Introduction
Communication technologies are an essential part of the realities of the modern age, where every aspect of human life is directly impacted by the digital world. It is obvious that all kinds of technologies, such as social media, the Internet, and other online communication tools, have brought a wide range of positive changes, but one should not overlook the potential and existing consequences, which can be found in a large set of critical problems. Despite these major changes in modernity, communication technologies do not bring a new age of democracy but rather a new format of human existence, where the latter statement is true alongside a new age of totalitarianism.
Literature Review
The modern literature on the influence of new communications technology on democracy presents many different perspectives. In other words, there is undeniable evidence that both positive and negative elements exist regarding societal changes. One research suggests that there is “evidence of a strong, positive correlation between Facebook penetration (a proxy for social media) and democracy” (Kumar and Kodila-Tedikab 271). Thus, social media has a certain positive force in regards to making some nations more democratic since it provides a platform and space for free information exchange, which is mostly independent of the state-controlled mass media in autocratic governments. Another study shows that although such technologies make the political discussion more inclusive, “platforms themselves are neither inherently democratic nor nondemocratic, but represent a tool political actors can use for a variety of goals, including, paradoxically, illiberal goals” (Tucker et al. 46). Therefore, one can argue that communications technologies are simple instruments, which enable more cases of positive change, but they are not designed to promote democracy.
A wide range of experts and professionals defend and raise concerns in regards to new-age communications technology and its impact on democratic institutions. It is stated that the specified technologies develop the dynamics of social interactions towards a more globalized format, where the economy and balance of power gradually shift to a global scale (Held et al. 205). For example, Hillary Clinton and her team claimed that Iranian protests were driven by the internet, and thus, the technology promotes democracy, but in other instances, the politician raised awareness of the potential dangers of these instruments (Morozov 18). In other words, one can easily observe the fact that communication technologies are enablers of already established social dynamics, where democratic institutions can reach more people, and totalitarian regimes can spread misinformation more effectively.
One example of the impact of social media on the population is the Arab Spring (Rushkoff 23). This is the name given to the wave of protests against authoritarianism and related events in the Middle East and North Africa region. As many political observers have repeatedly noted, the Internet played a significant role in these events. Whatever version was true, a photo of the deceased Egyptian with traces of beatings and a disfigured face, posted on social networks, caused protests. Some of the commentators even claimed that without social media, the Arab Spring would not have taken place. Moreover, it can be noted that the Arab Spring is not an Internet revolution, but a revolution during the existence of the Internet.
Positive Aspects
The massive spread of the Internet caused the development of a new, special form of information space. Several social and political movements have recently used it as a tool to mobilize the masses and put pressure on the authorities. The advantages of the Internet are mobility, speed of information flow, and the absence of geographical and time boundaries. This led to the fact that both politicians and the active part of the population began to view the network as a way to renew democratic politics. In this case, their interest is based on two expectations. Public figures expect to use information and communication technologies on the Internet to attract citizens into public politics. For the citizens themselves, communication technologies create an opportunity to gain knowledge about civic affairs and social practices, as well as effectively communicate with representatives of government structures, guided not only by their own needs but also by informed points of view.
It is known that new information and communication technologies affect all spheres of modern life, but in communication technologies, one can see the potential for improving democracy. Changes in modern society have given rise to a complex of reasons that seriously affect the traditional systems of political communication. This is an increase in socio-cultural heterogeneity and the influence that communication technologies have on the actors of political communication. There is a growth of mass media along with changes in the formats of mass media production, vagueness, and confusion of genres, the disappearance of boundaries between what is journalism and what it is not. The geography of political communication is changing as a symbol of the weakening of traditional national borders.
Democracy implies that the entire adult population must be able to participate in politics. To do this, society needs modern state organizations that are capable of solving the problems of democratic governance. This means that citizens or their elected representatives must be able to control the state bureaucracy, military, and large private corporations. Such power can defend traditional liberal democratic beliefs. Otherwise, unelected officials, military leaders, and legal organizations will be able to randomly grasp information and economic opportunities to influence the governance of the nation.
Potential Ramifications
There are several major consequences of communication technologies because it is a simple instrument for other means than democracy. One of the most visible drawbacks of such technologies is the mass-scale spread of false information or “fake news.” Informational freedom lead to the fact that there one cannot properly monitor and control the spread of misinformation, which can lead to severe results and even the fall of democracy (Rushkoff 47). Mass communication, information, and disinformation have existed for as long as human civilization, but they manifest themselves in different ways in pre-digital.
Traditional media have vast experience, and an established circle of readers, listeners, and viewers. However, in the modern culture of a link to the global Web, a new everyday life has been formed, in which users are accustomed to receiving information “here and now” with the help of available media such as mobile phones, tablets, and computer. Online media and social networks have provided users with open access to their resources from anywhere in the world where there is an Internet connection, allowing consumers to create their unique content and express their views. They are more responsive than traditional media in producing news. Moreover, media editorial offices automatically study their content and can include the most interesting topics on their agenda.
Social media, unlike online media, is a less regulated part of the media space, so they often become a platform for spreading disinformation. The peculiarity of social networks is that they unite people by interests and beliefs, forming networked community publics. The texts of these groups of people are saved and archived and can also be reproduced many times, and there is the possibility of visualizing the content and searching for them using search engines. Each group, as a rule, has its agenda, values, and heroes. Users can choose their circle of communication, and in this way, they construct a reality that may differ from that which objectively exists or is formed by the media.
Online communities can create fakes that circulate within the group or an external audience. In the age of total digitalization, life is increasingly moving to the Web, the problem of monitoring the content of the public and determining the degree of reliability of the information they spread grows. This allows researchers to characterize the last few decades as a period of misinformation, in which it is difficult to distinguish facts from fabricated lies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the use of information technology, at least shortly, will not turn society into a society of direct democracy, and it will remain representative. The main reason is that such technologies are tools, which can be used to both promote and interfere with democracy. However, the establishment of a dialogue between society and the authorities, and the availability of power for the people seems to be a significant improvement, bearing the potential for enriching democracy. The main thing is that the authorities have the political will to realize the opportunities provided by the achievements of technical and informational progress.
Works Cited
Held, David, et al. Global Transformations: Politics, Economics and Culture. Polity Press, 2003.
Kumar Jha, Chandar, and Oasis Kodila-Tedikab. “Does Social Media Promote Democracy? Some Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Policy Modeling, vol. 42, no. 2, 2020, pp. 271-290.
Morozov, Evgeny. The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom. PublicAffairs, 2012.
Rushkoff, Douglas. Open source democracy: How online communication is changing offline politics, Demos, 2003. Project Gutenberg eBook. Web.
Tucker, Joshua A., et al. “From Liberation to Turmoil: Social Media and Democracy.” Journal of Democracy, vol. 28, no. 4, 2017, pp. 46-59.