Workshop on Alternative Ways of Participation. 7th and 8th of February 2014 in Istanbul http://www.sebeke.org.tr/

1. The internet, citizen participation
and democracy
Hopes and realities
Thierry Vedel
Center for Political Research,
Sciences Po, Paris, France

2. The potential of the internet
for democracy
• Improve citizen information
• Spaces for discussion/ debate
• Mobilization and political engagement
• Participation in decision-making

3. The optimistic side
• Mobilizes previously inactive citizens (Krueger 2002)
• Increases turnout (Tolbert & McNeal, 2003)
• Increases social capital (Johnson and Kaye, 2003).
• Revolutionizes campaigning and electoral
mobilization (Trippi, 2004).
• Internet as a fifth estate (Crouzet, 2007)

4. The skeptical side
• Politics as usual , electronic duplicattion (Margolis)
• Low impact on political efficacy and knowledge
(Scheufele & Nisbet, 2002)
• No impact on aggregate level of political
participation (Bimber 2003)
• Empowers a small set of elites (Hindman 2009)

5. Mixed effects
• Preaching the already converted (Norris 2002)
• Meets aspiration to new forms of activism among
young generation (Ion 2005, Vedel 2008)
• Increases politicization and polarization but only
among citizens already interested in politics (Prior
2007)
• A tool that both dissidents and authoritarian
governments can use (Morozov 2011)

6. Better informed citizens?
• A vast amount of
information at
fingertips
• Less gate keeping by
traditional media
(we are the media)
• TV remain central in politics:
first information source,
sets the agenda
• New intermediaries (Google
is THE meta-media)
• Most citizens seek to reduce
the amount of information
they need to process
(limited pool of worries)

7. A tool for mobilizing and advocacy?
• Identification of
common causes
• Reduces drastically
mobilization and
coordination costs
• Gives people a sense
of collective identity
• Micro-targeting
• Slacktivism
• From old militantism
(ideological, permanent,
sacrificial) to new activism
(single issue, flexible,
contractual)
• Centralization of political
machines (Obama campaign)

8. A more lively public sphere?
• Easiness of online
commenting
• Online discussions
transcend social,
geographical boundaries
• No inclusivity, no equality
• Online political talks are
mostly among like minded
(political homophily)
• Adverse opinions are
taken into account
(interactive monologues)

9. A tool for participation in decision-
making?
• Reduction of voting
costs
• Allow more complex
voting systems (not just
majority ones)
• No trust in internet
voting
• Push button democracy

10. Conclusion
• The internet, new tool in political repertoire + new
political arena
• The internet not sufficient to overcome traditional
obstacles to political participation
• The internet enhances the engagement of already
politicized and well informed citizens
• High intensity democracy for happy few versus
low intensity democracy for everybody?