Digital Democracy

An often-cited reason for the importance of media freedom is that it can promote a government’s respect for human rights. Around the world, however, media freedom and democratic societies are not uniquely associated with each other; some democracies have government-controlled media, while some autocracies have allowed free media. Consequently, the true effectiveness of free media within different regime types in promoting respect for human rights is open to question.

In the 2010 election cycle, some 54% of adults used the Internet for political purposes, far exceeding the 2006 midterm digital usage rate of 31%.

From fundraising and campaigning to organization and voter recruitment, the Internet has changed electoral politics in America. Because of the Web’s inherently open nature, it was thought that its use would reduce the socioeconomic inequality in U.S. politics, where more affluent citizens and groups often have higher participation rates and thereby exert greater power.

Vote-by-mail and early in-person voting are common forms of convenience voting, which gives citizens flexibility in deciding when to vote. The goal has been to increase voter turnout, but a University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University study indicates there can be unanticipated consequences.

For increasing numbers of people, sites such as Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn are becoming crucial platforms for communicating with friends, family and work colleagues. Just as the mass-market introduction of phones, radio and the telegram changed patterns of emotional, social and political interaction across society, so too are Internet-based technologies and applications now. Precisely how these changes will play out, though, is just emerging.

A growing feeling among advocacy traditionalists is that recruiting supporters through mass-email blasts has spawned a lazier form of activism, sometimes referred to as “slacktivism” or “clicktivism.” However, whether or not the tags of “lazy” or “ineffective” are accurate remains a subject of ongoing inquiry and debate.

Since the events of the 2011 Arab Spring were set in motion, a debate has continued over how powerful a role the Internet itself can play in bringing about tangible social change. Evidence may continue to emerge that challenges any current theory. But in any case, new intellectual frameworks are required to analyze this question and guide further study.

During the 2008 presidential election season, young people ages 18 to 34 in the United States were avid consumers of online civic and political information: 37% received news relating to the election via social networking sites, and 41% found candidate- and election-related materials on the Web. However, such online engagement has not translated necessarily into increased participation in offline activities such as voting or connecting with local civic organizations.