Democracy 3.0 is participatory democracy mainly aiming at brushing up traditional politics, giving more opportunities for citizens to speak out and according to its promoters a better representation thanks to online technology. However appealing, to what extent does democracy 3.0 jeopardise democracy?
IWhat is democracy 3.0?
1 A new form of political participation
Democracy 3.0 aims at erasing all kinds of intermediary between the citizens and the elected representatives. No more influence of money, lobbyists or gerrymandering.
key word
Gerrymandering means changing and manipulating the boundaries of electoral district to advantage your political party.
There are many advantages of a liquid democracy (= democracy 3.0). Citizens can launch petition or vote online in some US States and Australia. However, problems may appear as the system may be hacked or citizens can be influenced in their households. Electronic voting is said to favour the youth voters, country citizens and the disabled.
2020 US presidential election turnout increased by 7.7% compared with the 2016 election thanks to nontraditional voting methods (by mail and/or before Election Day or using e-voting) but also thanks to a strong rallying of Democrat voters.
2 A digital democracy
For the past few years social networks have had an influence on politics. Today, cyberactivism allows any individual or organisation to utilise social networks to support a cause. It is a new kind of political participation. Yet, is the future of civic engagement online?
key word
Cyberactivism is a type of activism facilitated by Internet-based communication techniques.
However, algorithms send false emails or post biased comments to discredit the targeted candidate (e.g. Hillary Clinton in 2016). Therefore we can say that social media have emerged as a political intermediary used to assert influence and achieve political goals, which goes against the idea of a liquid democracy.
Unethical microtargeting (ads, messages, fake news sent to voters) during US, Canadian or Nigerian political campaigns have been revealed by Canadian whistleblower Christopher Wylie.
IICan democracy 3.0 be dangerous?
1 Media and influence
Media have always influenced citizens’ opinions and political participation, but it has been more significant over the past years. TV channels such as Fox News in the USA was alleged to have favoured D. Trump’s candidacy.
The use of traditional media to get information is sharply decreasing to the benefit of social networks. There is an ambiguous relationship between media, politicians and citizens. Some media or politicians give a distorted vision of reality, for example during the Brexit campaign for the “leave” or concerning the Covid-19 pandemic.
2 Threats to democracy
All these new digital means of dealing with politics have their limits. They can be used to jeopardise democracy and therefore the representation of citizens by interfering with elections. Major democracies are facing cyberattacks from rogue countries.
Distrust of the traditional media and institution increase the citizens’ resentment. Some citizens feel they are not represented and are suspicious of the elite. They are hacktivists and spread conspiracy theories via the Net. One of the most significant groups is QAnon, a far-right cult that spreads horrific ideas on the Internet.