Additional case study - the Internet in politics

Rather than being a civilian initiative, the origins of the Internet lie in Cold War politics (see pages 415-8). Disturbed by Soviet advances in space technology during the 1950s, the US set up the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which began to investigate the possibility of communication between remote computers. The intention was to devise a means of communication that might remain secure even if the Soviet Union launched a nuclear strike. What we know as the Internet began to emerge in the mid-1960s, but it was not until the early 1990s that its commercial possibilities were first explored (for further discussion of the origins of the Internet see http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_the_Internet, and http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_the_Internet_invented).

Almost simultaneously, home computers became readily available for the first time. The first model which was cheap and convenient enough for private use was produced in 1975 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800). The same year saw the foundation of the future computer giant Microsoft, in Alberquerque, New Mexico (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft). By 2001, almost two-thirds of US households included a home computer; about 55 per cent had Internet access. Within three decades, possession of a home computer and regular use of the Internet had become a new badge of full citizenship. Before the 1997 general election in the UK, New Labour stressed the importance of computer literacy as one of the keys to a skilled workforce, and made free access to information technology a key element of its manifesto promises on education (see Labour’s 1997 manifesto at http://labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1997/1997-labour-manifesto.shtml).

From its origins as a tool of Western governments, then, the Internet promised to become a vehicle of liberation and prosperity for the individual citizen. However, initial optimism was soon clouded by problems. As the popularity of Internet increased, some enthusiasts began to take delight in unlocking the security of the system – the very feature which had initially attracted the US government. Such ‘hackers’ (see http://computer.howstuffworks.com/hacker.htm) sometimes have purely innocent motives, trying to pit their unaided wits against the security devices produced by multi-national firms, or even searching for flaws in the system in order to warn governments and corporations about possible security beaches. Others are not so innocent; and even if they are not out for personal gain, the activities of hackers could pose a serious threat to national security (see, for example, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/82270.stm), and such ‘cyber-crimes’ could lead to long prison sentences (see, for example www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2138141/Pentagon-computer-'hacker'-Gary-McKinnon-to-appeal-extradition-at-House-of-Lords.html; see also www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2005/jul/09/weekend7.weekend2).

At a more mundane level, as the use of the Internet increased in relation to activities such as shopping and banking, less sophisticated criminal gangs have tried to gain access to private financial information through the practice known as ‘phishing’. A typical approach is for the criminals to send out thousands of messages to email addresses, complete with requests for the recipients to fill in their bank details. The unsuspecting could provide crucial information, such as account numbers, etc, which will be used by criminals sometimes operating from thousands of miles away (see, for example, http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article3721556.ece). Such attempts to commit ‘identity fraud’ could also lure people into divulging details which would allow criminals to generate fake passports.

Thus, the Internet created new dangers. However, most users would accept that the opportunities are much more important. In particular, the Internet allows individuals to track down others who share their ideals and causes, through a simple search via ‘Google’ or other search engines (for Google, see www.websearchworkshop.co.uk/google_history.php). This promised to create something like a worldwide ‘civil society’ (see Chapter 12 for a discussion of this concept), and apart from linking far-flung individuals with similar hobbies it also represented an obvious threat to governments. For example, people wanting to organize demonstrations against specific policies (or regimes) could now advertise their events at minimal cost, in the hope of reaching people who would have remained inaccessible to traditional forms of advertising. Thus, for example, worldwide opposition to the looming war against Iraq in 2003 was coordinated through the Internet, which has also helped in the organization of demonstrations against global capitalism (see Chapter 20 for a discussion of this phenomenon).

The costs of censoring the Internet by denying access are prohibitively high, and ultimately even the most authoritarian government is likely to have to admit defeat (for the notorious example of China see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2264508.stm). Another approach is to prosecute Internet commentators for publicizing their views (see details of a case in Malaysia at www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/oct/06/malaysia.pressandpublishing). However, this punitive route is only likely to be taken in states where the political culture (see Chapter 13 an analysis of political culture) is already profoundly inhospitable to free speech. A more insidious threat is that governments could develop a ‘profile’ of individual Internet use – an ability which is widely welcomed in the case of sex offenders accessing certain materials on the net, but which could be extended with worrying implications for personal liberty.

Political parties, and in particular individual candidates for office, have not been slow in exploiting this new resource. The US Democrat Howard Dean raised considerable funds for his 2004 Presidential campaign through the Internet; although his candidacy was ultimately unsuccessful, the initiative won him wide publicity as well as much-needed money (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3394897.stm; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Dean). In the 2008 race, Barack Obama proved even more adept in his use of the Internet to garner support and funds (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3394897.stm). Nowadays, every self-respecting politician has a personal Internet site (see, for example, www.number10.gov.uk/), and many run their own ‘blogs’, some of which are refreshingly irreverent (see, for example, www.tom-watson.co.uk/, which also features a long list of other political bloggers).

Among other effects, the advent of the Internet has undoubtedly provoked a slide in the consumption of long-established media outlets like newspapers and even television. On the face of it, this might seem like a blow on behalf of pluralism (see pages 55-61 for a discussion of pluralism), since Internet commentators on political issues usually have to gain an audience through the quality of their arguments rather than using expensive advertising campaigns to grab attention (for (usually) excellent examples of blogs of this kind, see http://iaindale.blogspot.com/ and www.order-order.com/).

While giant multinational firms like Rupert Murdoch’s News International have begun to exploit the potential of the Internet, they have done so in full knowledge that the dominance of old-style newspaper proprietors is passing away (see, for example, report of a Murdoch speech at www.guardian.co.uk/media/2006/mar/14/newmedia.studentmediaawards). One reason is that first-hand witnesses to key events can publish their accounts on the Internet before traditional media outlets have even dispatched a reporter; and even when such freelance correspondents subsequently write for newspapers (like the Salam Pax, the ‘Baghdad Blogger’ who kept the world informed about conditions in Iraq after the 2003 US-led invasion, see http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iraqivoices/2008/04/200852519318546749.html), other sources even closer to the action can take their places. Media moguls cannot beat the amateurs on the Internet, so they have decided that they have to join them. Online editions are now almost compulsory for UK national newspapers; many, such as the Guardian (see www.guardian.co.uk) offer opportunities for readers to respond to opinion-pieces. As well as giving readers the chance to let off steam, this feature also allows newspaper editors to discover what their most vocal customers are thinking on key issues. One of the best sites on the Internet is run by the BBC (see www.bbc.co.uk), which might actually prove to be counterproductive for a Corporation which needs Britons to keep on paying a licence fee to watch television.

However, there are at least two dangers in this new flowering of ‘people power’: first, that bloggers might merely duplicate the ‘dumbing down’ of the traditional media, attracting readers through scurrilous gossip rather than constructive argument; and second, that the multiplicity of sites will merely lead to a hubbub of bloggers, in which there are just too many people expressing their views. For a pessimist, the overall impression is that the Internet’s contribution to politics can only reflect the general context of the times, and that in the contemporary Western climate celebrities who are merely ‘famous for being famous’ can use the Internet to make effective interventions in public debate (see, for example, Paris Hilton’s contribution to the 2008 Presidential race: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7544754.stm).

Idealists have wondered whether the Internet could inspire a revival of something like the ‘direct’ democracies of Ancient Greece, allowing people to vote on matters of public concern on a regular basis rather than waiting for politicians to call referendums. In 2007, around 1.7 million replies were registered to an online petition on the Downing Street website, opposing the idea of ‘road pricing’ as a way of reducing traffic congestion (www.number10.gov.uk/Page11050). However, such devices can give a distorted impression, not least because people have more than one email address and can thus register more than one ‘vote’. Like postal voting, the prospect that people could participate in general elections via the Internet also threatens to make it easier to commit fraud.

The idea of ‘e-democracy’ has been studied by the UK government for several years, and interesting contributions have been made by the independent political research organization the Hansard Society (see http://hansardsociety.org.uk/blogs/eDemocracy/). In the wake of the road pricing petititon some commentators argued that the era of e-democracy had arrived (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6383717.stm). However, as things stand it is unlikely that the Internet has led to a significant increase in ‘orthodox’ political participation (as opposed to its encouragement for demonstrations often inspired by a rooted dislike of elected politicians). Probably the best role for the Internet in politics is to act as a supplement to existing conduits of public opinion, rather than becoming a medium for decision-making. It can be argued, indeed, that many poor government decisions are the result of knee-jerk reactions to transient movements in public opinion; and undue attention to Internet contributions could merely accentuate this problem. The true ideal for democrats is to raise the level of public understanding, rather than making it easier for people with only a limited understanding of the issues to have an even greater effect on policy-making. The Internet obviously has a key role to play in raising the level of political education; but only the most blinkered optimist could claim that this task can come close to completion in the immediate future.

View print version

Oxford University Press, Online Resource Centre, Additional case study - the Internet in politics.

Additional case study - the Internet in politics