Will the internet help make democracy a reality?
By John Merrill Posted Oct 1 2003
It is widely believed that mass media, especially the press, are necessary for the implementation of democracy in a country. The traditional media, in my view, have largely failed in introducing, securing and expanding democracy in any country. Essentially, the media only reflect and try to retain the basic ideologies and values of the societies in which they exist. Actual rule by the people does not appear to be an ideology anywhere.
Authoritarianism of one kind or another is the dominant global media-press philosophy. This has always been the case. However, today, with the Internet, it is possible to go beyond the old, traditional mass media in expanding democracy and ending much of the alienation felt by the world's populations. The question is: will this expansion of democracy happen?
One can make the case that all press systems are authoritarian. Let us look at three basic symbiotic, authoritarian relationships: press-government, press-people and government-people.
In the press-government relationship, the government or the press is the authority. In the press-people relationship, the press is the authority. And in the government-people relationship, the government is the authority. In none of these three relationships are the people the authority.
In the press-government relationship, if the government is dominant or autocratic, then it is the authority, whereas in so-called libertarian countries, such as the United States or Saudi Arabia, the press is the authority vis-à-vis government and the people. The U.S. press, for instance, makes its own editorial decisions, but the people are largely ignored in the decision-making.
In the government-people relationship, the government is authoritarian. We see such governments in countries such as China, Syria and Malaysia where the elite hierarchy make constant decisions not asked for nor ratified by the people. In most countries, even where there are periodic elections, government is the authority.
A country is not democratic simply because voting is permitted. Only a small portion of the people vote, and those who do have no real say in determining who runs for office. Then, after the election, the people recede back into oblivion, and they have little to say about ongoing government decisions.
Rather than democracies, what we have around the world are various kinds of plutocracies, aristocracies and autocracies. People rule only in theory, and, at present, a meaningful democracy is a myth. The media, especially the new media, can perhaps do something about this. Without the authority of media owners and strong governments interfering with interpersonal communication, the new media may be able to reach millions of people directly without any “gatekeepers” and achieve a level of freedom never before seen in press-government-people relationships.
Big government and big media corporations will attempt to retain their present domination of communication. Buyouts of the new media by corporate giants will continue. Although some of these buyouts will provide greater exposure for new media, like MSN's buyout of the online magazine Slate, the continuation of these buyouts could be ruinous to the potential freedom of new media, as governments and media corporations will use ever-more sophisticated methods to control new media.
In the dawn of the new media era, the question of who is a journalist will loom large. Is the lone person sitting at his or her computer a “journalist?” Or must there be some kind of centralized and identifiable corporate entity to accept responsibility? In those countries having constitutional provisions for a free press, will cyber-communicators be considered journalists and part of the press?
Assuming democracy as an objective, what can the media, both old and new, do to make it more of a reality than it is today? A few suggestions:
free nationwide, non-politically biased, national newspaper for a country (parallel to National Public Radio in the United States) could be instituted for the citizens at large in a country. The media could suggest in their stories and editorials ways for the people to have a greater impact on government. For example, they could suggest that voters insist on regular meetings with their representatives. The media can reduce the amount of sensational, entertainment news and provide more solid, governmental and political news.
Assuming a country desires to proceed toward democracy, and such an assumption is problematic, national leaders and the media must decide to cooperate to bring about more involvement of the people in government.
What we have worldwide today is democratic rhetoric. There appears to be no real attempt to open the doors to the people and provide real democracy.
Vested interests in the capitalistic media and in the autocratic or party-dominated media conspire against democratization. Presently, media are used chiefly as advertising channels, propaganda instruments and entertainment havens. There is no real effort to expand democracy either in the media or in government.
A few small efforts here and there, like public journalism in the United States, have made overtures toward greater democratization, but they seem to get nowhere. The great majority of media (at least their owners or controllers) do not seem to be ready for democracy. Oligarchy and plutocracy are in the global media saddle, and they are tough and experienced riders.
Two things really must be done to change the status quo. First, media operatives themselves must determine to change and to welcome outside opinions and information. Second, governments must truly want to accept non-elite citizens as legitimate participants in government.
These two necessities pose an uphill struggle. There is real reason to believe that neither the media moguls nor the deeply rooted government elite wants democracy. Because they don't, the term will simply remain a high-sounding rhetorical tool for further numbing of already jaded and alienated publics.