',
State Univeristy of New York Publishing, Albany, New York

Links

Cain, B 2002, 'The internet in the (Dis)service of Democracy',
viewed 16th of October 2009, http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v34-issue3/cain.pdf

Jacobs, J 1998, 'Internet and Democracy', an Australian
Broardcasting Corporation Publication, viewed 17th of
October 2009, http://www.abc.net.au/ola/citizen/interdemoc/democ.htm

Kohanski, D 2008, 'Internet's Impact on Democracy', San Francisco
Chonicle Online Publishing, viewed 12th of October 2009,
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?

Mackinnon, R 2009, 'Is America Getting More Like China?', R Conversation
Online, viewed 21st of October 2009, http://rconversation.blogs.com/

Mathur, M Bakata, S 2009, 'Link Bewteen Democracy and Internet Access',
Franfurter Allgemeine Online Publishing, Germany, viewed 18th of
October 2009, http://2009.inwent-iij-lab.org/?p=1218

Moynihan, C 2009, 'Arrest Puts Focus on Protestors Texting', New York
Times Online Publication, viewed 20th of October 2009,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/nyregion/05txt.html?_r=1


Noyles, M 2002, 'Using the Internet for Union Democracy', The
Association for Union Democracy Online, viewed 18th of October
2009, http://www.uniondemocracy.org/UDR/36-using%20internet%20for%20union%20dem.htm

Thornton, A 2002, 'Does Internet Create Democracy?', Zipworld
Online, viewed 21st of October 2009, http://www.zipworld.com.au/~athornto/thesis_2002_alinta_thornton.doc

Reflections

Now, as the academic year draws tightly to a close. I repose reflectively, on what I have learnt all up from taking the course, 'New Communication Technologies'. I actually enjoyed it overall, for several notable reasons; Firstly is was largely nonrestrictive, meaning that it allowed students to freely and creatively, write about new forms of communication technology, in ways they saw fit. Secondly, I believe that how it required students to write a summery about each lecture every week, allowed for overall, a better absorption of the content.

I believe that this course, has in general, made me think about the growing importance of the Internet and various other new communicative technologies. I learnt how to embed media, pictures, videos and in general understand significantly more about how websites were formed.

Because of the ever growing popularity of the Internet and the constant evolution of ways to communicate, I think that every student should understand thoroughly, how these aspects will most likely be extremely significant features in our careers, someday. especially for students like myself, who are studying Journalism or any other communications degree. The Internet and other forms of new media, are increasingly used in these professions. I have know doubt, that this is a trend which will continue to evolve.

The only problem or criticism I could mention about this course, is the fact that because it is open to the public and every student can access each others blog, this can prose problems regarding originality. If you get my drift. It is all to easy for one student to almost copy and paste, what another has spent time deciphering and writing about.

well, apart from this I found that the course allowed me to be creative (which is what I love) and allowed students to really voice their personal opinions about various issues regarding new communication technologies. Making and uploading the videos was a challenge, but after the initial struggle, I found the result personally, rewarding.

Putting It all Together: The Essay

For my essay for New Communications Technology, I have decided to tackle the rather tricky looking but thoroughly interesting, topic number four. Which poses the questions of; What are the uses/limits of the Internet in terms of politics and or Democracy? Should we rethink the nature of the political? What happens to the nation/state in the age where networks, that have the potential to span the entire globe? What has happened to the idea of 'community', in age of networked digital media?

I actually became interested by this topic, because of Stephen Stockwell's lecture on 'Political Possibilities". But also because I completed 'Introduction to Politics' last semester, and found it very interesting.

Unfortunately I have not had a lot of time so far to analyse what I believe to be suitable sources for this essay. But I have found a few that relate to how the internet affects the political sphere.

One of these was a thesis I found relating to this topic by, Alinta Thornton (2002). It is a report titled, 'Does Internet Create Democracy?'. This seems to be an excellent report because it relates to the impact of the Internet on the social sphere, formation of political will, online voting, interactivity ,to name but a few. I think this will be very useful toward the argument I want to develop for this essay. Thornton (2002) states,

'In my view, the explosion of direct participatory democracy Rheingold hoped for is highly unlikely to eventuate merely as a result of the Internet's existence'.

I believe this may be a useful quote in order to support my argument

I want to develop a paragraph each for the 'pros's and con's, which may relate to democracy and the Internet. I found an online article written by, Daniel Kohanski (2008). Which relates to these aspects I wish to discuss in my essay. The article is titled, 'The Internet's Impact on Democracy'. It is useful as it gives a balanced approach to the issue. An aspect which should not be omitted in an essay. I want to give a balanced approach to my essay,by also keeping in mind my main argument or thesis statement.

The Utopian Fantasy

There was once a time, not so long ago, when the Internet was still yet to be birthed. Many people had a dream. An unrealistic dream, some could say. Some members of our society looked for the pure fantasy which has always been a prevalent wish in the depths of the human Psyche. They believed that maybe, just maybe, all our problems in society could be solved by one thing, the INTERNET. With computers anything could be possible, deliveries would be instant and only a mouse click away. Man and society would be that bit close to what he has always been seeking...Power over his surroundings.

These ideals were exonerated by popular culture via 'space opera'. Stories set in far off futures often are adept at fulfilling the power fantasy that man so wishes for.

But then reality hit. The Internet, and computers are yes, very powerful things. But we do not live in a utopia and the Internet has not entirely lived up to its potential.

Much of lecture 9's focus was on 'Utopia and the Internet'. Originally people believed that things like search engines on the net, would be incredible. To a certain degree they are and we have come along way from the days without computers. What some people didn't count on was how difficult it can be to actually find what you are truly looking for on these search engines. Users spend so much of their time sorting through rubbish which doesn't even relate to what they wanted in the first place, and in general society overestimated what computers were capable of.

The net can be fantastic for the experimenter. A significant amount of money is circulated for the production of various web sites, in order to make a profit. Because of the Internet being a largely unpredictable business sector, many companies find that they are popular one day and not so popular the next. They therefore lose and gain notable amounts of money. The reason for the Internet's unpredictability, has a lot to do with the fact that it is a social area which is always changing, just as trends in society do also. Sites find that to survive they must reach their own niche market of sorts.

A site like 'Uncyclopedia', is an example of a form of utopia. meaning that users can change information to suit their needs and everyone can contribute.

I suppose you could say that because sites survive on the net by having their own 'niche' market, that these social groups allow for a form of utopia. Various sites gather massive amounts of popularity, sites about, lets face it often pretty strange things. Net cartoons like 'Home star Runner' make a significant amount of money from their niche market, who in turn buy their products (like t-shirts) over the net.

Groups such as second life, were able to group together to affect the overall function of the net, when they protested about advertising on their site. Notably, their site is a representation of a 'Utopian society', where everything is possible. And according to the lecturer Josh, (interesting fellow....) people go to these sites not so much for what is offered on them, but largely to communicate with one another.

Josh's site: http://www.secrettechnology.com/, makes fun of a lot of issues posed in society. He has done this by finding a way to effectively link literature with interactive games...worth a look.

Can Democracy Prevail?

As part of week eight's tutorial tasks, we were required to do a set of activities. Completing as many as possible, while staying true to our own personal political beliefs. Firstly I was shocked that the government are still pondering over the possibility of implementing a censorship to Internet content in Australia. A filtering system of sorts, in an attempt to make the Internet more 'pure' or christian.

The thing that bothers me personally is, who gets to decide what should be dubbed as pure or impure content? Don't we as citizens have a democratic right to make our own choices? While I understand that the government wants to reduce improper porn on the Internet and protect our children. I truly believe that allowing too much content control on the Internet would be a negative thing for several reasons. Notably, the sites that may be censored could affect our democratic notion of free speech in general. Secondly, I found a site regarding this issue ,after googling the words 'censor and content Australia': http://nocleanfee.com/learn.html

This site contains a significant amount of evidence as to why this implemntation would be detriemental to Australia. There are several reasons why this change should not take place, apart from democratic reasons. The site is dedicated to eradicating the mere possibility of this change. Therefore this group are exercising their Democratic rights. The site stated that if this move were to take place, it would slow down the Internet in Australia, as the Internet is not a system which can be filtered easily without problems. It would also cost the Australian government quite a lot of money to implement. It argues that this money should logically be used on other more important things such as education and ways sustainable ways to protect children.

Adam, asked us to fill out an e-perdition while adhering to our political views. I found a perdition on the site against censoring Internet content. I readily signed it as I don't believe the move would help our society, but rather it may restrict the voices of many groups. It could be a way for our government to censor any voice that do not want to hear, and therefore could lead to a form of 'Fascism'. So far 29949 people have signed, if you would like to do so make an informed choice, click on the following link:
http://pedition.irgweb.org/oznetcensorship

Another activity I decided to complete which was recommended by Adam, was to find out what Barack Obama had been up to lately. To find this out I decided, to google the words 'Obama and Twitter'. I figured that he would be on twitter, as I heard he is quite committed to using these new forms of communicative technology to reach his publics. On the 23rd of September , 2009, Barack, was in New York meeting various world leaders at the United Nations. He also made a speech during this event. It's pretty incredible that the Internet allows so many people to know exactly where he is. If you would like to become a fan of Barack OBAMA on twitter,(as I know I would have voted for him if I was American)go to: http://twitter.com/barackobama

A little harmless fun: Fake News Story

The task for week seven was to create another video. I decided to make a fake news story, just as Adam suggested at the lecture for week six. I cannot begin to explain how tedious it has been to put my video on this blog. It has also been a particularly nasty week for me (not that I'm asking for sympathy).Making the video wasn't hard, but it seemed there were unseen forces at work preventing me from uploading the video. Let me explain, firstly I ran out of broadband and my computer refused to upload the video. Secondly I had to go to the campus library to try and upload it, it ran out of time so I had to move to another computer, oh and I accidentally erased the first version. This video is not incredible, rather it is quite silly. But, I hope that it can be at least mildly entertaining for you, my fellow bloggers. See, even the weakest videos effect society...maybe in some small way.

The Political and the Internet

To be specific, lecture eight did not technically take place. Due to our University's staff exercising (what I believe to be), their democratic rights. By coincidence,(hum mm...or not?...) democracy had a lot to do with Stephen Stockwell's lecture. Specifically, the lecture was concerned about how the Internet poses new political possibilities for our society.The Internet, being a social or communicative sphere logically meant that notions of democracy, would of course arise. The only way people implement democracy is through the communication of ideas, moralities, and societal values with one another. Stephen, wrote about the growing virtues of 'cyber-politics' and 'E-democracy', both courtesy of the Internet.

So what is cyber politics? To me it is people expressing their political ideas via the Internet for the Internet. This can often take place on 'blogs' or other social spheres available on the net. E-democracy, is users contributing to political events or ideas, that take place mostly, outside the Internet world. It is a new way for the populace to communicate their ideas, about political parties and their rule in general. At present we live in a 'representational democracy', or what i like to call an 'illusionary democracy'. Arguably, we have never lived in a 'direct' or 'true' democracy. Even though, many political analysts state that ancient Greece showed a close representation of democracy (due to the fact that citizens were able to have their say on state affairs and vote). They forget to mention, that women and slaves were not given the same 'Democratic' virtue. To me 'true democracy', would mean that all decisions are made by the people for the people. An equal rule so to speak...but maybe that's just wishful thinking on my part. The closest we have ever as a society in general, come to true democracy, is the ability to vote (which does not occur all that often). Of course political analysts say, that if the populace voted on every decision made by government, this would be so time consuming that nothing would ever get done.

As the lecture stated, there has been a serious reduction in people actually willing to vote. Why is this? Is it because they feel that they are only given 'representational' power? That their voices are not truly listened to? Maybe the Internet offers a new way for people to develop and implement democracy... There has been transformations in the public sphere due to new communication technologies, such as the Internet. We are now in what is called the 'second media age'. Where we have the ability to produce new politics of sorts, because now a multitude of people can communicate to a huge portion of other people. So, can the Internet bring us that bit closer to a true or direct democracy? Well arguably the second media wave, allows more people to have a say and possibly become more politically informed. People are affecting each other. But are they affecting the government's decisions? Well, if we use the case of Barack Obama election, than yes. The number of people voicing their oppions and complaining about the Republic party via cyber politics, was enormous. The amount of blogs written in support of the now elected president, was huge. Even to this day there is an 'I support Barack Obama' group on Facebook.

Because of the communicative nature of the Internet, it allows not only for users to take part in self expression, but also helps them to seek out the truth and be more critical of the world around them. Net users have a voice if not a face. Citizens are in effect able to recognise their political voices, which I believe almost every net user has done to some degree. Also, The more informed people are of the world the more likely they will question their environment and exercise personal democracy.

The net raises questions often concerning free speech and censorship. the groundwork of democracy. Democracy it can be said, cannot be exercised without the notion of free speech. There have be battles between what should be censored on the net and what should be considered to be free speech. Even if someone is censored eventually, the information has already been circulated, and therefore it has served its purpose. Conflict can often arise between free speech and copyright. Because who is to say that someone who downloads music off the Internet is not just exercising their free speech?

Hackers in society generally, have a bad name. We think of them as being people who may steal our credit card details on the net. But are they possibly just anarchists who reject society telling them what to do? They believe in the free and open exchange of ideas and data. In my brother's word's: They reject society's reality and implement their own (kudos!!!).Why not? The idea of democracy, often springs up ideas of the 'cyberpunk'. A cyber punk (often a hacker), is seen as a reaction in the literature world and in popular movie culture, to the safe story lines of 'space opera'. The cyberpunk fights against the conformations of society and searches for democracy in far off realites..He/she is connected to the science fiction genre mainly, and often rebels against governing bodies.

The cyberpunk might be you or I. Publishing a reaction to a political decision on the Internet via a blog. Starting an online perdition or downloading soft-wear when the government said we couldn't. He or she is a reaction possibly, to the restrictions imposed on us by the government.