Teledemocracy Essay, Research Paper

Teledemocracy

” Rather than acting as a revolutionary tool rearranging political power and instigating direct democracy, the Internet is destined to become dominated by the same actors in American politics who currently utilize other mediums.” (Davis, 5) But how can one argue this point, how can this useful tool not affect democracy to the better? Dahl in his book On Democracy asserts that there are certain conditions and institutions that are necessary in order for a true democracy to be existent and be prosperous. But with the development and evolvement of information communications technologies (ICTs) such as the Internet, these institutions and condition of democracy will become negatively affected. This will occur because the dominant actors of politics of our time will get hold of even more control than they have had before on aspects of political matters and decisions, which in return, deters the public even more from becoming active in political life. Dahl’s required institution of having access to Alternative sources of information for having modern representative government and the condition deeply essential for this institution to be true, which is that of Democratic beliefs and political culture, are hindered by the internet because the access of this institution will become even less available than in the past. The institution of Associational autonomy and the condition necessary for it, is weak subcultural pluralism will also be negatively affected because of the internet for the reason that certain factions or groups can become more influential and can impose on others which in return will cause the lessening of the possible chance of encompassing Associational autonomy.

“Citizens have a right to seek out alternative and independent sources of information from other citizens, experts, newspapers, magazines, telecommunications, and the like. Moreover, alternative sources of information actually exist that are not under control of the government or any other single political group attempting to influence public political beliefs, and these alternative sources are effectively protected by law.” (Dahl 85) This is what is necessary for Dahl’s true democracy and with this concept the condition of Democratic beliefs and political culture is naturally needed. For Democratic political culture asserts that political differences and disagreements amongst citizens should not only be tolerated but also be protected. But is this concept truly possible in a time where the Internet is becoming most the prominent and used tool of and for information? When one searches for news on the Internet, what sources are sought? Well needless to say they either look for the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Time magazine, Los Angeles Times, BBC, CNN, and so on, for these are our trusty sources of news that we have always used. With the Internet, it is also only these sources that we not only trust to use, but these sources are the only ones we know to use. We want to use something we are familiar with and it is these companies and sources that we decide to use unconsciously. However, the same actors that control them on TV, newspapers, radio and so on, control these new ICTs also. Hence, the only information that will be received and read is the information that they would like us to read, which means in a sense that information is censored from alternative thought. The Internet’s rule and take over by the majority that had controlled our media and ideas beforehand, will only further the notion that Alexis de Tocqueville had made in his book, Democracy in America, “A majority taken collectively is only an individual whose opinions and frequently his interests, are opposed to those of another individual, who is styled a minority.” (Petracca 223) So this majority restrains the minority (i.e. alternative information) even more than other forms of telecommunication had inhibited before. The Internet is now barley allowing other alternative sources to come about and be heard.

With the use of ICTs, people will only seek to search for news and information of their own interest. Unlike when they would have to either watch other news or flip through other stories with other forms of communications (i.e. newspapers or newscasts on Television.) For if one is searching for news only concerning the Middle East or that of Africa, that is all that they will learn about. They will not be able to see or at least know some information of other issues occurring around the world and even in their own country. The problem with this concept is that for a true democracy to emerge, the government needs to be able to make these alternative sources easy to seek, which in turn brings forth Mill’s idea of every citizen acquiring knowledge and virtue. “The first element of good government, therefore, being the virtue and intelligence of the human beings composing, the most important point of excellence which any form of government can posses is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves.” (Mill 109) It is the Internet that stops this notion, for it is even harder to seek alternative information than even before, in that the people are not ready, let alone are not aware of other sites that would help them enhance their knowledge and intelligence required in a democracy. This is essential for Democracy because either current idea must prove alternative information as err or these alternative sources can bring forth a new and better knowledge to democracy and its people. Alternative sources in conclusion strengthen Democracy and this ICT impedes this strengthening necessary.

Associational Autonomy is what is critical for a true democracy. Citizens must have the right to from “relatively independent associations or organizations, including independent political parties and interest groups.” (Dahl 86) These obviously include our already set up political parties, interest groups, lobbyist and other forms of factions. But a condition is de rigueur for this institution to be controlled and not to be taken out of hand, that being the condition that Dahl states as weak subcultural pluralism. For not one group should be able to take control of political society and not one group should infringe their ideologies upon all the people of the democracy, for then this state would not be a democracy. ICTs will unquestionably negatively impinge on these aspects of democracy. ICTs will and are furthering the concept that Davis speaks of in his book, The Web of Politics, which is that; the Internet will become destined to be “dominated by the same actors in politics who currently use other mediums.” But not only will it bring about that state, these actors will have more power and control over the internet and will create stronger subcultural pluralism, which is the contradictory condition required for a democracy. “Hence the Internet becomes a new, more efficient tool primarily for an elite of already politically interested activists.” (Davis 183) The Internet is allowing dominant groups in our society to become even more dominant and is creating even more obstructions for the institution of Associational autonomies because subcultural pluralism is becoming stronger.

” The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas.” (Marx: Petracca 146) This assertion that Marx asserts in his book, The German Ideology, provides still more evidence that the Internet will give more access to the ruling class, which in this case is the dominating actors of politics, and will cause them to have the ruling ideas in the country. In a true democracy other ideas should be easily accessible and evident to the people. But the Internet only helps further subcultural pluralism and the power of these political actors. For when one is using the Internet, the concepts they are searching for are usually searched for in common and credible websites I myself admit to always only searching information on trusty and well-known web sites, such as the BBC and CNN. For other sites take too long to find and are not as reliable with their sources, in view of the fact that they may have false information and may not be accessible when attempting to go to them again.

The Internet provides information and is considered to be one of the most imperative features for people now seeking information. Yet, the Internet prevents the user in that it gives chance for the user to only “click” onto subjects that interest them and keeps them away from learning of other new subjects that they may have not ever known of. But the newspaper and TV in a sense forces them to this state, for it forces the reader or watchers to pass by other stories of interest which in turn causes them to learn new things, without taking any effort to search for it. Learning of new thoughts allows the individual to be well rounded in their intelligence and encourages them to become involved in other aspects of political or civic life.

Many have had high hopes for the Internet and its possibility of achieving true direct democracy, i.e. teledemocracy. “Teledemocracy means the use of modern information and communications technology (ICT) as instruments to empower the people of a democracy to help set agendas, establish priorities, make important policies and participate in their implementation.” (Keskinen) In a word, true teledemocracy is the use of ICTs to give the public leverage in self-governance. Put another way, it is the use of ICTs to help transform modern representative democracies into more participatory democracies. But all these visions are being overrated, for these visions can also have negative effects. The Internet will not and cannot really change the amount of people participating, for activists before will remain to be the same activists; for if people do not want to be genuinely politically involved, no one or any form of technology can really change this facet. For the Internet cannot suddenly transform people to become politically active.

So if teledemocracy cannot really be achieved and aspects of democracy (i.e. conditions and institutions) are affected negatively, what is the purpose of the Internet? The Internet if used properly can provide people with information they need, but these people that will make use of it, would only be the ones whom are politically active. Davis has foreseen that the Internet is not the key to direct democracy and is one of the first political writers to make this assertion. “The Internet is not a panacea four our political system’s flaws. Nor can it radically alter American’s traditional disinterest in politics. As a tool for direct democracy, the Internet, like its predecessors, will fail in that expected role.” (Davis 186) The Internet as a matter a fact may actually lessen participation and may put more dependence on the political activists that have control of political decisions and ideologies. Although the Internet may negatively affect our institutions and conditions that Dahl deems critical for maintenance of Democracy, this ICT is just another more complicated form of a telecommunication system (i.e. TV, radio, newspapers, etc.) that allows political activists of our time and times to come, greater access to information, which in result creates more politically committed activists.