Final essay
Cyber Democracy: Is the internet an effective way to increase democracy?
Since the birth of the internet in the 1960s, there has been an enormous increase in the number of internet users over the years. An estimated 6.5 billion people around the world now have access to the internet, which is approximately a 198.1% usage growth from the year 2000 to 2006 (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm). Along with this growth in the number of internet users, is said to be a perceived shift in the level of democracy due to this new technology. Cyber democracy, otherwise known as e-democracy or digital democracy, can be defined as “a portmanteau of electronic and democracy, comprises the use of electronic communications technologies, such as the Internet, in enhancing democratic processes within a democratic republic or representative democracy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy), and is said to be a way of extending participation into civil society beyond elected representatives (Schlosberg & Dryzek, 2002). This essay sets out to explore the differences between direct democracy and representative democracy, and how the internet has impacted on this system, which in turn has led to the development of the new term, Cyberdemocracy.
In political broad terms, democracy can be defined as “a system of government in which there is a degree of popular control over government” (Eccleston, Williams, & Hollander, 2006). In essence, it is a body of people elected by the general population through consensus, enabling them to have the authority to set laws that have to be abided by all citizens. Generally, it is a freedom of speech and everyone can influence a decision. The word “democracy” is derived from the Ancient Greek “demokratia” which literally means ‘the common people rule' (Eccleston et al., 2006). There are two main types of democracy: direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is usually the most satisfying form of democracy, as it allows everyone to have an equal say in a decision. In the political sense, it is a system in which all citizens have a direct say in decision making. For example, when a class is electing a student representative, every single student is involved in the voting process and has a direct influence on the outcome. However, there are limitations to this type of democracy. Ideally, direct democracy would only be effective in smaller communities, where the people have the time, knowledge and interest to participate directly in decision making. Most of the time, especially in political settings, direct democracy would require too much time and effort, and potential uninformed decisions could be made that would hinder other important factors. Occasionally, certain groups of people may also be excluded in the decision making process. In ancient Athenian times, women, slaves and people who were not born in Athens, were excluded. On the other hand, there is representative democracy, which has become the most common form of political organisation. This is because it provides a reasonable compromise between popular involvement in, and control over, politics with the reality that, as citizens, most do not have the time, energy or information to be closely involved in the everyday process of government (Eccleston et al., 2006). Opposite to direct democracy, instead of having a direct vote, this system of government involves citizens electing representatives to make political decisions on their behalf. This is a direct translation of the term – democratically choosing people to represent the general population. As with direct democracy, representative democracy also has its disadvantages. The likelihood of electing a wrong representative is possible and in the case of a political leader, such a decision would mean that the person could stay in office for a set number of years.
So, what exactly does the internet have to do with democracy? The impact of the internet and new communication technologies on democracy is huge. Anyone who has access to the internet, can also have access to public domains and forums to express their thoughts and ideas, join email lists, vote in online polls, and create their own personal weblogs (blogs) to state their opinions on particular issues. The internet and other online technologies are gaining increasing credibility in the political system and cyberdemocracy is becoming a reality that politicians need to be aware of (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm). Berman and Weitzner (1997) claimed that whilst the internet will neither assure individual participation in democracy, nor will it assure that the final outcome of democratic deliberations is fair and just, the internet provides a platform which allows for a diversity of views and exchange of information that are simply impossible in any other communications medium. The internet allows individuals to conduct research on any topic they desire, which gives them more access to information, to help improve their knowledge to make more informed decisions, politically or otherwise. Politically, cyberdemocracy brings with it the opportunity for a reassessment of the methods by which government services are provided (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm). Through increasing governments’ departmental utilisation of the online environment, access to details of government services and initiatives could be extended to include everyone regardless of their geographic location and with no limitation of access to public service working hours (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm). The reason for this great support for a diversity of opinion, ideas and information is because it is a decentralised network (Berman & Weitzner, 1997). Anyone who has a computer and access to the internet can publish anything they want on the WWW without gaining prior permission. As Poster (http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html) describes it, “Like the telephone network, anyone hooked up to the Internet may initiate a call, send a message that he or she has composed, and may do so in the manner of the broadcast system, that is to say, may send a message to many receivers, and do this either in "real time" or as stored data or both”.
Since the birth of the internet in the 1960s, there has been an enormous increase in the number of internet users over the years. An estimated 6.5 billion people around the world now have access to the internet, which is approximately a 198.1% usage growth from the year 2000 to 2006 (http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm). Along with this growth in the number of internet users, is said to be a perceived shift in the level of democracy due to this new technology. Cyber democracy, otherwise known as e-democracy or digital democracy, can be defined as “a portmanteau of electronic and democracy, comprises the use of electronic communications technologies, such as the Internet, in enhancing democratic processes within a democratic republic or representative democracy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy), and is said to be a way of extending participation into civil society beyond elected representatives (Schlosberg & Dryzek, 2002). This essay sets out to explore the differences between direct democracy and representative democracy, and how the internet has impacted on this system, which in turn has led to the development of the new term, Cyberdemocracy.
In political broad terms, democracy can be defined as “a system of government in which there is a degree of popular control over government” (Eccleston, Williams, & Hollander, 2006). In essence, it is a body of people elected by the general population through consensus, enabling them to have the authority to set laws that have to be abided by all citizens. Generally, it is a freedom of speech and everyone can influence a decision. The word “democracy” is derived from the Ancient Greek “demokratia” which literally means ‘the common people rule' (Eccleston et al., 2006). There are two main types of democracy: direct democracy and representative democracy. Direct democracy is usually the most satisfying form of democracy, as it allows everyone to have an equal say in a decision. In the political sense, it is a system in which all citizens have a direct say in decision making. For example, when a class is electing a student representative, every single student is involved in the voting process and has a direct influence on the outcome. However, there are limitations to this type of democracy. Ideally, direct democracy would only be effective in smaller communities, where the people have the time, knowledge and interest to participate directly in decision making. Most of the time, especially in political settings, direct democracy would require too much time and effort, and potential uninformed decisions could be made that would hinder other important factors. Occasionally, certain groups of people may also be excluded in the decision making process. In ancient Athenian times, women, slaves and people who were not born in Athens, were excluded. On the other hand, there is representative democracy, which has become the most common form of political organisation. This is because it provides a reasonable compromise between popular involvement in, and control over, politics with the reality that, as citizens, most do not have the time, energy or information to be closely involved in the everyday process of government (Eccleston et al., 2006). Opposite to direct democracy, instead of having a direct vote, this system of government involves citizens electing representatives to make political decisions on their behalf. This is a direct translation of the term – democratically choosing people to represent the general population. As with direct democracy, representative democracy also has its disadvantages. The likelihood of electing a wrong representative is possible and in the case of a political leader, such a decision would mean that the person could stay in office for a set number of years.
So, what exactly does the internet have to do with democracy? The impact of the internet and new communication technologies on democracy is huge. Anyone who has access to the internet, can also have access to public domains and forums to express their thoughts and ideas, join email lists, vote in online polls, and create their own personal weblogs (blogs) to state their opinions on particular issues. The internet and other online technologies are gaining increasing credibility in the political system and cyberdemocracy is becoming a reality that politicians need to be aware of (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm). Berman and Weitzner (1997) claimed that whilst the internet will neither assure individual participation in democracy, nor will it assure that the final outcome of democratic deliberations is fair and just, the internet provides a platform which allows for a diversity of views and exchange of information that are simply impossible in any other communications medium. The internet allows individuals to conduct research on any topic they desire, which gives them more access to information, to help improve their knowledge to make more informed decisions, politically or otherwise. Politically, cyberdemocracy brings with it the opportunity for a reassessment of the methods by which government services are provided (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm). Through increasing governments’ departmental utilisation of the online environment, access to details of government services and initiatives could be extended to include everyone regardless of their geographic location and with no limitation of access to public service working hours (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm). The reason for this great support for a diversity of opinion, ideas and information is because it is a decentralised network (Berman & Weitzner, 1997). Anyone who has a computer and access to the internet can publish anything they want on the WWW without gaining prior permission. As Poster (http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html) describes it, “Like the telephone network, anyone hooked up to the Internet may initiate a call, send a message that he or she has composed, and may do so in the manner of the broadcast system, that is to say, may send a message to many receivers, and do this either in "real time" or as stored data or both”.
The anonymity factor of the internet is also a reason for the increasing number of internet users, as the concept of anonymity is closely related to free speech and privacy (Akedeniz, 2002), which is an important factor for most people. However, this anonymity can cause a number of problems too when people decide to misuse the internet for harmful or criminal activities. Along with the internet, the role of traditional media (television, magazines and newspapers) in modern democracy is increasingly problematic, and serious questions have arisen about its capacity as a site for political criticism or rational debate (http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/thesis2.htm).
Sometimes known as the ‘fourth estate’, the media provides the link between governors and the governed. It acts as a check on government power, reporting not only on policy decisions and their implementation, but also on the failure of policy. It also scrutinises policies and performance and is seen as an extension of right to freedom of speech (Eccleston et al., 2006). As with everything, there are limitations to the ‘fourth estate’. While exposing government corruption can be a good story, it is not the media’s main job. There is a decline in serious investigative journalism as a result of the media being the ‘fourth estate’ and there are legal issues regarding contempt of Court. The media sometimes acts a business and its main goal is to make profit, therefore its intentions can sometimes be bias. The internet and WWW can counteract this problem. It provides a perspective independent of corporate interests (ie. Iraq war) and citizens can be better informed, due to the whole concept of cyberdemocracy, allowing any material to be put on the WWW. This therefore provides an avenue for direct democracy. However, it also has weaknesses: it is not always reliable; the origin of content may sometimes be suspicious, there are accessibility concerns, and most importantly, the internet has yet to have an impact of mass media.
Despite much evidence supporting the impact of the internet on democracy, Joint (2005) suggests that the internet, as with all other technologies is neither good or bad, democratic or undemocratic, rather it is simply what we choose to make of it. The existence of the internet, without any users would be redundant and insignificant. If members of democracies, both citizens and governments, do not move into position and use the networks for real and dynamic e-democratic debate, then cyberdemocracy would be nonexistent (Joint, 2005). Basically, Joint claims that the internet is what people make of it. Electronic participation, like reality, is up to individuals’ interest in the issue and the internet, along with other new communication technologies are just another medium of democracy, not necessarily more or less effective per se.
Personally, I believe that the internet is an effective way to increase democracy in today’s society, may it be political or just in mundane issues. The fact that everyone is given an opportunity to state whatever they like on a public arena is a democratic action. The internet gives individuals, who otherwise would not be heard in government, an outlet to express their opinions on certain issues and for other likeminded people to congregate together. On a political level, cyberdemocracy is making an impact in the way politicians address the public and the way they put out their views and statements. Politicians who do not acknowledge and embrace this new technology may soon find themselves lagging behind. Therefore, cyberdemocracy in the way of the future and everyone needs to keep up with new emerging technologies to be a part of it.
References
Akedeniz, Y. (2002). Anonymity, Democracy, and Cyberspace. Social Research, 69(1), 223-237.
Berman, J., & Weitzner, D. J. (1997). Technology and democracy. Social Research, 64(3), 1313-1319.
Eccleston, R., Williams, P., & Hollander, R. (2006). Foundations of Australian Politics. Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education Australia.
Joint, N. (2005). Democracy, eLiteracy and the internet. Libracry Review, 54(1/2), 80-85.
Schlosberg, D., & Dryzek, J. S. (2002). Digital democracy. Organization & Environment, 15(3), 332-335.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-democracy (Date accessed: 7 December 2006)
http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm (Date accessed: 7 December 2006)
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/pubs/pops/pop34/c18.htm (Date accessed: 7 December 2006)
http://www.zip.com.au/~athornto/thesis2.htm (Date accessed: 7 December 2006)
http://www.hnet.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html (Date accessed: 7 December 2006)
No comments:
Post a Comment