When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Economy

Collective To Connective: Does The Internet Undermine Human Institutions?

Patients versus doctors, electors versus parties and disappointed refugee aid response. The Internet may actually widen the gap between citizens and modern democratic institutions.

Digital words, real actions
Digital words, real actions
Alexandra Borchardt

ROVINJ — The debate in Germany over the refugee crisis is only the most recent example. We've seen citizens complain that they are taking on the duties that are supposed to be the responsibility of the state. It is the government's role, they say, to welcome refugees with beds and food, German language courses or maybe even a job. Only this way can true integration be achieved.

This old idea of democracy clashes strangely with citizen aspiration for more self-determination and participation, which is multiplying in our digitally intertwined world. But this inevitably leads to the question of whether people merely want to have a louder say, but not actually roll up their sleeves and join in?

Returning to the refugee crisis, such doubts shouldn't necessarily be given too much credence. The enormous willingness to help, largely shared on social media and other digital channels, shows that people do want to help, particularly when there is a real emergency.

The truth is, the more citizens turn away from institutions — and more and more of them do — the more they will have to get involved as individuals. Democracy is not driven by the pleasure principle alone— it's also about accepting responsibility.

How does the revolution in information and communication technology change the notion of democracy? And how should democracy be adjusted to respond to said revolution? These questions were at the heart of the recent conference of the International Political Science Association (IPSA) in Rovinj, Croatia.

Though the refugee crises wasn't discussed from the podiums — it's too early for any scientific study — it poses many of these same questions. A democracy does not provide a clear distinction: the state on one hand, its citizens on the other. "We are the state," means nothing else but the institutions of the state being the product of civil engagement. People organizing in political parties, unions, churches and action groups, taking over political functions in order to work on different tasks, along with the authorities.

Constant questioning

If citizens considered the state as some sort of a supplier, and themselves as nothing but consumers, democracy would no longer exist. The participants at the "Communication, Democracy and Digital Technology" conference asked if in an increasingly industrialized world, the engagement between state and citizenry starts to fall apart.

Mass organizations lose their attraction and therefore their impact and influence. They are continuously questioned by citizens who refuse to quietly accept a program, a party, a hierarchic leadership, and rigid statutes.

Professor Lance Bennett, a political scientist from Washington State University, describes how collective action in being transformed into networked action. He calls this "The Logic of Connective Action," and together with Alexandra Segerberg, he has written a book about it (2013, Cambridge University Press). The title is a nod to Mancur Olson's The Logic of Collective Action, a standard reference of political science of 1965.

Bennett says that in today's society, mass movements take form through digital media contacts, without someone actually having to join the organization or sign bylaws. Before, organizations had to sign up and swear in their members, but in today's hybrid organizations people are spontaneously brought in.

By now, the examples of impromptu, digitally-fed action abound, from the Occupy movement to the Arab Spring. "Young people don't want to join anything," Bennett says. "And new organizations don't want new members either."

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
Geopolitics

Why Fast-Tracking Ukraine's NATO Entry Is Such A Bad Idea

Ukraine's President Zelensky should not be putting pressure for NATO membership now. It raises the risk of a wider war, and the focus should be on continuing arms deliveries from the West. After all, peace will be decided on the battlefield.

American soldiers from the U.S. army during a training exercise in Grafenwoehr, Germany

Christoph B. Schiltz

-OpEd-

Nine NATO member states from Eastern Europe and the Western Balkans are now putting pressure on the military alliance to welcome Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has been calling for "accelerated accession."

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

As understandable as it is that his country wants to join a strong defensive military alliance like NATO, the timing is wrong. Of course, we must acknowledge the Ukrainian people's heroic fight for survival. But Zelensky must be careful not to overstretch the West's willingness to support him.

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ