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]:
- 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.
- a state of society characterized by formal equality of
rights and privileges.
- political or social equality; democratic spirit.
- 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.
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].
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.
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.
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).
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.
[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
