Teledemocracy
Sunday, September 20, 2009 by Elise
The principles of Jürgen Habermas’ idea of the ‘Public Sphere’ include active citizenship, debate controlled by citizens, and universalism of participation. M. Igbaria, C. Shayo, and L. Olfman have applied this concept of the Public Sphere to political activity on the internet; that is, in the Digital Public Sphere. Igbaria et al argue that ‘teledemocracy’ is the practice of political campaigning on the internet, and the ways in which politicians, political parties, and citizens interact in order to function as a democratic political society. Keskinen (1995) defines teledemocracy as “a generic term that combines the understanding of the way citizens are empowered with the enabling technologies of computer networking and associated hardware, software, services, and techniques”. FYI, all blogging below is my understanding of Igbaria et al’s chapter “Virtual Socities: Prospects and Dilemmas” (1998).
The rise of teledemocracy changes the ways in which we can think about traditional political campaigning. With the advent of internet interactivity, citizens are more able to communicate both with each other and with politicians, and this allows for those concepts of Habermas listed above which are so important to the functioning of the Public Sphere to be apparent in political activity online. Teledemocracy can improve relationships between politicians and citizens, due to the openness of communication lines between the governors and governed. It can also allow citizens to become more functional as ‘one unit’ – that is, teledemocracy on the internet brings like-minded citizens together, and they can more easily discuss and form new ideas than ever before, having previously only had access to newspapers, radio, telephone lines, and public meetings. Online discussions of politics can therefore be seen as much more democratic than has previously been possible, as everyone’s voice is more or less equal. Obviously, the politician’s voice acts differently to those of the citizens, as they occupy the position of govenor, and they are influential in making the ‘rules’ or laws. However, I think that teledemocracy closes the gap, so to speak, between the voice of politician and citizen, because it levels out the voices (we are all, after all, only one person and politicians are people too!), and because of the ease of communication.
Online, these politicians seem much less far away from us (both ideologically and geographically), much more reachable as humans, and I think the use of teledemocracy allows for them to be seen as more approachable than ever before. Of course, this can go wrong, as per the cringe-worthy John Key clip we saw in this week’s lecture. However, with the right PR team, teledemocracy can also work in great favour of politicians – for example, I am ‘friends’ with Barack Obama on Facebook and it is great to watch the way in which he utilises a Social Networking Site in order to promote his messages. The ‘publicness’ of the forum allows for Obama to not only receive feedback from citizens of America and of the world, but these citizens can in turn discuss with each other political issues, and also see differing points of view. I assume that on a ‘proper’ political forum / website, the vocal activity of politicians and citizens would not be much different from Obama’s interaction with his ‘friends’ on Facebook.
Ultimately, teledemocracy allows for a better communication model for political progress in the 21st Century. Igbaria et al argue that teledemocracy lets “citizens feel engaged, involved, and invested in decision making and responsible for society and its future” (243). I think this is such an important responsibility for citizens everywhere to have.
Lastly, this model of a ‘new and improved’ democracy does not allow for people who do not have access to the internet. However, as internet technology continues to play increasing roles in our lives, it may not be that far off when every citizen (at least in First World countries) have cheap and easy access to the internet.
References:
Igbaria, M., Shayo, C., and Olfman, L. “Virtual Societies: Their Prosepects and Dilemmas” in Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications. Ed. Jayne Gackenbach. California and London: Academic Press, 1998. pp.227-250.
Keskinen (1995) quoted in above source.
The rise of teledemocracy changes the ways in which we can think about traditional political campaigning. With the advent of internet interactivity, citizens are more able to communicate both with each other and with politicians, and this allows for those concepts of Habermas listed above which are so important to the functioning of the Public Sphere to be apparent in political activity online. Teledemocracy can improve relationships between politicians and citizens, due to the openness of communication lines between the governors and governed. It can also allow citizens to become more functional as ‘one unit’ – that is, teledemocracy on the internet brings like-minded citizens together, and they can more easily discuss and form new ideas than ever before, having previously only had access to newspapers, radio, telephone lines, and public meetings. Online discussions of politics can therefore be seen as much more democratic than has previously been possible, as everyone’s voice is more or less equal. Obviously, the politician’s voice acts differently to those of the citizens, as they occupy the position of govenor, and they are influential in making the ‘rules’ or laws. However, I think that teledemocracy closes the gap, so to speak, between the voice of politician and citizen, because it levels out the voices (we are all, after all, only one person and politicians are people too!), and because of the ease of communication.
Online, these politicians seem much less far away from us (both ideologically and geographically), much more reachable as humans, and I think the use of teledemocracy allows for them to be seen as more approachable than ever before. Of course, this can go wrong, as per the cringe-worthy John Key clip we saw in this week’s lecture. However, with the right PR team, teledemocracy can also work in great favour of politicians – for example, I am ‘friends’ with Barack Obama on Facebook and it is great to watch the way in which he utilises a Social Networking Site in order to promote his messages. The ‘publicness’ of the forum allows for Obama to not only receive feedback from citizens of America and of the world, but these citizens can in turn discuss with each other political issues, and also see differing points of view. I assume that on a ‘proper’ political forum / website, the vocal activity of politicians and citizens would not be much different from Obama’s interaction with his ‘friends’ on Facebook.
Ultimately, teledemocracy allows for a better communication model for political progress in the 21st Century. Igbaria et al argue that teledemocracy lets “citizens feel engaged, involved, and invested in decision making and responsible for society and its future” (243). I think this is such an important responsibility for citizens everywhere to have.
Lastly, this model of a ‘new and improved’ democracy does not allow for people who do not have access to the internet. However, as internet technology continues to play increasing roles in our lives, it may not be that far off when every citizen (at least in First World countries) have cheap and easy access to the internet.
References:
Igbaria, M., Shayo, C., and Olfman, L. “Virtual Societies: Their Prosepects and Dilemmas” in Psychology and the Internet: Intrapersonal, Interpersonal, and Transpersonal Implications. Ed. Jayne Gackenbach. California and London: Academic Press, 1998. pp.227-250.
Keskinen (1995) quoted in above source.
Great post. There's an interesting article in this week's Guardian about the Republicans latching on to Obama's "Internet campaigning tricks" that you might find interesting.