"Digital citizens should not be afraid to know or to act, but we need a leadership willing to listen and participate–not on platforms or pedestals, but on egalitarian footing with their constituents.”
Four years ago, in the middle of the 2004 primaries, the online political community heralded the rise of the political blogosphere as an evolution in—and improvement upon—the printing press. Political bloggers became the new pamphleteers, and more than one journalist compared online political discussion groups, blogging communities, and listservs to coffee houses, where people go to get their daily fix of information.
It is not a coincidence that we embraced the metaphors of the printing press, which once led Western Europe to question the traditions established by religious and political authorities, and coffeehouse, where so many connections were made, business transactions were conducted, and ideas were debated during the Enlightenment—the era that birthed many of the ideas upon which our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are based.
Thus, I cannot divorce a discussion about democracy in the Internet Age without reference to the ideals and innovations of the past. During the first century BC, the Latin poet Horace wrote, “To have begun is to be half done; dare to know; start!” Immanuel Kant adopted the later part of this line, the phrase sapere aude, as the motto of the Enlightenment in an essay titled “What is Enlightenment?” He translated it to mean “have courage to learn” or “dare to be wise.”
When I read this translation, I feel a sense of movement, a belief that through humanity’s reasoning faculties, we can envision new forms of government, build new societies and—to quote (rather anachronistically) Lord Alfred Tennyson’s poem Ulysses—“to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.” Or, to use a phrase popularized by presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama, Enlightenment-era thinkers (including many of the Founders of our country) possessed the audacity to hope that through knowledge, reason, and wisdom, men—and indeed, they meant men—could govern themselves without an intercession of a king, ruler, or tyrant. With reason, wisdom, and knowledge, humanity and government could achieve perfection.
Another Enlightenment thinker, and contemporary of our nation’s Founders, French political scientist and philosopher Antoine-Nicholas de Condorcet, outlined this belief in his Sketch for an Historical Picture of the Progress of the Human Mind (1795). Educated citizens, he said,
This concept remains fresh in 2008, during the early years of our new era—an era in which citizen journalism challenges mainstream media gatekeepers, regular voters track the fundraising and spending of political candidates, and elected officials use blogs and wikis to ask for public input about pending legislation. The wisdom of the (informed) many may, in fact, govern as well as an elite few. This was the spirit of the age and ideals that swirled throughout the early years of our nation, and that echo in our founding documents. It is this ideological tradition that makes 21st-century democracy so vital.
Though technology, we are able to access information at rates that would have seemed impossible to Condorcet, not to mention Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, and the rest. This same technology enables us to harness the wisdom of many to accomplish everything from tracking congressional spending, to writing an encyclopedia, to the process of translation. And yet neither access to infinite information, nor the ability to collaborate with fellow citizens instantly, regardless of physical location, produce wisdom.
In order to progress towards this lofty and rather Utopian ideal, democracy in the 21st century requires a few adjustments.
1. A system of education that enables the population to possess more than just a functional literacy. We need an education that teaches technological literacy and fosters innovation system.
2. Increased, affordable access to the Internet, including civic Wi-Fi, cybercafés and Internet stations in economically disadvantages areas, and broadband networks in rural communities.
3. A spirit of public leadership that understands and values technology, and a belief that some buzzwords of the Digital age—such as “increased openness,” “collaboration,” and “transparency”—are imperatives for public office, not clichés.
4. Additional guarantees of free speech and privacy, despite the temptations that ubiquitous computing will pose to more closely monitor citizens and restrict speech.
5. Finally, a lack of fear about and exploration of the potential of technology to make voting more accessible and more direct.
I agree with Lee Siegel, who wrote, in Against the Machine: Being Human in the Age of the Electronic Mob (you can ascertain from the title that Siegel is criticizing the Internet), that “Web culture is the final stage in the long, slow assimilation of subversive values to conventional society.” But only if one believes, as I do, that those “subversive values” include the belief that technology, knowledge, innovation, and civic engagement can produce a nation of leaders and thinkers able to work collectively and create a new era of enlightenment in American democracy, governance, and civil society.
Dare to think for yourself!
About the Author
Julie Barko Germany serves as the director of the Institute for Politics, Democracy & the Internet at The George Washington University’s Graduate School of Political Management. Julie is the principal author and editor of several publications, including Constituent Relationship Management: The New Little Black Book of Politics; Person-to-Person-to-Person: Harnessing the Political Power of Online Social Networks and User-Generated Content; and The Politics-to-Go-Handbook: A Guide to Using Mobile Technology in Politics.