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