Gefion Thuermer
Markus Luczak-Rösch
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates the effect of internet-use on democratic decision-making processes within political parties. Through two case studies of the Green Party and the Pirate Party Germany, the influence of internet-use on these processes and their inclusiveness are shown. We argue that how the internet is used in democratic processes impacts on participation and inclusion.
How internet technology interacts with decision making processes within parties depends on the existing party structure and culture. Thus, in order to achieve meaningful and inclusive participation, the institutional framework and the influence it has must be considered in process and tool design. Whereas the affordances of specific online tools have been evaluated, the institutional context in which they are embedded have so far been widely ignored. We offer a structure for analysis of these foundations.
- Acker, J. 1990. HIERARCHIES, JOBS, BODIES: A Theory of Gendered Organizations. Gender & Society. 4, 2 (Jun. 1990), 139--158.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Agre, P. E. 2002. Real-Time Politics: The Internet and the Political Process. The Information Society. 18, 5 (2002), 311--331.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bennett, W. L. and Segerberg, A. 2012. THE LOGIC OF CONNECTIVE ACTION. Information, Communication & Society. 15, 5 (Jun. 2012), 739--768.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Beschlussporotokoll AVB: 2016. http://wiki.piratenpartei.de/BE:Parteitag/2016.1/Beschlussporotokoll_AVB#Liste. Accessed: 2016-01-27.Google Scholar
- Buhl, H. U. 2011. From revolution to participation: Social media and the democratic decision-making process. Business and Information Systems Engineering. 3, 4 (2011), 195--198.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bullwinkel, B. and Probst, L. 2014. Innerparteiliche Willensbildung und Entscheidungsprozesse durch digitale Partizipation. Ein Praxistest des Konzepts der Liquid Democracy. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen. 2, (2014), 382--401.Google Scholar
- Carr, L. et al. 2010. Could the Web be a Temporary Glitch? Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, US, 26--27 Apr 2010 (Raleigh, US, 2010).Google Scholar
- Costanza-Chock, S. 2012. Mic Check! Media Cultures and the Occupy Movement. Social Movement Studies.Google Scholar
- Dahl, R. 1989. Democracy and its Critics. Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- Gibson, R. and Cantijoch, M. 2013. Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline? The Journal of Politics. 75, 03 (2013), 701--716.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gibson, Rachel K., Wainer Lusoli, Andrea Römmele, S. J. W. 2004. Introduction: representative democracy and the Internet. Electronic democracy: mobilisation, organisation and participation via new ICTs. R. K. Gibson et al., eds. Routledge / ECPR Studies in European Political Science. 1--16.Google Scholar
- Gil de Zúñiga, H. et al. 2010. Digital Democracy: Reimagining Pathways to Political Participation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics. 7, 1 (2010), 36--51.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Guthrie, K. K. and Dutton, W. H. 1992. The Politics of Citizen Access Technology. The Development of Public Information Utilities in Four Cities. Policy Studies Journal. 20, 4 (Dec. 1992), 574--597.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hague, B. N. and Loader, B. D. 1999. Digital Democracy: an introduction. Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 3--22.Google Scholar
- Halford, S. et al. 2010. A manifesto for Web Science. Proceedings of the WebSci10: Extending the Frontiers of Society On-Line, Raleigh, US, 26--27 Apr 2010 (2010).Google Scholar
- Halford, S. and Savage, M. 2010. RECONCEPTUALIZING DIGITAL SOCIAL INEQUALITY. Information, Communication & Society. 13, 7 (Oct. 2010), 937--955.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hardt, S. and Lopes, L. C. R. 2015. Google Votes: A Liquid Democracy Experiment on a Corporate Social Network. Technical Disclosure Commons.Google Scholar
- Hargittai, E. 2008. The Digital Reproduction of Inequality. Social Stratification. D. Grusky, ed. Westview Press. 936--944.Google Scholar
- Held, D. 2006. Models of Democracy. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
- Hyland, J. L. 1995. Democratic Theory: The philosophical foundations. Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
- Is there an echo in here? 2004. http://www.salon.com/2004/02/21/echo_chamber/. Accessed: 2016-01-24.Google Scholar
- Jackson, N. and Lilleker, D. 2009. Building an Architecture of Participation? Political Parties and Web 2.0 in Britain. Journal of Information Technology Politics. 6, 3 (2009), 232--250.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kerr, A. and Waddington, J. 2014. E-Communications: An Aspect of Union Renewal or Merely Doing Things Electronically? British Journal of Industrial Relations. 52, 4 (Dec. 2014), 658--681.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kling, C. C. et al. 2015. Voting Behaviour and Power in Online Democracy: A Study of LiquidFeedback in Germany's Pirate Party. International Conference for Web and Social Media (ICWSM) in Oxford (2015).Google Scholar
- Kneuer, M. 2014. Mehr oder weniger demokratische Qualität durch das Internet? Der Bürger im Staat. 64, (2014).Google Scholar
- Lenk, K. 1999. Electronic support of citizen participation in planning processes. Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 87--95.Google Scholar
- Lunenburg, F. C. 2011. Decision Making in Organizations. International journal of management, business, and administration. 15, 1 (2011), 1--9.Google Scholar
- Miller, J. C. 1969. A program for direct and proxy voting in the legislative process. Public Choice. 7, 1 (Sep. 1969), 107--113.Google Scholar
- Moore, R. K. 1999. Democracy and Cyberspace. Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 39--59.Google Scholar
- Neumann, T. 2011. Die Piratenpartei Deutschland: Entwicklung und Selbstverständnis. Contumax.Google Scholar
- Niedermayer, O. 2015. Parteimitglieder in Deutschland:Version 2015. Arbeitshefte aus dem Otto-Stammer-Zentrum. 20, 25 (2015), 53.Google Scholar
- O'Hara, K. and Stevens, D. 2015. Echo Chambers and Online Radicalism: Assessing the Internet's Complicity in Violent Extremism. Policy Studies Organization. 9999, 9999 (2015), 1--22.Google Scholar
- Papacharissi, Z. 2009. The Virtual Sphere 2.0: The Internet, the Public Sphere and beyond. Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. A. Chadwick and P. N. Howard, eds. Routledge. 230--245.Google Scholar
- Roth, S. et al. 2014. Occupy as a free space - Mobilization processes and outcomes. Sociological Research Online. 19, 1 (2014), 1--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schermerhorn, J. R. J. et al. 2011. Organizational Behavior. Wiley.Google Scholar
- Smith, J. and Glidden, B. 2012. Occupy Pittsburgh and the Challenges of Participatory Democracy. Social Movement Studies. 11, 3--4 (2012), 288--294.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Spada, P. et al. 2014. A First Step toward Scaling-up Deliberation: Optimizing Large Group E-Deliberation using Argument Maps. Under Review. (2014), 36.Google Scholar
- The Tyranny of Structurelessness: http://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm. Accessed: 2015-06-11.Google Scholar
- Thuermer 2015. Differences in decision-making processes between web-native and non-web-native political parties. University of Southampton.Google Scholar
- Ward, S. et al. 2002. Virtually participating: A survey of online party members. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age. 7, (2002), 199--215. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wilhelm, A. G. 1999. Virtual sounding boards: how deliberative is online political discussion? Digital Democracy. Discourse and Decision Making in the Information Age. B. N. Hague and B. D. Loader, eds. Routledge. 154--178.Google Scholar
- Wresch, W. 2001. Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace. The Information Society. 17, 2 (2001), 145--146.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zhang, W. 2010. TECHNICAL CAPITAL AND PARTICIPATORY INEQUALITY IN EDELIBERATION. Information, Communication & Society. 13, 7 (Oct. 2010), 1019--1039.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- Internet use, in- and exclusion in decision-making processes within political parties
Recommendations
Differences in eDemocracy parties' eParticipation systems
eDemocracy political parties are an emerging and radically new form of political party that enables citizen participation in the policy-making process using ICTs. This paper compares the eParticipation systems of four of the first eDemocracy parties (...
Internet Use and Political Participation: Reflections on the Mobilization/Normalization Controversy
Web-based and theoretical studies often claim that Internet use can mobilize political participation, while survey-based studies generally conclude that Internet use will normalize political participation. This article aims to offer some reflections on ...
Political Parties and Internet Voting System Adoption in Ghana
Electronic Government and the Information Systems PerspectiveAbstractThe role of political parties in elections and factors that influence political parties’ internet voting system adoption has hardly been explored. One of the key barriers to internet voting system adoption is the lack of trust in the technology ...
Comments