Political shows on the Internet
Advanced Internet and Communication Technology (ICT) simplify people interaction. We have e-commerce and e-learning to get what we want at our fingertips. We have the whole cyberspace also to share our heart and mind content regarding one interest issue. That is how civic engagement happen [1]: start from the bottom, there is no agenda on doing that, only share our heart and mind content because we interest in one issue.
Now, there is consideration that cyberspace is a place to have engagement, to make an influence, and to seek for certain benefits. People could choose who they are in the cyberspace: an information recipient or information provider. However, sometimes, people could not differ and find their exact positions. In one point, there is a tendency we get influence from others when we engage.
The show must go on
Political elites also take this chance to increase their engagement with people. They go out from the shell, reach out to ordinary people who previously fail to be reached out by using traditional method [2]. In Indonesia, campaign with gathering crowd relatively obtain higher cost: accommodation cost, transportation cost and meal allowance for the people. Furthermore, political elites also have to consider to put banners in each district, print business cards as well as accommodation cost to meet citizens. This practice allegedly has a relation with corruption practice when the elites gain their positions after winning the election.
However, using ICT as media to communicate with people is common now. It is an opportunity to engage with people, especially youth, with a low-cost budget [3][4]. Political elites could cut some budget but still obtain more excellent coverage about their activities, programme, and vision by using ICT. Another benefit is they could target the young generation since there is a perception that youngster as new voters in the election process are living in the digital era and actively engage with digital life.
For instance, political elites in Indonesia build media social account to develop communication and relationship with ordinary people, especially the young generation. Kang Emil (Governor of West Java — Indonesia) creates his twitter account with youth as a target. His account’s content mostly consists of innuendo of youth confusion and motivation for the youth. And youngster loves him because of his humour and jokes. For this kind of political elites, the political culture which identic for being fierce, rude, and foul presented as entertaining shows.
Imaginary picture
In this entertaining show, sometimes ordinary people could not be aware of ‘political content’ which hide behind every postings and news related to political elites. For example, ‘imaging practice’ of one person for a political candidate. These political elites be pictured as a credible person, or pro-human right etc. hence, all their contents will depict the ‘imaging’ that want to be created and perceived. Another story is this agenda will be practised from far day before the election process even begins, and unfortunately, some ordinary people could not aware that they get influence from this ‘imaging practice’.
On the other hand, ordinary people who want to join the political issue or just to critique the government, sometimes tend to hide their identity. Perhaps for safety reason, or probably because they do not want to bump with another critical opinion which differs from what they believed. Anonymity perhaps will encourage people to talk more, but the reliability and accountability of that opinion become a blur. People could not differ between the purest idea or is there an agenda or even fake people who get paid from political elites to influence the public with a particular opinion.
People think that Internet generates the direct possibility of direct democracy, however Internet becomes a sphere of personal opinion. It builds initiatives directly, but still based on the personal interest of each person. And in pouring the initiatives, people inevitably get influence from another perspective and initiatives.
More serious, political elites could use ICT to develop communication to increase the quality of the decision. There is a consultative model which underlined people opinion in a vertical way and deliberation models which focus on more horizontal, complex, and multi-perspective of people opinion [1]. This variation of method could increase the accountability of political elites and drive people to believe and select them in the election. Moreover, this is a media to encourage people to support good initiatives in the political agenda [3].
This engagement, of course, supposes to lead into greater responsiveness and accountability between political elites and people [2]. However, on the other hand, many political elites use ICT only to increase their popularity among people. They advertise their programmes hence people aware of their appearance and what benefits they could carry out in the future. But they tend not to hold onto their promises. Internet only becomes media for gaining more and more attentions, and seek economy benefits as the result of that popularity.
Mirror on the wall
Although political elites consider to use ICT as communication and relationship media with people, or even though many information provided from political elites to people, Bimber (2001) and Kaid (2002) say it is not automatically lead to increasing number of political participation, or greater engagement, or trust in political process [5].
Trust could be related to the fact that perhaps this information flow in mainstream online media is driven by powerful and influential political entity agenda. Finding the difference between reliable and accountable information and false information sometimes is difficult. Sometimes it becomes complex choices for people [3]. Hence, although the Internet possible to drive direct democracy, people need capability and knowledge to gather some necessary information to make a preference in political choosing [3]. Firstly, the capability to sort out information. Secondly, knowledge about some technical things in the issue [3].
Cyberspace participation also is influenced by how people engage or participate in that issue in real life. Only for those who already interest in the political issue will looking for this issue online. Moreover, only for those who already engage with ICT could join or follow the issue online [2]. People who not familiar with the political issue in real life will have a tendency to not aware of this issue in their online experience. Nonetheless, people who not familiar using ICT will not look at this issue online too; they perhaps will prefer traditional method in gathering political information, such as from banner, poster and direct campaign.
Reference
[1] Chadwick, A. (2006). Internets Politics; states, citizens, and new communication technologies.
[2] Davis, A. (2010). New media and fat democracy: the paradox of online participation1. New Media & Society, 12 (5), 745–761.
[3] Reedy, J. & Wells, C. (2010). Information, the Internet and direct democracy. Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, 157–172.
[4] Farrell, H. (2012). The Consequences of the Internet for Politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 15 (1), 35–52.
[5] Papacharissi, Z. (2010). The virtual sphere 2.0 : the internet, the public sphere, and beyond. Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, 230–245.
