Democracy_in_a_Network_Society.pptx

Democracy in a Network Society
Professor Jan A.G.M. van Dijk
For the Symposium
'Digital Transformation'
Technical University of Vienna
on April 24, 2017

Program
1. Definition of digital democracy
2. Promises of digital democacy in the 1980s and 1990s
- Promise and reality (1) information retrieval and exchange
- Promise and reality (2) debate and community building
- Promise and reality (3) participation in the media, example: the social media
- Promise and reality (4) participation in political decision making
3. Why could we be so wrong? Pitfalls of thinking about
transformations by technology
- Pitfall 1: The idea of a total revolution
- Pitfall 2: The assumption of social continuity
- Pitfall 3: The technical fix for basic problems
- Pitfall 4: Instrumentalism (digital media are simply tools)
4. General conclusions

1. Digital Democracy: Definition
“A collective use of digital media and networks for politics, online
and offline or combined, with a particular view of democracy”
Van Dijk, Jan & Hacker, Ken (forthcoming)
‘Democracy in a Network Society’
The use depends on views of democracy existing before:
Substantial Formal/strategic
- Liberal democracy (conservative, market, - Legalist
social) - Competitive
- Populist (right-wing/ left-wing) - Pluralist
- Authoritarian democracy (?) - Participatory
(religion, military, one-party rule combined) - Plebiscitary
- Libertarian

2. Four Basic Promises (80-90s)
1. Improvement of political and government information retrieval
and exchange
2. Support of public debate, deliberation and community building
3. Enhancement of participation in the media:
Participatory media e.g. Social Media and Civilian Journalism
4. Enhancement of participation in political decision making
by citizens (=‘teledemocracy’)

Promise 1: Information Retrieval
and Exchange
Has been fulfilled!
- Huge amounts are available,
up-to-date and relatively easy to find. Websites, Facebook
pages etcetera.
- New tools such as voting guides.
- Politicians directly reached by mail and SNS.
But also:
- Information overload and lack of information skills for many
citizens. The political elite in fact still has better access
- Does information actually lead to political action?
- Decisions are not necessary improved by getting information
Decisions are ultimately matters of judgement.
- Lack of response (by officials): reachablity is not equal to
(real) approachability. Reachability often used as a buffer!

Promise 2: Debate and
Community Building
Partly fulfilled
There are millions of debates, chats, social media talks. Much
more than in outlets before the digital era
They must have some effect on citizens’ knowledge
and on public opinion for sure!
But:
Unequal participation (more by well-educated and politically
informed; less by the uninformed and often by women who
favor electronic discussion less than males
Group dynamics: e.g. those right have no more influence than
those wrong
Few results (conclusions and consensus are achieved less in
online than offline groups)
No or minor influence on official politics!!

Promise 3: Participation in
Digital Media
Partly fulfilled
Enormous growth of weblogs, personal websites, online papers
partly filled by readers. Some times important scoops and
reports of citizens about abuses, corruption of politicians
etcetera
Rise of the social media as a new political channel for everybody
But also:
- Media companies keep in control (affecting input of users)
- Questions about professionalism of input (fact versus opinion)
- More elite participation than average citizen participation
SENDERS
RECIEVERS
SUPPLIERS
USERS NETWORKERS
PROVIDERS

Social Media Participation:
Advantages
1. A new channel for finding political news, to discuss and
to organize or mobilize. Access and voices heard for
people being silent before: people with low education
and political interest
2. A direct channel between citizens, representatives and
politicians. Bypassing the traditional media as
gatekeepers
3. Mobilization power: for demonstrations, meetings and
even revolts (Arab Spring)
4. Campaign tool in elections: political advertising, finding
volunteers, small donations

Social Media Participation:
Disadvantages
1. Unreliable: ‘fake news’ and other disinformation.
Platforms (e.g. Facebook) refrain to become editors,
say they are only carriers.
Fact, opinion and fiction (lies, ‘fake’) are blurring.
2. Manipulation of messages and followers. Twitter bots:
1/3th of tweets of Trump in the campaign was written by
a robot, en 1/5th of Clinton. Followers are simply bought.
3. Personal and emotional style of communication. Plus:
brings politics better to the people; minus: politics as
serious and rational affair is weakened. Emotions such as
scolding and jeering occur.
4. Discourse leads more to polarization than to agreement
5. People are stuck in a ‘filter bubble’: only messages in
your timeline that agree with you (habitual exposure
thesis against the accidental exposure thesis:surprises)

Promise 4:Enhancement of
citizen political decision making
Not fulfilled at all
- Direct democracy collides with the structure of our political system
(= representative democracy). Referenda are contested.
Results of so-called e-participation projects mostly achieve no
response by governments.
- Direct democracy (by digital media or not) is difficult to realize in a
complex society. The call for ‘teledemocracy’ of the 1980s is
silent now. However, the future will be some combination of
direct and representative democracy. Because of the fast and
interactive properties of computer networks.
- Facebook , Twitter etc. are powerful instruments of mass
mobilization, but not of organizing, certainly not revolutions
(Arab Spring turns to Winter). Authoritarian governments strike
back in many ways, also using Facebook, Twitter etc
.

Conclusion So Far
(What about the Future?)
So far, the practices of digital democracy do not fill most
promises because they do not touch the basic structures of
the political system. They show new forms, channels and
contents (discourse) but not institutional changes
Most is ‘business as usual’.
For example: only the forms and techniques of election
campaigns may change but not the strategies and tactics,
not even grass-root participation.
Why these blown up expectations come from?
This is the second part of my presentation:
pitfalls of thinking about the transformation of technology
(inspired by Joseph Corn, (1986) 

Transformation Pitfall 1:
Idea of a Total Revolution
Assumption that new technologies will radically change
our lives, in this case the political system
Many cases in history:
- Electricity (1850) would bring power to every house and freedom
for individuals. Result: rise of massive bureaucracies
- Radio (1910) everybody would become a broadcaster. Result:
dictators (e.g. Hitler) brainwashing people. Rise of communism and
fascism
- Television cable (1980) remote tele-voting and choices from home.
Result: no votes by television today; 100+ TV-channels and
‘nothing-on’, but commercials
Mistake 1: technological opportunities simply transformed
to social realities; revolutions rarely happen
Mistake 2: often it is simply wishful thinking

Assumption of Social Continuity
Assumption of mere improvement of things and
technologies, only faster and stronger, no basic changes
Many cases in history:
- The car was an improved coach
- The internet was an electronic highway
- Social media is just more effective marketing (personalization)
Mistake 1: underestimates the slow but effective
transformation potential of new technology in the long term.
Example: social media breaking a totalitarian system such as
China
Mistake 2: technologies can be disruptive (fast): networking in
the economy and politics (eg. rise of the social media)

A Technical Fix for Complex Problems
Assumption that digital media easily fix problems which in
fact are deep and complex.
Many cases:
- The Internet or social media fixing problems of democracy such as a
lack of political motivation, knowledge, efficacy and turn-out
- Social media overthrowing authoritarian regimes by mass
mobilization (‘Twitter and Facebook Revolutions’)
Mistake 1: These are superficial solutions. Much more is
needed to change this, for example not only to mobilize but
also to organize reform or revolt (social media are more
individually used, less collectively: to organize parties etc.)
Mistake 2: A bias: only positive fixes, no negative effects or
second order effects (not expected)

Instrumentalism
Assumption that digital and social media are only tools that
can be used for any purpose, good or bad. For liberty and
for control or surveillance.
Mistake 1: This assumption is much too simple.
“Communication technologies are neither empty vessels to
be filled with products of human intent nor forces unto
themselves, imbued with some kind of irresistible agency.”
(Deibert & Rohozinsky, 2013). The effects of the Internet are
complex and continually evolving. Also contingency rules.
Mistake 2: Only the use of digital media might have effect,
never as a tool by itself. Only in particular circumstances ,
to be investigated.

General Conclusions
1. The promises of digital democracy are scarcely realized yet.
2. So far, digital democracy has not basically touched the
political systems of America, Europe, Arabia and China.
3. The digital media have a very modest positive effect for
participation, especially for young people, but not enough
(political interest is more important). You can win elections
when you are good in digital/social media. Not a boost for
democracy as a whole.
4. The use of digital media can support and destroy democracy
(disinformation, surveillance, micro-targeting marketing)
5. Basic changes may occur after a long time-span. They will
be different than we will expect now, with our poor
assumptions of a total revolution, social continuity, technical
fix and instrumentalism.

Democracy_in_a_Network_Society.pptx

More Related Content

Similar to Democracy_in_a_Network_Society.pptx

More from karishmanair8

Recently uploaded

Democracy_in_a_Network_Society.pptx