Issues Navigator

Global Challenges

Strategic Regions

Domestic Debates

Tag cloud

See All Tags

September 24, 2009 |  6 comments |  Print | E-Mail Your Opinion  

Bohnen & Kallmorgen

How Web 2.0 is Changing Politics

Bohnen & Kallmorgen: The political decision-making process, and thus our very democracy, will change rapidly in the next few years. New technologies will make participation among citizens and other actors much more common and important.


For the first time in the history of modern democracy, new communication technologies are on the brink of emancipating citizens from powerful paternalistic states and established party organizations.  In the future people will not see their influence limited to elections every four to five years; rather, citizens will exercise permanent influence through constant suggestions, ideas, and contributions, all organized over the internet.  

Using these technologies, new actors will break into the system that has always been reserved for insiders. Transparency and innovation will spread. Politicians will have to be directly engaged in addressing the concerns of their constituents; those who do not will lose support, not only among voters but also among established media outlets. Indirect rankings of politicians have already appeared, in Germany on websites such as politikerwatch.de and abgeordnetenwatch.de, and those who reliably deliver solutions to their constituents' problems have come out on top.

The model of an independently organized civil society has been particularly important in rising and developing countries where freedom of speech and of the press is weak or repressed. Here, large numbers of citizens, activists, non-profits, and aid organizations use Web 2.0 technologies to exchange ideas, organize campaigns, and mobilize people. A fascinating example of this grassroots democracy was the February 2008 protests against the Columbian Marxist rebel group simultaneously organized in 160 cities around the world by the Facebook group "One million voices against the FARC." Further examples include Hossein Mussavi's campaign and the subsequent demonstrations in Iran, both substantially organized electronically, and the navigable "map of political violence" on Zimbabwe's Sokwanele.com, where users can report and document abuse and election fraud carried out by Robert Mugabe's ZANU-PF.

Web 2.0 can also help established democracies generate policy solutions from the collective intelligence of informed citizens. Previously deterred by the classical political party structure, educated politically-concerned citizens will now have much better access to and a stronger involvement in the political process. The creative potential of the "wisdom of the masses" has long been recognized by companies such as Dell, IBM, and Starbucks. The success of community features and opportunities to offer suggestions on company websites was striking: Starbucks received over ten thousand responses, among them elaborate suggestions for technical innovation. The gains for the companies were enormous, as they received valuable input that helped them strengthen their brand and stay competitive, for free. The customers functioned like a large group of external creative consultants who donated their labor-intensive recommendations.

This could also work for domestic politics. However, the successful implementation of such a bottom-up initiative requires more than a webmaster and a pretty homepage. It will require a talent for political communication and agenda setting, a professionally organized network and database, first-class marketing, an intuitive sense of the target group, and last but not least a solid financial backing. When these preconditions are filled, technologies such as theme-specific web communities, Wikis, and videoconferencing can be used to collect the ideas and arguments of an intelligent and well-informed citizenry. The information must then be evaluated and summarized into precise, readable policy recommendations, ideally enriched with some expert knowledge. Eventually, this strategy could also be used to collect ideas from people on the ground in crisis regions.

Web 2.0 will eventually mean a civil society actively engaged in domestic affairs and policy solutions that are more creative and more popular.  

Dr. Johannes Bohnen and Jan-Friedrich Kallmorgen run the Berlin-based public affairs consulting firm Bohnen Kallmorgen & Partner. In 2004, they founded the think tank Atlantic Initiative. The organization's most important project is the world's first online foreign policy think tank, atlantic-community.org.

Please find a longer version of the article in the pdf below.

 
  • 11
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this Article! What's this?

 
 
Comments
Unregistered User

September 24, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
That's all very well but first the technology needs to focus on empowering citizens by putting them at the centre of the service delivery model, coupled to records management and identity management that follow the customer. Then we avoid the hugely complex and expensive problem of 'sharing' information because (with the obvious caveats on criminal records) ALL records belong to the customer (aka TADAG.com)

There are stil far too many organisations of government focussed on 'how WE deliver OUR service'.
 
Colette Grace Mazzucelli

September 26, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Mr. Bohnen & Mr. Kallmorgen,

Thank you for your informative piece and for your initiative in creating Atlantic-Community.org. As an educator, I encourage students to contribute their thoughts to the policy dialogues on these webpages.

I agree with your assessment about the possibiities that new technolgies can offer in the years to come. Opportunities exist to include more ideas from an informed citizenry into our policy debates. Where I have questions pertains to the direct impact of this citizen involvement on the domestic politics of industrialized democracies. The reason I raise this point is because increasingly we see these systems privilege the status quo because it serves powerful interests to do so.

How can the opportunities new technologies afford in increased participation for citizenry change that reality, which Max Weber identified in 'Politics as a Vocation,' namely, the distinction he draws between those politicians who live "for" politics and those who live "off" politics?

When connections among various people in government bureaucracy, legislative committees, and special interests are tight so as to close the political process, how does the use of political communication 24/7, even with its greater potential inclusion of more informed citizens, hinder a system, not the practice, of abuse of power?

Intelligent agenda setting is important; enforcing accountability requires those inside to act, once again, in ways that directly counter powerful interests, which are often protected by the system in place.

Technology offers, in my experience, a tremendous value-added, particularly in lifelong learning. It cannot on its own counter, even through its intelligent use by an exponential increase in the number of engaged citizens, a lack of ethical responsibility, which politicians, bureaucrats and special interests interacting on a daily basis clearly display. The changes we seek in domestic politics must come as much from those in positions of authority as from the millions at the base with access to internet technology.

As time passes, and gaps grow wider between the privileged and the marginalized in established democracies, my sense is that new technologies and their innovative uses reveal more about how to lengthen the shadow before we arrive at the tipping point, whereby the pressure from below to change regimes in our most advanced polities becomes impossible to resist.

Sincerely, Colette Mazzucelli
 
Laura  Kline

September 28, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree with Mr. Bohnen and Mr. Kallmorgen that the use of Web 2.0 is an emancipating tool for citizens of developing counties, especially where “freedom of speech and of the press is weak or repressed.”

However, I’d modify their assessment to this: new communication technologies are on the brink of emancipating – some – citizens from powerful paternalistic states and established party organizations.

While celebrating the voice technology has given to so many living in countries where freedom of speech is repressed, one must also acknowledge that the voice we are hearing represents a limited population. These viewpoints tend to be those of the young, urban, male and affluent. I’d argue that the majority of poor, female, elderly living in rural China are hardly “on the brink” of being emancipated through technology.

It is not my intention to diminish the significance of communications breakthroughs, such as the role Twitter, Facebook and other tools played in fostering a grass roots movement during the recent Iranian presidential election. This is an incredible development.

My intention is to highlight the large population lacking the means to voice their opinions. And in some cases, these technologies will further widen the divide within developing countries – between urban and rural and the affluent and the poor.

We must continue to recognize the large populations unexposed to the liberation of Tweeting one’s opinion, and remember the voices that are not represented (and who have a much longer road to having the means and access to share their opinions). When these voices are heard it will be revolutionary indeed.
 
May  Hu

September 28, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
I agree with Laura that technology has indeed offered new channels of communication across borders and thus enabling the spread of knowledge and information more easily and conveniently. However, there are still many people in the world who are denied the simple access of a computer and internet. What good is the use of a fancy computer and state of the art technology and web-discussions, etc if there are still masses of people who are unable to access this luxury?

Technology in my opinion is still a luxury that unfortunately, many people still cannot afford. There are entire countries, in Africa, for example where the annual income is less than $500. Many people still suffer quietly and though technology has raised more awareness to concerned global citizens around the world, there is still much effort needed to bridge the gaps and allow everyone's voice to truly be heard.
 
Marek  Swierczynski

September 29, 2009

  • 0
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
Whereas the Web2.0 is a global phenomenon of great significance, the way it is developing needs a bit of "streaming" or "steering" if we want this to be more than just another mix of marketing and propaganda. Services like Twitter or Facebook are indeed a new quality in communication, but 1) they offer this new quality only to those IT-literate enough; 2) vast majority of communication there is much below what we'd expect to form a Web2.0 society. One has to intentionally divert to services like this one and put some effort to really touch the values of Web2.0 in full. What may help in my view is the governments and other public services be put on these or new Web2.0 platforms in order to encourage members of society to see the efficiency of the technology and culture of Web2.0. I would forsee for instance a Facebook-like local council website, through which you could conctact your social employee or taxation officer prior to signing documents on paper, chat to discuss your options and get advice - possibilities are endless and I'm sure some more developed communities have been already using them (examples welcome via mail). The problem is that still those IT-literate communities are exception rather than a rule and the Web2.0 is - let's face it - a posh toy for the younger, more educated and richer of us.
 
Dale  Bowerman

October 26, 2009

  • 1
  •  
  •  
  • No rating possible
  • No rating possible
I like this comment! What's this?
For a real-world example of "When these preconditions are filled, technologies such as theme-specific web communities, Wikis, and videoconferencing can be used to collect the ideas and arguments of an intelligent and well-informed citizenry" see:

http://FutureMelbourne.com.au (world's first collaborative city plan in a wiki) and

http://wePlan.parks.vic.gov.au (world's first collaborative nation park management plan in a wiki)

Dale Bowerman
http://Collabforge.com
 

Create Comment

Type the characters shown in the image below into the textfield.
Captcha

What are tags?

Community

Jobs / Internships

Call for Papers

Atlantic Events

Partners

User of the day

Sudakshina  Chattopadhyay
Sudakshina Chattopadhyay
Member since
March 14, 2011

Poll

Should NATO intervene in Syria?