With this statement, Howard Rheingold, like many other Internet enthusiasts, is expressing the belief that we are entering a new era of democracy that is closer to the Athenian ideal of true democracy. They see the Internet as a sort of "agora" where citizens (of the world potentially) can meet and discuss politics and governmental rule in a virtual town meeting hall. But others are not so sure about the ability of the Internet to foster greater democracy. Bowdoin College sociology student Danica Loucks has written a blog that raises many questions about whether the Internet can really provide a forum for real democratic debate. The article makes a good read if your are interested in discovering some of the impediments to Internet democracy. It is a bit of a pessimistic article but it is worth noting the issues raised so that those of us who believe in the potential for the Internet to improve our democratic processes can work to avoid what Loucks fears about the future of the Internet:
"When it comes to democracy on the internet, I think we must remember that the Internet is only a machine. And as I say “only,” I mean that despite all its incredible ways to communicate, store information, and serve as a virtual town hall or agora for the world, it cannot change the democratic behaviors of citizens without the citizens taking action to change those behaviors. The Internet can provide tools to revolutionize political activity, but it would require people to change the way democracy is acted out. I can’t help but think that the Internet may play more of a role in the development of apathy or complacency with low levels of political participation. Or maybe it will play the role of further polarizing groups with different views." (DANICA LOUCKS, Bowdoin College Student 2010, see the entire article:http://learn.bowdoin.edu/courses/soc022-danica-loucks/2010/04/the-internet-as-a-virtual-agora/ )
Another skeptic of Internet democracy, although not as pessimistic as Loucks, is Peter Levine (www.peterlevine.ws), Director of CIRCLE, The Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. Levine asks four questions regarding the Internet and democracy in his essay, Can the Internet Rescue Democracy? Toward an On-line Commons: 1. Will the increased convenience of the Internet increase participation in elections? 2. Will the greater amount of information available on the Internet increase participation in the political process? 3. Will the Internet encourage people to expose themselves to more diverse views, or will it rather encourage people to seek out more information that supports their won views and interests and lead to the balkanization of the Internet community? 4. Is the demise of "power brokers" that the maturity of the Internet may bring necessarily a good thing for society?
Although Levine raises these issues he is not dismissive of the idea that the Internet can be a force to creating a better democracy. He concludes his essay with these words:
"The fact that the Internet can work as a commons hardly guarantees that American democracy will flourish. It is not clear that even a vibrant commons could serve the functions of political mobilization and socialization that ordinary people need before they can influence public policy. Nor will the Internet necessarily operate as a commons; in fact, the odds favor an increasingly privatized and commercialized cyberspace. Nevertheless, one of the most promising strategies for democratic renewal today is to try to keep the Internet a publicly accessible space in which citizens create and share free public goods."2
There is another voice we should give heed to as we build our Internet commons. That is the voice of Arthur Bentley, the son of a Midwestern banker and a Chicago newspaperman, who worked at the Chicago Times-Herald who began using his spare time to write a book titled “The Process of Government.” In this book, which was published in 1908, Bentley argued that all politics and all government are the result of the activities of groups. Where as today we see interest groups as a bad or evil thing Bentley saw these groups differently. For him the workings of interest groups and their interaction with each other constitutes politics. Nicholas Lemann, who wrote an op-ed pice for The New Yorker titled, "Conflict of Interests: Does the wrangling of interest groups corrupt politics—or constitute it?" quoted Bentley:
“For Bentley, every political force that matters is an interest group, regardless of whether it cops to the charge. States and cities are ‘locality groups,’ the legal system is a collection of ‘law groups,’ income categories are ‘wealth groups,’ devoted followers of a popular politician are ‘personality groups’; interest groups lie at the heart of monarchies and dictatorships as well as of democracies. ‘When the groups are adequately stated, everything is stated,’ Bentley declares. ‘When I say everything I mean everything.’”3
This idea of Bentley challenges us to consider whether the very thing many of us believe the Internet will free us from, "the interests group" is in reality the very thing we need for a vibrant democracy? If it is, then perhaps the most important work that the Internet can do is make if possible for interest groups to organize and operate more efficiently. In fact, Peter Levine who's essay was mentioned earlier, says:
“The whole situation changes if you are an avid member of a group. Whether it is a political organization, an ethnic association, a sports league, or a gardening club, its welfare will sooner or later be affected by government decisions. If it has many members, then they may see a clear effect from lobbying, protesting, and voting together. When the members convene, they may persuade one another about political issues and convince one another to participate. Statistics show that group members are much better informed about politics, more likely to have been asked to vote, and more likely to discuss issues than nonmembers (even comparing people of the same educational and economic background: see Levine 2000, 93-94 for more detail). Because of a group’s clout, politicians and other important officials will appeal to its membership for support. This matters because people who are asked to participate in politics often comply, but most people are never asked (Verba et al. 1995, 135, 150). Above all, group members often feel a “we-ness” that gives them a clear sense of interests, ideals, and obligations, compared to what they would feel as individuals.4
Finally, we need to heed one more warning, this time from our Internet democracy enthusiast, Howard Rheingold.
"The prospect of the technical capabilities of the near-ubiquitous high-bandwidth Net in the hands of a small number of commercial interests has dire political implications. Whoever gains the political edge on this technology will be able to use the technology to consolidate power." 5
However, Rheingold and Levine are not casting aside the Internet as a medium for the forwarding of democracy. They both are optimistic that we can overcome the issues that challenge the Internet as a community forum or a "public sphere." Perhaps we can attain what Rheingold and the other Internet enthusiasts are striving for: an Internet agora. But it is clear that we will have to work hard and collaborate to make it happen.
- "Why the history of the public sphere matters in the Internet age." Howard Rheingold, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZB4mlnTis2Y&feature=related
- Can the Internet Rescue Democracy? Toward an On-line Commons, Peter Levine, pg. 137, http://www.community-wealth.org/_pdfs/articles-publications/commons/paper-levine.pdf
- Conflict of Interests: Does the wrangling of interest groups corrupt politics—or constitute it?, Nicholas Lemann, The New Yorker, http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2008/08/11/080811crat_atlarge_lemann?currentPage=all
- Levine, pg. 125
- "Disinformocracy." From the Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier, Howard Rheingold, Cambridge MA. The MIT Press 2000
