Untitled - socium.ge
Untitled - socium.ge Untitled - socium.ge
The Internet and the political process 365of political actors is broadened, new avenues of collective mobilization mayappear, and a different format of debate may take place, transforming the politicalscene that had been framed by the one-way communication systems of themass media era. This is the hypothesis that we will try to explore in this chapter,grounded on observation of political trends and on available literature onthe topic.In view of the analytical purpose of our study, we will be focusing only onthe United States and on the United Kingdom (the societies in which moststudies on the matter are available) in the hope that our approach can beusefully applied to other contexts. As an additional caveat, we do not implythat all politics can be reduced to formal politics. For us, politics includes allsocial processes that relate to the exercise of power relationships in society,regardless of their institutional and organizational context. Formal politicsrefers to the processes of representation, deliberation, and decision-making inthe constitutionally designated institutions of political authority. We also focuson the process of accessing institutions of governance (leaving aside issues ofso-called e-government); that is, the management of public administration andthe practice of government under the networked paradigm. Our concern in thischapter is to investigate the emerging interaction between people and democracyin the process of political representation in the new form of networkedpublic space constituted by the Internet.THE USES OF THE INTERNET IN THE POLITICALPROCESSWell into the twenty-first century, the Internet is no longer an exotic politicalmedium. The first thing most political candidates do upon declaring theircandidacy is to set up a website. Parliaments and government agencies aroundthe world are gradually moving their activities online. However, despite thisexpansion of online political communication, there has been little real changein the structure and conduct of formal politics. Expectations of increaseddeliberation and interaction between citizens and politicians have not beenmet, as the Internet has been used largely to facilitate a one-way flow of informationfrom politicians to the public (Norris, 2002; The Economist, 2003;Johnson, 2003; Levine, 2003; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2003;Ward et al., 2003).Like the traditional media, the Internet is most valued by politicians as atool for disseminating information to the media and the public at large,although it is also uniquely effective in mobilizing voters and enhancing interaction.Even so, Internet users are often unable to find the kind of politicalinformation they want, such as comparative information, explanation of voting
366 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellsrecords, and campaign finance (Browning, 2001; Pew Internet and AmericanLife Project, 2003). Available information may be superficial (Levine, 2003),non-analytical (Wolfensberger, 2002), or, in some cases, high quality but notuser friendly (Coleman, 1999). Studies of online political campaigns in the USand UK conclude that most campaigns use the Internet as an “electronicbrochure” (Kamarck, 2002: 89).Despite indications of the Internet’s effectiveness in mobilizing voters (forexample, Jesse Ventura’s success in the 1998 Minnesota gubernatorial election),by 2002 there was still limited mobilization online. Internet users weremore energized by websites offering political humor than by those of officialcampaigns (Coleman, 2001; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2003).In the UK, only 38 percent of political sites allowed visitors to join up online,and this usually involved using off-line methods such as mailing downloadedapplications (Ward et al., 2003).Politicians are also generally reluctant to engage actively with their publicson- or off-line (Browning, 2001; Gibson et al., 2003; Levine, 2003). For example,less than a third of UK political sites examined by Ward and co-workers(2003) had interactive capabilities, and during the 2002 US elections, Internetportals such as Yahoo!, AOL, and MSN provided more tools for analysis andinteraction than campaign sites did (Pew Internet and American Life Project,2003). Where politicians have tried to interact with Internet users, the opennessof such forums is questionable (Gibson et al., 2003). Although closure ofthe US House and Senate offices after the September 11 attacks spurred a morecentral role for the Internet in Congress, members still have an ambivalent attitudetoward the medium (Wolfensberger, 2002). Overall, widespread acceptanceof the Internet as a tool for political campaigns and programs has nottranslated into a more open and participatory political process.THE POLITICAL LIMITS OF INTERNET-BASED POLITICSThe limited exploitation of the democratic capabilities of the Internet by politicianscan be attributed to perceptions of the Internet or to the characteristics,preferences, and motivations of politicians. Generally speaking, few politicianssee the Internet as a force to be reckoned with. They perceive the Internetas “little more than a big electronic auditorium where millions of peoplegather to spout off much like high-school kids in a civics class – but nonethelesshave little actual impact on the crafting of policies that govern them”(Browning, 2001: 13), thus underestimating the democratizing potential of themedium.On the flipside of this is a general distrust of public engagement in politics.Increasing use of direct political methods, such as protest politics, direct
- Page 336 and 337: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 338 and 339: e-health networks and social transf
- Page 340 and 341: 14. Narrowing the digital divide: t
- Page 342 and 343: The US community technology movemen
- Page 344 and 345: The US community technology movemen
- Page 346 and 347: The US community technology movemen
- Page 348 and 349: community issues, access advanced t
- Page 350 and 351: The US community technology movemen
- Page 352 and 353: The US community technology movemen
- Page 354 and 355: The US community technology movemen
- Page 356 and 357: The US community technology movemen
- Page 358 and 359: The US community technology movemen
- Page 360: PART VINetworked social movements a
- Page 363 and 364: 342 Jeffrey S. JurisFollowing Fredr
- Page 365 and 366: 344 Jeffrey S. Jurisactions and cou
- Page 367 and 368: 346 Jeffrey S. Juristime. 13 Some h
- Page 369 and 370: 348 Jeffrey S. JurisZapatistas were
- Page 371 and 372: 350 Jeffrey S. Juriscollectives aga
- Page 373 and 374: 352 Jeffrey S. JurisVisibly impassi
- Page 375 and 376: 354 Jeffrey S. Juriselements. Colin
- Page 377 and 378: 356 Jeffrey S. Jurisorganizations.
- Page 379 and 380: 358 Jeffrey S. JurisNOTES1. Moving
- Page 381 and 382: 360 Jeffrey S. JurisMRG,’ which w
- Page 383 and 384: 362 Jeffrey S. JurisPolanyi, Karl (
- Page 385: 364 Araba Sey and Manuel CastellsIn
- Page 389 and 390: 368 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellsci
- Page 391 and 392: 370 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellssw
- Page 393 and 394: 372 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellspa
- Page 395 and 396: 374 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellssu
- Page 397 and 398: 376 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellsch
- Page 399 and 400: 378 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellsso
- Page 401 and 402: 380 Araba Sey and Manuel CastellsCo
- Page 404: PART VIIThe culture of the network
- Page 407 and 408: 386 Imma Tubellacultural and sociol
- Page 409 and 410: 388 Imma Tubellaand through symboli
- Page 411 and 412: 390 Imma TubellaStates. During the
- Page 413 and 414: 392 Imma TubellaIn Galicia, autonom
- Page 415 and 416: 394 Imma Tubellarooms, including fi
- Page 417 and 418: 396 Imma Tubellaunderstand the choi
- Page 419 and 420: 398 Imma Tubellainteraction which i
- Page 421 and 422: 400 Imma TubellaFerguson, M. (1995)
- Page 423 and 424: 18. Globalization, identity, and te
- Page 425 and 426: 404 Anshu ChatterjeeIndian entrepre
- Page 427 and 428: 406 Anshu ChatterjeeThese enterpris
- Page 429 and 430: 408 Anshu Chatterjeerestricted area
- Page 431 and 432: 410 Anshu Chatterjeepenetration rat
- Page 433 and 434: 412 Anshu Chatterjeeproduced instit
- Page 435 and 436: 414 Anshu ChatterjeePunjabi TV face
The Internet and the political process 365of political actors is broadened, new avenues of collective mobilization mayappear, and a different format of debate may take place, transforming the politicalscene that had been framed by the one-way communication systems of themass media era. This is the hypothesis that we will try to explore in this chapter,grounded on observation of political trends and on available literature onthe topic.In view of the analytical purpose of our study, we will be focusing only onthe United States and on the United Kingdom (the societies in which moststudies on the matter are available) in the hope that our approach can beusefully applied to other contexts. As an additional caveat, we do not implythat all politics can be reduced to formal politics. For us, politics includes allsocial processes that relate to the exercise of power relationships in society,regardless of their institutional and organizational context. Formal politicsrefers to the processes of representation, deliberation, and decision-making inthe constitutionally designated institutions of political authority. We also focuson the process of accessing institutions of governance (leaving aside issues ofso-called e-government); that is, the mana<strong>ge</strong>ment of public administration andthe practice of government under the networked paradigm. Our concern in thischapter is to investigate the emerging interaction between people and democracyin the process of political representation in the new form of networkedpublic space constituted by the Internet.THE USES OF THE INTERNET IN THE POLITICALPROCESSWell into the twenty-first century, the Internet is no lon<strong>ge</strong>r an exotic politicalmedium. The first thing most political candidates do upon declaring theircandidacy is to set up a website. Parliaments and government a<strong>ge</strong>ncies aroundthe world are gradually moving their activities online. However, despite thisexpansion of online political communication, there has been little real chan<strong>ge</strong>in the structure and conduct of formal politics. Expectations of increaseddeliberation and interaction between citizens and politicians have not beenmet, as the Internet has been used lar<strong>ge</strong>ly to facilitate a one-way flow of informationfrom politicians to the public (Norris, 2002; The Economist, 2003;Johnson, 2003; Levine, 2003; Pew Internet and American Life Project, 2003;Ward et al., 2003).Like the traditional media, the Internet is most valued by politicians as atool for disseminating information to the media and the public at lar<strong>ge</strong>,although it is also uniquely effective in mobilizing voters and enhancing interaction.Even so, Internet users are often unable to find the kind of politicalinformation they want, such as comparative information, explanation of voting