Untitled - socium.ge

The Internet and the political process 367balloting, and opinion polling, have not erased concerns about the limits ofdirect democracy (Wolfensberger, 2002; The Economist, 2003). Taking advantageof the benefits of Internet technology is particularly problematic forparliamentary bodies. As Wolfensberger (2002: 91) notes, “just because theinformation super-highway and deliberation are both two-way streets does notmean that they are perfectly integrated and compatible systems. In reality, theyoperate at radically different speeds.” Politicians recognize the usefulness ofthe Internet, but fear that depending on a public ill equipped to deliberate andmake decisions on complex issues will consume too much time and eroderepresentative democracy.Experiences such as frequent hacking of candidates’ sites, inaccurate onlinepolls, and low-quality or extreme discussions in chat rooms have turned bothpoliticians and the public away from political websites (Coleman and Hall,2001; Thompson, 2002). Distrust of the Internet is not helped by past flopssuch as Steve Forbes’s elaborate online presidential candidacy in 2000, whichdid nothing to prevent his dismal performance as a candidate. Adoption of newinformation and communication technology by the UK central governmenthas also been less efficient and influential than anticipated (Chadwick andMay, 2003).The above reasons explain why politicians are skeptical about using theInternet for serious political communication. But the successful use of themedium by politicians such as Jesse Ventura, as well as the incorporation ofInternet components into most political operations and programs, suggests thatthere are other, deep-rooted reasons for the current patterns of limited use.Some observers have pointed to the fact that politicians are unfamiliar with thetechnology (Coleman, 1999; Johnson, 2003). However, this argument has lessstrength after almost a decade of Internet use in politics and the availability ofa pool of trained Internet professionals.Rather, the problem may be the inability to understand what Internet politicsreally is and how it works. There is a great deal of uncertainty aboutwhich models of political communication are most effective on the web. Thecommunication model chosen is influenced by perceptions of the role of theInternet in politics. The predominance of a given communication model canbe partially explained by the perception of Internet politics as dealing mainlywith acquiring information to make decisions during campaigns and elections(Agre, 2002; Anderson, 2003). Hence, online political campaigns focusmore on the provision of the candidate’s position on issues and less on othertypes of participation, such as organizing demonstrations, contacting officials,and building relationships around individuals and organizations(Anderson, 2003). This is in line with the dominant political paradigm(managerial model of state/citizen interaction), which prioritizes efficiencyof internal organizational activities and linear provision of information to