I attended a conference a few weeks back that focused on developing citizen engagement at the college level by organizing students using the Internet and the Web.
So, when I heard about a Dec. 5 blog post by Andrea DiMaio titled “Why Citizen Participation May Be An Illusion,” I eagerly checked it out. A link to the blog appears in the “Resources” section at the end of this post.
In summary, DiMaio suggests that getting results from organizing online doesn’t hold much promise — unless those that organize get a seat at the decision-making table. He says that to do that, the “eCitizens” must become something “official.” Once that happens, they become part of the bureaucracy and hence, part of the problem.
Di Maio uses an example from his hometown in Italy to articulate his points, an anecdote but one with value because the same scenario probably occurs in many places throughout the world, including in the U.S.
But I think DiMaio might underestimate the potential impact people can have through organizing on the Web. If government believed this kind of citizenry activism posed it little threat in terms of its ability to change the bureaucratic monopoly on decision-making, government would not try to disrupt and marginalize it. And government also would not try to emulate it.
DiMaio makes some good points. But the biggest hurdle to effective eCitizenship comes with the penchant for the eCitizens to have their efforts co-opted by politicians and political machines. They convince the eCitizens to make their concerns partisan rather than addressing the concerns with true citizen activism.
I also believe that eCitizenship at the grassroots level and focusing on local issues offers much more chance for success and impact. At the national level, the only real success in terms of using the Web to gather up and unite like-minded people serves as a prime example of the “co-opting” I mentioned.
That involves politicians and their minions convincing the online community to give them and their campaigns money. Former Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean created the template during his ill-fated run for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2004 as governor from Vermont.
President Barack Obama tweaked Dean’s template, and did what Dean could not do — win the nomination and the election. Obama raised approximately $500 million online in 21 months, reported the Washington Post.
DiMaio asks: “But are we sure that citizen engagement would really work even if governments ‘got it’ and went to great lengths to embrace social networks?”
I would encourage you to read DiMaio’s blog and offer your thoughts on the future or lack of it for eCitizenship.
Resources:
- http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/...
- http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1328/online-political/...
- http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2009/11/ecitizenship.html
- http://adpaascu.wordpress.com/tag/ecitizenship/
- http://www.trainingreference.co.uk/skills/it_user/e_citizen.htm
- http://crenk.com/take-your-civic-engagement-online/
- http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2008/11/20/obama/...
Phil: Excellent post. I better start reading Chadwick in order to catch up with you. I agree that either "direct democracy" or nothing is short-sighted and fails to recognize the many benefits the technology offers for grassroots organization. But maybe the journalist in me causes me to remain skeptical. I hope you (and Chadwick) are correct. Thanks for contributing. Come back soon. Best- Mac
I read DiMaio's article but, to me, it actually affirms the efficacy of online political organizing tools and how they can transform politics. In DiMaio's example, a group of previously unorganized citizens organized and despite not winning any seats in their first try at electoral politics, they seem to have disrupted and challenged the town's entrenched party system and at least perhaps forced it to be more responsive to citizens outside of their organizations. I think Andrew Chadwick's work on parties and the internet is illuminating here. These initial organizing efforts create what he has described as "sedimentary networks." It is not surprising that these networks would morph into some hybrid sort of organization that is part grassroots, e-citizen social movement, and part political party. I would also expect the established parties to try and adopt the digital network repertiores (again, see Chadwick) of the citizen league. If the test of whether online political groups matter is simply whether or not they can usher in a pure form of direct democracy and avoid "corruption" by becoming more like institutions themselves, then I think analysts will miss important changes that are happening right before our eyes.
Post new comment