Citizenship - "Online Map but Offline Relationships"

Interesting responses on the last two posts on the Internet and democracy, and, as expected, they have been divided, at times even sharp. Some view the digital world as a vast sea of unrefined opinions, whereas others believe no filters should be put in place – let citizens sift through it for themselves, deciding whether they agree or not.The problem is that the complexities of public policy, of managing what it takes to keep communities functioning and progressing (something different from just “growing”), can lead to simplistic arguments that add little to citizen engagement or comprehension.  It is vital to understand in all this that there is nothing essentially “democratic” about Internet technology. It is merely a tool, but one full of potential and pitfalls to the democratic spirit. Initially launched in 1991, it could have been shaped to be an essential component of the public domain, thereby enhancing citizenship and how we relate to one another. But this potential was largely ignored in favour of corporate control and random openness. We as citizens were never consulted as to what shape the Internet should take; the decisions all took place in a public policy vacuum.In the last few years I have witnessed a clear irony in Internet use that, for citizens at least, perhaps presents its greatest challenge as a tool for better public participation. It has been made clear to me, especially as governments falter, that there is a bounty of democratic impulse on the Net, yet there are few demonstrations of democratic processes. In other words, the Internet openly permits us to express our leanings but has, as of yet, failed to shape them into a coherent citizen engendered public policy format. To be sure, there are numerous special interests, ranging from environmental causes to civic unrest, but they are not all being brought together in a manner like the political system, where vast ranges of ideas are worked through only a few political parties and disseminated from there. In the autumn months, as we journey back to the task of remaking politics through citizen engagement, we’ll revisit how the Internet might be of key service, but for now there are few processes on the Net that can bring a divided population together in ways that cause deliberation and compromise on things that matter, especially if it is to impact the political process.A system of governing without the active participation of citizens is hardly democracy at its best, regardless of how well the guardians govern. This is a great part of the reason why the public trust in government itself is in decline. Yet the Internet itself has never been more active – or promoted. It could well provide key solutions to citizen apathy but has not yet lived up to that potential. In essence, the Net has become an online map for offline relationships when it comes to citizen engagement. The “digerati,” if I can use that term, partly sold the Internet in its initial years by claiming that it as an essentially “democratic” medium, and much of that has turned out to be true. But, despite some wonderful and effective exceptions, it has essentially failed to move citizens towards the political process in order to reform it and make it more sensitive to the peoples’ direction.  “Digital democracy,” as it was once trumpeted, has largely disappeared into the netherworld.Like the commercial Net can create strong economic ties, a civic, or citizen Net could create an effective “human” economy, but only if given a chance and support from policy makers. This past weekend my family attended a wedding near Toronto that was a marvel in its creation. The bride was East Asian in origin and the groom Scottish. They used the Net to bring people from across the globe to the ceremony, using it to plan air flights, accommodations, meals and the reception itself. It wasn’t merely fascinating because it drew together two completely different cultures into one room, but because of the way in which it was all brought together.Sadly, citizens have yet to utilize the Net in sufficient fashion to bring about a democratic revolution among the citizenry, especially in the West. The free market has successfully divided people into groups conducive to marketing and the purchase of products; the “public” market can’t emerge if we continue to permit the Net to only focus us on those things of interest to us. It keeps us divided and unable to summon the political will necessary to force democracy to function for our communities and our common concerns.Come the autumn, we’ll be looking for instances of where the digital world has brought citizens out of their isolation in support of long-term change, and not just through political parties. You can help by sending in such examples. But somehow those successful stories will have to be expanded exponentially in order to have significant effect overall. New software will have to be developed to handle deliberation on such a large-scale and governments will have to support citizen efforts at re-engagement through digital means. We presently stand as either lost in apathy or isolated in ineffectiveness. Citizenship depends on the ability of the Net to overcome both liabilities.