Deutsch
Românâ
Polski
Hrvatski
Crnogorski
MagyarThe fact that everyone can participate is no guarantee of democracy
I use digital media in particular to inform myself about professional and political topics. As a sociologist and head of the specialist group "Political Socialization and Democracy Promotion," I am concerned with issues and challenges of extremism prevention, democracy promotion, political education and political socialization of young people.
Many journals are now also available online, and digital newsletters from other institutes and organizations have become an integral part of my daily life. On my Twitter account, I post information about my own professional activities and keep myself informed about those of colleagues worldwide. Overall, the density and frequency of information is increasing sharply, and it is a challenge to distinguish the important from the unimportant.
What digital media cannot replace at all is the careful reading of printed books and newspapers and the direct encounter and discussion with people outside digital media, ergo: offline. In my opinion, there is a need for many more such opportunities: Literature houses, discussion and reading circles, political events, citizens' meetings, political office hours.
For me, the first question that always arises with such fashionable terms is whether they denote something really new. If you define democracy as a form of society in which rule is exercised by the people and through representative forms of government, and in which different points of view are brought to compromise, then digital media can be a tool for exchanging ideas and information. This can be, for example, streaming of parliamentary debates or party conventions.
However, in my opinion, a digital, direct or grassroots democracy with frequent referendums, as propagated by concepts such as "liquid democracy," entails the risk of damaging or undermining institutions of representative democracy and the party system. Democracy is based on diverse, sometimes lengthy processes of mediating different interests, for example in parliaments, committees and commissions. I am skeptical of anything that suggests that these mediation processes are superfluous or "easier" to have digitally.
Yes, I have, and I have signed online petitions. I did so out of passion for the cause in question, but perhaps also out of a certain convenience. Online petitions can certainly be a useful and low-threshold preliminary stage of political activity and an instance of feedback between politics and the electorate. At the same time, this also tends to suggest quick effectiveness, which is not to be had. If online petitions replace longer-term engagement in parties, non-governmental organizations or social movements, I find that highly questionable.
Fundamentally, certain cores of this form of society can be identified in representative democracies: free and secret elections, parliamentary debates and decisions, control of the executive and legislative branches by an independent jurisdiction, local chapters of parties, and so on. Digital media can be a tool here to mediate and inform. At the same time, parties are increasingly relying on social networks to reach members and voters.
I find it highly exciting how young people in particular are using digital media, for example when you look at the movement against the EU copyright reform, "Fridays for Future," or the increased political activity of so-called "influencers." In the field of social movements, digital media are fundamentally changing activities and forms of organization.
The fact that "anyone can join in" is no guarantee of democracy. You have to differentiate here, especially by content, but also by country context, for example. If you look at the various movements in the context of the Arab Spring, for example, social networks were and are an essential medium for circumventing censorship, organizing, and informing people about arbitrary state power and the violence of security forces. Here, the Internet serves democratic, emancipatory movements, just as it is currently doing in Hong Kong, for example.
At the same time, however, authoritarian movements, right-wing radicals and Islamists use the social networks with great professionalism and a high level of resonance. The Internet is therefore not democratic or truth-oriented per se, but is - just like the analog world - also a theater of conflict between totalitarian governments and movements and liberal, democratic societies and actors.
In my view, what is needed first of all is basic political socialization and good political education at school. Parents and schools are largely responsible for educating young people to become mature citizens who are capable of independent use of reason, including in political issues. If this succeeds, then ideally there will be no need for specific radicalization prevention, because they will then be able to unmask extremist offerings both online and offline.
Where this is not possible, there is now a wide range of online prevention services, such as network-based education about the strategies of extremist actors. Online services are also being developed that address and advise young people at risk or already involved directly online.
In my view, social networks promote and reinforce something that existed even before the Internet, for example with the already proverbial regulars' tables and their slogans. Under certain conditions, people tend to withdraw into filter bubbles and echo chambers, where they mainly meet like-minded people and people of the same social status. Algorithms of search engines, streaming portals or social networks can structurally reinforce this.
Here, on the one hand, the user's maturity is again called for, to get his information and food for thought from different media with different orientations and to critically assess them. On the other hand, I believe there is an urgent need for more offline opportunities where people are confronted with other views and realities of life, and cannot simply withdraw from them by clicking on them, but have to endure and acknowledge them.
As the term "medium" implies, digital media are means to an end. For me, there is currently too much talk about the means, too little about the end. If the end is to preserve and strengthen a democratic public sphere, a liberal society and its democratic procedures, actors and institutions, as well as its legal framework, then democracy promotion - whether it takes place offline or online - must focus precisely on strengthening these elements and the political socialization of its citizens that is geared toward them.
I see a challenge in dealing with insulting, hateful and acutely threatening postings or shitstorms in social networks or online comment columns. Democracy promotion and prevention can, for example, network actors or those affected, offer online advice on how to deal with hate speech, or coordinate counter-activities - there are now a variety of offers here, but they could certainly be strengthened.
At the same time, the promotion of democracy must be complemented by consistent law enforcement in the digital space, because the protection of freedom of expression and public spaces (online and offline) under the rule of law is also an important aspect.
The questions were asked by Martin Daßinnies.
Young people are not only demonstrating their political commitment, but also how digital media can be used for social and political processes.
Participate instead of just running along
Social media can influence the personal views and opinions of children and young people.
Digital opinion leaders
Big Data
