Session 9: Digital for democracy, opportunities and challenges

This article was written by Savio Cheyaden

“Previously heralded as a boon to democracy, the internet now is being blamed for its demise.”

– Nathaniel Persily

Introduction:

Until now we have been discussing about digital in different formats with regards to transparency, open data, participation, about different tools governments use to involve citizens in decision-making, and impact of digital on political parties and civil society. To conclude the course, we had a broader discussion about the challenges and opportunities of digital for democracy. The different aspects of democracy explored through opportunities and challenges are with regard to citizen participation, electoral system, civic space, digital government, information and public opinion, and communication and deliberation in public sphere. Further, we discuss what can be done to avoid digital from being a challenge to democracy. Interestingly a poll at the beginning of the session highlights that 100% of the students are rather optimistic about the role of digital in democracy.

The interaction between digital and democracy

• Citizen Participation

Citizen participation is positively affected by digital as technology allows for large scale processes which can be transnational, transregional, simultaneous processes across cities which in comparison to physical (offline) processes help in gathering lot information from a lot of citizens. Digital citizen participation also allows participants to collaborate at different timings and to build up a bigger and richer form of collective intelligence over an ongoing timeframe. Participation can be enhanced and widened by enlarging representation (inclusion of minority and excluded voices) and by use of AI tools to build consensus in large groups. Participation is further nurtured as civil society, academia and policy-makers can launch their own consultations, thus enabling a more direct participation in comparison to traditional participation where governments are responsible to bring participant together in a group to create a discussion. Another opportunity created is in the forms of engagement (video streaming, transcripts, video recording, opinion tracing of participants) available due to digital processes.

• Electoral System

Coming to the electoral system, use of technology can change how we vote, how we campaign, and how we select our representatives. There are attempts to increase voter turnout by taking out mandatory physical presence to be able to vote, however, there is no concrete evidence of higher voter turnout due to use of digital tools. But a digital electoral system does have an immediate counting of votes which leads to faster results. It provides higher transparency as there is a limited chance to include or exclude votes. It also opens the possibility to reach out to the young, excluded minorities and other communities who don’t participate in the traditional electoral system. But, a digital electoral system when badly designed (failure of technological system) and executed can bring about a failure in democratic processes (eg. Iowa democratic caucuses 2020). Voting and participation data is considered to be sensitive data since it allows for governments to track who voted for whom and what are the voting trends, thus opening doors for manipulation. Thus, when building a digital electoral system, protection of data is most important. Mismanagement of citizen voting data and trend of declining trust in governments can cause mistrust in outcome from such processes.

• Civic Space

Use of digital tools in the civic space enables digitally enhanced activism and digitally based activism. Technology provides protection to whistle-blowers to anonymously publish data and drop data to journalists whenever they deem a piece of information to be important for the public, especially with respect to misuse of resources and corruption. At the same time technology also creates a new set of digital rights. It opens new frontiers for protection of data, protection of anonymity in the digital sphere, privacy laws, laws related to online harassment, freedom of speech, appeal procedures for decisions taken by algorithms, etc. which association and organizations need to fight to protect the digital civic space. Another challenge is that of surveillance (e.g. use of Pegasus by Mexican government to surveil, track and harass journalists, civic society representatives and activists) and censorship (e.g. especially in African countries before elections) imposed by governments online and internet shutdowns. If technology is to be used to participate in a democracy, rights of expression, privacy, anonymity need to be preserved in the digital space as well and the digital civic space needs to be protected.

• Digital Governments

Digital governments can have more adapted and effective public services. Use of digital tools can form an agile and resilient administration (use of open data and citizens generated data to implement measures in response to COVID-19 reality) and ensure evidence-based policy making which is based on reality and not just ideas. Once again, surveillance is a huge challenge and additionally, mismanagement of personal data of citizens poses a big challenge to digital governments. This is the case because large databases of personal information (age, gender, address, tax information, voting and democratic participation) is being created which when under protected can endanger checks and balances of the system, protection of liberties and freedom of speech. Thus, governments need to be aware and make sure that citizens data is protected at all costs. Cybersecurity is another challenge to digital governments since new wars and geo-political tensions are taking place increasingly online (e.g. attacks on infrastructure like nuclear systems, transport systems, hospitals, telecommunication systems, etc.). Hence, with further digitalization of governments, cybersecurity needs to be strengthened to protect citizens and critical infrastructure. Even though, when implemented correctly, technology can be used to reach out to a large part of the population, in reality, not everyone has access to the internet nor does everyone have the knowledge, capacities and skills to use internet tools. This poses a challenge to digital governments.

• Information and Public Opinion

Information is important for citizens to be able to elect representatives and participate in a democracy. Due to digital technology today, there has been a surge in availability of information in comparison to any other moment of history. Citizens now have the ability to stream political violence, protests, launch campaigns, directly interact with governments and public institutions. They can directly voice their opinions, hear others opinions, request for explanations and challenge policy-makers. Dependence in traditional media has reduced due to democratization of information. Mass communication based on digital technology has made it possible to spread information about country specific human right violations across the globe and to bring the global community together. But, since digital online spaces are built in a way to foster a bubble, users are stuck in the same ideas and same ways of thinking This causes polarization as people are isolated in a unique perspective. Issues of misinformation, disinformation and propaganda though not new concepts are greatly aggravated due to the advent of digital technologies (e.g. US election 2016, use of private and secure messaging services to spread fake news during elections in Brazil and India). Another challenge to information and public opinion is censorship, as it creates ill-informed public opinion. The issue of ill-informed public opinion is worsened by speech regulation which needs accountability and transparency, since responsibility of speech regulation falls in the hands of private companies which are not representatives of society. Information and public opinion are further challenged in the digital space due to algorithms used by social media companies and search engines as these algorithms are not open to the public.

There are serious questions that need answering, like:

a. Why does an individual see certain political messages?

b. Why is an individual exposed only to a certain kind of information or topic or point of view over and over again?

Contrary to offline sources of information (radio, newspapers, television channels) which allow to choose, algorithm in place give us no control over what one consumes neither the power to modify what we consume. This leads to blind consumption of information. Algorithms need to be accountable and at the least, they need to be transparent. Algorithms need to be designed in a manner that fake news, hate speech, harmful content, misinformation, etc. are not disseminated over the digital sphere.

• Communication / Deliberation in Public Sphere

Technology helps with largescale and simultaneous communication. It also aids online deliberation by allowing for asynchronous and multilanguage conversations (e.g. auto-translation). Through use of multimedia (photos, audio, video and texts) communication a more dynamic communication takes place. Technology also promotes and encourages even people who are under-confident about their oral skills (which is imperative in a traditional discourse setting) to participate freely, thus lowering the barriers to communicate. Since currently used platforms are market based and they strive to maximize attention of users, users are pushed into a bubble that makes them feel more comfortable and makes them spend more time on the platform. This has a polarizing effect as news with more shock-value is presented increasingly. This neither helps nor support a deliberative public sphere essential to democracy, rather it creates a polarized communicative sphere. This, in part, is because of the algorithms used by platforms to decide (more appropriately ‘moderate’) what one sees, how one sees, who one comment on and how one comments on. Due to ease and quickness of spreading of information over a large population, issues of online hate speech against certain communities are aggravated. Sadly, technology does not replace physical interactions and a deficit is formed in interpersonal relations. This trust deficit is both in the digital tools of interaction as well as the interlocutors one is communicating with. Building of trust remains a challenge in the online setting.

• Transparency and Accountability

Digital provides an opportunity for governments to be accountable and transparent. Due to availability of real-time information (They work for you, an online tool used to monitor parliamentarian by looking up what they are working on? who they are working with? What is their voting record? etc.) the processes of governments can be made transparent. Using open data, citizens, civic society, journalists, watchdog organizations can ask for explanations from the government and keep the government accountable and transparent. Through use of trackers, websites, meetings stream and published transcripts of meetings social accountability and monitoring is made possible for civic society and citizens for making elected representatives accountable.

Design of Digital for Democracy

The next part of the session aimed to make the class aware about the design of digital for democracy. While using technology for democracy, preference should be given to the design of the democratic process and principles of democracy should be core to the process. One must also be aware that not all tools are made for all purposes and that digital tools should be based on individual scenarios and purposes. Based on technological choices, there are democratic implications as the process and technology employed shapes the outcome by defining the interaction and quality of participation.

How is Technology affecting Democracy ? Two examples

1. Fake news

The session then explored ways to stop fake news on social media by viewing a video by Taylor Owen. Taylor Owen highlights three key areas that need to be tackled. First is combating fake news and misinformation through digital literacy programs, civic journalism, better research and radical ad transparency, to reveal how the system works so that public’s trust in democracy can be rebuilt. Secondly, rules need to be established and enforced so that individuals gain control over being collected, used and monetized. Also, algorithm and artificial intelligence systems need to be addressed and in doing so, governments need to establish algorithmic auditing, public reporting, new ethical and legal norms for deployment of artificial intelligence. Finally, issue of competition needs to be addressed by updating antitrust laws, strengthening restriction on mergers to avoid further monopolizing of the digital space by big technology companies so that it can be ensured that consumers have a choice.

2. Facial Recognition

Next, we look at how use of some digital technologies such as facial recognition can affect democracy. The professor mentioned that facial recognition algorithms have shown to have a racial and gender bias and thus contribute to an unequal society and causes problems in a democracy. Facial recognition in the public space can also hinder public protest and puts fundamental freedoms at risk. The only way to deal with the problem is to include citizens in technological decisions and have transparency and accountability in the use of technologies that can endanger democracy.

How to regulate?

We discussed a set of policy options that can help combat the challenges posed by digital technologies.

• Deletion (the takedown of content or the removal of accounts deemed to be dangerous);

• Demotion (tweaking algorithms to reduce the exposure of users to dangerous speech, while retaining the speech or speaker on a given platform);

• Disclosure (Providing users with information as to the identity of speakers or the origin of communication to equip them to discount speech from certain people or places);

• Dilution and diversion (Combatting “bad” speech with “good” speech either by “flooding the zone” with healthy content or redirecting users’ attention toward better sources of information);

• Deterrence (Raising the costs on bad actors by credibly promising an array of punishments, ranging from financial and reputational sanctions to offline uses of force);

• Digital Literacy (Educating users to become more discerning consumers of information and more skilled in understanding the platforms on which communication takes place) and transparency and accountability.

Readings:

In Code is Law, Professor Lessig points out that regulation has always been a threat to liberty. And that in the age of cyberspace that we live in, code is the regulator. He then masterful describes the regulation of the internet based on protocols called TCP/IP. Through examples ranging from use of internet in oppressive regimes to use of internet to spread child pornography, he explains how the code is fixed, but its “nature” creates desirable or undesirable situations, thus calling on for regulation as a combined effort by commerce and governments. Once need for regulation is established, professor Lessig explains the difficulty in regulation of the internet due to problems of verification and how choices on extent of verification is based on the code which depends on values of the coder developing the architecture for communication. He then questions if private interests are not ‘interests’ at the core like that of government interests and if we should allow private interests to set the tone of the cyberspace since it is not representative of values of the public enshrined by the constitution. His arguments build up to prove that cyberspace needs to be regulated by the values of the constitution and not forces of the market.

Conclusion:

Digital represents as many opportunities as it does challenges to democracy. Based on the readings, new age policy makers need to understand that to regulate the digital sphere, both the private sector and the government needs to work in tandem, since technology is not neutral due to its inception with the coder (who has values of his own) and that representatives of citizens are more accountable and transparent in regulating it. Digital can update democracy by enhancing/amplifying it and reaching out to more citizens. It plays a key role in building public trust in governments through its accountability and transparency mechanisms. Further research needs to be conducted on how the anti-trust and competitive law can be updated to ensure market democratization. Research can also conducted into how algorithms should be regulated and made open for the public.

This article has been published as per submission by the student (the author) and based on the lecture given by the professor in the context of an assignment, for comments or edits please contact the author : name.lastname@sciencespo.fr