Essay | social Media

Essay

Social Media and Democracy

Dr. Mrinal Chatterjee

Professor, Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC), Dhenkanal

What is Social Media?

There are several definitions of Social Media. Here are two:

Forms of electronic communication (as Web sites for social networking and microblogging) through which users create online communities to share information, ideas, personal messages, and other content (as videos)[1]

Websites and applications that enable users to create and share content or to participate in social networking.[2]

The word ‘social media’ was first used in 2004; but it has changed the way we consume (and disseminate/share) information. Perhaps no topic in technology attracted more attention in recent times than the rise of social media and its potential impact on news. Communication scholar Michael Slokar said, “People are more likely to find their news on Social Media sites because it makes people feel more connected to one another. This is because they are passing along direct experience, which is why Social Media is so popular in today’s culture”.

However, people are taking to Social Media not only to get news, but to engage with the events and issues and also to discuss and disseminate/share among and across. By early 2015, its use in business, marketing, trade and commerce has already outpaced the traditional media.

What is Democracy?

Democracy has several definitions. Here are some[3]:

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
3. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
4. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

According to American political scientist Larry Diamond, it consists of four key elements:

1.      A political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections.

2.      The active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.

3.      Protection of the human rights of all citizens.

4.      A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all citizens".

Democracy and Social Media: Where are the ‘connect’ points?

Many communication Gurus view Social Media as a boon to democracy[4]. Their thinking is based on the assumption that Social Media accords ‘liberty’; 3 kinds of liberty to be precise.

1. Space-time Liberty: The freedom that mobile technologies offered for people to communicate increasingly between any parts of the world and at any time, or what might be called space-time liberty.

2. Sharing Liberty: A change in the balance of distributional power, away from the ‘topdown’ dissemination of information by media corporations that were often state owned, to the co-creation of information, and more recently the widespread sharing of ideas, ‘news’ and information between ‘peers’, what might be called a sharing liberty.

3. Access Liberty: A dramatic reduction in the cost of information creation and communication, making it much more accessible to poorer people, witnessed through the dramatic explosion and take up of miniaturized digital technologies such as mobile phones and cameras – what might be termed access liberty.

Indeed, these ‘liberties’ have had dramatic impacts on political processes, both enabling governments and politicians to spread their messages directly to individuals, as with texts sent to mobile phones to encourage people to vote in particular ways, and also individuals to share graphic images and accounts of things happening to others anywhere in the world, thus raising global awareness of political actions by regimes with which they disagree. There are several examples of social media driven socio-political changes like Arab Spring, Greater Number of Voter Participation in 2014 General Elections, AAP winning Delhi Elections, people increasingly engaging with governance process, etc.

These examples might make us believe that social media is strengthening democracy.
So much so, some tend to believe that thanks to social media democracy as a political system can henceforth only thrive.

I have some reservations.

There are several issues with Social Media because of its intrinsic characteristics.

a.      Social Media lacks the rigour and check and balance mechanism of mainstream media. It is easy to spread disinformation through social media. (Remember the exodus of North Eastern People from South Indian cities.)

b.      It enhances phatic[5]* communication, which can easily go/turn into activism mode.

c.       It enhances homophilly[6]* between like minded individuals, which can infringe on the objectivity and distance required for writing news.

d.      It is not intrinsically democratic. In fact it reduces the scope and space of debate, as the stake holders often harden their stand.

e.      News can more easily be ‘manufactured’ and ‘made big’ in social media than in any other media; and increasingly people are becoming aware of this. This is considerably reducing the credibility of social media.

There are three more points from a completely different angle.

1.      Technology is not an autonomous power. It is necessary to emphasise that technology is not an autonomous power (at least, not yet) that can inherently be used for ‘good’ or ‘bad’.  The notion that social media have the capacity to provide greater ‘liberty’ is that it is based on a fundamentally instrumentalist assumption* – that technologies by themselves have the power to make changes.

Technologies are not independent of the people who make them, and they are made for particular social, economic, political and indeed ideological reasons.

2.      Who can use it the most? Governments and global corporations have very often been able to use these technologies to gain considerable additional knowledge about, and power over, individual people.

Where governments are benign, and really do have the interests of all of their people at heart, such knowledge can indeed be put to good purpose. But not all governments, or for that matter politicians, do necessarily have such motivations.

3.      Access to Social Media is highly differentiated. Social media are not ubiquitous, and till date access to them is highly differentiated. Although mobile telephony and the Internet have indeed spread rapidly across the world, there are still places and groups of people who do not have access, and as a result they are becoming increasingly marginalized.

Social Media have undoubtedly changed the political map.  But this may not necessarily have been in the interests of the poorest and most marginalised – or even of democracy. There has been change, but whether it is for the better depends very largely on the perspectives of the observer.  Just because smart phones are becoming very common does not mean that vastly greater numbers of people are actually using social media on their mobiles to enhance democracy. Just like, development in technology does not mean people are becoming more scientifically tempered. It could be just the opposite. Technology could be used as a tool to subvert scientific temper, like the way astrology business is conducted through call centres[7].

So, what next?

In March 2012, the CTO together with several other organisations working in the field of ICT4D, convened a discussion at the ICTD2012 conference in Atlanta (USA) on these issues, concluding with a review of the most important policy implications thereof.
Four broad sets of significant issues were raised[8].

1.      The need for digital access. For social media to contribute to democracy, broadband for all is essential. Public spaces such as libraries and schools should provide access as a way of communication. Appropriate content is necessary, and the digital systems should be affordable and sustainable.

2.      Lessons from the historical sociology of technology and democracy. There are different kinds of democracy, and it is important that our technologies are used to support systems that do indeed serve the interests of all people. How to include people in the political process remains a real issue. Technology and connectivity by themselves will not necessarily lead to the introduction or enhancement of democratic processes.

There was also a strong view that the increasing tendency for the Internet to be controlled by a small number of organisations, governments and individuals, and that this ran counter to the aspirations of those seeking more democratic processes.

3.      The “dark side” – how ICTs can be used against democracy. It is important to reflect on the ways that ICTs are actually being used to counter democratic processes.

It can help develop understandings of the policies that need to be in place to resist such actions. There was widespread recognition that it is not just companies and governments that can use social media for negative purposes, and that individuals and small groups intent on using it for bullying, digital ‘monstering’, or violent actions, are equally problematic.

4.      Privacy and security. There are different views as to what is and should be private both within and between different cultures.

Four important principles for governments were advocated by many of those present: don’t censor, don’t spy on your own people, educate people on safe social media usage, and require companies to be transparent about privacy and security.

To Conclude…

Social Media has great power to impact and influence. Therefore, it needs to be used judiciously and carefully. The consumer/disseminator of information need to be more aware and careful about the content than ever before.

As Social Media could be used (and abused) by almost anybody from almost anywhere without great effort, expense or technical knowhow- it could be the greatest asset to democracy or its worst enemy.
It is unto us, what we make it.

Never before in the history of mankind, were we collectively burdened with such onerous responsibility.
How do we shoulder our responsibility will determine the future shape of democracy.

Now, WE decide.
This probably is the greatest opportunity (or threat) for democracy as a political system to survive and thrive (or otherwise).

***

13.3.2015

About the author: Journalist turned media academician Dr. Mrinal Chatterjee presently heads the Eastern India campus of Indian Institute of Mass Communication (IIMC) located at Dhenkanal, Odisha. He has published four books on Media and Mass Communications, besides over twenty five papers and articles in national and International Media Journals.

He can be contacted at Sanchar Marg, Dhenkanal 759 001, Odisha. mrinalchatterjeeiimc@gmail.com

---

[1] http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/social%20media

[2] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/social-media

[3] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

[4] “the widespread use of the Internet for social networking, blogging, video-sharing and tweeting has an elective affinity with participatory democracy”- Loader and Mercea (2012)

[5] A type of communication that is neither information nor dialogic, which reinforces social bonds by the sharing of feelings and establishing a mood of sociability.

[6] The tendency for friendships and many other interpersonal relationships to occur between similar people.

[7] Sanjay Tiwari, who works with the Centre for Environment Education, Ahmadabad has written about this in his article Proliferation of Astrological Services and Rising Superstitions, EPW, Feb 21, 2015 Vol L, No 8.

[8] Unwinn, T (2012) Google and Facebook: Privacy and security, 5 February 2012