Technorealists

1.2.4 Weakening of democracy

Dystopians suggest that ICTs will weaken, not reinvigorate democracy. From that more sceptical perspective, dystopians find the plebiscitary democracy enacted in push-button democracy wanting. The strongest claim advanced by dystopians is that the simple head-counting democracy runs the risk of segmenting people into smaller and smaller groups and factions in the same way mass media is dividing audiences by narrowcasting messages. Dystopians argue that the essential conditions for strong democratic life such as community, access to the public sphere and reasonable amount of information are deteriorating due to the use of the Internet. Democrat y is dangerously menaced by the intensive and continuous state control and surveillance. Dystopians express fear and anxiety that the “Pandora scenario” will prevail.

The big question posed by the dystopians is that the digitalisation of political and social life will not improve the quality of democracy rather it will damage deliberation, debate and the quality of public sphere. In fact, dystopians argue that the neofuturist’s prediction of a utopian democracy through the intensive use of ICTs is not only unworkable but also dangerous.

ICTs are identified as technologies of control and surveillance. According to this line of dyspotian thinking, technological advance is closely linked to more centralized control. On this reading, the ICTs are better regarded as crucial facilitators of controlling, monitoring and supervising (Wright, 1998). The recent adoption of the ICTs in the public administrations is not designed to empower citizens and enable governments to interface with their citizenry, as the neofuturists argue; rather it is to strengthen the power of civil servants. Dystopians fear from what they prefer to call a Cyborg or the rise of the surveillance state.

1999). One of the most important statements of this school of thought is that the Internet is revolutionary, but not utopian. From the technorealist standpoint, the Internet offers remarkable opportunities and brings new capabilities for political activity, but equally it holds new threats, presents restrictions, and sets limits (Shapiro, 1999: 230).

1.3.1 Universal access

Technorealists argue that technological advancement and convergence in the communications sector has lowered the cost Internet technologies and thus has opened new access opportunities. Governments are involved in emphasising the importance of the penetration of the technology assuring access to all citizens. The spread of the Internet’s use by a great number of people can only be almost expected to continue. Modern telecommunications infrastructures are regarded as the best condition for economic development. European governments have pledged to invest huge resources to

“informatize” their economies, and since the Internet has become a crucial component of these economies, Internet infrastructure will surely benefit from these investments.

It is argued that the Internet is shifting the centre of information gravity away from states, corporations, and media towards individuals. In the words of a leading technorealist:

“the Internet is putting individuals in charge of changing the world we know” (Shapiro, 1999: 230).

The Internet empowers individuals to the point that they can carry lots of things without some intermediaries (Shapiro, 1999: XV). It helps to change the form and substance of information. It displaces the information source from one to many sources. In comparison to neofuturist and dystopian accounts, the technorealists make no claims about the future of trajectory of politics, nor do they seek to evaluate the present in relation. By comparison to the dystopians, the technorealists are of the opinion that barriers to Internet access will be a minor concern.

Such caution about the exact future of politics in general and democratic politic in particular is matched by the conviction that contemporary infrustructures of ICTs are historically unprecedented. In arguing that the Internet is transforming the authority of governments, the technorealists reject both the neofuturists rhetoric of utopian perspectives of electronic democracy in a digital age and a dystopian’s and Orwellian surveillance and

atomisation of social life. In a context where global capitalism has dominated the communication channels and information flow not by states, rather by mega-corporate businesses, the need for the Internet is felt, for it brings the control to individuals.

1.3.2 Democracy

Universal access alone will not solve the problem of democratic participation. A full democratic participation will not be achieved solely by universal access (Shapiro, 1999:

224). According to this line of thinking, the technorealists typically lay emphasis on the development and enrichment of traditional political institutions, such political parties that promote local communities for strengthening representative democracy (Shapiro, 1999:

232). They contend that easy access increases the power of individuals to demand more access. Easy Internet access means that the power of individuals will expand in cyberspace. This transfer of power from government to people supports a process of change towards stronger democratic forms. The difference is that the change is not a revolutionary one that the modalities of politics will radically change so that we enter a fundamentally new form of politics.

At the heart of the technorealists thesis is a conviction that, at the dawn of a new digital age, ICTs are central driving forces behind the rapid political changes that are reshaping modern institutions of governance. According to the proponents of this view, the

“Internet is an extraordinary communications tool that provides a range of new opportunities for people, communities, businesses, and government”

(www.technorealist.org). They suggest that ICTs will open the political landscape to new parties, new interest groups and new forms of political organization.

The objective of this school of thought is to minimize the risks and maximise the chances of the ICTs. This can be achieved if technology can be critically understood and applied in a manner more consistent with basic human values. The state has the right and responsibility to play an active role in “integrating cyberspace and conventional society”

(www.technorealists.org). Technorealists ascribe an important role to individuals in

“balancing their new power with new responsibilities to society at large” to secure democratic institutions (Shapiro, 1999: 233).

1.3.3 Communication

In line with Shapiro‘s argument, the Internet is generally characterized by a many-to-many interactivity (Shapiro, 1999: 15). This means that the people can communicate actively and interactively with other people. Indeed, it represents a new kind of communication, characterized by the centrality of the interactivity. Technorealists see the importance of the Internet not as an information-disseminating tool, but as a medium for interactive communication. That is to underscore the very interactive nature of the Internet in contrast to the inter-passivity of the other mass media (Shapiro, 1999). With the rise of the Internet, the active discovery of information is replacing the passive reception of it. Its interactivity makes it unique and gives it the advantage to be the liberating medium in the realm of the mass media. It is not a mass medium but a master medium (Shapiro, 1999).

The interactivity quality of the Internet manifests itself in the fact that it enables organizations to provide people with information and at the same time makes it possible for these governments to collect information from people (Schalken, 1996: 50).

Interactivity offers political communication new opportunities for exchange of information between political organizations and people. Surfers can interactively interface with political leaders.

Central to the very nature of the Internet is its empowerment of people to produce rather than consume. People do participate in the production process of content. This means that the people are becoming producers of what they consume. To put it in a positive way, people are content-producers rather than just passive consumers (Shapiro, 1999: 15). They receive information, but they can also transmit information. They mould it as their interests generally dictate. They decide the nature of the information content. The Internet is highly political and involves the extension of possibilities for interaction through persons.

The interactivity, which has distinguished Internet-based political communication from the traditional media-related political communication, will bring the role of all mediating agencies and organizations such as political parties and mass media into a crisis.