ArticlePDF Available

E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy

Authors:

Abstract and Figures

Digital media is ascribed significant potential for democratizing political communication and processes. There is still, however, a lack of empirical evidence and adequate understanding concerning the question of whether digital media can contribute to an improvement in democratic quality. In response to this question, the present article proposes a concept of e-democracy and an analytical framework for measuring it. The added value of such an e-democracy index is, firstly, that it provides a basis for assessing online-enhanced democratic processes (something which has previously been lacking) and, secondly, that it enables a finer-grained perspective on digital processes in democracies, something which is essential for scholars and practitioners.
Content may be subject to copyright.
International Political Science Review
2016, Vol. 37(5) 666 –678
© The Author(s) 2016
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0192512116657677
ips.sagepub.com
E-democracy: A new challenge
for measuring democracy
Marianne Kneuer
University of Hildesheim, Germany
Abstract
Digital media is ascribed significant potential for democratizing political communication and processes.
There is still, however, a lack of empirical evidence and adequate understanding concerning the question of
whether digital media can contribute to an improvement in democratic quality. In response to this question,
the present article proposes a concept of e-democracy and an analytical framework for measuring it. The
added value of such an e-democracy index is, firstly, that it provides a basis for assessing online-enhanced
democratic processes (something which has previously been lacking) and, secondly, that it enables a finer-
grained perspective on digital processes in democracies, something which is essential for scholars and
practitioners.
Keywords
Media, Internet, democracy, autocracy, democratic quality, political communication
Introduction
In the existing literature on the relationship between media and democracy, there is a strong con-
sensus that a free media and independent journalism are vital to democracies. The media perform
several fundamental functions in democracies, such as informing citizens and enabling them to
form opinions, providing a forum for public discussion, and serving as a conduit between govern-
ment and the governed. Finally, the media exercise scrutiny over the government, political parties,
interest groups, etc. A term often used in this context is ‘fourth branch’:1 without doubt, the techni-
cal characteristics (interactivity, ubiquity, multimodality, etc.) of digital media go far beyond those
of classical media. The Internet and social media have multiplied the channels of political com-
munication and created the new role of the citizen as content provider or ‘citizen journalist’,
thereby changing communication patterns in a significant way. At the same time, digital media
have opened up new opportunities for interaction between representatives and represented, between
Corresponding author:
Marianne Kneuer, University of Hildesheim, Germany, Institute for Social Sciences, Department of Political Science,
Universitätsplatz 1, 31141 Hildesheim, Germany.
Email: kneuer@uni-hildesheim.de
657677IPS0010.1177/0192512116657677International Political Science ReviewKneuer
research-article2016
Article
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kneuer 667
political and societal actors. Some scholars have claimed that power constellations have been
changed by digitalization (Castells, 2009: 42–50; Meraz, 2009). Others emphasize the potential for
changing citizens’ political behaviour by, for example, increasing interest in politics and likelihood
of voting (Mossberger et al., 2008) or creating the potential for increasing the capacity for political
engagement (Rheingold, 1993).
In addition to these considerations at a macro (power) and micro (empowerment) level, the
emergence of the Internet has generated an extensive debate about its potential effects on demo-
cratic processes and fuelled a range of expectations, some involving utopian hopes (Buchstein,
1997; Coleman and Blumler, 2009; Dahlgren, 2009; Diamond and Plattner, 2012; Hague and
Loader, 1999; Hindman, 2009; Wilhelm, 2000). Against the background of increasing political
disenchantment among citizens, the perceived disconnection between citizens and politicians, and
the loss of trust in political institutions that can be observed in established democracies in recent
decades, e-democracy has been regarded (and often overstated) as a panacea capable of curing
democratic fatigue and revitalizing or modernizing democratic processes (Coleman and Blumler,
2009; Kneuer, 2013). The main strands of this literature involve theoretically driven expectations
about how the new social media can strengthen democratic principles. It is held that online-
enhanced interaction will increase transparency, making it possible to retrieve and provide more
information; promote inclusion by giving social actors (especially marginalized ones) better oppor-
tunities to contribute to the formation of public opinion outside institutionalized channels and
without the filtering function of the traditional media; open up alternative opportunities for partici-
pation, allowing people to be more involved in political decision-making processes over the
Internet; and strengthen the responsiveness of political actors, since represented and representa-
tives can easily enter into dialogue on social media. Moreover, advocates for alternative forms of
democracy, such as deliberative or direct democracy, see digital media as facilitating new opportu-
nities for citizen deliberation and direct decision-making (Barber, 1998b; see also Buchstein, 1997;
Dahlgren, 2013). Even the vision of citizens’ self-government – evoking the Athenian ideal of a
virtual agora or ekklesia – seems to have renewed relevance as a possible model for future democ-
racy. Finally, digital media are credited with creating new opportunities for civil society, social
movements or even new actors (grassroots movements) to make their voices heard and influence
the public agenda (McCaughey and Ayers, 2003; van de Donk et al., 2004).
The study of the democratizing potential of digital media often follows a normative or prescrip-
tive approach – either net-optimistic or net-pessimistic overall – that hypothesizes an improvement
(or not) in the quality of democracy. By contrast, the premise here is that technology is not a
democratizing force per se (Dahl, 1989: 339). Technology is ex-ante neutral, and its effect on
political structures, processes, actors, behaviour and norms depends on the motives of use, the
content that is transmitted, the way that the technology is used (quantitatively and qualitatively
speaking), and, finally, on the political context in which the digital media are used. Quite a few
scholars apply such a techno-realistic approach to information and communication technology
(ICT) (Barber, 1998b; Buchstein, 1997; Kneuer, 2013; Leggewie, 1998; Wilhelm, 2000). They
assume that the impact of the Internet on the development or quality of democracy is ambivalent:
it can enrich and enhance democratic values and processes, but at the same time it can constitute a
stress factor for democratic processes and harm the quality of democracy.
Although a large number of empirical studies on digital media have been produced, there is no
consistent picture of the impact on political processes. Most of the empirical analyses have a lim-
ited scope: they focus on specific actors (government, parliament, parties, protest movements, etc.)
or specific processes, such as electoral campaigning or protest, while often concentrating on one
country or case. Hence, there is considerable need for comparative studies and for a broader per-
spective in order to overcome the proliferation of isolated and eclectic findings. Consequently, we
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
668 International Political Science Review 37(5)
still have little understanding of whether and how digital media influence democratic processes
and, in particular, whether it has produced any perceptible improvement in the quality of democ-
racy. This is especially true because there is no index for measuring the democratizing influence of
digital media. ‘Traditional’ democracy indices do not include digital media at all or only consider
very basic aspects (such as Internet freedom), as will be shown in the second section.
The aim of this article, therefore, is to propose an analytical framework for measuring e-democ-
racy. Such an ‘e-democracy index’ would establish a basis for better understanding the usage of
digital tools in democracies, illuminating the generally fuzzy picture we currently have of this area.
Like indices in general, such an e-democracy index is intended as a descriptive tool for measure-
ment. The index is not supposed to answer other still-open issues like the development or realiza-
tion of different forms of democracy, for example, direct democracy, or engender the complete
self-determination of citizens, deliberative democracy, or new forms like liquid democracy. The
notion of e-democracy is not understood in a prescriptive way here; rather, it is intended to describe
electronic processes in existing democracies.
In the next section, definitions of the main concepts – democratic quality and e-democracy – are
provided. Existing indices and their consideration of social media are then discussed, followed by
conceptual considerations, the analytical framework, and proposed operationalization for measur-
ing e-democracy. The last section comprises conclusions and a consideration of possible chal-
lenges regarding the index.
Defining basic concepts
Just as democracy is a contested concept, so there is no consensus regarding the concept of the
quality of democracy; the main points of reference on this topic are the studies of Altman and
Pérez-Liñán (2001), Beetham et al. (2002), Beetham (2004), Diamond and Morlino (2005) and
O’Donnell (2004). In terms of definitions of democracy, these approaches differ in the extent of
parsimony of their concepts. Altman and Pérez-Liñán mainly follow Dahl’s (1989) concept of
polyarchy and identify three dimensions of the quality of democracy (effective civil rights, effec-
tive participation and effective competition). They thus represent a quite parsimonious approach
(Altman and Pérez-Liñán, 2001: 88), while other concepts are considerably more complex, for
example, Beetham’s framework, which is included in the democratic audit in the IDEA Handbook
on Democracy Assessment (Beetham et al. 2002). Diamond and Morlino (2005) pursue a quite
broad, comprehensive approach that goes considerably beyond the minimalist approach of Altman
and Pérez-Liñán but still does not reach the level of substantial definitions of democracy that
include social and economic criteria. O’Donnell’s (2004) concept of ‘human development’ is the
most comprehensive and ambitious.
In an attempt to crystallize the common features of the different concepts, Kneuer identifies
three dimensions of democratic quality that are essential to all these approaches (Kneuer, 2011:
135–136): (1) the dimension of civic and political rights and rule of law, which could be considered
the constitutional and control dimension; (2) the procedural dimension, consisting of basic demo-
cratic principles relevant to the input level and decision-making level; and (3) the output dimen-
sion, which refers to the effectiveness of government performance. Synthesizing the different
strands of the quality of democracy is a meaningful way to reduce complexity and provide a parsi-
monious concept which is at the same time sufficiently comprehensive to contain the convergent
components (participation, competition, etc.). Therefore, this is the concept that will be used here.
A variety of different terms for e-democracy can be found in the literature (e-democracy, e-gov-
ernment, e-participation, cyberpolitics, etc.) and their use is inconsistent. Indeed, the definition of
e-democracy itself is inconsistent. Some authors conceive e-democracy as a more general concept
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kneuer 669
(see Hague and Loader, 1999), others follow a narrower understanding, equating e-democracy with
citizen participation (Manoharan and Holzer, 2012: ix). Here, e-democracy is not understood as a
possible future model for a different kind of democracy but, similar to Clift (2004: 38), as an over-
arching concept, namely the use of ICT by political actors (government, elected officials, media,
political/societal organizations, and citizens) within political and governance processes in today’s
representative democracy. Two pillars are commonly identified as pillars of e-democracy: e-gov-
ernment; and e-participation (see inter alia OECD, 2003; UN, 2003).
There is consensus that e-government relates to ‘the use of ICT (…) as a tool to achieve better
government’ (OECD, 2003: 11), in relation to the efficiency of public administration processes,
public services for consumers/citizens, to contribute to specific policy outcomes (for example in
health policy, environmental policy, and educational policy) or economic policy outcomes like
reducing corruption, and to public management modernization. Moreover, e-government can
enhance trust between government and citizens by enabling citizens’ engagement in public policy
processes and promoting open and accountable government.
The OECD and UN regard the concept of e-participation in terms of a three-level approach. The
UN distinguishes between e-information, e-consultation and e-decision-making. Although the
OECD also uses a three-level approach, e-government is subsumed under ‘e-engagement’ and
includes e-information, e-consultation and e-participation (OECD, 2003: 28–58). Thus, the catego-
ries are slightly different. Moreover, the OECD, in contrast to the UN, defines e-engagement as a
two-directional mechanism (top-down and bottom-up).
I basically follow this multidimensional approach towards e-democracy, based on the two pil-
lars of e-government and e-participation. Given the heterogeneous and often inconsistent defini-
tions and conceptual considerations, however, it is important to clarify my understanding of these
basic terms and to relate them in a consistent way. Moreover, I believe that it is necessary to expand
the concept of e-democracy in several respects. This conceptual elaboration will be presented after
discussing the existing indices.
Taking stock: what can existing indices tell us about the Internet
and democracy?
The lack of interest in theorizing and analysing the relationship between media and political systems
in democracy studies has led to considerable lacunae when it comes to explaining the effects of media
performance on democratic outcomes and identifying the mutual influence and interaction between
media logic and political logic (Esser and Matthes, 2013; Kriesi, 2013). A further problem is that the-
ory formation in the different disciplines – political science, communication studies and sociology – is
rarely integrated. Political communication theory elaborates in depth on media logic and especially
Table 1. Three dimensions of democratic quality.
Freedom, equality and
control dimension
Procedural
dimension
Output
dimension
Effective civil rights
Effective political rights
Rule of law
Participation
Competition
Accountability
Responsiveness
Government
effectiveness
Source: Kneuer (2011: 136) on the basis of Altman and Pérez-Liñán (2001), Beetham etal. (2002), Beetham (2004) and
Diamond and Morlino (2005).
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
670 International Political Science Review 37(5)
how it influences political logic. It is often based on the argument that political communication is a
precondition of democracy and that democracy depends heavily on the infrastructure of the media
system (Esser and Matthes, 2013: 155). In democracy studies a dominant interpretation is the liberal
strand, which holds that media freedom and public empowerment contribute to the democratization of
the political system. This is reflected in most democracy indices, which measure media freedom and
media independence as necessary prerequisites for democracy. Such scores, however, do not reveal
much about the strategies and mechanisms of governments and about the tools they offer for commu-
nicating and interacting with citizens; and conversely they do not tell us which channels are used by
citizens in order to influence opinion formation and decision-making.2
It may have been the limited knowledge that these indices provide about the role of the media
in democracies that led to the development of new indices exclusively concerned with the media,
such as Freedom of the Press by Freedom House, the Press Freedom Index by Reporters Without
Borders, the Media Sustainability Index by IREX, and Media Freedom Indicators by UNESCO. I
cannot discuss the approaches and methods of these indices in detail here, but they all view criteria
such as media freedom as the result of democratic development or as an element of the political
environment correlated with the state of democracy.
There are very few indices that focus exclusively on digital media. Freedom House, which cre-
ated the widely known and used Freedom of the World Index, has published the Freedom on the Net
Index annually since 2011. This project only encompasses 65 countries and thus gives only a partial
view. The index gauges the degree of digital freedom by examining three main aspects: obstacles to
access; limits on content; and violations of user rights. The added value of this index undoubtedly
lies in revealing the legal, practical and technical measures that countries take in order to limit free
online communication. The concept, however, is based on an ex negativo approach which only
measures aspects that restrict digital freedom. The measurement only indicates the degree of inter-
ference in online interaction. It does not tell us much about the implications for democratic quality
and does not give any insights into the possible effects of online communication on political pro-
cesses (indeed, it does not seek to do so). Interestingly, in the group of countries that the Freedom of
the World Index assesses as ‘free’, there is significant variation in levels of Internet freedom. Not
every free country allows free Internet access or communication (e.g. India). This is just one indica-
tion of the need for a finer-grained perspective on the digital sphere in democracies.
The second index is the UN E-Government Survey (EGovS), published irregularly since 2003
(2003, 2004, 2005, 2008, 2010, 2012 and 2014). Unlike Freedom on the Net, it comprises all UN
states. Based on a two-level approach, the UN survey assesses e-government and e-participation
separately. The E-Government Development Index (EGDI) provides a score based on three indi-
ces: online services; telecommunication connectivity; and human capacity. The first index assesses
the country’s national website along with the websites of five ministries, the second index com-
prises five indicators for telecommunication infrastructure, and the last index is a composite of the
adult literacy rate and tertiary gross enrolment ratio. The first two indices provide especially
important information. The online services index is particularly useful for quantitative work, as it
both assesses the technical sophistication of the online tools and also measures the stages of e-gov-
ernment development: simple service of information (emerging); enhanced one-way or simple
two-way communication between government and citizens (enhanced); two-way communication,
including the possibility of requests and input into government policies, etc., and also including the
processing of transactions (transactional); and a fourth level addresses proactive communication,
with citizens able to request information and provide opinions using interactive Web 2.0 tools in
order to give them a voice in decision-making and involve them in government activities (con-
nected). The aggregated EGDI score, however, involves distortions due to the aggregation of these
indicators. For example, the score for online services, which is relevant for assessing the state of
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kneuer 671
e-government activities, can be ‘neutralized’ by low scores in telecommunication infrastructure or
human literacy. Countries like Colombia (EGDI rank 50) and the United Arab Emirates (EGDI
rank 32) receive a significantly lower overall rank even though they are among the best performers
in terms of online services (Colombia ranks 13, United Arab Emirates ranks 8; data for 2014).
The e-participation score is broken down into e-information, e-consultation and e-decision-
making (UN, 2010: 16). Each level is assessed separately and then aggregated into the e-participa-
tion index (EPI). This index also assesses the four different stages (see above). The EPI is without
doubt a useful basis for assessing government activity in empowering and including citizens. But
just like the EGDI, the EPI is limited to the top-down perspective, which therefore only provides a
partial view of online-enhanced interaction. Hence, the authors of the UN survey state that there is
a lack of information on the demand side (UN, 2010: 94). Moreover, the EGDI and EPI do not
include basic conditions for Internet use, access and Internet freedom. In sum: existing indices only
provide partial insights into digital processes and their possible influence on democratic quality.
What remains needed, therefore, is an ‘e-democracy index’ with a comprehensive measurement
framework based on a rigorous, homogeneous concept.
Measuring digital democracy: presenting a concept of
e-democracy and an analytical framework
According to Munck and Verkuilen (2002: 13), transparent conceptualization is best achieved by
developing a ‘concept tree’. In the concept I present, e-democracy, which was discussed in the
previous section, is located at the highest level as the point of reference and defined as the ‘use of
ICT by democratic actors (government, elected officials, media, political/societal organizations,
citizens) in political and governance processes in today’s representative democracy’. The next
level of abstraction includes the components – here: the basic conditions for ICT, e-participation
and e-government. The third level identifies the subcomponents and corresponding indicators.
The dimensions of e-democracy
E-democracy is here conceived as a three-dimensional concept, expanding on the two-dimensional
approach of the UN. The first dimension relates to the basic conditions3 for ICT use in democracies
and draws upon two central prerequisites for the existence and durability of e-democracy: (1) the
technical infrastructure (access to digital media); and (2) Internet freedom. The latter are legal provi-
sions concerning the free use of the Internet or content regulation. Just as important as legally guar-
anteed Internet freedom is free access to the Internet on the basis of technical infrastructure and the
question of whether there is any filtering or blocking by independent offices or regulatory bodies.
Creating a specific dimension for Internet freedom and equal access provides a clearer picture of the
legal and technical situation in countries than would including these factors in aggregated scores.
The second dimension is e-participation. Here, three elements are identified. First, as empha-
sized by various scholars, there is a basic distinction between two dimensions in e-participation: a
top-down direction – or in the words of Coleman and Blumler: e-democracy from above – and a
bottom-up direction – or democracy from below (Coleman and Blumler, 2009: 90–139; see also
OECD, 2003: 30). Second, I separate e-voting from engagement in decision-making processes,
since −as in the offline world − these are functionally speaking different actions (OECD, 2003: 32).
And third, I add e-monitoring, based on the assumption that through digital media citizens can not
only gain better knowledge of grievances or undesirable developments but also have a stronger
voice to express ‘alarm’ (Hindman, 2009: 136–138). There are already numerous online parlia-
mentary monitoring organizations, like the Parliament Watch model in Germany, which fulfil a
monitoring function by holding members of parliament (MPs) accountable.
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
672 International Political Science Review 37(5)
Thus, two different directions of e-participation are distinguished – top-down and bottom-up –
and four levels: e-information; e-consultation; e-monitoring; and e-decision-making. These levels
reflect different degrees of engagement in terms of time, input and commitment. Citizens choose
whether to use digital media purely for information, whether they want to contact politicians (via
email or social media like Twitter or Facebook) and thus enter into dialogue with them, whether
they choose to engage in monitoring politicians on specific platforms or whether they will take the
further and more demanding step of becoming involved in decision-making (e.g. via e-petitions,
signing up to campaigns, and collaborative governance). The same applies to top-down tools as for
online-enhanced channels offered by governments: according to the model used by the UN (2014:
195), government online services are graded into four increasingly demanding stages: emerging;
enhanced; transactional; and connected.
The third dimension corresponds to e-government. Unlike e-participation, e-government is lim-
ited to a top-down mechanism that offers online tools to citizens as a government service with a
focus on public service delivery, efficiency and policy outcomes. In this dimension, the role of the
citizen tends to be conceived as that of a consumer or client. The goals of e-governmental tools
focus on cost reduction and efficiency in administrative transactions. At the same time, increased
transparency can lead to the reduction of corruption. Moreover, scholars point to the fact that trans-
parency in policymaking procedures and improved satisfaction of citizens/consumers can increase
trust towards government, which is also supposed to have an impact on legitimacy (Clift, 2004:
8–14; OECD, 2003: 45). Therefore, although e-government seems to be purely a matter of service
or efficiency, it has implications for a possible increase in democratic quality: it can enhance the
output dimension as well as support a positive attitude towards the government, the regime and
democracy in general.
Developing indicators and measurement
The first dimension measures Internet freedom and free and equal access to the Internet. Internet
freedom is broken down into: (a) the absence of legal provisions limiting content, and the existence
of privacy legislation and data collection legislation; and (b) the existence of a strategy (‘digital
agenda’) and an independent body monitoring the implementation of objectives such as
E-Democracy
E-
Government
top down
Informaon
Transacon
E-Parcipaon
boom up
top down
Informaon
Dialogue
Monitoring
Decision-Making
Free and
equal access
Legal
provisions
Technical
infrastructure
Figure 1. Concept of e-democracy.
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kneuer 673
introducing and controlling Internet freedom. Similarly, a third indicator focuses on (c) the absence
of de facto limitations such as violations of users’ rights. Access to the Internet includes: (a) techni-
cal infrastructure, such as a high-bandwidth network with equal distribution; and (b) the absence
of technical filtering or blocking. These indicators can mostly be operationalized based on the
Freedom on the Net Index.
The second dimension is the most comprehensive one. Both top-down and bottom-up mecha-
nisms need to be represented by indicators in order to get a balanced picture. The assessment of
e-information as part of the participatory dimension determines whether state institutions are ‘pro-
viding the kind of information that encourages and empowers citizen participation’ (UN, 2010:
86), for example, calendars of discussion forums, electronic notification tools, etc. On the bottom-
up side, blogs and Twitter hashtags are the most important ways to disseminate information about
political issues while also reaching broader audiences. Both tools – blogs and hashtags – should be
taken into consideration under two conditions: they have to attain broader (i.e. national) attention
in the public sphere; and they have to be initiated and implemented by ‘ordinary’ citizens (and not
by journalists or politicians, as is quite common). Prominent blogs of this kind (like Kottke.org in
the USA, Guido Fawkes in the UK, microsiervos.com in Spain or basicthinking.de in Germany)
can constitute a relevant and alternative voice in the public sphere that can also influence public
debates. The same applies to Twitter hashtags, since Twitter is a microblogging service that enables
multimodal dissemination of information. Hashtags like #StopTTIP, for example, provide addi-
tional information to citizens who have been frustrated by the collusive procedures and actions of
their governments during the TTIP negotiations. With regard to the subcomponent of information,
both political and information scholars (Todoran et al., 2015: 10–11) underline the importance of
analysing not only the existence of information (quantity of government websites, documents that
are available, data, links, etc.) but also the quality (correctness, reliability, objectivity, relevancy,
timeliness, completeness, and integrity). This is an additional and important aspect that can, how-
ever, only be examined in a randomized way.
The next level of participation is termed dialogue, as it comprises on the one hand governments’
consultation tools, which help them to understand their citizens’ needs and demands in relation to
specific topics, and on the other hand citizens addressing political actors in order to enter into dia-
logue or provide input into a specific debate. Common top-down tools include online consultation
(of the general public or targeting specific stakeholder groups), chatrooms or online citizens’ juries.
Citizens can address members of government or parliament via emails or posts on the websites of
ministries or MPs, as well as follow officials on Facebook (a social platform that allows broader
dialogue than Twitter, due to the latter’s space limitation). The frequently asked questions function
can also be a way to get in touch with ministries, agencies, political parties, etc. While the last
indicator can be measured rather easily on the basis of the websites’ own figures, establishing the
number of emails or volume of Facebook communication is more demanding and necessarily relies
on qualitative work.
Monitoring can be understood primarily as a bottom-up tool for citizens to hold their officials
accountable. A good indicator is the presence of online parliamentary monitoring where citizens
address politicians personally. On the other side, a government may have an interest in self-moni-
toring or monitoring specific procedures and policy-making processes, and thus can install online
polls or surveys.
Finally, decision-making can be measured by means of top-down tools like participatory
budgeting, collaborative governance and e-referenda. I also include online voting tools here
(which are not the same as e-voting, since they relate to limited issues/questions that are subject
to decision). These tools may primarily be used at a local or regional level, and so – and this
applies as well for other indicators – these subnational levels also have to be considered. Citizens
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
674 International Political Science Review 37(5)
have an array of tools at their disposal for providing input into policy-making processes in order
to initiate, impede or amend laws. The most common are e-petitions, e-referendum initiatives
and signing up to campaigns. Official government data can be used for the examination of deci-
sion-making tools.
The third dimension, e-government, can be broken down into two main subcomponents:
information; and transaction. The subcomponent ‘information’ may appear somewhat redun-
dant. But while for the participatory dimension information is regarded as encouraging and
empowering people to participate, the function of information for e-government is aimed at a
more general objective that focuses on the existence of websites that provide information from
state institutions (government, parliament, high courts, audit agencies, etc.). Thus, the indicators
are the existence of the websites themselves, the archiving function of information so that citi-
zens can access not only recent but also older documents and the comprehensiveness of the
information so that citizens can to a great extent get an overview of a policy or receive additional
support via links, podcasts, etc. Transaction entails three indicators: e-procurement processes by
governments (at a national, regional or local level); e-transactions, which include all tools that
enable citizens to carry out administrative tasks (e.g. tax declarations, applications for a driver’s
licence or similar), either excluding or including financial transactions; and finally service por-
tals that can also be collaborative and involve multiple stakeholders (e.g. healthcare, which can
include national and subnational levels of administration as well as health insurance companies,
civil society, etc.).
As explained above, the central question that this article addresses is how digital interaction
influences the quality of democracy. How can the two concepts of quality of democracy and
e-democracy be related? While Internet freedom and equal access to the technical infrastructure
constitute prerequisites for Internet use, the procedural dimension of democratic quality (see
Table 1) relates to digital interaction, especially to the dimension of e-participation. The third
dimension of the concept of democratic quality, namely government effectiveness (see Table 2),
Table 2. Indicators for e-participation.
E-participation
Top-down Levels of e-participation Bottom-up
Websites
Archived information
(documents, data, etc.)
Information Blogs by citizens (not journalists
or politicians that attract
(national) public attention)
Hashtags
Online consultation
Chatrooms
Online citizen juries
Dialogue Frequently asked questions use
on websites of ministries, etc.
Emails, posts on websites of
government members, members
of parliament (MPs), etc.
Following government members,
MPs, etc. on Facebook
Online surveys/polls Monitoring Online parliamentary monitoring
Participatory budgets
Collaborative governance
E-referenda/online voting tools*
Decision-making E-petitions
E-referendum initiative
Signing up to online campaigns
*Online voting tools are not the same as e-voting; they relate to opportunities to submit a specific issue for citizens to
judge.
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kneuer 675
corresponds to e-government. In accordance with the concept of e-democracy, the principal online
interactions are broken down into information and transaction (e-government) and information,
dialogue, monitoring and decision-making (e-participation). These interactions relate to different
democratic principles: information transparency; transaction efficiency; dialogue/consulta-
tion deliberation; and inclusion, decision-making participation and inclusion.
All indicators will be assessed on the basis of a simple ordinal scale: completely fulfilled (3);
partially fulfilled (2); marginally fulfilled (1); or not fulfilled at all (0). Measurements on the first
dimension assess the extent to which there is Internet freedom and equal access. Measurements on
the second dimension, e-participation, establish the extent of participatory tools in general.
Furthermore, such measurement will reveal which subdimension prevails in a particular country:
whether the government’s activity focuses on basic and less sophisticated forms like information
or on more interactive and more demanding tools like consultation or decision-making. The same
point applies to the bottom-up direction: results will reveal how much demanding activity is actu-
ally undertaken in order to voice and participate in decision-making. Taken together, these results
indicate whether any improvement of democratic quality can be expected as a result of online-
enhanced processes. A high score on the three dimensions would support such a finding. The
results also make it possible to see which ‘online culture’ prevails in state–citizen interaction: Is
there a trend toward more deliberative or more participatory interaction, or toward monitoring; or,
simply towards the provision and retrieval of information? Moreover, the results of e-participation
can also indicate another tendency, namely whether the online culture is shaped more by top-down
or by bottom-up activity.
Since assessment is carried out for every dimension, there is a score for each subcomponent:4
doing so provides information on free and equal access as well as on e-participation and e-govern-
ment. Measurement has to be carried out at regular intervals (maximum every year, minimum
every two years) in order to observe the dynamics. This is especially important in the rapidly
developing field of ICT.
Space does not permit providing an example of an in-depth analysis. In order to give a tentative
overview, I shall provide a survey of five countries that are quite similar in terms of the first dimen-
sion of Internet freedom and access to the Internet, namely France, the UK, Germany, Canada and
the USA (see Table 3). Interesting differences appear regarding the second dimension of e-partici-
pation. There is a significant gap between France, the UK and the USA, on the one hand, and
Germany and Canada, on the other, because the latter two countries offer very few of the decision-
making tools that the other countries provide in abundance. Germany also has a clearly lower
performance in terms of e-consultation than all other countries.
This finding now needs to be complemented by a thorough analysis of bottom-up e-participa-
tion tools. Different expectations or explanations could be formulated with respect to the case of
Germany. One could be that, at a strategic level, the German government has not formulated the
aim of offering such tools. Another reason could lie at the operative level: the German govern-
ment does aim to increase e-consultation and e-decision-making but has not achieved this aim to
date. It might be the case that the lack of provision of such top-down tools has induced more
bottom-up online activity. Thus, it is useful to assess what effects the presence or absence of top-
down tools can have for the ‘online culture’ of a country and for its democratic quality. For
example, if a country offers many top-down tools and only a few people use them, an increase
in democratic quality cannot be expected, while a low level of top-down participation tools does
not necessarily mean that there is low online engagement by citizens. Therefore – to repeat – an
assessment of both directions is needed in order to achieve a better understanding of the effects
of e-democracy.
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
676 International Political Science Review 37(5)
Conclusion
After predominantly theoretical and normative debates on the democratizing potential of digital
media, empirical evidence is needed in order assess whether digital media can contribute to
improving the quality of democracy. Responding to this challenge, this article has presented a
concept of e-democracy and an analytical framework to assess it. Due to limited space, this
article cannot provide more than a basic outline of a measurement of digital processes in
democracies. The added value of such an e-democracy index is, firstly, that it provides a basis
for assessing digital interaction (something which has previously been lacking) and, secondly,
that it enables a finer-grained perspective on the development of digital processes in democra-
cies, something which is essential to scholars (and not just those working on ICT), politicians,
and practitioners.
The e-democracy index I have proposed is a first step – and to my knowledge the only one
– that aims to record and evaluate possible improvements to democratic processes through digi-
talization. The fine-grained but parsimonious concept makes it possible to assess the locus
(grassroots or state level) and level of engagement (from information to decision-making), and
to relate these types of engagement to central democratic principles. The aggregated score
shows the extent of online-enhanced democratic processes (from completely fulfilled to not at
all fulfilled). In countries without e-democracy, no improvement of democratic quality can be
expected, while countries which receive a score of ‘completely fulfilled’ are expected to display
an improvement in democratic quality. The index offers not only a cross-country comparison
but also a comparison over time. This could reveal whether governments are reducing or
increasing their activities in specific types of engagement or whether citizens are becoming
more active or not.
The e-democracy index provides a basic framework which can be expanded. Some challenges
remain. For example, the framework I have presented does not record the deterioration of demo-
cratic quality. The problem is that this involves factors that relate to dimensions other than those
outlined here, such as the atomization of the public sphere (Buchstein, 1997; Dahlgren, 2013)
which are difficult to assess. A further negative effect for democratic quality could be that online-
based tools are not working successfully. This assessment can be incorporated at least for e-dia-
logue and e-participation as well as e-government. Other challenges for constructing an
e-democracy index include the scope of governmental bodies to be assessed and how to obtain
comparable data for national and especially subnational levels. The dynamics of ICT develop-
ment, without doubt, are a central factor that must be taken into consideration by regularly
updating the framework.
Acknowledgements
I thank the anonymous reviewers and the editor, Mark Kesselman, for their very helpful comments.
Table 3. E-participation top-down scores for selected examples.
Canada France Germany UK USA
E-information 96.30 96.30 96.30 96.30 96.30
E-consultation 77.27 77.27 45.45 63.64 63.64
E-decision-making 00.00 77.78 11.11 88.89 88.89
Source: Data from UN (2014).
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Kneuer 677
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit
sectors.
Notes
1. Comparative democracy studies have paid relatively little attention to the role of the media (this is the
complaint, for example, of Curran, 2011; Mughan and Gunther, 2000). One of the most instructive recent
exceptions is Kriesi (2013).
2. Only the Democracy Index by The Economist Intelligence Unit takes a broader look at the media, con-
sidering five indicators, including one measuring political restrictions on access to the Internet (The
Economist Intelligence Unit, 2013: points 44–48).
3. There is consensus that digital literacy also constitutes an important condition for Internet use. There are,
however, no consistent measures of this factor. Therefore, it is not considered here.
4. The data sampling of the e-democracy index that I present here relies on existing quantitative data as well
as expert assessment.
References
Altman, David and Aníbal Pérez-Liñán (2001) Assessing the Quality of Democracy: Freedom, Competitiveness
and Participation in 18 Latin American Countries. Notre Dame University: Kellogg Institute Working
Paper. Available at: http://www.academia.edu/1535476/Assessing_the_Quality_of_Democracy_Freedom_
Competitiveness_and_Participation_in_18_Latin_American_Countries
Barber, Benjamin (1998b) Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy. Political
Science Quarterly 113(4): 573–590.
Beetham, David (2004) Towards a Universal Framework for Democracy Assessment. Democratization
(11)2: 1–17.
Beetham, David, Sarah Bracking, Iain Kearton and Stuart Weir (2002) Handbook on Democracy Assessment.
The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International.
Buchstein, Hubertus (1997) Bytes that Bite: the Internet and deliberative democracy. Constellations 4(2):
248–263.
Castells, Manuel (2009) Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Clift, Steven L (2004) E-Government and Democracy: Representation and Citizen Engagement in the
Information Age. Research provided for the UN UNPAN/DESA for the 2003 World Public Sector
Report. Available at: http://www.publicus.net/articles/cliftegovdemocracy.pdf
Coleman, Stephen and Jay G Blumler (2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice and
Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Curran, James (2011) Media and Democracy. Oxford: Routledge.
Dahl, Robert (1989) Democracy and its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dahlgren, Peter (2009) Media and Political Engagement: Citizens, Communication, and Democracy.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahlgren, Peter (2013) The Political Web: Media, Participation and Alternative Democracy. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Diamond, Larry and Leonardo Morlino (eds) (2005) Assessing the Quality of Democracy. Baltimore, MD:
John Hopkins University Press.
Diamond, Larry and Mark F Plattner (eds) (2012) Liberation Technology: Social Media and the Struggle for
Democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Esser, Frank and Jörg Matthes (2013) Mediatization Effects on Political News, Political Actors, Political
Decisions, and Political Audiences. In Kriesi, Hanspeter, Sandra Lavenex, Frank Esser, Jörg Matthes,
Marc Bühlmann and David Bochsler (eds) Democracy in the Age of Globalization and Mediatization.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 177–201.
Hague, Barry N and Brian D Loader (eds) (1999) Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision Making in the
Information Age. London: Routledge.
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
678 International Political Science Review 37(5)
Hindman, Matthew (2009) The Myth of Digital Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Kneuer, Marianne (2011) Deficits in Democractic Quality? The effects of party-system institutionalization on
the quality of democracy in Central Europe. In Gero Erdmann and Marianne Kneuer (eds) Regression of
Democracy? Special Issue, Comparative Governance and Politics 1: 133–177.
Kneuer, Marianne (2013) Bereicherung oder Stressfaktor? Überlegungen zur Wirkung des Internets auf die
Demokratie In Marianne Kneuer (ed) Das Internet: Bereicherung oder Stressfaktor für die Demokratie?
Baden-Baden, Germany: Nomos: 7–33.
Kriesi, Hanspeter (2013) Democracy as a Moving Target. In Kriesi, Hanspeter, Sandra Lavenex, Frank Esser,
Jörg Matthes, Marc Bühlmann and David Bochsler (eds) Democracy in the Age of Globalization and
Mediatization. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan: 19–44.
Leggewie, Claus (1998) Demokratie auf der Datenautobahn. In Leggewie, Claus and Christa Maar (eds)
Internet und Politik. Köln, Germany: Bollmann: 15–54.
Manoharan, Aroon and Marc Holzer (2012) Preface. In Manoharan, Aroon and Marc Holzer (eds)
Active Citizen Participation in E-Government: A Global Perspective. Hershey, PA: IGI Global:
xiv–xviii.
McCaughey, Martha and Michael D Ayers (eds) (2003) Cyberactivism: Online Activism in Theory and
Practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Meraz, Sharon (2009) Is There an Elite Hold? Traditional media to social media agenda setting influence in
blog networks. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 14(3): 682–707.
Mossberger, Karen, Caroline J Tolbert and Ramona S McNeal (2008) Digital Citizenship: The Internet,
Society, and Participation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mughan, Anthony and Richard Gunther (2000) The Media in Democratic and Nondemocratic Regimes: A
multilevel perspective. In Gunther, Richard and Anthony Mughan (eds) Democracy and the Media: A
Comparative Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–27.
Munk, Gerardo and Jay Verkuilen (2002) Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: evaluating alternative
indices. Comparative Political Studies 35(1): 5–34.
O’Donnell, Guillermo (2004) Human Development, Human Rights, and Democracy. In O’Donnell,
Guillermo, Jorge Cullel, and Osvaldo Iazetta (eds) The Quality of Democracy: Theory and Application.
Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 9–92.
OECD (2003) Promise and Problems of e-Democracy. Challenges of Citizen Engagement. Paris: OECD.
Rheingold, Howard (1993) The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Reading MA:
Perseus.
The Economist Intelligence Unit (2013). Democracy Index 2013. Available at: http://www.eiu.com/public/
thankyou_download.aspx?activity=download&campaignid=Democracy0814
Todoran, Ian George, Laurent Lecornu, Ali Khenchaf and Jean-Marc Le Caillec (2015) A Methodology to
Evaluate Important Dimensions of Information Quality in Systems. In: ACM Journal of Data Information
Quaterly. 6, 2–3, Article 11: 1–23. Available at: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2744205
UN (2003) ‘Global e-Government Survey 2003’ [online]. Available from: https://publicadministration.
un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2014 [Accessed 13 February 2016].
UN (2010) United Nations e-Government Survey 2012 [online]. Available from: https://publicadministration.
un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/UN-E-Government-Survey-2014 [Accessed 13 February 2016].
UN (2014) E-Government Survey. Available at: https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/en-us/Reports/
UN-E-Government-Survey-2014
Van de Donk, Wim, Brian D Loader, Paul G Nixon and Dieter Rucht (eds) (2004), Cyberprotest. New Media,
Citizens, and Social Movements. London, New York, NY: Routledge.
Wilhelm, Anthony G (2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. New
York, NY: Routledge.
Author biography
Marianne Kneuer is Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Hildesheim. Her expertise is
regime studies. At her university she established the research focus on “Politics and Internet”.
by guest on November 25, 2016ips.sagepub.comDownloaded from
... The advent of globalization, catalyzed by the discovery of internet technology in the 1990s by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) in the United States, has revolutionized the exchange of information and culture on a global scale (Kneuer, 2016). With an estimated 4.66 billion people, nearly 60 percent of the world's population, having internet access in 2021 according to Within the intricate tapestry of language lies a multitude of layers comprising meanings and symbolism that reflect the diverse traditions, customs, and values of different peoples (Sagatova, 2022). ...
Article
Full-text available
The millennial generation in Surakarta faces the imperative need to preserve and fortify the essence of Javanese culture amidst the pervasive forces of globalization driven by internet technology. The emergence of Permadani Studio is perceived as a means to aid millennials in understanding and cherishing local culture. However, what is the social structure within the studio and how does it contribute to the preservation of Javanese culture?. This study adopted a qualitative approach, utilizing in-depth interviews and Focus Discussion Groups to explore the role of Permadani Studio in maintaining the richness of Javanese culture among the millennial generation in Surakarta. Data analysis employed descriptive qualitative methods and Anthony Giddens' structuration theory framework to comprehend the interplay between social structure and individual action in the context of cultural preservation. Through the lens of Anthony Giddens' social structuralism approach, the Pambiwara courses at Permadani Studio demonstrate how social structures, such as Javanese cultural norms and values, shape the institutional framework for cultural preservation. Millennials and course instructors are active agents in rejuvenating cultural preservation practices tailored to their era, showcasing the intricate interaction between structure and agency in safeguarding cultural heritage. These findings underscore the significance of collaboration between social structure and individual agents in addressing the challenges posed by globalization to preserve local culture.
... Politics have been linked to every previously mentioned structural transformation and have digitalized in their own fashion, including the macro, meso, and micro level of politics. Starting with the macro level, political systems have incorporated technology in the shape of developing e-democracy and open government initiatives (Borucki and Hartleb, 2023;Kneuer, 2016;Wirtz and Birkmeyer, 2015). Consequently, open data and digital tools are reshaping democracies, enabling ways for larger channels of direct democracy, including participation and deliberation procedures, and for a better control of politicians' activity (Jungherr et al., 2020). ...
Article
Full-text available
This paper delves into the concept of digital leadership in contemporary democracies, considering the impact of the digital age on politics and, consequently, on political leadership. In our view, with the spread of radio stations first, then televisions, and finally the web, leadership has evolved through three great stages: broadcast, telegenic and digital. The web, and social media in special, have reshaped democracies and political interactions both at macro, meso, and micro levels. With Obama as forefather and across different political ideologies, a new generation of politicians as Beppe Grillo, Justin Trudeau, Giorgia Meloni or Sanna Marin, among others, shows how leaders are adapting to a highly digitalized political environment. As we understand it, leaders with good digital media abilities need to excel in three skills-presence, interaction and engagement-and would have two main attributes: reliability and relatability. We also consider that the digitalization of leadership deepens the personalization and presidentialization phenomena in politics and under certain circumstances may provide cases of so-called hyper-leadership more frequently.
... Though not considered to be strictly participatory by some authors, as e-information often is considered as one-way, top-down information dissemination to the general public, it is necessary to realize e-participation. In her model of e-democracy, Kneuer (2016) views e-information as both top-down and bottom-up, as citizens may respond and provide supplementary information to the authorities as well as to other citizens. ...
Article
Full-text available
Purpose This paper explores how COVID-19 has impacted the shift from public participation by conventional means to e-participation. Specifically, we investigated to what extent COVID-19 has been a driver for electronic participation in community participatory budgeting, which is a kind of residents’ consultation on how to spend part of a budget on local projects. We expounded on the concept of e-participation and its sub-concepts and investigated how these were applicable to participatory budgeting. Design/methodology/approach We interviewed 34 leading managers in five City Halls in Poland regarding their views and experiences with moving public interactions related to participatory budgeting online during COVID-19. Findings The findings indicated that COVID-19 has accelerated the digitalization of the participatory budgeting processes and, to some extent, may have increased community participation in general. We observed increased e-participation in the forms of e-consultation, e-deliberation, e-lobbying and e-voting. Originality/value Mainly, this study contributed to the field by providing empirical evidence that COVID-19 increased various forms of e-participation as related to participatory budgeting. Moreover, we delineated various forms of e-participation and mapped them to activities in participatory budgeting.
... E-democracy is a well-known term that describes a wide range of practices, including the online engagement of the public in political decision-making and opinion-making. (Kneuer, 2016) But as far as the theoretical concepts of democracy are concerned, e-democracy is based primarily on models of participatory and deliberative democracy. (Päivärinta & Saebø, 2006) Public deliberation expresses views on any scope, priorities for new initiatives or evaluation of existing policies and legislation. ...
... Based on the discussion by Grönlund and Horan (2005), we define e-government as utilization of information and communication technologies (ICT), and particularly the internet, by central, regional, and local authorities to provide information and various services to the public. Though e-government is focused primarily on offering governmental services to the community, it may also have important implications for democratic quality by better enabling public involvement in societal decision-making (Kneuer, 2016). ...
... A high EGDI can strengthen community participation through online consultation, electronic voting, and participation in decision-making processes (Kneuer, 2016). Improving e-government public services can improve the quality and availability of public services, reducing the time and cost needed by the public to access these services (Wahyu Sulistya et al., 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
The rapid development of information technology is the main driver for significant dynamics in the implementation of e-government. This study aims to present an analysis of the challenges of implementing e-government in Indonesia. This study used quantitative methods using secondary data. The results showed that the E-Government Development Index in Indonesia reached rank 77 in 2022 with a good sub-index score: 0.76 for the Online Service Index, 0.64 for the Telecommunication Infrastructure Index, and 0.74 for the Human Capital Index. The conclusion of this study shows that some of the challenges of implementing E-Government,, namely lack of data integration, minimal public participation, and lack of understanding of technical aspects and information security among Human Resources (HR), especially the State Civil Apparatus. Based on these problems, there are several research implications to improve information technology infrastructure better and more evenly distributed throughout Indonesia, namely: (1) expanding accessibility and improving digital infrastructure in Indonesia, (2) providing assistance and training to each local government and civil servants on the use and benefits of technology in the government system to provide optimal public services, and (3) support and prioritize the integration of the National Data Center to collect all data from regions, ministries, and institutions nationally in one Big Data.
Article
Full-text available
This study aims to acknowledge whether there is a relationship between democracy and safety parameters through democratic country categories. For this purpose, this study compares the averages of the four subgroups. These four subgroups are full democracy, flawed democracy, hybrid regime, and authoritarian regime subgroups. The study's conceptual framework comprises democracy, safety, and democratic peace theory. In the study, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) is performed for independent groups to compare multiple group averages. ANOVA results indicate whether there is a statistically significant difference between groups as a whole. The study proposes that people living in democratic countries live in a much safer environment. Data indicate that crime is universal and point out the positive effects of high-income level, prosperity, education and low population density on crime. However, it should be kept in mind that the evaluations in this paper are valid for crimes included in the safety index including theft, violence, bribery, and so on. The results, based on data between 2018 and 2022, reveal that the expanded propositions of democratic peace theory can only be valid for full democracy.
Conference Paper
Undoubtedly, the explosion of artificial intelligence constitutes the milestone of modern digital evolution. AI is used in almost every field of private and public life, reshaping the traditional structure of society and marking scientific progress. In the political area AI tools are the new trend since campaigns are executed through AI mechanisms and messages are disseminated via that method which is, certainly, attractive and persuasive, especially to the youth. However, AI technologies, with their capacity for rapid data processing and content generation, have been harnessed to both combat and propagate fake news. The main question which arises is the following: does AI promote or undermine political thought? This paper aims at demonstrating, at first level, the impact of AI on politics. Through a detailed presentation of the regulatory framework on the matter there are exposed both legal and ethical requirements for a powerful and trustworthy AI. Moreover, via a critical approach, it is illustrated the potential but great interaction between AI and fake news which may penetrate the political sphere and harm public opinion, voter behavior and the integrity of democratic process. Therefore, this paper intends to underscore the necessity for robust legal regimes, giving special emphasis on ethical AI deployment. The ultimate goal is to cultivate political consciousness, enhance public awareness to safeguard fundamental values in current digital era and denote the right balance between technological evolution and the promotion of democratic institutions.
Article
The aim of this research is to investigate the youth political participation in the digital public sphere and to understand their efficacy. The political participation of the younger generation is very important for the development of democracy in Indonesia given their significant numbers. The color of future democracy in this regard, is largely determined by their involvement in carrying out their roles as the pillar of democracy. This research used the method of survey to look at the trending themes for political engagement of university students in social media. This study revealed that the young generation involvement in political participation can take many different forms, including participating in social activities, fundraising, having talks about current events, reacting to government actions, etc. It also found that they prefer using Instagram and Twitter over other social media to express their political goals. The younger generation has shown good efficacy in political participation. However, skills in the use of citizenship technology are also a much-needed requirement to generate political participation in the era of digital age, that brings virtues to democracy
Book
Relations between the public and holders of political authority are in a period of transformative flux. On the one side, new expectations and meanings of citizenship are being entertained and occasionally acted upon. On the other, an inexorable impoverishment of mainstream political communication is taking place. This book argues that the Internet has the potential to improve public communications and enrich democracy, a project that requires imaginative policy-making. This argument is developed through three stages: first exploring the theoretical foundations for renewing democratic citizenship, then examining practical case studies of e-democracy, and finally, reviewing the limitations of recent policies designed to promote e-democracy and setting out a radical, but practical proposal for an online civic commons: a trusted public space where the dispersed energies, self-articulations and aspirations of citizens can be rehearsed, in public, within a process of ongoing feedback to the various levels and centers of governance: local, national and transnational.
Chapter
This book presents a systematic overview and assessment of the impacts of politics on the media, and of the media on politics, in authoritarian, transitional and democratic regimes in Russia, Spain, Hungary, Chile, Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United States. Its analysis of the interactions between macro- and micro-level factors incorporates the disciplinary perspectives of political science, mass communications, sociology and social psychology. These essays show that media's effects on politics are the product of often complex and contingent interactions among various causal factors, including media technologies, the structure of the media market, the legal and regulatory framework, the nature of basic political institutions, and the characteristics of individual citizens. The authors' conclusions challenge a number of conventional wisdoms concerning the political roles and effects of the mass media on regime support and change, on the political behavior of citizens, and on the quality of democracy.
Book
As democracy encounters difficulties, many citizens are turning to the domain of alternative politics and, in so doing, making considerable use of the new communication technologies. This volume analyses the various factors that shape such participation, and addresses such key topics as civic subjectivity, web intellectuals, and cosmopolitanism.
Chapter
We define mediatization as the growing intrusion of media logic as an institutional rule into fields where other rules of defining appropriate behavior prevailed (see Chapter 7). Mediatization can lead to an enhancement, adaptation, obstruction, or even substitution of political functions by the logic of the media system. At its extreme it can lead to a state of ‘mediatized politics’ where politics ‘has lost its autonomy, has become dependent in its central functions on mass media, and is continuously shaped by interactions with mass media’ (Mazzoleni and Schulz 1999: 250). The professional, commercial, and technological production rules of the media -its operating logic — are important requirements which political actors must take into account if they are to receive publicity, public support, and legitimacy. Media logic provides an incentive structure that contextualizes, and often shapes, political processes — particularly those that are dependent on publicity and public support. From this it follows that — contrary to a priori assumptions of a fully transformed ‘media democracy’ — the concept of mediatization does not assume a complete ‘colonialization’ of politics by the media. Rather we expect that some institutions, stages, and activities in the political process will be mediatized more than others, depending on how media-compatible they are (Marcinkowski 2005).