The Impact That Web 2.0 Has on Political Participation - Essay Example

Summary With advances in Web 2.0, most political parties in many countries have websites that offer a wide range of tools and some form of participation aimed at allowing the citizenry to create and share contents and also get involved in the party activities through social media. (Lilleker & Jackson, 2011) The aim of this research paper is to give an overview on how players in the political scene and government institutions are adapting and institutionalizing Web 2.0 applications in order to increase their political participation and also counter the continued abstinence of local citizenry from political process in their area of jurisdiction. The main hypothesis here is that there is no correspondence between the political parties websites allow citizens and what the citizens expect. Introduction Web 2.0 can be defined as a set of technologies and applications that have the ability to support online participation. The adaptation of this technology is based on the fact that it can be adopted at a very little cost and also require less technical skills as users broadcast to many other users. Example of Web 2.0 applications include blogs, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and wikis like Wikipedia. It is due to this facts about Web 2.0 that is choose to discuss its impact in political participation.  (Boca Raton, 2012) The application of Web 2.0 tools can be applied by political parties and governments in the effort to get more people participate in their activities. This is can be seen with an increase in the number of political parties in many countries that are exploiting the capabilities of Web 2.0 so as to increase the political participation among its members. In addition to that, most government institutions are increasingly implementing web-based media in their quest to reduce the whole process and also counter increased abstinence of people from the political processes. There are various e-participation practices that have resulted from the aim of the political actors in increasing political participation hence need to assess the Web 2.0 impacts on political participation. This reasons therefore support the chosen trend i.e. impact of Web 2.0 tools on political participation.  (Pole, 2010) Discussion Democratic political participation involve the means to be informed, a mechanism that take part in decision making and the ability to influence and contribute to policy agenda. The online participation is enabled by the e-participation projects. In the context of Web 2.0 adding value to political participation, the relevant websites are categorized in to ones that are built and owned by political actors such as governments and parliament or the ones owned by citizens. (Reddick & Aikins, 2012) Also, the level of user participation can be used to be used to categorize e-participation platforms i.e. those producing the content, those who provide rating and reviews, those who use generated content and those who do not use Web 2.0 applications but still provide input to the e-participation. This therefore means that Web 2.0 applications enable the exploitation and knowledge of active users and passive users i.e. the political actors can build innovative services based on the engagement with passive users. The discussions below provide various e-participation ways and platforms and how they impact political participation. (Roberts, 2009) 1. Easy flow of information and transparency Web 2.0 applications ensure government and political information is available and easily accessible hence democratic transparency. This kind of information is delivered in different topics and facets. According to [Heinderyckx, 2013], almost 50% of users on the internet are searching for information regarding public policy, governance and services offered by government agencies within their countries. This statistics show great interest by citizens on such information. The Web 2.0 technology goes beyond provision of information openness i.e. providing processed information and promoting an open government. For instance, the British and American governments have provided a lot of machine readable datasets to the public. These are aimed at not only ensuring increased political participation by the citizenry but also promote transparency, innovation, competition and economic effectiveness.  (Cogburn & Vasquez, 2009) 2. Increase Contact with the electorate Most administrations worldwide have an online presence and provide Web 2.0 tools and applications that interact with citizens enabling them provide feedback on political issues. This is done through various government portals that aggregate Web 2.0 applications such as Facebook, YouTube, Flickr and Twitter in order to strengthen participation. (Kloby & DAgostino, 2012) All this gives citizens different forms of participation tools that enable them to stay connected and be embedded in different levels of participation. According to [Tsui, Lee, & Yao, 2010], most citizens are using the Web 2.0 technology for direct contact with their political leaders. They do this by watching a video on a government agency website, reading a blog on a government agency website and following or becoming a fan of the government pages on social media. Web 2.0 tools and technology have also impacted political participation through feedback systems such as e-petition systems. This enables citizens to contribute to an online debate around government issues hence allowing more active roles and transparency. This online tools such as an e-petition system allows a petitioner to make a petition about any government issues and make it public for other citizens to sign it online. Some petitions have attracted and been able to attract large masses e.g. in Germany, an online petition against internet censorship attracted 134,000 people. This evolution of digital natives are ready to fight for political cause online. One important thing to note is that, such a movement would not normally participate in traditional party-guided political process. This therefore shows the massive impact of Web 2.0 technology on political participation through creating a connection with the electorate. (Vesnic-Alujevic, 2012) 3. Encouragement of political discussion In most countries where citizens have a massive online presence, blogs have become a relevant source of information. An example of such blogs are The Huffington Post and these have established themselves as independent powers along the mass media. However, the power of blogs in encouraging political participation through discussions varies in different countries due to different relationships between parties and individual political candidates. Also the pressure to find and mobilize followers and financial resources through blogs for political campaigns is different leading to a shift to personalized websites. These blogs not only induce political participation, but they also allow deeper penetration through provision of a giving voice to a wider public opinion. Also, the blog readers are involved in political participatory activates both online and offline i.e. sending mails to politicians or attending political meetings. (Pole, 2010) 4. Monitoring of authorities and politicians There are examples of bottom-up initiatives aimed at generating transparency and facilitating responsiveness among politicians. Examples of such initiatives include the rate of accuracy of statements of the political factors and the constancy of the public officials. Further, these initiatives can be used to track promises made by the politicians i.e. Obameter is used to track more five hundred promises made by President Obama and also rate the progress. The German website ‘abgeordnetenwatach’ is used to provide the political profiles of all German politicians and representatives. This website experience around 400,000 visitors in a month hence politicians can also benefit from the program as it is simple and provides a means of engaging in public relations in order to help them strengthen their profile and also publish the political opinions and positions.  (Cogburn & Vasquez, 2009) The above project in Germany is also replicated in many countries and it is just a more than a mere database. Such platforms allows citizens to address their questions to their political representative and also rate the answers given by the representatives or rate those who don’t bother to answer back. This dialogue generated a more accountable and transparent way of interaction since it’s published on the website. Such a platform also allows one to monitors the voting behavior of their representatives and how they engage in other activities. (Heinderyckx, 2013) Some Web 2.0 applications such as ‘smartvote’ that is used in Switzerland provide information about political candidates. This application provides information profile of each candidate hence helping the voters to make wise decisions on which politicians to vote for. A study carried out in 2009 shows that more than a third of voters used this web applications to decide on who to vote for. Therefore, Web 2.0 applications such as ‘smartvote’ can improve the information basis of the users hence motivating them to engage in discussions regarding political issues and the candidates hence enhancing their political participation. (Roberts, 2009) 5. Formation of pressure groups There are many platforms online facilitated by Web 2.0 technology that have gained a lot of members and have been successful in organizing campaigns that have a remarkable political impact. These type of organizations have established themselves along traditional party and NGO systems that allow citizens to participate in issues relating to political agenda. These participation is done online through campaigning websites that normally communicate through mail. They also send newsletters to activists and electorate informing of the campaigns and new actions to be taken in order to achieve the desired goal. All this activities are not only aimed at to mobilize ad inform members but also spread information to other potential activists. These campaigns can be done in many way by applying the Web 2.0 tools and applications. (Vesnic-Alujevic, 2012) Firstly, these tools have the ability to acquire, maintain members and keep them active. The long-term commitment can be established through embedding of different Web 2.0 tools and technologies into the main platform such as Twitter and Facebook. Through these tools, a network of friends is created and mobilized to register on the platform hence generating a viral growth. Furthermore, friendships on other platforms can be imported hence enhancing a community idea. Also, these sites keep the community growing by recommending other members to connect with other members on the platform. (Reddick & Aikins, 2012) The second option refers to the different levels of participation. Users on these platforms can sign e-petitions, raise money for the campaigns, send emails, rate, and share and tag political articles. These are done online so easily and also users can participate in offline activities such as demonstrations. Thirdly, these campaigns have the ability to influence the political agenda whenever an opportunity arises. This campaigns can be organized based on topics that are currently on the political agenda hence correct mobilization using the Web 2.0 tools and applications can change the political result. Therefore, we can conclude that this pressure groups have the ability to influence political agenda through increase participation. (Lilleker & Jackson, 2011) Generally, bottom-up organizations are more creative in the implementations of Web 2.0 tools and applications for community building and campaigning hence increased participation and interaction between members. These serve as the role model for innovation from the society’s peripherals to the center of the government agency. For instance, in Switzerland, an Obama video was used in web applications to mobilize people to vote for freedom of movement and residence. This video went viral and at the end, over 800,000 people had watched the video with a large number being directed through shares and tags on Facebook. This therefore shows the impact of Web 2.0 on political participation.  (Tsui, Lee, & Yao, 2010) Conclusion The above discussion has covered initiatives that harness Web 2.0 for political participation. These initiatives are aimed at promoting information and transparency and smooth campaigning and community building. However, it is not just the provision of Web 2.0 applications and tools that impacts the political participation. These applications are used political purposes where citizens participate and stay informed by reading news and blogs provided by the government. (Pole, 2010) Studies have shown that citizens are interested in participating politically in a more active role e.g. signing petitions, direct interactions with politicians, rating and tagging articles, commenting on blogs and taking affirmative campaigning activities. In some cases, these activities have a positive impact on political participation. For instance, the use of Web 2.0 tools such as ‘smartvote’ that provide voting advice and can lead to the user to vote for the recommended candidate. Furthermore, online activities can in certain cases impose a political pressure e.g. the petition against censorship on the Internet in Germany. Therefore, only politically controversial issues can mobilize large masses of users. An overall precondition for political participation is an active community management by the providers of the platforms. In conclusion, Web 2.0 applications and tools have a significant impact in terms of political participation. This is done through easy flow of information and transparency, formation of pressure groups, monitoring of authorities and politicians, encouragement of political discussion and increase contact with the electorate. Appendix: Work Flow process on the impact of Web 2.0 on political participation The workflow process describes the steps and tasks that can be taken by government agencies and political parties in ensuring increased participation of the public in their activities. In reference to Figure 1 below, the public not only consumes information but also participates in dissemination. Therefore, there is a two way dialogue between the citizens hence increased participation and co-creation. Figure 1: Government Agency, Political party and User interaction using Web 2.0 The flow of information can be illustrated as shown below in Figure 2. Figure 2: Web 2.0 applications that support political participation in political parties and government agencies Therefore, the workflow process for the application of Web 2.0 tools and application by a political party or government agency is depicted in Figure 3 below. The flow process is self-explanatory. Figure 3: the workflow process for the application of Web 2.0 tools and application by a political party or government agency Bibliography Boca Raton. Web 2. 0. 2012: Chapman & Hall/CRC [Imprint.] Cogburn, D., & Vasquez, F. E. 2009. Examining the Impact of Web 2.0 and Social Media on Political Participation and Civic Engagement in the 2008 Obama Campaign. Heinderyckx, F. 2013. The Early Political Web (1995-2005): A ten-year observational research seeking evidence of eDemocracy in the information architecture of political parties’ web sites worldwide. Universite Libre de Bruxelles. Kloby, K., & DAgostino, M. J. 2012. Citizen 2.0: Public and governmental interaction through Web 2.0 technologies. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. Lilleker, D. G., & Jackson, N. A. 2011. Political campaigning, elections and the internet: Comparing the US, UK, France and Germany. London: Routledge. Pole, A. 2010. Blogging the political: Politics and participation in a networked society. New York: Routledge. Reddick, C. G., & Aikins, S. K. 2012. Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance: Political, policy and management implications. New York, NY: Springer. Roberts, B. 2009. Beyond the ‘Networked Public Sphere’: Politics, Participation and Technics in Web 2.0. Tsui, H., Lee, C., & Yao, C. 2010. E-government, politics and Web 2.0. New Trends in Information Science and Service Science (NISS), 2010 4th International Conference, 687 - 691. Vesnic-Alujevic, L. 2012. Political participation and web 2.0 in Europe: A case study of Facebook. Public Relations Review, 38(3), 466–470. Read More