Media, Technology, and Democracy (Faiz Jan) The development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), especially the

Internet, has divided opinion about their impact on democracy in terms of civic engagement. On one side of the divide are technological determinists who see an increased and positive association between political participation and the Internet (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal 2008). On the other side are those who look at the Internet as a controlling tool, which is redistributing power from the powerless to the powerful (Pariser 2011; Hindman 2009; & Davis 2010). They see a disconnect between actual political decisions and the potential of voices circulated via the Internet. They are called social determinists. In between technological and social determinists are those for whom the Internet is a double-edged sword: it holds a promise of civic engagement in governance as well as an infrastructural bias against the common people (Coleman, Blumler 2009; & Gladwell 2010). However, there are no two opinions about the fact that the Internet has the potential to expedite a social and political change spurred by issues of day-to-day governance and peoples dissatisfaction with matters of economics. The Internets potential for enhancing civic engagement also leads to greater participation in democratic politics. The Arab Spring, which set off a democratic wave that swept away three dictators so far, give testimony to the power of the new social media and a new kind of social activism. Occupy the Wall Street protests, that have now spread across the Europe, is an example of grassroots action focused almost exclusively on public expression, the communication of

opinions and preferences that focus on Wall Street but that have global implications and linkages. The use of social media by protestors to challenge the power of autocrats has reinvented social activism. Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools (Gladwell 2010). The power of social media lies in their ability to connect people, who have a common cause or grievance, into a public sphere where they can share their views at personal, communal, public, and civic levels (Shirky 2010). Social media bring increased, though loose, coordination in a short time to call for a change. Democracy cannot function without a vibrant public sphere. The theory of deliberative democracy argues that the media do not have a direct relationship with political participation. Instead, the media only provide topics that stimulate social discourse, which is the mechanism that influences political activities. This theory predicts that the Internet should facilitate political participation through opportunities for individuals to meet and take part in discourse (Mossberger, Tolbert, & McNeal 2008). These authors, who studied the effects of chat rooms, e-mails, and online news in the U.S., conclude that the Internet fosters participation in three ways: by offering information to help make informed decisions and promote discussion, by supplying outlets such as chat rooms that permit individuals to meet and discuss politics, and by providing interest groups, candidates, and parties a means for mobilization through e-mails. Mossberger, Tolber, and McNeal take a quantitative approach while measuring the role of the Internet in informing, mobilizing, and igniting a social discourse among the people. However, they fail to take certain factors into account, which, if taken care of, could give a different picture. These factors are: digital divide, literacy in general, and media 2

literacy. In any country not everyone is literate enough to use the new digital media; and where people are literate, not everyone has equal access to the Internet. Even if they have access to the Internet, like in China, they may not have equal access to information on the Net. We see on daily basis the Internets ability to connect people with each other, but there appears less enthusiasm about its potential for reconnecting political elites to citizens. Davis (2010) says there appear to be several aspects of the Internet, which may actually be hindering the very public sphere ideal of public participation, and engagement aspired to. Internet use by ordinary citizens is predominantly consumer and leisure, rather than politically, oriented. Davis says that the Internet is neither widening nor deepening political participation or engagement between citizens and political leaders (p. 747). In this age of the Internet common people can consume, distribute, and create their own content without government control. Governments are no more the centers of power that directly control the flow of information. With the advent of the Internet this power shifted from the government, but not to the people. Instead, it concentrated in big companies like Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft that represent new loci of power. These companies multinational character makes them resistant to some forms of regulation, but they can also offer one-stop shopping for the governments seeking to influence information flows (Pariser 2011). By controlling or hobnobbing with the few big companies, governments can influence the flow of information. A case in point is China, which had forced Yahoo! to reveal the location of a prodemocracy dissident who had been e-mailing against the regime.

Most of the censoring gadgets have been provided to China by these big companies, while NewsCorp, a multinational media company, removed the BBC from its satellite service to appease the Communist regime in China and save its business deal (Hanson 2008). This supports Earls and Kimperts (2011) assertion that technologies dont inevitably lead to specific social or political changes. Instead, peoples uses of technologies lead to social and political changes. Thus those in the position of power are likely to shape the adoption and implementation of a new information and communication system in such a way that it serves to enhance rather than undermine their power (Chadwik 2006). Similarly, Hindman (2009) says the Internet is not eliminating exclusivity in political life; instead it is shifting the bar of exclusivity from the production to the filtering of political information. Hindman takes a social deterministic perspective on the role of the Internet in hindering democracy. He says the infrastructure of politics has determined the infrastructure of the Internet in such a way that common people speak but very few of them are heard, and that powerful hierarchies shape the Internet. Web sites, which are heavily linked, get more hits than those with few links. Similarly search engines guide and powerfully limit most users online search behavior. Hindmans argument that powerful hierarchies shape the Internet is supported by Gladwell (2010) who also takes a social deterministic stand when he says that instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are of the view that social media create networks, which are without hierarchy, and this is their weakness because they cannot take on powerful establishments without having a hierarchy of their own. 4

Because of having no hierarchy and being virtual, movements driven by social media are ephemeral. As Aelst and Walgrave suggest there is little evidence that the Internet is becoming a substitute for traditional form of protest. However, the point that these writers miss is that social media [or for that matter, the Internet] are not considered to be replacement of interpersonal networks. Instead, they are considered as new tools that can enhance, expedite and sustain interpersonal networks. These networks revitalize the public sphere where people interact with each other and with those who make policies on their behalf in a deliberative form of democracy. These networks have now become global in nature taking the form of a global civil society. If a global civil society exists, there must be a global public sphere, which makes the governments responsible and accountable not only to its own citizens, but also to the citizens of the globe at large. German sociologist Jrgen Habermas was the first to articulate the concept of the public sphere, defined as the process by which citizens, civil society and the state communicate with each other, especially on issues of political concern. Public opinion emerges in this public sphere, which lies between the state and society, to influence and shape policies of the state. It is an arena which is synonymous to the notion of the marketplace of ideas, and where the strength of the argument counts, not the status of the speaker. According to Habermas, the Public sphere is an abiding part of a democratic polity, which provides oxygen to the system for its functioning and growth. The structure and mode of operation of the public sphere defines the structure of a polity. How the public sphere is constituted and how it operates largely defines the structure and dynamics of any given polity, writes theorist Manuel Castells (2008). 5

Without a functioning public sphere the states interaction with the public is reduced to the relatively brief periods surrounding elections. Though election participation is a hallmark of representative democracy, without a functioning public sphere, the government, corporations, and interest groups remain unaccountable to the people. The new social media has now made it possible for global civil society to make big corporations, which are beyond the control of a single country because of their multinational character, accountable. We see the global civil society and a global public sphere in action in the U.S. and across Europe which have lined up against the greed of international financial institutions which are based in a few countries but have global implications. This new and spontaneous activism has been made possible by the new social media. But the success of this global activism depends on interpersonal character of bonding of the small local or national networks that have coalesced at global level. Otherwise left to the technology this public sphere will become just less relevant (Pariser 2011). Just like its past, the future of democracy is dependent upon an active public sphere. No change is possible without a strong public sphere, which always precedes any economic or political change. Clay Shirky (2010) looks at the new social media as a helping tool for expanding and revitalizing public sphere. He is enthusiastic about the positive role of the new social media, but at the same time does not believe the Internet per se would bring democratic revolutions across the globe. The potential of social media lies mainly in their support of civil society and the public sphere, and a vibrant public sphere makes social media more effective (Shirky 2010).

Do digital tools enhance democracy? Yes, they do. But the success of social media should not be judged in the short term; they effect a change in the long-term. By enhancing and strengthening the public sphere, new social media challenge the power and pave the way for a democratic change. It means that if there is no public sphere, social media themselves cannot bring a lasting change. Thus new social media has a supporting role in promoting democracy, unlike the view of technological determinists who think that the mere presence of new digital tools can herald a democratic change. Shirky says that the power of social media lies in their ability to coordinate and thats why authoritarian governments try to stifle communication among their citizens. One of the ways governments try to subvert this people-to-people coordination is the filter bubble (Pariser 2011). In the filter bubble the public sphere is sorted, fragmented by design, and hostile to dialogue. Conclusion: Technology changes the shape and character of media, which has serious implications for democracy. New social media do not pose a direct challenge to authoritarian regimes, but by enhancing the scope of public sphere they can challenge established power. The strength of new social media lies in its capacity of developing a horizontal coordination among citizens, which can offset the fragmentation effect of the traditional mass media that is in the control of either big corporations or authoritarian regimes. However, new social media work in an environment where non-state actors have become more powerful than the states themselves. These corporations have become established hierarchies, while digital activism create weak ties without hierarchy. There is

a need for more research into how these weak ties created by new social media can be converted into strong ties and sustained enough to challenge established hierarchies. Not only common citizens with democratic aspirations use social media, non-state actors who are driven by particular ideologies also use them to cloud the atmosphere. In the words of George Gerbner, power does not lie in tools themselves. Those who tell the stories of a culture really govern human behavior. This brings up the issue of narrative. Those whose narrative dominates the mass media win this war of information. There is a need for more research on how to effectively use new social media for snatching narrative from terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, especially in the Arab and Muslim world, and sell the narrative of rational reasoning that should resonate in the global public sphere. References: Chadwick, A. (2006). Internet Politics: Some Conceptual Tools, from Internet Politics: States, Citizens, and New Communication Technologies. London: Oxford University Press. Coleman, S. & Blumler, J. (2009). E-Democracy from Below, from The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice, and Policy. London: Cambridge University Press. Davis, A. (2010). New Media and Fat Democracy: the Paradox of Online Participation. New Media & Society, 12: 745. Earl, J. & Kimport, K. (2011). Where Have We Been and Where are We Headed? In Digitally Enabled Social Change: Activism in the Internet Age. Boston: MIT Press. Gladwell, M. (Oct. 4, 2010). Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted. In The New Yorker. Hanson, E. (2008). The Information Revolution and World Politics. Mayland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Hindman, M. (2009). The Myth of Digital Democracy. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 616(1): 79-93. Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C., & McNeal, R. (2008). The Benefits of Society Online: Political Participation, from Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation. Boston: MIT Press. Shirky, C. (2010). Cognitive Surplus: How Technology Makes Consumers into Collaborators. London: Penguin Books. Shirky, C. (2010). The Political Power of Social Media: Technology, the Public Sphere, and Political Change. In Foreign Affairs, 90 (1), 28. Pariser, E. (2011). The Filter Bubble: What the Internet is Hiding from You. London: Penguin Books.