Internet Use in Political Engagement

Preface

Public life today is very different compared to thirty years ago. In the past, the source of information about government was only limited to newspapers, books, television, radio, and human-to-human conversation. Now, everyone can find out what information he needs precisely and comprehensively as long as they are connected to the internet. In a democratic system, the internet is used to search policy information and political streams, conduct political discussions, supervise the government, criticize or express support for a policy. The digital era also has brought people to participate in governing, by providing advice through a deliberation process, especially those that are carried out online.

Tracing the benefits of the digital era, there is a lot of researches to examine how much the internet actually supports the public in obtaining political information and its contribution to becoming a tool in public engagement. Departing from that, this blog post will examine whether the internet can be a balancing tool for political information or just make the information-rich become richer, and how big is the link between the internet and in exposing people to politically dissimilar.

The rich become richer and people only hear what they want to hear?

As stated in Brundidge & Rice (2010), among observers, there are two opinions about internet use in providing equal information. The first is from the internet enthusiasts that stated that the medium could lead to increased political engagement and direct democracy, with a potential to reach young, isolated, and minority citizens; to weakened boundaries between the public and private sphere; and to an increase in direct links to policy-makers (Etzioni, 1997; Norris, 2001b; Porter, 1997; Rheingold, 1993). The other is respects those who have been more skeptical, stated that the internet is just widening the knowledge gap and digital divide.

Looking through New Zealand’s condition, in 2017, 79% New Zealanders connected to the internet (Internet NZ). From the Brundidge & Rice (2010), strengthened by digital divide reports by Stats NZ, the two main factors that determine household connectivity with the internet in New Zealand are the total household income and the qualifications of the family members of the household. From this data, we can see that not all residents use the internet to gain information.

If you only use the percentage data above, logically, household income and qualifications factors are actually enough to show that the internet is only used by people who have sufficient money and knowledge to gain information. The great use of the internet for households with high incomes shows that internet expenditure is still high or expensive so that only those who need it will try to connect with the internet. In terms of qualifications, the use of the internet shows that information gathering is carried out by people who are already rich in information and feel they continue to “need” additional new insights. Those who do not have high qualifications, on the contrary, feel no need for additional information related to matters outside the scope of their daily lives. Often, households with low incomes are accompanied by little education, which further widens the gap between knowledge and accessibility to the internet.

In addition to internet equality, another thing that has attracted the attention of researchers in the use of the internet in the democratic process is whether the internet influences people to be more open to information that is “different” from their political understanding. Some researchers, as cited in Brundidge & Rice (2010) mentioned that individuals actively search for information sources, which could lead them to exclusively expose themselves to information they have been searching for or information that seems particularly personally relevant (Bimber and Davis, Mutz and Martin, Glance). Further, Festinger (1957) mentioned when individuals are exposed to information that conflicts with their political belief systems, they become cognitively uncomfortable, which causes them to look for conforming messages and avoid conflicting messages.

New perspectives

To explore the relationship between internet use and exposure to political differences, using a national survey, an exploration in the New Zealand context has been conducted (Brundidge & Rice, 2010). In contrast to the previous view, the result that online discussions were significant influences on heterogeneous political talks. This finding shows that people’s activities on the internet not only depend on the search and click they do, but also other people’s different opinions in a discussion forum. This consciously or unconsciously read by them and engage them in divergent political views.

The second point, different from what the internet enthusiasts believed, the information-rich, at least in terms of how they are usually conceptualized, are not necessarily getting richer. This is not mean that the research said the rich do not get richer by further information, but, if linked with political participation, richer information is not very influential because those who have been exposed to political information are also those who are active in political participation. Internet use does not cause political participation to increase, although it helps provide political news that is easier, faster, and more comprehensive.

Another interesting point from the research is that e-engagement is actually more common among younger individuals. As digital natives, they are more flexible to read and accept different views compared to the boomers who already have a specific value (or certain political beliefs) that has been embraced for a long time. This point is also supported by the high use of the internet among young people, especially those who go to school. Stats NZ noted, fifty percent of households containing two children under the age of 15 were connected to the internet, while only one in three homes with no children were connected.

Talking about this young generation is complicated (Boyd, 2013). They use the internet almost every hour except when they sleep. They use it to browse, study, or just connect with friends. This activity is sometimes not understood by previous generations, namely parents. Parents always equate social media or say the internet as a bad thing and disrupt the learning activities of adolescents, as well as expose them to things that they don’t already know. However, looking at the results of research by Brundidge & Rice (2010), it turns out that the “dependency” of adolescents on the internet produces a positive thing in political engagement. They quickly obtain information, and more importantly, they are more open to different opinions. This means that in the future, online political participation has bright hopes for the percentage of public engagement, given the composition of citizens who will be filled by these digital natives.

References

Boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: the social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brundidge, J., & Rice, R. E. (2010). Political engagement online. 13.

Stats NZ. The Digital Divide. Retrieved from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/information_technology_and_communications/digital-divide/summary.aspx

Internet NZ. (2018). State of the Internet. Wellington, New Zealand: Internet Nz.