The internet, citizen participation and democracyHopes and realities

Thierry VedelCenter for Political Research,Sciences Po, Paris, France

The potential of the internet for democracy

• Improve citizen information •Spaces for discussion/ debate•Mobilization and political

engagement•Participation in decision-making

The optimistic side

•Mobilizes previously inactive citizens (Krueger 2002) • Increases turnout (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003)• Increases social capital (Johnson and Kaye, 2003).•Revolutionizes campaigning and electoral

mobilization (Trippi, 2004).• Internet as a fifth estate (Crouzet, 2007)

The skeptical side•Politics as usual , electronic duplicattion (Margolis)• Low impact on political efficacy and knowledge

(Scheufele & Nisbet, 2002)•No impact on aggregate level of political

participation (Bimber 2003)•Empowers a small set of elites (Hindman 2009)

Mixed effects•Preaching the already converted (Norris 2002)•Meets aspiration to new forms of activism among

young generation (Ion 2005, Vedel 2008) • Increases politicization and polarization but only

among citizens already interested in politics (Prior 2007)

•A tool that both dissidents and authoritarian governments can use (Morozov 2011)

Better informed citizens?•A vast amount of

information at fingertips

• Less gate keeping by traditional media (we are the media)

•TV remain central in politics: first information source, sets the agenda

•New intermediaries (Google is THE meta-media)

•Most citizens seek to reduce the amount of information they need to process (limited pool of worries)

A tool for mobilizing and advocacy?• Identification of

common causes•Reduces drastically

mobilization and coordination costs

•Gives people a sense of collective identity

•Micro-targeting

•Slacktivism•From old militantism (ideological,

permanent, sacrificial) to new activism (single issue, flexible, contractual)

•Centralization of political machines (Obama campaign)

A more lively public sphere?•Easiness of online

commenting•Online discussions

transcend social, geographical boundaries

•No inclusivity, no equality•Online political talks are mostly

among like minded (political homophily)

•Adverse opinions are taken into account (interactive monologues)

A tool for participation in decision-making?•Reduction of voting

costs•Allow more complex

voting systems (not just majority ones)

•No trust in internet voting

•Push button democracy

Conclusion•The internet, new tool in political repertoire + new

political arena•The internet not sufficient to overcome traditional

obstacles to political participation•The internet enhances the engagement of already

politicized and well informed citizens

•High intensity democracy for happy few versus low intensity democracy for everybody?