1
Grassroots poli+cs, democracy
and the Internet
MAC309

2
Theories of democracy
 Delibera+ve democracy
 Representa+ve democracy
 Pluralist democracy
 Par+cipatory democracy

3
Delibera+ve democracy
 ‘Delibera+ve democracy refers to a specific form of par+cipa+on: informed
discussion between individuals about issues which concern them, leading to
some form of consensus and collec+ve decision. To come to a collec+ve
decision, minds must be changed as a consequence of delibera+on: this is
the key difference between delibera+ve theories of democracy and those in
the representa+ve or direct vein.’
 (Wright & Street, 2007: 850‐1)

4
Delibera+ve democracy
 ‘Delibera+ve democracy refers to a specific form of par+cipa+on: informed
discussion between individuals about issues which concern them, leading to
some form of consensus and collec+ve decision. To come to a collec+ve
decision, minds must be changed as a consequence of delibera+on: this is
the key difference between delibera+ve theories of democracy and those in
the representa+ve or direct vein.’
 (Wright & Street, 2007: 850‐1)
 Register preferences/opinions, but also have space to discuss them

5
Representa+ve democracy
 Voices are frequently mediated through poli+cal spokespersons.
 They are charged with the responsibility of ac+ng in the people's interest,
but not as their proxy representa+ves;
 Do not always act according to their wishes, but with enough authority to
exercise swi^ judgement in the face of changing circumstances.

6
Pluralist democracy
 Pluralis+c democracy rests on the liberal no+on of se`ng aside space for
compe+ng interests and viewpoints
 Frequently uneven terrain of poli+cal contest (power and economics)
 However, it is inclusive featuring public contesta+on, vo+ng, lobbying,
mul+ple voices

7
Par+cipatory democracy
 Aka direct democracy
 Linked to community‐based decision‐making approaches to governance
(labour/trade movements and global rights ac+vists)
 Calls for all members to make meaningful contribu+ons to decision‐making
rather than acquiescing to hierarchies
 However, hierarchies do exist and may be masked

8
 Which system of democracy does the UK fit into?
 Delibera+ve democracy
 Representa+ve democracy
 Pluralist democracy
 Par+cipatory democracy

9
 Which system of democracy does the UK fit into?
 Delibera+ve democracy
 Representa+ve democracy?
 Pluralist democracy?
 Par+cipatory democracy

10
Internet’s role in shaping democra+c ac+on
 2 opposing lines of thought
 Can facilitate new forms of poli+cal engagement and
par+cipa+on (Web Cameron, MyBO, etc)
 Internet is becoming increasingly aligned with
commercial interests (eg the priva+sa+on of Internet
content and corporate gatekeeping) and moving further
away from its original concep+on

11
Pessimism?
 Dan Schiller (1999) Digital Capitalism, claims Internet networks
increasingly serve the aims of transna+onal corpora+ons via strict
priva+za+on of content and unregulated transborder data flow.
 Lawrence Lessig (2001; 2002; 2004; 2008), laments the death of
the public domain or the ‘commons’ at the hands of rampant
copyright extension
 Net neutrality arguments

12
Op+mism?
 ‘Despite commercial encroachment, internet technology has opened up
poli+cal opportuni+es for par+cipatory democracy and bomom‐up poli+cal
forms’ (Pickard, 2008: 627)
 Enabled previously marginalised voices to engage with electoral poli+cs,
thus reinvigora+ng civil society
 Emergence of Internet‐based ac+vism to mobilise collec+ve ac+on

13
Lowering the costs of par+cipa+on
 Lower costs of organizing collec+ve ac+on offered by the internet will be
par+cularly beneficial for one type of group: those outside the boundaries of
tradi+onal private and public ins+tu+ons, those not rooted in business,
professional or occupa+onal memberships or the cons+tuencies of exis+ng
government agencies and programs. (Bimber,1998:156)

14
Bridge the ‘digital divide’?
 Claims to do so not always what they seem
 O^en part of ‘a dominant discourse of capitalist consumer rela+ons and
liberal‐individualis+c poli+cs’ (Dahlberg, 2007: 838)
 The Internet is promoted as an excellent tool for helping facilitate economic
and poli+cal transac+ons, rather than the cons+tu+ve space for radical
poli+cs

15
 Asymmetries in offline social, cultural and economic capital lead to
asymmetries between voices online?

16
Challenge the status quo?
 Rheingold (2002) ‘Smart Mobs’ using personally mediated
communica+on technology to spur on ac+on
 Jewim (2005): Philippine president Joseph Estrada deposed
by mass protest groups mobilised by SMS texts. 100 million+
texts led to protest.
 Pickard (2008): 1999 WTO protests in Seamle – digital
hack+vism
 Cannon (2009): 2004 Spanish elec+ons ousted Aznar

17
Ideals of delibera+ve democracy
 A strong democracy, enabling the voicing of different diverse views on any
issue, by publically‐orientated ci+zens who scru+nise power and become
sovereign (see Dahlberg, 2007)
 Too o^en issues of funding, ideological bias and self‐interest have prevented
the mass media from mee+ng the challenge of the public sphere.

18
Ideals of delibera+ve democracy
 A strong democracy, enabling the voicing of different diverse views on any
issue, by publically‐orientated ci+zens who scru+nise power and become
sovereign (see Dahlberg, 2007)
 Too o^en issues of funding, ideological bias and self‐interest have prevented
the mass media from mee+ng the challenge of the public sphere.
 Internet as ‘public sphere’ (a^er Habermas)

19
Ideals of delibera+ve democracy
 A strong democracy, enabling the voicing of different diverse views on any
issue, by publically‐orientated ci+zens who scru+nise power and become
sovereign (see Dahlberg, 2007)
 Too o^en issues of funding, ideological bias and self‐interest have prevented
the mass media from mee+ng the challenge of the public sphere.
 ‘offering ci+zens the opportunity to encounter and engage with a huge
diversity of posi+ons, thus extending the public sphere’ (Dahlberg, 2007:
828)

20

21
Fragmented public?
 ‘much online interac+on simply involves the mee+ng of “like‐minded”
individuals’ (Dahlberg, 2007: 828) who fall into ‘delibera+ve enclaves’
 Produces a fragmented sphere of debate
 Similar interests flock together, repeat and reinforce exis+ng beliefs
 Filter info; users ‘self‐select’ material they are comfortable with; bookmark
or subscribe to sites which reinforce their pos++on

22
Contested public?
 ‘internet users are not insula+ng themselves in informa+on echo chambers.
Instead, they are exposed to more poli+cal arguments than nonusers
(Horrigan et al, 2004: i‐ii)
 Search for arguments, but work towards ra+onale debate?

23
Task
 Visit some of the following sites (see next few slides)
 What kinds of democra+c ac+on are each of these sites enabling?
 To what extent are they successful in enabling democra+c ac+on?
 How do they encourage par+cipa+on?
 Read Barack Obama’s social media toolkit (on WebCT)
 What does this tell you about the poten+al for Internet plauorms to engage the
public in par+cipatory democra+c ac+on?

24
The Associa+on for Progressive
Communica+ons www.apc.org

25
Witness www.witness.org

26
openDemocracy
hmp://www.opendemocracy.net/

27
e‐democracy hmp://e‐democracy.org/

28
e‐democracy UK www.e‐democracy.org/uk/

29
Centre for Digital Democracy
hmp://www.democra+cmedia.org/

30
Open Forum
hmp://www.openforum.com.au/

31
Human Rights Interest hmp://www.hri.ca/

32
IndyMedia www.indymedia.org

33
Global Voices
hmp://globalvoicesonline.org/

34
Stop the War www.stopwar.org.uk

35
Move On www.moveon.org

36
Sources and further reading
 B. Bimber, 1998, ‘The Internet and Poli+cal Transforma+on: Populism, Community, and Accelerated Pluralism’, Polity
31(1):133–60.
 L. Dahlberg, 2007, ‘Rethinking the fragmenta+on of the cyberpublic: from consensus to contesta+on’, New Media &
Society, Vol 9, No 5: 827‐ 847
 Edelman, 2009, ‘The Social Pulpit: Barack Obama’s Social Media Toolkit’,
hmp://www.edelman.com/image/insights/content/Social%20Pulpit%20‐%20Barack%20Obamas%20Social%20Media
%20Toolkit%201.09.pdf
 R. Jewim, 2005 'Mobile Networks ‐ Globalisa+on, networks and the mobile phone' in C. Cornut‐Gen+lle (ed), Culture
and Power: Culture and Society In The Age of GlobalisaCon, Prensas Universitarias de Zaragoza, Spain.
 S. Marmura, 2008, ‘A net advantage? The internet, grassroots ac+vism and American Middle‐Eastern Policy’, New
Media & Society, Vol 10, No 2: 247‐271
 Z. Papacharissi, 2002, ‘The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere’, New Media & Society, Vol 4, No 1: 9‐27
 V. Pickard, 2008, ‘Coopta+on and coopera+on: ins+tu+onal exemplers of democra+c internet technology’, Vol 10, No
4: 625‐645.
 H. Rheingold, 1993, The Virtual Community: hmp://www.rheingold.com/vc/book/4.html
 H. Rheingold, 2002, Smart Mobs: The next social revoluCon, Perseus Books
 M. A. Wall, 2007, ‘Social movements and email: expressions of online iden+ty in the globaliza+on protests’, New
Media & Society, Vol 9, No 2: 258‐277.
 S. Wright & J. Street, 2007, ‘Democracy, delibera+on and design: the case of online discussion forums’, New Media &
Society, Vol 9, No 5: 849‐869