The internet in the new age of politics is giving people the access to information and expanding the arena of free speech and interaction. Through the introduction of the internet, cyber citizens are noticeably using the internet as a driving force for democracy and the political. As Hague et al suggests; “Democracy has at its heart self determination, participation, voice and autonomy; it is a political culture which includes a wide range of realms for self development and mutual collective expression” (Hague & Loader 1999, pp. 7).
With the introduction of the internet, citizens are using the internet as a means of self expression and free speech. In light of this, governments understand the power of the internet and are using the internet as a means for greater communication channels between them and their citizens. With the introduction of ‘electronic democracy’ or ‘e-democracy’ as it is known, governments are further exploring the power of the internet. In a world where communities on the internet are not subjected to geographical positioning, the term community is now understood to contain a conglomerate of people who have the potential to span the globe. This essay aims to disseminate the uses and limits of the internet in terms of politics and democracy; disseminate what has happened to the nation/state in the age of networks that have the potential to span the whole globe; and also what has happened to the idea of community in the age of the internet. This essay will do this by arguing that society needs to re-think the political.
To begin with, Hague et al suggests that a “strong democracy requires strong and interactive links between the state and civil society, between government and the governed” (1999, p. 13). The introduction of the internet, as Kann suggests has “enabled many-to-many citizen interaction that invited online political debate, deliberation, consultation, decision-making, administration, and scrutiny as well as online mobilizing, organizing, petitioning, and protesting” (www.networkedpublics.org).
In contrast to this, Wilhelm suggests that the internet can “either promote or inhibit in the many-to-many communication in the public sphere” of democracy and the political (2000 pp. 8). Wilhelm further suggests that the internet can be both a threat as much as a vehicle to the progress of democracy and the political (2000). The use of the internet in terms of politics and democracy by governments in recent campaigns has seen the introduction of e-democracy. E-democracy is characterised to “strengthen, expand, and diversify citizen engagement through effective and meaningful online discussions and two-way information exchange on public issues” (http://www.e-democracy.org/objectives.html). To further substantiate this, Best et al suggest, that the use of the internet through political campaigns constitutes a free flow of information that not only allows for efficient passage of commercial information but also for more ‘democratic’ information (2009, p. 256). Although the use of the internet in political campaigns allows governments to widen their communication channels between them and their citizens, the use of the internet also has limits.
The limits for the internet in terms of politics and democracy include people that do not have access to, or do not wish to have access to a computer (www.uniondemocracy.org). For the internet to be effective in terms of politics and democracy, citizen participation is a pinnacle factor. Corrales et al suggests that although governments can introduce new ways to which they communicate with their citizens; in spite of this, the “internet may not necessarily increase citizens appetite for political information and activity” (2002, p. 35). For the internet to be effective in terms of politics and democracy, people must hold a fundamental interest in the political. Although the internet can be employed, it still relies on citizens interests in politics and democracy. In light of this, other limits of the internet in terms of politics and democracy include the “political economy, ownership, control, regulation…as well as the legal frameworks defining the freedoms of – and constraints on- communication” (Dahlgren 2005, p. 149). Dahlgren adds that this is due to the boundaries and limitations for the nature of the information and that circulates (2005, p. 149). Although a democratic nation encourages free speech, a limitation that a citizen of a democracy faces when using the internet for political democracy is in fact controlled and restricted. What they post on the internet is highly scrutinised; as well as what they read is highly ‘encrypted’ (Poster 2001, p. 259)
As well as the uses and limits of the internet in terms of democracy and the political, through the introduction of the internet, the term nation/state has become blurred; therefore governments must re-think the political. Democracy, politics and the term community is now not restricted to a persons geographical situation, but rather what they have access too, and more over, what they have interest in. The internet is making the world smaller, and with a click of a button, “the web…allows us to connect to the world in an instant” (www.webhostinggeeks.com). In the age of networks that have the potential to span the whole globe, the “internet…has certainly decreased the power of the nation-state” (www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=1939). This is because the term nation-state has now gone global, or what is called globalisation (http://www.net4dev.se/uimonen). This also leads to the radicalisation of the term community.
Through de-strengthening the term nation-state, the internet has also radically changed the term community. The term ‘community’ on the internet is not subject to time or place, and governments need to re-think the political because for too long the term community only included the public sphere, bemoaning the fact of media interference (www.humanities.uci.edu/mposter/writings/democ.html). The term community is not based on geographical location, but now also includes the internet as a community. The term ‘community’ on the internet details a person interests and affiliations. The term community is now a lot broader because an internet community now has the ability to span the whole globe.
In conclusion, the internet has seen a radical transition of the meanings such as the nation-state, and also the term community. Governments need to rethink the political because the internet has erased the limitations of time and place, and their publics and stakeholders now have the ability to span the globe. The internet in terms of democracy and the political needs to be re-thought as the internet forces “governments to keep their communication borders open” (Best & Wade 2009, p. 256). In conjunction to this The new term of ‘community’ and the power of the nation-state is changing because citizens now have access to all and any information at the click of a button. Because of this, the internet forces “governments to keep their communication borders open” (Best & Wade 2009, p. 256).
References
Best, L & Wade, K. (2009) The Internet and Democracy: Global Catalyst or Democratic Dud?
Bulliten of Science, Technology and Society, 29 (4), (pp. 255 – 271).
Corrales, J. (2002). Lessons from Latin America. In L. D. Simon
(Ed.), Democracy and the internet. (pp. 30-66).
Dahlgren, P (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation, Political Communcation. Taylor & Franics. 2 (pp. 147 – 162).
Hague, B & Loader B. (1999) Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. Routledge.
Porter, D (2001). Cyberdemocracy: The internet and the Public Sphere. New York and London: Routledge. (pp. 259).
Wilhelm, A. (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New York, Routlege.