The vulnerable potential of the internet

It is exceedingly difficult to have confidence in mass-mediated political communication as a force to reverse disengagement and revive democracy. The disjunctures and problems of the crises of participation and trust, rooted as they are in multi-dimensional social, political, economic and demographic transformations over the post-war period, are too profound to be overcome through the mainstream media. The means at their disposal are too weak, and too compromised by non-civic and anti-civic influences, to make significant inroads into the present malaise.

Philip Gould says that if we want to change democratic politics, we have first ‘to forge a new settlement between politicians and the press.’ Fat chance, we’re inclined to respond, even despite recent steps by the British Government to create more open and less adversarial relations with the press. Many thoughtful politicians are genuinely concerned about the malaise. ‘We must learn,’ they say, ‘to find different ways of speaking to the people.’ But their chances of doing that refreshingly and effectively are poor in a media-constructed public sphere, which

1. is dominated by ever-more interpretive journalists rather than politicians;
2. is full of references to ‘their’ (that is, politicians) ‘spinning’ intentions and practices;
3. is full of interrogations and comments, which presume that politicians are guilty of deception and scandalous conduct until proven innocent;
4. is full of seized opportunities to show that they are failing to solve any and all of the host of economic and social problems to which our increasingly complex, individualistic and fragmented societies are increasingly prone;
5. is full of overly familiar and unappetising routines, which are not withstanding and may be fostering the emergence of mainstream apathy.

In the face of all this, it has been natural for scholars, activists and others concerned with the future of democratic politics to consider whether the new media could enhance public communications and help to revive democracy. Perhaps – drawing on their interactive and information storing features – they could be used to promote new and more meaningful exchanges between politicians, grappling with difficult problems of modern society, and citizens with relevant experiences, insights and views to offer.

But new interactive media, such as the internet, have only a vulnerable potential to enhance public communications and revive democracy. Nothing is guaranteed. Left to their own devices, new media may follow quite other paths of development and even replay the disappointing scenarios that have shaped the fates of previous ‘new media’ (radio, television, cable TV, etc.), in which civic hopes were also heavily invested. Technology, after all, is democratically neutral; it depends on how it is used, especially by those, such as multinational media conglomerates, in a position to influence usage by others. Not all the big players in the new media game will be out to boost citizenship!

1. In fact, the civic promise of new media is vulnerable to a range of potentially deflecting forces:
2. Their absorption into a television model of communications – dominated by big media conglomerates, keen to make cyberspace first and foremost a home for money-spinning entertainment-based services.
3. Elitism – or takeover of new-media-based political channels mainly by the voices of already politically active and interested citizens.
4. Quick political fixes – such as opinion polling, referenda and plebiscitary democracy without investment in the provision of relevant information, expert analyses, chances to interrogate them, and chances to exchange views, which would make the outcomes worth listening too.
5. Instrumentalism and tokenism – or the danger that consultations over interactive media may be, or may seem to be, designed primarily to serve the political, managerial or public relations needs of those in power.
6. Confinement to the mobilisation of dissent. (Certainly the internet seems to have strengthened the ability of dispersed non-elites to gather and concert their forces of protest. But there are non-elites and non-elites –protesters against world poverty and supporters of fox hunting! Depending on one’s political position, we may welcome this use of new media when the causes we approve of gain more leverage as a result. But the other side of this coin could be greater fragmentation of the structure of civic engagement, more cacophony and less coherence in the public sphere.)

For the new media to become a significantly invigorating force for democracy, a policy intervention that is both visionary and practical is needed. Their democratic potential must be entrenched and institutionalised on a firm polity-wide scale. In short, we should aim to forge a ‘civic commons in cyberspace’ – looked after by a responsible public agency. Such a commons should be conceived as an open-ended, institutionally backed extension of people’s opportunities to contribute to public policy on those matters that specifically concern them – an extension which would grow in involvement and influence to the degree that those opportunities are taken up and used by all concerned – ultimately becoming part of our democratic furniture.

A historical analogy is relevant here. In the 1920s, Europeans decided that public service broadcasting organisations were essential if the new medium of radio was to serve public purposes. Today, an area of the internet should be given over to a quite new public service framework, designed to enable and organise consultation and deliberation between citizens and political institutions over issues of public policy – as well as to develop, promote and circulate best practices in such matters. In other words, a new agency, publicly funded but independent from government, should be created to encourage and report upon a wide range of exercises in electronic democracy. Its remit could be ‘to foster new forms of public involvement in civic affairs through interactive and other appropriate means.’ The agency would be charged to elicit, gather and coordinate citizens’ deliberations upon and reactions to problems faced and proposals issued by public bodies (ranging from local authorities to parliaments and government departments), which would then be expected – as an obligation of the process – to react formally to whatever emerges from the public discussion.

Five keys to the use of new media for increasing public engagement in the policy process underlie this proposal:

1. Be radical, not utopian. The steps taken must be big enough to make a real and visible difference to the conduct of democratic politics – but in a fully feasible way.
2. Be democratically meaningful. Eliciting public participation must be something more than just going through the motions. It must be evident that public authorities have listened, understood, and taken into account what has emerged from the process.
3. Be credible and respect-worthy. The activities of the proposed new body should combine the virtues of amateurism – creativity, enthusiasm, commitment and idealism – with those of professionalism – especially thoroughness of pre-planning, organisation, carry-through, summarising of results, as well as after-the-fact evaluations.
4. Be publicly funded but politically independent. If electronic democracy is government-organised, its agenda may be weighted too heavily to, and its outcomes may be too heavily interpreted in terms of, government concerns. E-democracy should be run not by government but by civil society.
5. Be designed for ‘selective inclusiveness’. Although in a viable participatory democracy, everything would no longer be left to determination by representatives, elites, interest groups and experts, neither should it aim for Athens writ large, in which everybody would be expected to have a say on everything all the time. Without excluding anyone keen to take part, involvement in the envisaged exercises would ideally be doubly targeted: on the one hand, to elicit the views of those with relevant experience of and involvement in the topic concerned; and, on the other hand, to help bring to the table the kinds of people who are often left out of the debate because they lack the competencies needed to gain a voice.

Finally, the border-transcending capabilities of the internet should be utilised for progress towards supra-national democracy. Supra-national institutions and a supra-national parliament are already familiar features of Europe’s political landscape. There is no reason, therefore, why a European cyber-commons could not be established. And if such an attempt was seen to add a fresh democratic dimension to the politics of Europe, ways of realising its broader global potential could be actively considered. It might thus add a positive political entry to the pro and con balance sheet of the processes of globalisation.

If through new media we are to start down the road of participatory democracy, we will have to learn as we go. And that is why the brief of any new agency should be regarded as exploratory and developmental and why its activities should be conceived as a cumulative civic learning experience assessed and re-evaluated periodically with a view to its enhancement.