Federalism
|
Electronic media, and particularly interactive media, create opportunities for new modes of political action and interaction. The literature focuses on three central theoretical constructs relevant to electronic media: plebiscitary democracy, communitarianism, and pluralism. While early enthusiasm was directed at the opportunity for direct, plebiscitary democracy, the discussion has evolved over time to focus on a range of civic interactions that can be enhanced through the media. Much of what happens on-line is a substitute for and amplification of other systems of communication, and there is debate over whether the media will actually engage more people in political life. However, several attributes of electronic media suggest its potential to shape political processes in new ways. The media encourage micro-politics and special interest affiliation, promote horizontal networking rather than hierarchical organization, and greatly increase accountability at all stages. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What are the implications for our federal system of technologies that can bind us instantly across distance yet shatter us into micro-communities of opinion? What are the promises and opportunities of new methods of communicating and interacting politically, and what have we learned about their limits in civic space?
FDR used radio broadcasts to create intimacy with his constituents, and Kennedy was the first president to use television in a similar manner. Even telephony permits rapid exchange of information, and some proposals for electronic citizenship concentrate on these simpler devices, for example, in voting and polling. Since Buckminster Fuller declared the advent of the "Global Village", enthusiasts have proclaimed the political possibilities inherent in electronic media. But disillusionment has followed.
Broadcast media (including print) are unidirectional. While they undergird the possibility of shared culture they do so at a loss of the very diversity that gives resilience to society. They have changed how we form our opinions and perceptions of politicians and have driven the cost of electoral politics--and hence the debt of winners to vested interests--sky high. At the end of this road we find ourselves with leaders trapped in the prurient eye of politics-as-entertainment.
A new wave of enthusiasm for the political implications of electronic media has surged with the Internet. Unlike broadcast media, which are public media that communicate one-to-many, and telephony, which creates a private sphere of communication one-to-one, computer-mediated communications allow a range of interactions. These range from one-to-one e-mail and one-to-many web pages, to many-to-many on-line chats, bulletin boards and asynchronous discussion groups. Thus computer-mediated communication can be both a mass medium and a personal one. Even when functioning as a mass medium, new web-based technologies allow far more interactivity than any of the other mass media (Jaffe).
In theory, electronic democracy offers prospects for better-informed voters, greater ease in making ones opinions heard, the opportunity to create communities of political discourse on-line, and the opportunity to participate, with relative ease, in civic conversation regardless of physical and temporal barriers to assembly. The electronic forum promises to indeed be an agora, a gathering place in which democracy may flourish.
While one-way media eliminate barriers in space--or distort space into cultural spaces shaped by ownership of broadcast resources-- the availability of masses of information through the Internet compresses and distorts time. On-line interactions can be both volatile and inconclusive. Filtering and searching technologies, interfaces and messaging systems manage information in time by placing one set of messages above another in accordance with rules that the individual user can control. While the Internet can be approached passively as a mass medium, it offers unparalleled opportunities for customizing communication to match individual interests.
What are the drawbacks to this vision? An obvious one is access. For the foreseeable future, the cost of the apparatus and the level of education necessary to most fully exploit it both guarantee that it is available only to socio-economic and educational elites. Although libraries and schools are touted as possible public access locations, both can be barriers to the same people who lack access privately.
Another concern could be described as the "Cartesian splitting" of the body politic. Can political discourse be functional without civic action? On-line discussions without a tangible objective tend to be repetitive and inconclusive. The very attributes of on-line political discussion--the ability to engage with others non-synchronously and at a distance--may result in pointless airing of opinions without a focus of action. Such a split is commonplace on line and replaces activism with escapism and denial of political and social realities (Kluitenberg). The proliferation of conspiracy-related sites may be a symptom of the tug of fatalism that underlies such a split.. Hence one online activist's "rules for the 'Net" include "Rule Nine: Provide a way for people to take action." [The Internet Unleashed, cited in Swett:9]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One proposed use of the new media is to fulfill an old ideal. The availability of simultaneous two-way communication is undergirding a reexamination of notions of direct democracy. In addition to the 24 states which allow voters to place ballot initiatives, there has been a movement to curtail the establishment of permanent professional politicians by imposing term limits. The ultimate Utopian form of electronic democracy is direct voting on issues of public concern, replacing political representatives with continuous electronic referenda. But is that desirable?
Voting turnouts show us that the majority of the electorate does not have time and interest to vote in an informed manner even on a biennial basis. How would frequent referenda be interpreted? Who would participate, and why? Won't voters simply be more subject to manipulation by image and message? Voting rules in a direct democracy would have to be carefully tailored to avoid excessive volatility, perhaps with the restraint that super majority decision rules impose on policy-making. At a minimum, electronic democracy would have to be something more complex and discursive than continuous plebiscites.
Lipow and Seyd criticize the on-line Utopians who propose direct, electronically-mediated citizen voice. While not denying the crisis in democratic institutions, they oppose what they call "techno-populist" proposals to substitute "plebiscitarianism" for parties. They offer an alternative vision that would use technologies politically to deliver a mix of advocacy and analysis, and point out that efforts in the United States to open out the system for more direct democracy--open primaries, term limits, initiatives and referendums--continue to have the opposite effect of creating a money-driven system of alienated voters, in contrast with the adamantly representative British system of accountable political parties.
An older debate lies just below the discussion of electronic democracy, because as a nation we are in fact ambivalent towards direct democracy. The populist majority has always appeared to be a threat to political elites, the democratic mob that potentially threatens the stability of the republic. Do we even want direct democracy?
In a plebiscitary system, authority would flow to control of the questions. Electronic media do not eliminate the need for specialized knowledge of how to operationalize public opinion. Specialists would be sought to expertly interpret voters' divergent opinions through negotiation and accommodation, leading to more flexible policy-making than is possible under constraints of direct democracy. The need for fair decision-making about the questions would likely require the reinvention of representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Schudson distinguishes between uses of new media forms to expand "the repertoire of political talk" of which he approves, rather than to, dangerously, substitute for politics. Ritualized "politics" becomes palliative rather than substantive, while plebiscitary decision-making is easily manipulated by how issues are framed. By contrast, democratic theory places emphasis on the process of collective decision-making rather than on the specific choices.
The on-line processes are evolving rapidly. Much has been made by the traditional media of the growth of on-line community, but analysis of actual interactions suggests that the electronic world has no special edge on engagement or process. Anecdotes of self-policing groups can be matched against discussions that went down in rhetorical flames. In a complex society, citizens specialize, even in the form of their civic participation. It has never, in reality, been a universal activity (Schudson). As far as political discourse on line is concerned an important area for research is whether the electronic media actually widen the pool of civic participation, or reinforce existing gaps.
According to what Norris calls reinforcement theory, electronic media do not promise a broadening of participation, but rather offer new ways for those who are already engaged to participate, communicate and shape policy. The Internet is valuable to organize individuals who are already interested in politics. Early findings support this view, but both the media and its users are changing.
Can electronic media activate the disengaged, as mobilization theory proposes? To the extent that it is better than other media at distributing information that is interesting--for example, details of specific legislation--it can mobilize individuals who would normally be indifferent. In addition there may be a rising cohort that has grown up familiar with the Internet as a source for information and community, for whom it is not a substitute but the primary source of information and engagement.
At the heart of this debate are two questions: what constitutes political action, and what constitutes community? Much of the disagreement over the impact of the web may be over these terms, even as the web may be transforming the terms of the debate by creating new entities in each category. Indeed, the extent to which people use the Internet, and ways in which they do so, are evolving so rapidly that even year-old data is of questionable value. One journalist (Buie) likens the Internet in 1996 to television circa 1952.
Claims that the Internet does facilitate activism must be taken with a grain of salt. How is that activism defined? A Georgia Tech study found 40% of users claimed to be more politically active since coming on line (Buie). However, the group defined activism as writing government officials (31 percent), discussing political issues (23 percent) and signing petitions (22 percent). The heightened levels of attention to political matters can enable direct, face-to-face activism based in local communities according to anecdotes, but Norris points out that on-line engagement does not predictably increase face-to-face activism.
Indeed current trends suggest there may even be a negative relationship between the volume of political detail available on line and voter turnout (Bimber), a finding consistent with studies of cognition that suggest a surfeit of information can be immobilizing. In the 1996 election, while Internet still trailed other information sources, a respectable 9% of voters polled by a Pew study indicated that they were influenced by this information, compared to 11% for magazines and 19 percent for radio information (Buie).
How do electronic media accommodate public discourse? One problem inherent in on-line discussions is a propensity for dissensus, since agreement tends to be met with silence. "Electronic networks are strongest in confronting opposing views, weakest in reconciling differences and achieving creative compromises" (Tenner:6). Another potential danger is that individuals may simply be overwhelmed by the noise of the sheer mass of communication on topics of general interest. This creates a filtering problem on the individual level. Collectively, Usenet groups (on-line discussion groups) have evolved the practice of splitting into subtopics whenever volume in a forum gets too high. This practice leads to intricate topical breakdowns. Thus the pragmatic physical processes for managing on-line discussion undergird splitting the domain of discourse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fragmentation and Networks
The first time most Americans heard of electronic democracy was when Ross Perot proposed electronic town halls. And is there any significance in the fact that Minnesota, the state in the vanguard of on-line politics (Clift), just elected an Independent for Governor? Electronic democracy seems to be particularly friendly to outsider politics.
Electronic discussion groups allow far-flung communities to form around areas of particular interest. Small struggles are able to gain global visibility through the well-managed use of as simple a medium as e-mail. Bulletin boards, web sites and discussions provide comfort to partisans of views across the political spectrum, and allow minority views to spread the widest of nets in order to acquire a critical mass of adherents. As described above, the dynamics of managing large discussion groups positively encourages splintering into micro-domains.
The Internet gives equal access to every opinion and perspective, leveling the threshold for entering the ideological marketplace. Communication among collections of like-minded individuals is virtually costless, and a website designed by an ardent individual can be as accessible as a corporate megasite for any seeker using searchable keywords. Democratization takes place because, unlike broadcast media, individuals can place information online at very little cost. Although elaborate sites with multimedia accouterments may be developed at considerable expense, it takes little in the way of resources and expertise to post information on line.
Critics fear that this may not last. Under the onslaught of its own popularity, the new media will soon duplicate--and amplify--old problems. Already Internet politics--acclaimed a year or two ago as the new wave for low-cost, high profile grass-roots organizing--is being saturated with expensive consultants promising good mailing lists, access, captive participants. Just as advertisers are struggling with ways to capture and count the attention of the high-value on-line audience, a new breed of political consultants is inventing ways to deliver these constituencies. Only the medium has changed
All this opportunity may translate into a noisy field in which messages fail to reach their intended recipients. The potential for information overload on the part of participant and representatives alike may be alleviated by computer-mediated sampling and digesting (Jaffe). The evolution of information extraction technologies--from "web-bots" to data mining, combined with systems for automatic notification, will continue to make it simpler for individuals to follow changes in specific policies areas that interest them. Thus the availability of a diverse array of views is no guarantee that individuals will sample the spectrum.
Lipow and Seyd decry the tendency of staff-driven, narrowly focused interest groups to take the place of political parties with broad portfolios. The fragmentation of American political discourse into narrow interests preceded the Internet but the medium accelerates the tendency. As citizens turn away from conventional channels of political participation, will they substitute new political forms, or retreat into private spheres of atomized interests? What happens to serendipity and community, cross-cutting issues, and process?
Bimber calls this process "accelerated pluralism", and it does seem to be a general characteristic of on-line life, political and otherwise. Just as urbanization affords exposure to a wider range of experiences but allows greater social segmentation, electronic media can further fragment civic society by microtargetting people in increasingly individualized affinity groups. In Norris' words, "virtual democracy looks more like anarchy than ABC news."
Can cyber-space complete the transformation from village to urban cliques, permitting disembodied interests to aggregate electronically? If so, what political tools does federalism contain that may be useful in managing the integration of disparate affinity communities into a greater whole?. Treanor groups federalism with what he calls "scale ideologies" including regionalism and urban democracy, efforts to remedy the essential flaw of democracy (that it is a zero-sum game that guarantees the existence of loser minorities) by adjusting the scale of the community.
Traditional federalism may have some resemblance to this caricature. Federalism is premised on geographically-based organization, as must any politics in physical space It is a system for coordinating voice in overlapping hierarchies. Is there a possibility of renovating federalism in this fragmented electronic political discourse, one that deemphasizes scorekeeping and instead focuses on continuous process?
Information technologies have the effect of flattening organizational structures, leading to decentralization and reducing intermediary functionaries. An adaptation business has made to new technologies is to move towards fluid networks and project-oriented clusters (Ronfeldt:24). On a political level, this sounds like a recipe for issue-based rather than partisan organization of power. The system of interest-based politics that Seyd decries is not sheer fragmentation, but is developing new structures. Coalitions of organizations and policy entrepreneurs are using the electronic media to affiliate and coordinate as networks that form around issues, then split apart and reassemble as the public agenda evolves.
A federal system of government is consistent with an organizational structure of networks of smaller, equal units rather than a centralized hierarchy. Information technologies are transforming traditional federalism by strengthening horizontal interaction at the state level, creating overlapping networks of influence among peers rather than individual domains of power and a shared central domain. At the state level, rapid two-way information flows are facilitating the development of nationwide, networked policy through organizations such as NAIC, NGA and NCSL.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The greatest opportunity that electronic activism offers is to improve representation and implementation by heightening accountability (Bimber). The essence of interactive media is responsiveness. As the techniques for accountability develop, representation is likely to require less and less mediation by the press and analysts. Swett (6) reports that the Clinton White house staff viewed the Net as "ballast against the out-of-control mass and Washington Press Corps". E-mail interaction with constituents allowed rapid and sensitive responses to swings in constituent concerns, by enabling quick electronic counts of the frequency of certain terms in the correspondence.
Electronically accessible information can have an enormously democratizing impact. The on-line availability of Clinton's health plan allowed advocates to instantly search the 14,000 page bill for sections germane to their concerns. It is now far more difficult to "hide" special interest provisions in massive legislation, since text searching functions make meaning transparent.
At a House Rules committee hearing on technology investment and the consequences for the House, a witness representing a conservative think tank (Weinstein) made the claim that placing information on line helps level the playing field between interested citizens and professional lobbyists by giving similar information access. At the same time that he called for greater public access to the content of congressional deliberation, including Congressional Research Service reports and committee markups, he made the point that this heightened accountability should not be confused with what he called "electronic democracy". In his view heightened accountability as a result of the electronic media should enhance the deliberative process, not replace it.
As each iota of public communication becomes electronically available, public and private spheres are becoming blurred. Privacy and protected communication are at a premium. Policy-making retreats from chamber to committee room, and thence to caucus where decisions may be made beyond the ever-lengthening public gaze. It would be naïve not to anticipate the evolution of political mechanisms explicitly designed to avoid scrutiny. The tragedy may be that as public actions are increasingly opened, political decisions will be privatized for the sake of confidential deliberations, with loss of public control in the very areas of greatest common concern.
More information does not automatically equate with more democratic processes, however. Ronfeldt raises the issue of how the accumulation of large amounts of data on individuals can ultimately lead to loss of freedom through the loss of privacy to a myriad of private and public entities. There is no guarantee that the technologies are essentially democratic; they may enhance totalitarianism just as they enhance democratic processes (Ronfeldt:33). This observation is underscored in a 1995 DoD analysis (Swett) that points to political and strategic uses of the Internet that include gathering information, communicating with and organizing political movements, challenging authoritarian control, but also offensively in "psychological operations campaigns and to help achieve unconventional warfare objectives."
Citizens' roles are not limited to political advocacy and electoral activity. A myriad of interactions between citizens and governmental entities--in Clift's words, "the part of democracy that happens between election days" -- are being shaped by electronic advances. Access to governmental information is increasing accountability and changing the expectations towards public officials. Early experiments with teledemocracy in the service of citizen activation in political processes has been disappointing. However, electronic media also can affect the functioning of government through their effects on internal communication between politicians and administrators as well as through the flow of administrative information to the public (Ytterstad et al).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RELATED
LINKS
e-democracy
direct
democracy
community
& action
fragmentation
& networks
accountability
& representation
Other
links
direct
democracyfragmentation
& networksOther
links
 
|
| overview | philosophy | economics |
|
management |
| history | law | devolution | direct democracy | regulation |
Any comments and additions?--write Kala
Ladenheim
Last updated March 16, 1999.
(c) Kala Ladenheim, 1999. All rights reserved.
You are visitor number