Democracy and the Internet

By Hercules Bantas

Computer communication technologies, such as the Internet, are now integral to many democratic public spheres throughout the world. The often-asked question is how they impact upon the democratic process. Using several real world examples and the deliberative democracy theories of Rawls, Habermas, and Dryzek, this article-length book looks at how communication technology has influenced the political process and the effect it has had upon citizen power.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Hercules Bantas
• Release date: Nov 16, 2010
• ISBN: 9781452320205

Hercules Bantas

Dr Hercules Bantas has been teaching and reading the human sciences for the better part of a decade. It is his opinion that he is too often immersed in some weighty tome or other, the authors of which always use one thousand words where one hundred words would suffice. It was while juggling no less than three weighty tomes by the same author and trying to understand what the fellow was trying to say that the idea of The Reluctant Geek Guides was born. He is well aware that publishing clearly written and unambiguous guides to important ideas in the human sciences is frowned upon in some circles, but he's going to do it anyway. Despite his well documented grumpiness, Hercules claims to like people and can be contacted by email at reluctantgeek[at]tpg.com.au.

Book preview

Democracy and the Internet

Hercules Bantas

A Reluctant Geek Academic Guide

All other versions published by The Reluctant Geek

Melbourne, Australia

Copyright Hercules Bantas 2010

Author's Notes

Computer communication technologies, such as the Internet, have become very common in many democratic public spheres throughout the world. The often-asked question is how people can use them for political purposes. Using several real world examples and the deliberative democracy theories of Rawls, Habermas, and Dryzek, this guide answers that question, and shows just what effect they have on the power of citizens. Look out for other Reluctant Geek guides including Jürgen Habermas and Deliberative Democracy, John Rawls and Deliberative Democracy, John Dryzek and Deliberative Democracy, Deliberative Democracy Basics, Deliberative Democracy Essentials, Ricoeur's Hermeneutic Arc and the Internet, and The Propaganda Model and the Internet.

Cover image is of the World Citizen Badge by DasRakel from Wikimedia Commons.

Democracy and the Internet

This guide has two concurrent arguments. First, that computer mediated communication technologies, such as the internet, improves citizen power in a democratic public sphere. Second, that the presence of government power in a public sphere has an inverse relationship with citizen power improvements. The prevalent government power in a democratic public sphere, the lesser citizen power improvement through CMC, and vice versa. The discussion will use real world examples to highlight the benefits (or otherwise) of CMC use in three different public spheres taken from three contemporary theories of deliberative democracy: those of John Rawls, Jürgen Habermas, and John Dryzek. Steven Lukes (1974, 2005) will provide the definition of power for the discussion, and I will use Mark Poster's definition of interactivity, which narrows the term to refer explicitely to two way communication using computers (Poster, 1995, p. 33).

Lukes' outlines three dimensions of power in his definition (Lukes 1974, 2005). In one-dimensional power where actor A and actor B are in conflict, actor A decides on a course of action, and actor B complies with the decision. Two-dimensional power is exercised in power relationships between actors A and B in several ways. Coercion is at work when B complies with the wishes of A because of a threat of deprivation. Influence is exercised by A when A is able to change the course of action pursued by B without any tacit or overt threat of deprivation. A exercises authority when B complies with A because B recognises that A’s command ‘...is reasonable in terms of his own values’. A exercises force when A removes B’s choice of compliance or non-compliance. Finally, A manipulates B when B complies with A but is unaware of the exact nature of the source or demand made of him (2005, p. 21). The third dimension of power moves away from the individual and observable conflict and into the collective, where power is exercised through the dominator controlling the agenda and shaping the wants, needs, and desires of the dominated (2005, p.26) (for a more detailed discussion of Lukes three dimensions of power, refer to the Reluctant Geek guide Citizen Power and the Internet, and for a more detailed examination of Poster's discussions of the postmodern self and democracy, see the Reluctant Geek guide Democracy and Postmodern Identity).

Institutional Domination of the Public Sphere - John Rawls and CMC

In his deliberative democracy theory, Rawls isolates the political function of the public sphere, labelling it the public political forum, and then relegates what remains to the background culture. This has the effect of breaking the polity into two groups. The first group, who are agents of democratic institutions, is comprised of those who deliberate in the public political forum and are politically active - the officials. Those who do not deliberate in the public political sphere make up the second group, and they are politically passive except when voting at elections- the citizens.

There are three distinct arenas within this public political forum, and each arena is associated with a particular democratic institution (Rawls, 1999, p. 133). The first arena is the deliberation of judges when making judgments, especially judges involved in cases of constitutional importance, such as Supreme Court judges in the USA or High Court judges in Australia. The second arena within the public political forum is the discourse of government officials, especially elected representatives such as Senators and Congressmen in the USA or Senators and Members of Parliament in Australia. The third arena is the discourse of political candidates and their campaign managers. This forum allows citizens to judge political candidates and, subsequently, decide upon which candidate to support in an election. All other elements of the public sphere, the private sphere, and civil society are relegated to the background culture and do not play a direct part in the political process (for a more detailed discussion of Rawls' deliberative democracy theory, see the Reluctant Geek Guide John Rawls and Deliberative Democracy).

Much of the political power in Rawls’ deliberative theory is one-dimensional because actors resolve conflicts by decisions they make in the three arenas of the public political forum. In the judicial arena, judges decide on how to solve a problem and broadcast their decision and reasoning to those directly involved and the rest of the polity in their judgements. In the government official arena, government officials make decisions about regulations that other citizens must follow. In the candidate arena, candidates decide on an election platform in conflict with other candidates, and citizens, as a collective, decide which candidate wins office. Officials also improve their two-dimensional power in inter-official communication in both the judicial and government-official arenas, where they deliberate amongst themselves.

Communication Needs

For Rawls, political communication is conducted by officials in public forums, and by citizens via the voting process. As such, Rawls' public political forum has two distinct functions with distinct requirements. First, it must allow political deliberation between officials, which requires media that can accommodate one-to-one communication (discussion between appeal court