New Forms of Direct Democracy in the Digital Era

Democracy is a form of government in which the people have the authority to choose their governing legislation (Wikipedia). A direct demonstration is processed in which questions of policy are decided directly by voters (Reedy & Wells, as cited in Chadwick, 2008). In the past, when using a manual system (people came and participated), engaging voters was tough because of the vast territory and the high cost incurred, now the government has been assisted by digital technology to embrace all its people. Not only do vote through presidential elections or representatives online, but the public can also contribute since the beginning of formulating policy, through online deliberation. Along the way the governance, citizens can easily oversee the steps of the government, criticize it, even make movements that can change political direction.

Although many countries have used digital technology to support direct democracy, the journey to use is not fast. Starting from the beginning of the 21st century, along with the internet boom, the government began to present information and accountability to the public online. Although not all people can access the internet, people who have income and higher education qualifications are getting used to searching for political information on the internet.

Furthermore, the internet in a developing country is a pest. The new technology began to be used to make a move against the government that is considered corrupt. The Arab spring in 2010 and the Egyptian revolution in 2011 are examples of how citizens use digital media to bring down authoritarian regimes and enhance civic participation and play a significant role in the political outcome. In 2008, Barack Obama launched a campaign through social media, which was claimed to be the most effective way to deliver him to the US presidential throne. In fact, at present, the United Kingdom has used e-voting to ensure the accuracy and integrity of the result.

The change of wind

However, amid high expectations for internet use in encouraging political participation, the novelty of the internet in the early 21st century is rapidly changing direction. Broad debates about the implications of the internet for democracy have given rise to a set of more specific inquiries into particular ways in which the internet might shape politics (Ferrel, 2012). The internet is seen as not meeting the initial expectations of transforming bureaucracy (Lips, as cited in Gill, 2010) and engaging politicians with citizens. According to Davis (2010), several unfulfilled expectations happened because:

- Internet use by ordinary citizens is predominantly consumer and leisure, rather than politically oriented.

It is true. Sometimes the high use of the internet, moreover by young people, does not mean that they will get enough information in the political area. People just mind their own business: looking for products and needs or just watching some entertainment.

- Encouraging internet-facilitated exchanges and deliberation have proved difficult and expensive.

Something that involves people in large numbers with positions spread across the country has never been easy. New Zealand has significantly benefited from the population that is not too much, even though the country is quite extensive, and the cost of the internet is expensive. In Indonesia, other democracies as a comparison, in addition to a large population (66 times the total population of New Zealand) and a huge area (more than five times the size of New Zealand). The internet does reduce costs but does not necessarily remove them. Moreover, full area coverage and uneven infrastructure in many democratic countries also contribute to the government’s challenge to implement optimal internet-facilitated exchanges and deliberations

- Digital divide

The digital divide is not merely a matter of providing internet connections in all regions of a country. Other factors whose influence is income, qualification in the household, race, and gender. Inequality of information that can be accessed by citizens in big cities causes the digital divide to widen. The most annoying is the fact that not everyone feels the need for the internet to search for political information. They already feel safe and peaceful with the life they lead without too much care in complicated political settings.

Several other researchers’ opinions also reinforce the idea that the digital era does not necessarily encourage people’s participation. Davis (2010), again, stated that for those already engaged or interested, is becoming denser, wider, and possibly more pluralistic and inclusive, while, on the other hand, the mass of unengaged citizens is being subject to the greater communicative exclusion and experiencing increasing disengagement. These facts show that the internet does not have a causal relationship with people’s anticipation in the democrat process.

Is it true that digital technologies lead to new forms of direct democracy?

According to Ferrel (2010), there is no specific theory as to the connection between the internet and democracy. A simple relationship that says, “internet causes higher public engagement” might drive severe mistakes. Indeed, the internet helps people to get political insights, but there are so many other factors around citizens and political environments that can cause someone to engage or not engage in political activity.

Further, rather than debate whether the internet causes the higher participation in democratic processes, we should acknowledge that the internet lowers the cost of collective actions, provide dissimilar political views to the citizens, and make people conceal their preferences for a different social order (Kuran, as cited in Ferrel, 2010). It shapes a new form of direct democracy. It leads people to be connected more easily and quickly to the government, even only felt by some residents. However, the slightest change is still called change, and we should appreciate the efforts made by the government to continuously strive for the participation of the public voice in government.

Even a new form has established, the efforts must not stop. To continue to maximise direct democracy, we cannot rely on technology as the central pillar. only The perspective of the people is still the most significant issue that needs more work to be nudged. It is in line with Papacharissi (as cited in Chadwick, 2008) statement that said, “Therefore, it is not the nature of the technology themselves, but rather, the discourse that surrounds them, that guides how these technologies are appropriated by societies.”

References

Chadwick, A., & Howard, P. (2009). Routledge handbook of Internet politics. London: Routledge.

Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation1. New Media & Society, 12(5), 745–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444809341435

Farrell, H. (n.d.). The Consequences of the Internet for Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815

Gill, D., & Victoria University of Wellington. Institute of Policy Studies. (2010). The future state (Vol. 10/08). Wellington, N.Z: Institute of Policy Studies.

Wikipedia. Democracy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy