Democracy in a Network Society

Vs Digital Devide

For the Symposium

'Digital Transformation'
Technical University of Vienna
on April 24, 2017

Professor Jan A.G.M. van Dijk

 ?
1. Definition of digital democracy
2. Promises of digital democracy
- 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)
- Libertarian
The Voting Process
2. Four Basic Promises
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 social media.
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
SENDERS
SUPPLIERS
PROVIDERS

USERS NETWORKERS
But also: RECIEVERS

- Media companies keep in control (affecting input of users)

- Questions about professionalism of input (fact versus opinion)
- More elite participation than average citizen participation
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
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
 Transformation Pitfall 2:
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)
 Transformation Pitfall 3:
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)
 Transformation Pitfall 4:
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.
More and More Countries Consider It!
• Geographic challenges
• Inclusion of eligible
voters living abroad
• Hope for increased
voter turnout
• Hope to encourage
young voters to vote
• Cost saving
Internet Ballots in Norway

Norway 2013
 Digital devide (NEXT…)