DIGITAL DEMOCRACY

By Yamunna Ramakrishna Rao

September 13, 2020

Demanding all hands onboard

In democracies, policymaking is ‘designed to aggregate preferences into binding collective decisions’ because citizens are expected to play an active role in the governance process (Dalton & Klingemann, 2009, p. 13). After all, legitimate decisions can only be reached after amassing and negotiating the different positions that are represented, subject to institutional and structural limitations.

Typically, citizens are expected to make their preferences public to facilitate deliberation and collective decision making. While the democratic system expects an ‘active willingness to influence the constraints’ of the democratic institutions on the part of the citizens, there is equal emphasis on building institutions within which these participatory aspects of governance unfold (March & Olsen, 1995).

Quick and Bryson emphasise the need for the state to undertake ‘stakeholder analysis’ and actively manage conflict and power differentials so as to facilitate ‘active negotiation’ to build inclusive institutional practices (2016, p. 162). Another important role the state takes up is to design and implement empowerment and solidarity oriented policies (Snower, 2019). By way of such policies, it is expected that citizens’ ‘access to and immersion in a particular set of norms which develop certain habits of mind and body over the long term’ will generate the necessary social capital to that make them engaged and prepared participants within the communities they identify with (Parvin, 2018, p. 39).

Drawing people together

Digital platforms are fertile ground for citizens who are disenchanted with traditional and formal forms of engagement but still seek to participate meaningfully (Yue, Nekmat, & Beta, 2019). With the proliferation of the Internet and the advent of new media, citizens have increased their reliance on digital platforms to gather information as well as take collective action. They have adopted new forms of engagement and participation which are considered more suitable and in alignment with the values and goals espoused by modernisation and prosperity (Dalton & Klingemann, 2009; Meijer & Thaens, 2010).

As individuals become more attuned to the needs and problems in their society, they sharpen their understanding of their roles, responsibilities and capabilities to contribute towards their communities (Clark, 2017). Their heightened sense of concern and civic responsibility generates personal value and satisfaction which justifies the time and effort they invest to track updates on policy issues that matter the most to them.

Debating the quality of digital governance

Digital tools for participation have decreased the ‘need for physical proximity’ to conduct meaningful exchanges and engagement without impairing the development of trusting relations (Hooghe & Oser, 2015, p. 1180). Technology has ‘transformed the character of social capital building’ while preserving the fundamental elements of communicative interaction that are needed for social relations to flourish, identities to be built and inclusive participation to be fostered (Dalton & Klingemann, 2009, p. 14; Kösters & Jandura, 2019). Technology has bridged the time and space divide.

Although citizens’ active participation is functionally important in fulfilling their responsibilities as democratic citizens, the procedural quality of governance is arguably more critical for effective policymaking.

The theory of issue specialists posits that individuals’ increased reliance on new technological platforms has increased the number of specialist-type citizens who are concerned about specific issues while avoiding content that does not pique their interest (Jang & Park, 2013). This problematises the efficiency gains argument because, in balance, new technologies have created citizens who have evolved from ‘content consumer to content prosumer’; they selectively seek, consumer and produce information of high personal salience to ‘economise their investment’ in the decision making process (Dalton & Klingemann, 2009, p. 5; Jang & Park, 2013; Ronchi, 2019, p. 12).

Its effect is underscored by the observation that technology ‘atomises and alienates’ people whose shrinking social circles makes it challenging for them to deliberate on policies publicly (Dalton & Klingemann, 2009; Snower & Bosworth, 2016). Both the lack of interest as well as inadequate trusting relations explain the political disengagement of issue specialists and thereby, the failure to facilitate meaningful interaction and participation. On a pragmatic note, some interest is still better than none at all. The opportunities and the voice of specialist-type citizens ought not be discredited in the participatory processes.

Due to differences in resource endowments, income inequality is manifested in the widening ‘participation gap between lower status groups and higher-status individuals’ (Dalton & Klingemann, 2009, p. 15). Individuals perceive their relatively lower status and power differentials as barriers to enter and engage in participatory spaces (Fischer, 2009). Lastly, the lack of ‘rules that govern such [online] exchanges’, which Fischer describes as ‘soft or mushy’, places further constraints on public participation to be seriously considered as an epistemological tool that could and ought to inform policymaking (2009, p. 110).

Designing inclusive spaces

The true cost of becoming a well-informed individual with the requisite capability and capacity to participate in collective decision making processes is substantial – there are associated risks which threaten to undermine the benefits of participatory governance. Without recognising the limitations of online participatory spaces, pushing ahead with the digital participation agenda is reckless and only serves to undermine the procedural quality of governance.

Doing democracy digitally is a call to action and a work in progress. The pursuit of democratic ideals is unceasing. Curiosity and inquisitiveness will show the way forward. Doing democracy digitally mirrors the hopes and aspirations of the future - one that is vibrant, active and inclusive.

References

Clark, N. (2017). Explaining Political Knowledge: The Role of Procedural Quality in an Informed Citizenry. Political Studies, 65(1), 61–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321716632258

Dalton, R. J., & Klingemann, H. D. (2009). Citizens and Political Behavior. In R. J. Dalton & H. D. Klingemann (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0001

Fischer, F. (2009). Democracy and Expertise. Democracy and Expertise: Reorienting Policy Inquiry. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199282838.001.0001

Hooghe, M., & Oser, J. (2015). Internet, television and social capital: the effect of ‘screen time’ on social capital. Information, Communication & Society, 18(10), 1175–1199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2015.1022568

Jang, S., & Park, Y. (2013). The Citizen as Issue Specialists in a Changing Media Environment. Future Internet, 5(4), 568–579. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi5040568

Kösters, R., & Jandura, O. (2019). A Stratified and Segmented Citizenry? Identification of Political Milieus and Conditions for their Communicative Integration. Javnost - The Public, 26(1), 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13183222.2018.1554845

March, J. G., & Olsen, J. P. (1995). Prospects for Governance. In Democratic Governance (pp. 241–252). New York: Free Press.

Meijer, A., & Thaens, M. (2010). Alignment 2.0: Strategic use of new internet technologies in government. Government Information Quarterly, 27(2), 113–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2009.12.001

Parvin, P. (2018). Democracy Without Participation: A New Politics for a Disengaged Era. Res Publica, 24(1), 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-017-9382-1

Quick, K. S., & Bryson, J. M. (2016). Public participation. In C. Ansell & J. Torfing (Eds.), Handbook on Theories of Governance (pp. 158–169). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Ronchi, A. M. (2019). e-Citizens: Toward a New Model of (Inter)active Citizenry. Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00746-1

Snower, D. J. (2019). A new societal contract. Economics: The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal, 13, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5018/economics-ejournal.ja.2019-37

Snower, D. J., & Bosworth, S. J. (2016). Identity-Driven Cooperation versus Competition. American Economic Review, 106(5), 420–424. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.p20161041

Yue, A., Nekmat, E., & Beta, A. R. (2019). Digital literacy through digital citizenship: Online civic participation and public opinion evaluation of youth minorities in Southeast Asia. Media and Communication, 7(2 Critical Perspectives), 100–114. https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v7i2.1899