Digitalization and Politics

The art and process of taking collectively binding decisions.

Laws and sanction

Process of taking, implementing, enforcing decisions

Institution that takes, implements and enforces decisions

I can make you do X, even if you don‘t want to

Governed by state-made decisions

The state does not interfere -> I am my own boss

Communal self-government, collective freedom

Individual self-government, individual freedom

Core: rule by the people

Key problem: how to get from private autonomy to collective autonomy?

Individual wills

↓

Private autonomy

↓

Everyone is able to participate

Key democratic values: - political equality

Key democratic norms:

- rights -> freedom of expression

Key democratic resources: - time, income, information

Collective will

↓

collective autonomy

↓

Throughput

From I to we -> setting the agenda, taking decisions

Key democratic values: generalized perspective-taking, respect

Key democratic norms: deliberation- enhancing norms

Collective acting

↓

Collective autonomy

↓

Collective empowerment

 Key democratic value: use of coercion is to be regulated by laws

„Members of demos discuss ‚common good‘“

Real: newspaper, radio, social media

Ideal: a space, where people really communicate

- Procedural view of democracy

- Separation of powers: legislative, executive power and judiciary)

- lack of information gathered by state

- regarding the constitution and other laws and rules

- solution: digital media

Supported by two party countries or presidential system (Where 2 major political parties dominate because they receive the majority of votes)

Parties and leaders compete for the support of the electorate

Direct democracy

:Political decisions have to be approved/rejected by the people made through referenda

You cannot make decisions without the votes of the citizens

- system without one Center of power

- combination of representative democracy + direct - value: pluralism in social and political discussion

- difference between people: opinions, ethics, beliefs - no one carries to much power

- everyone learns from each other

- combination of direct and indirect democracy

- focus is on forming a broad opinion formation about political affairs

- public education plays an important role in the participation of the public

- people need to listen and respect other‘s ideas in order to come to a conclusion

- Close to pluralist

- libertarianism is a kind of politics that says the government should have less control over people‘s lives

- political freedom, autonomy of citizens, supporting the minority

- people have more opportunity to be part of politics and participate more

- internet: interactive way to directly communicate ideas and share opinions behind a screen and also share their thoughts about the government

- free speech, free participation

- easy way to communicate without fear

- digital skills are needed to make sure people get the right information -> old generation would be more excluded

- digitalization is not utopian, it will not safe us

- digitalisation is more than a way to organize existing democracy more efficiently

- Digitalisation comes with both opportunities and risks

- democracy activists use social networks to organise protest, influence voting choices, raise awareness, change way of thinking - can affect democracy in multiple ways

- it is important to transform the information into political actions - increasing information inequality -> lack of citizens being involved into political actions

What is the case?

How does digitalisation influence the democratic process? Input: who gets a voice?

Throughput: how issues are discussed and decided?

Output: how democratic decisions are practically effectuated?

Should these influences be assessed positively or negatively, in the light of the democratic ideal of self-governance (=normative standard or criterion)

How can democracy enhance positive forms of digitalisation, and minimum negative ones?

1. recognising 2. resisting

3. representing 4. deliberating 5. voting

6. joining

- who gets included/excluded?

- complete and equal political rights (having or not having) - Black Lives Matter

- constant work an recognising each other as equals

Opportunities:

- social media and platforms facilitate mutual contacts and recognition of other

- sharing information and recognising each other of the same community

erleichtern

Risks:

- exclusion of the digitally inept, unequal ‚recognition‘ - Filter bubbles for the like-minded, polarisation

- there is no good democracy without recognition

ANSWER

- democracies evolve(d) from resistance against lack of recognition and perceived injustice

- political rights: providing freedom of speech

- civil disobedience: when you protest against a law that you think is bad, even when the law was democratically decidable -> provoking the law

Opportunities:

- Platforms empower citizens groups to engage, self-organise and coordinate

- Internet -> decentralisation, horizontal rather than vertical

Risks:

- undermining of preconditions for resistance: privacy and anonymity - it is difficult to resist on the internet -> data is store

- algorithmic governance: may contain invisible biases that make resistance difficult

- Delegation to someone else of the power to think, decide and act on my behalf -> you do everything by yourself

Opportunities:

- partial Lifting of time/space constraints

- more transparency and accountability? Digitalisation could help me what they do, what do they vote for?

Risk:

- Inclusion: if you check too closely on your representatives, they have too little space

- digitalisation promise: now you are in control -> digital platforms promise that you can do what you like -> it does not work in democracy

- populism: politicians communicate directly with their constituency

— leader speaks the will of the people

- thinking, talking, deciding together on the common/public good - your interest to do something about it

- transform individual will into a collective, public will

- Strengths: rich on information, respect is possible

- Weaknesses: deliberation is slow, compromises

Opportunities:

- better, more, faster information - equality

Risk:

- sending is more common than listening - flaming: negative notions

- aggregation of individual preferences, counting hands Strength: decisive and fast

Weakness: low on information (I know what you votes, not why)

Opportunities:

- e-voting is very easy, it can be done often and fast

Risks:

- Opinion poll democracy volatile, poorly informed - no consistency

- Fraud: how do you know if its secure or sure

- people form unions: political parties

- you will never find a party that you like 100% Opportunities:

- Platforms facilitate self-organisation of interest groups Risk:

- right of the strongest

- awareness gained from social media can engage people to be part of the movement

- opportunity for lateral communication and increases awareness which can intensify the influences

- Awareness is crucial for every protest

- raising awareness through social media

- place for unfiltered representation of the violence

- spreading awareness using social media encourages people to be a part of the movement

- although social media facilitate movements, social media can also create a lazy forms of activism known as slacktivism

- digital Technologies provide a significant infrastructure, but cannot alone bring people on the streets

- good coordination, organization

- social media makes people think that they are present at the protest and gives the opportunity to connect publicly with the protest

- Physical protest are more powerful than online protest, however digital activism empowers and motivates the protest

- digital literacy!!!

- online activism can be complicated

- everyone is task-oriented -> Berlin Wall Fall

- civil rights activism is risky and strategic

- easy way of communication and to spread information

- networks are chaotic, you can find constant correction and debate - online: no lasting effect

- platforms help to exchange information

- everyone (who has the digital skills) can participate, no matter where you are

- to build communities, generate awareness

- creates motivation

- From 800-500: small communities settled down at the coastline, which were controlled by local kingships and later on dominated by the clan and tribal hierarchies

- from 650-510: political continuity of the early city states was broken by the rise of tyrants and autocrats

- mid. 600 BC: first democratic polity

- the development of democracy in Athens was a central source of inspiration for modern political thought -> influenced western thinking

- Plato and Aristoteles critically examine the limits of democracy in their works

1. Election to office by all

2. Rule overall in a certain period

3. People are removed from offices that do not require skills 4. No offices that depend on wealth

5. People are not allowed to occupy the same office twice

6. Short terms of office

7. Juries

8. Assemblies are sovereign authorities

9. Payment if the offices is regular

10. All people are equal (only Athens were allowed to vote) 11. No public official has an indefinite term

Degrees of Citizen Power: Citizens control, delegated power, partnership Degrees of Tokenism: Placation, Consultation, Informing Non-participation: Therapy, Manipulation

Deliberating Voting

- keeping yourself informed about government decision - petitioning

- helping your political party to win the elections

- answering when consulted by the government

Resistance Joining

Demonstrations Protest actions

Not all activities are performed within the institutions of the state, or targeted against it.

Why political? Because the action is aimed at making a collective choice, and at solving problems of the community

Not all political action is conducted within the state

- digital technologies influence voting in multiple ways -> opinion formation

- e-voting

- enabling forms of direct democracy

- e-petitioning - participatory

- digital technologies provide new means for political mobilisation and collective dissent

- leads to new type of political participation -> connective action

- strong organisational coordination of action - decisions (finally) made at top level

- division of labour

- Units with task-responsibilities

- creation of common identity - strong ties, loyalty

- discipline

- stability

- able to plan strategically

- can manage long-lasting campaigns

- conflict resolution through hierarchy or procedure

- little or no organisational coordination of action - decisions only through consensus

- individual self-expression comes first

- novelty

- unable to plan strategically

- volatile: forming fast, dissolving fast - no mechanisms for conflict resolution

- participation: positive

- Knowledge: positive: engagement with digital media increased political knowledge; engagement with political content on social media increased political interest : negative : decrease in political knowledge

- higher chance of collecting misinformation

- digital media: threaten existing democracies

- low-trust societies: people mainly trust their own kin networks

- high-trust societies: people trust in impersonal institutions and rules

- ‘Pitting the people against the elite’

- both are understood to be homogenous groups

- concern about the destruction of the nation (right-wing)

- concern about the elite feeling contempt for the common, hardworking men and women, and about the elite keeping these men and women poor (right and left wing)

- concern that the existing political parties all serve the late/existing power structure

Style:

- strong leaders, posing as the voice of the people

- instilling a sense of crisis; appeal to indignation, fear, anger, resentment, hope

- simplistic messages, that deliberately do not conform to the style of normal political communication to radiate anti-establishment 

Largely beneficial effects:

- participation and political expression - political knowledge

Largely negative effects: - misinformation

- trust

- Polarisation

-populism

-network homophily

Freedom of choice, reason, freedom from tyranny and absolutism

- liberalism began to challenge the absolute powers

- government has to be accountable (Bentham)

- competition among political representatives, separation of power, freedom of media, of speech, public association to save the interest of the community

- liberal citizens must be potentially informed for those elected to act responsibly

criticism:

- individual preferences, everyone wants to govern on their opinion -> what is best for me

Filter bubbles are a problem because of transparent filters used by algorithms, limit freedom of choice, the principle of separation of powers and media freedom are also in danger.

Breaking the filter bubbles, by Engin Bozdag, Jordon van den Hoven

Discussion, moral consensus, different perspectives, free/equal

- decision making through discussion among free and equal citizens

- sitting down together

- elections themselves are infused with information

- citizens reasoning directly into the consideration of regulatory issues - no mere consent Keine bloße Zustimmung

- deliberation increases the pool of ideas and information, helps us to discover truths and different perspectives, better understanding of facts

Criticism:

- full-fledged deliberation is difficult to achieve because there is an inequality in deliberative skills among citizens

- voters are not interest in common good, but only in their interests - deliberation among like-minded people can lead to polarisation

Filter bubbles are a problem of the low quality of information

Less diverse ideas/available information, respect for each other suffers

Breaking the filter bubbles, by Engin Bozdag, Jordon van den Hoven

Conflict, competition, unequal power relations

- opposer is not an enemy, it is a adversary

- an adversary is someone whose ideas we oppose, but whose right to defend those ideas we do not question

Filter bubbles are problematic because they hide and remove channels through which opposing views can clash

-> resistance

Breaking the filter bubbles, by Engin Bozdag, Jordon van den Hoven

Independence from arbitrary power, political liberty; non-domination, Transparency, contestation 

- freedom: structural independence not being subject to arbitrary or uncontrolled power

- active electorate

- citizens should be able to challenge decisions, which are made with transparency

Filter bubbles interfere with getting right information and contestation - filter bubbles block both incoming and outgoing information channels - it can block reliable information

Sharing is important, different backgrounds/opinions can help taking down barriers.

It is an easy way but not necessary a good one

We can see younger generations getting more involved

People get more open-minded and have a broader view

OCEAN model: openness, conscientiousness, extroversion, agreeableness, neuroticism

Behavioural prediction

\ Manipulation

• : Unfair competition
• Less transparency
• : Inequality exposure Less conversation

Siamese Twins:

- accountability and transparency are intertwined and cannot be distinguished as different things

- transparency to being open

- accountability in the sense of responsibility means that respondents share information with those to whom they are accountable.

- Transparency in the sense of openness is itself a way of being accountable for the behaviour of a person or organisation

Matching parts:

- accountability and transparency are separable but complementary that they produce good governance only in combination .

- they complement each other in democratic institutions, but they are not the same

- it enables concerned society to be informed about the activities of executive government

- Transparency reduces the risk of unnoticed mistakes and confusion

- they are not always separable by no means always combine to produce good governance

- they do not go smoothly together

- Onora O’Neill: formal transparency requirements tend to lead to defensive one-way communication rather than real answerability

- limiting transparency is a condition for accountability to be effective -Transparency often leads politicians to devote all their efforts to avoiding blame rather than taking appropriately calculated risks

- it seems impossible to discard it entirely

/ Mutual affordances

: Creates a division between the “elite” and the rest of the Population

Social media are built in a way that can support populism.

:Small tweets, emotion-driven reactions, less barriers compared to traditional media.

Better in a way that people can express their opinion freely.

- No quality control, no ethics involved

- misinformation

- misinterpretation

- miscommunication -> information is too complex

- controlled by governance

- difficulty to balance transparency and individual data regulation - privacy

- politicians do not take risks anymore

- box ticking