Abstract
Abstract:
The growing usage of social media has drastically impacted on politics and opinion formation in emerging democracies with weak institutions and ever-changing norms about participation. This article examines the question of how social media influence the political participation and opinion formation in developing democracies. The article investigates the usage of social media as a discursive fragmentation and empowered network. According to the systematic theory, it can be observed that participatory democracy, the theory of digital mobilization, and the networked public sphere will go together.
The article adopted an analytical-interpretative approach to see how issues, via digital mediation, gain information, create accountability and build narratives in India and the US. The findings show that social media lowers barriers to participation and widens opportunities for participation. Efforts to weave the narrative together further divide society due to algorithmic amplification and echo chambers that communicate emotionally.
This article generates a varied conceptual framework which separates negative types or digital activism (which use the same digital platforms) from the positive types of digital engagement. The ability of social media to promote democracy depends on the strength of institutions, the success of regulators, the level of media literacy, and the arrangements for trust in place at that time. According to the article, this work not only clears up issues, it also looks at the close relationship of the democratic government with technology in the future. The added process of digital involvement will help in the achievement of democratic consolidation.
References
1. Robert A. Dahl, On Democracy (Yale University Press, 1998), pp. 37–61
2. Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society, trans. Thomas Burger and Frederick Lawrence (MIT Press, 1989), pp. 27–56
3. Manuel Castells, Networks of Outrage and Hope: Social Movements in the Internet Age, 2nd ed. (Polity Press, 2015), 3–22; pp.168–194.
4. W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg, The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2013), 1–34; pp. 179–203.
5. Yochai Benkler, The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom (Yale University Press, 2006), pp. 212–272.
6. Cass R. Sunstein, Republic.com 2.0 (Princeton University Press, 2007), pp. 75–102.
7. W. Lance Bennett and Alexandra Segerberg, The Logic of Connective Action: Digital Media and the Personalization of Contentious Politics (Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 45–68.
8. Matthew Hindman, The Internet Trap: How the Digital Economy Builds Monopoly Power and Undermines Democracy (Princeton University Press, 2018), pp. 112–135.
9. Jonathan Bright, Explaining the Emergence of Networked Publics in Political Communication (Oxford University Press, 2018), pp. 60–82.
10. Sandra González-Bailón, Decoding the Social World: Data Science and the Unintended Consequences of Communication (MIT Press, 2017), pp. 55–74.
11. David Lazer et al., “Computational Social Science: Obstacles and Opportunities,” Science 323, no. 5915 (2009): pp. 721–723.
12. Philip N. Howard and Bence Kollanyi, “Bots, #StrongerIn, and Online Political Manipulation,” Social Science Computer Review 35, no. 1 (2017): pp. 3–24.
13. Cass R. Sunstein, Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media (Princeton University Press, 2017), pp. 50–76.
14. Helen Margetts et al., Political Turbulence: How Social Media Shape Collective Action (Princeton University Press, 2015), pp. 110–142.
15. José van Dijck and Thomas Poell, social media and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform (Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. 30–55.
16. Andrew Chadwick, The Hybrid Media System: Politics and Power (Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 89–115.
17. Philip Howard, Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media (Oxford University Press, 2018), p. 72.
18. Pippa Norris, Digital Democracy and Political Participation in Estonia, Journal of Democracy 31, no. 4 (2019): p. 68.
19. Jan-Werner Müller, Democratic Erosion and social media: Lessons from Tunisia, Mediterranean Politics 25, no. 3 (2020): 412.
20. Eli Pariser, The Filter Bubble: What the Internet Is Hiding from You (Penguin, 2011), p. 34.
21. Tarleton Gillespie, Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media (Yale University Press, 2018), p. 210.
22. European Union, Digital Services Act, Official Journal of the European Union, L277 (2022), pp. 15–23.
23. Philip Howard, Digital Participation in Emerging Democracies (Oxford University Press, 2020), p. 89.
24. Nadia Urbinati, Democracy Disfigured (Harvard University Press, 2014), p. 102.
25. Mark Warren, Democratic Accountability and the Digital Sphere, Governance 32, no. 2 (2019): p. 145.
26. Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019, p. 312
27. Howard, Philip N., et al. Computational Propaganda: Political Parties, Politicians, and Political Manipulation on Social Media. Oxford University Press, 2018, p. 44.
28. Pew Research Center. “Partisan Polarization and Media Habits in the Digital Age,” 2016, p. 7.
29. Singh, R., et al. “Misinformation on WhatsApp During India’s 2019 Elections.” Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, 2020, p. 15.
30. Urbinati, Nadia. Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People. Harvard University Press, 2014, p. 198.
31. Pariser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. Penguin, 2011, p. 68.
32. Gillespie, Tarleton. Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media. Yale University Press, 2018, p. 95.
33. Levitsky, Steven, and Daniel Ziblatt. How Democracies Die. Crown, 2018, p. 184.
34. Howard, Philip N., and Muzammil M. Hussain. “The Role of Digital Media in Electoral Credibility: India’s 2019 Elections.” Journal of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 17, no. 2, 2020, pp. 150–151.
35. Mark Warren, Democratic Accountability and the Digital Sphere, Governance 32, no. 2 (2019): pp. 145.
36. Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (Crown, 2018), p. 208.
37. Philip Howard and Bence Kollanyi, Bots, Disinformation, and Political Polarization in India, Journal of Information Technology & Politics 18, no. 1 (2021): p. 61.
38. Tarleton Gillespie, Platform Governance in Sub-Saharan Democracies, Information, Communication & Society 24, no. 6 (2021): p. 785.
39. I-Chun Lin and Darren Byler, “Taiwan’s Response to Disinformation in the 2020 Presidential Election,” Journal of Democracy 31, no. 3 (2020): pp. 95–109.
40. Pippa Norris, Digital Democracy Metrics: Civic Engagement and Quality of Discourse, International Political Science Review 42, no. 3 (2021): pp. 299–303.
41. Gillespie, Platform Governance in Sub-Saharan Democracies, p. 790.
42. Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (PublicAffairs, 2019), p. 348.
43. Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism (PublicAffairs, 2019), p. 348.
44. Nadia Urbinati, Democracy Disfigured (Harvard University Press, 2014), pp. 125–128.
Pierre Rosanvallon, Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust (Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 112–115