When ‘Demos’ Find ‘Kratos’ (Digital Technology Leads To New Form of Direct Democracy)
The majority of existing democracy is a representative democracy. Citizens have their representatives to carry out political functions. Representatives on behalf of the citizens make or change laws and oversee the government. In the past, representative democracy started to be implemented due to the difficulty of accommodating all citizens in terms of population and size of the region.
Now digital technology has eliminated boundaries between the government and the citizen. It is the eparation partition due to location and distance and time. The internet, as part of digital technology, allows people to ‘meet’ and communicate in a very short time even though they are far apart. Protocol rules are no longer needed if citizen meets the government through digital technology. The increasingly massive use of digital technology enables the reincarnation of direct democracy practices to occur.
Direct Democracy
Direct democracy is a form of democracy where the citizen can express their initiatives directly. Two conditions exist in direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy. The people, as much as possible, are able to participate politically to give an opinion and decide on a policy.
Direct democracy is not really new. The earliest Direct democracy ever known was Athenian democracy around the 5th century BC. Athenian democracy is called direct because most of the citizens are constantly involved in public affairs. Decisions are made by gathered people, consist of male residents, councils and law courts (chosen jurors).
The direct democracy carried out by many ancient governments had different systems. Among them were using representative but citizens still had sovereignty and were directly involved in making decisions. Like the Roman Republic where citizens can immediately formulate laws and have veto rights to laws which are made by the legislature.
Direct democracy was eventually abandoned or modified (though not completely) to representative democracy for reasons of time and room. Increasing population, large areas and the need for cost and time efficiency are factors to consider.
Democracy in the Digital Era
Digital technology has opened virtual spaces where people can gather and discuss. Starting with email groups which were very popular in the 90s and social media applications that offer very practical convenience. Everyone now is able to speak ‘loudly’ in the public room. The internet facilitates the ‘demos’ (the people), to find their ‘kratos’ (power) in an easier way, which is the essence of democracy. The term e-democracy (electronic democracy) then emerged.
E-democracy is an interesting discussion because the outbreak is getting bigger even though the quality is being debated. The question of whether the internet helps or hurts democracy is such a hot topic. Because voices on the internet quickly become a majority, form public opinion, at the same time, it can ‘hurt’ minority voices and trigger dissension or change politics. Though news can be fake and opinions can be unreasonable without a scientific basis.
The ‘Arab Spring’ incident is an example of the e-democracy effect. Arab Spring is a series of anti-government protests, uprising and armed rebellions that spread across much of the Islamic world in the early 2010s. The protests — that began with the issues of poverty and oppressive regimes in Tunisia — spread quickly to other Arab countries through social media. Demonstrations and chaos then followed in Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Morocco, Iraq, Algeria, Iran, Lebanon, Jordan, Kuwait, Oman and Sudan. The government of Egypt and Libya finally fell down.
Through the internet, people can report news, expose wrongdoing, express opinions, mobilize protests, monitor elections, scrutinize government, deepen participation, and expand the horizons of freedom (Farrel, 2012). It is no coincidence that Tunisia is a very large Facebook user and Egypt is the largest internet user in that region. The internet via mobile phones unites everyone and designs structured and massive movements. Social media that removes boundaries and protocol rules also negates government control. Although according to Farrel (2012), the Arab Spring incident did not only occur due to social media but also assisted by conventional news station such as Al-Jazeera.
Political polarization is increasingly apparent because of the influence of the internet. People are racing to express their opinions and influence public opinion through blogs and social media. On the internet, it is easier for people to find others who have the same views. The separation of poles becomes clearer because people who share the same views will support and enrich information and at the same time rejecting other views. The worse is that they are even appearing hostile. People who do not side with one political pole will usually stop consuming political information. Therefore, most internet users can be clearly distinguished by their political views seen by their cyber activities.
This polarization is clearly visible in the United States and Indonesia for instance. American politics has become increasingly polarized between Democrats and Republicans and has been deeper since the 1990s (Adamic & Glance, 2005). Researchers point out that US political bloggers tend to be part of groups that lean left or right. Conover et al. (2011) also show a similar grouping on Twitter. In Indonesia, political polarization took place after the 2014 presidential election. The same two candidates in the 2014 and 2019 in presidential elections has formed a polarization as if between nationalist and religious.
New Form of Direct Democracy
The internet offers lots of information to the public including political matters and its process. The ease of obtaining information through the internet makes more citizens involved in governance. Starting from the freedom of expression to the voting process. In the last twenty years, it seems that the desire of citizens to be heard and influence the policy is increasing.
According to Justin Reedy and Chris Wells in their book Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics (2008), there are three impacts of the internet on direct democracy:
1. Informational, that is increasing citizens’ knowledge about politics and the things that influence politics.
2. Deliberative, where citizens interact by exchanging roles as consumers and information producers.
3. Organizational, that is increasing citizens’ opportunities to take political action at lower costs
Digital technology and the internet have become a new form of direct democracy when people are able to do political actions directly in an effective and efficient way.
___________
References:
Arab Spring. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Spring
Direct Democracy. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
Farrel, H. (2012). The Consequences of the Internet for Politics. https://www-annualreviews-org.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-polisci-030810-110815
Political Polarization in the American Public. (2014, June 12). Pew Research Center.
https://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/
Representative Democracy. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics, edited by Andrew Chadwick, and Philip N. Howard, Routledge, 2008. ProQuest Ebook Central, https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.helicon.vuw.ac.nz/lib/vuw/detail.action?docID=356393.
