Page 255 - Comparing Political Communication Theories, Cases, and Challenge

P1: JZZ/KAB P2: JZZ
0521828317c10.xml CY425/Esser 0521828317 May 26, 2004 15:5

Political Communication and Electronic Democracy

Jurisdictional Representative Decisional Dimension
Dimension Dimension
Constitutional ? Electronic Voting Electronic Referenda
Level
Institutional Informal and formalized Informal and formalized Informal and formalized
Level opportunities for opportunities for direct, opportunities to receive
horizontal, decentralized, and information related to
decentralized, and interactive vertical e-referenda and to engage
interactive communication and in comprehensive
communication and participation between horizontal and vertical
participation within parliaments and citizens debates on this
established political using the Internet. information.
associations using the Institutionalized
Internet. opportunities to
participate using the
Internet in the
parliamentary process.
Behavioral Individual uses of new Individual uses of new Individual uses of new
Level opportunities to opportunities to opportunities to learn
communicate and to communicate with about the issues, to
participate within representatives and to deliberate, and to
established associations. participate in the participate in
Individual uses of the parliamentary process. e-referenda.
Internet to establish new
types of organizations.

Figure 10.1 Electronic Democracy: A Conceptual Map

The decisional dimension asks about the mode of decision making.
Anormative model of direct democracy argues that citizens who are
subject to authoritative decision making should be able to have a say
in the decisions that affect them. It is therefore critical of schemes of
representative democracy because of the dangers of misrepresentation.
Theorists of electronic democracy argue that new digital media could
foster direct democracy and help to make “[ ... ] public opinion the law
of the land [ ... ]” (Becker 1981; Slaton 1992; Budge 1996).
The representational dimension focuses on the relationship between
political representatives and constituents. It stresses a normative model
of representation that sees political representatives as delegates of con-
stituents who are to carry out constituents’ policy demands and who are
to be held accountable for their policy choices (Miller and Stokes 1963;
Pitkin 1967). This perspective is critical of the current representative
process, which is perceived as being too removed from ordinary citizens
and as granting too much independence to intermediary organizations
and political elites. Theorists of electronic democracy have argued that
the Internet will help to close the gap between ordinary citizens and
representative institutions (Krauch 1972; Dahl 1989; McLean 1989).

235