Does the Internet Extend Traditional Democracy?

Generally speaking today’s population are leading busier lifestyles. The internet gives individuals the ability to access news at the click of a button, thus deeming itself an appealing way to gather information and communicate. Within the infrastructure of the internet lie millions of web pages, blogs, chat rooms, search engines and networking sites that individuals can use to access information and communicate globally. In the world of politics the internet flourishes with attempts of creating and sustaining the idea of e-politics and e-democracy. Academically, it is crucial to question the uses and limits of the internet in terms of democracy and the idea of “community” in the age of networked digital media. Online news site, Indymedia, will be used as an example of new media e-politics to help conceptualise the argument.

A popular belief lies with the idea that the Internet will contribute to a new era of democracy and recreate Habermas’ public sphere (Thornton, 2002). The explosion of online political groups and activism certainly reflect the internet’s potential, however who predominantly makes use of it raises question as to whether or not it is a true reflection of democracy (Papacharissi, 2002). For those who have access to the internet, it can become an effective tool for political activism; nevertheless it can not be guaranteed that those who own a computer will actually participate in any kind of political discourse (Papacharissi). As research shows creating a virtual public sphere does not represent a robust and true public sphere (Levine, 2002; Papacharissi).

Tocqueville (1990), although he speaks of an American population, believed that the dedication of the American people to public affairs encompasses a healthy democratic environment and adds to an individual’s sense of existence and self respect. Placed in context, and America’s political system, voluntary voting rights may contribute to Toqueville’s view. However, on a global level the essence of what he is saying can be applied to all countries and their strive for democracy. In the age of the internet, it is foolish to think that it does not provide avenues for political expression. Internet users have a wealth of information at their fingertips, allowing the individual to find voting records, join special interest groups, track congressional and supreme court rulings and fight for consumer rights, to name a few (Papacharissi, 2002).

Indymedia, an online news site contributed to by independent media organisations and freelance journalists has been one site among the millions to make e-democracy possible. Since the coming age of technology, internet has changed a lot of the roles media plays in society. The internet has given those whom, in traditional media types would have no voice, a voice (Goot, 2008; Matheson, 2004). Indymedia offers its viewers the opportunity to participate in opinion polls, online forums and blogs. Until very recently traditional media did not offer its viewers/readers such interactions. The internet has forced traditional media “to rethink journalism’s cultural and societal roles” (Carlson, 2007, p. 1014). With sites dedicated to ‘truth’ and ‘freedom of speech’ like Indymedia, it can only be assumed that new media is taking a step in the right direction.

Despite the fact that the internet creates a wealth of space for political discussion, some academics still believe it to be plagued with inadequacies (Levine, 2002; Papacharissi, 2002). Papacharissi writes that although online forums are dominated by elites they still do not have much political sway. Academic stance follows with many experts labelling the internet, the “digital divide.” Disadvantaged individuals are less likely to use the internet, as income, race and disability all influence the likelihood that an individual will not access the internet (Dahlberg, 2001; Levine). Moreover, not all information available on the internet is democratic or promotes democracy (Dahlberg). Take for instance some white supremist groups, although democracy is founded in an individual’s right to freedom of speech this argument remains a difficult one (Papacharissi).

The internet has a way of connecting people from diverse backgrounds raising enthusiasm amongst these groups who now have the ability to share in political discussion. Anonymity is offered in most cases when needed and allows individuals to overcome boundaries defined by possible prejudices, permitting free and open communication through exchanging ideas (Papacharissi, 2002).

Of major concern is the internets potential to provide governments with surveillance and control over the information the public have access to. Not only that, emails can be read by unintended others, forged, and coded to allow others access to personal documents and files (Dahlberg, 2001; Thornton, 2002). If governments are granted the right to survey what we view, our democratic right will diminish (Thornton). Censorship of political information deemed inappropriate by ruling governments will see numerous filters attached to sites stopping the public from viewing them (Dahlberg; Thornton). Fortunately the Telecommunications Interception Legislation Amendment Bill 2002, which was written in support of this, has not yet been passed in Australian parliament (Thornton).

As it stands today, the internet still gives journalists ‘freedom’ and ‘choice’ in news coverage as the “codes and practices become weaker as journalism moves to new context” (Matheson, 2004, p. 444). Governments have little control over the content published on the internet and huge media corporations, like fox, do not govern what is deemed newsworthy and profitable. Sites like Indymedia are still based on their dedication to truth. Indymedia considers itself a “democratic media outlet for the creation of radical, accurate and passionate tellings of truth” (www.indymedia.org).

Conversely, with less stringent publishing guidelines the quality and link to factual evidence in reporting for networks like Indy media have been the main focus for critics (Matheson, 2004). Possibly because traditional mediums are constantly under public scrutiny, so more measures are taken when publishing a story through broadcast and print media on the quality of the document. There are also no laws governing those who publish blogs. It’s just one persons perspective on an issue and doesn’t necessarily have to contain any fact. Articles on Indymedia are quite often published anonymously, making it very hard to put a name to a ’voice’, again raising issues on authenticity. This is unlike the traditional newspaper article, where the journalist is always linked to the article in which they publish.

As mentioned previously, the idea of democracy places emphasis on a public sphere. For democracy to be successful, there needs to be a representative public sphere, and within this public sphere must lie a sense of community. The internet however, creates a new sense of community, where geographic location is irrelevant. Fourty years ago the idea of a virtual community would seem unimaginable to the general population, today the internet makes this possible. No longer do borders constrain the public, who now have access to and can exchange information to other individuals from all over the world with similar interests (Srinivasan, 2004). Srinivasan defines a virtual community as “a community that shares similar interests, values or ideals” (p. 94). There is no doubt that communities exist on the internet, one just has to take a look at the growing number of groups and online clubs to acknowledge this (clubs.yahoo.com or groups.google.com).

Moreover, just like a traditional community, a virtual community provides sociability, support, and social capital to its members (Srinivasan, 2004). Emile Durkheim’s concept of solidarity can be applied still to the virtual community, protecting it from anomie (Bimber, 1998). Through strengthening relationships and opening latent connections, new media can create a sense of community that prevails physical space (Bimber; Srinivasan).

With community extending beyond one’s neighbour, elaborate opportunities are available to sustain democracy (Bimber, 1998). There is expectation that the internet will enhance mutual understanding, greater appreciation for differences and views of others and diminish racial and prejudicial boundaries where people have the opportunity to build bonds regardless of distance and culture (Bimber). This thus pressures society to change their concept of community to remain up to date with current technological trends (Jankowski).

On the other hand, critics highlight the fluid nature such virtual communities create (Jankowski). Whilst individuals can become quickly engaged in online communities they can also become as quickly disengaged (Jankowski). Thus for these reasons critics believe traditional communities remain optimal as little contribution can be made to a public sphere from an already fragmented association (Jankowski, Dahlberg, 2001). Many virtual communities try to make up for what is lost in a physical community, but because of such heterogeneity among these groups Jankowski believes they account for no additional feelings of belonging.

According to Habermas’ original theory of the public sphere, reflexivity, that is, the ability to critically evaluate one’s culture does not contribute to a large part of these online communities (Dahlberg, 2001). Members of online groups often lack the rules and regulations of traditional communities. As working with differences and respectful listening may be paramount to both communities, they still remain an issue (Dahlberg). The difference remains in the punishment. As mentioned previously, online groups are usually governed by few, these elitists often determine the rules and regulations such sites run by.

Regardless of the opposing views presented in the literature, the internet does have the ability to enhance democracy and extend the public sphere through virtual communities. This ability depends on the people who use it and the laws or lack of, that govern this possibility. Both concepts, democracy and community, rely on each other and it therefore becomes imperative that online communities and political websites pride themselves on sincerity, inclusion, rather than exclusion, and reflexivity (Dahlberg, 2001).





References

About Indymedia. (2008). Retrieved December 8, 2009, from the Indymedia web site: http://www.indymedia.org/en/static/about.shtml.

Bimber, B. (1998). The internet and political transformation: Populism, community, and accelerated pluralism. Polity, 31, 133-160.

Carlson, M. (2007). Order versus access: News search engines and the challenge to traditional journalistic roles. Media, Culture & Society, 29, 1014-1030.

Dahlberg, L. (2001). The internet and democratic discourse: Exploring the prospects of online deliberative forums extending the public sphere. Information,Communication & Society, 4, 615-633.

Goot, M. (2008). Is the news on the internet different? Leaders, frontbenchers and other candidates in the 2007 Australian election. Australian Journal of Political Science, 43, 99-110.

Jankowski, N. W Creating community with media: History, theories and scientific investigations. In L. Lievrouw & S. Livingstone (Eds.), Handbook of New Media, (pp. 34-49). London: Sage.

Levine, P. (2002). Can the internet rescue democracy? Toward an on-line commons. In R. Hayduk & K. Mattson (Eds.), Democracy's movement: Reforming the American political system for the 21st century (pp. 121-137). Lanham: MD.

Matheson, D. (2004). Weblogs and the epistemology of the news: Some trends in online journalism. New Media and Society, 6, 443-468.

Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere. New Media and Society, 4, 9-27.

Srinivasan, R. (2004). Reconstituting the urban through community-articulated digital environments. Journal of Urban Technology, 11, 93-111.

Thornton, A. (2002). Does the internet create democracy? Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

Tocqueville, A.D. (1990) Democracy in America, Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Classics.