Blogging elections

When it comes to politics and democracies, the media play an important part in informing the population of important events and moulding public opinion of a political situation. Important to cyberdemocracy then, is the electronic media.

A free and responsible media is essential for any democracy. And I guess you don’t quite get a space more free than the blogosphere. Independent thinkers writing freely about their thoughts and ideas for all to read and respond to.

When it comes to elections, we rely on traditional media to cover the event, comment on its legitimacy, uncover the injustices and announce the final results. But, how different would it be if we bloggers were part of the media team responsible for covering the electoral process.

Matthew Buckland, GM of the Mail and Guardian has proposed this very idea to the Independent Electoral commission for South Africa’s next presidential elections next year. “Blogs open up the space for many different voices to be heard.”

According to Buckland, the IEC has responded favourably, it is now just a question of logistics. He said we it would not be logical to expect everyone with a blog to descend on the elections demanding access and permission to report on events.

It has been suggested that various blog aggregators like Amatomu be used to identify the prominent bloggers who write with authority and have an interest and insight into South Africa’s political landscape.

Great idea! There are reports of the public losing trust in the traditional media and it’s ability to give an unbiased report. Bloggers carry a lot of credibility with their readers and followers. And because blogs allow for a more personal account than traditional media, a whole new kind of media coverage can be seen; coverage that includes independent critique and that has a strong support base that thinks it credible.

But what about the voices still not heard within this great free independent blogosphere? Many of the countries rural areas are unpenetrated by the internet. Their lack of infrastructure already puts them at a great disadvantage, it would be great to hear their voices for change and allow them access to information about their political system and all the players with it.

No one solution can possibly solve all the many problems in this country but allowing more voices to speak on issues is a definite step in the right direction.

Information alone is never enough

A while ago I took a look at how well the South African government was using their website to communicate with the public in the interests of cyberdemocracy.  I thought it useful to look at the Institute for Democracy in South Africa’s (Idasa) website under a similar lens; with the question being ‘how is Idasa making use of the internet?’

Idasa is an internationally recognised public interest group “committed to promoting sustainable democracy based on active citizenship, democratic institutions, and social justice.” With its international links, the internet offers a better opportunity to communicate and mobilise than any other medium.

The organisation grew out a need for “an alternative to the politics of repression”. Their aim to create “a democratic culture in SA and strategic interventions to help the new democracy take root” make them an interesting group to look at with reference to e-politics.

Idasa uses the internet to communicate with the general public. Initiations to events and information about exhibitions are placed on the home page. One can also find articles on workshop reports, news stories (mostly about African countries) and a bookshelf where users can read reviews of books deemed important.

Educating the public enables informed decisions which would aid and strengthen any democracy. On their homepage, Idasa posts important information relevant to the programmes they run at the time. Currently they have information about their Party Funding Campaign. They also have information about community and citizen empowerment, governance and aids and safety and security to name a few.

Idasa fulfils their task of trying to create a culture of democracy by being a great platform for citizens to access information, possibly get involved and educate themselves about political issues. However, when it comes to using internet technologies to create a space for debate and conversation, the website falls short.

Idasa has a newsletter to which users can subscribe however there is no place for user feedback, comment or opinion…not even on the “peace building and dialogue” page! There a ‘contact us” page complete with the contact details of Cape town and Kutlwanong democracy centres and contacts for the various programmes Idasa is involved in.

For a democracy to be strong and for effective political engagement for the public they need to be well informed about their political landscape. Open discussion is an important part of that process. In his defence of free speech, John Stuart Mill says that even unpopular opinions should be allowed to be expressed as their authors can be corrected in an open public debate.

Access to information is essential to any democracy. However, it is useless if the public does not know the many ways that information affects them. Discursive spaces are essential for the exchange of ideas and the growth of any nation.

Could e-voting be the answer?

We saw it in Angola, Kenya and most recently in good-ol’ Zimbabwe. Any real democracy rests on a free and fair electoral process. However, as Africa has shown us time and time again, elections could mean the begin of civil war with no democratic resolution in sight.

Perhaps, if the manner in which elections were carried out would be changed, leaders would be appointed with ease and according to the will of the people.

I took a look at the concept of e-voting to see if it presented a plausible alternative for African elections. E-voting is when states use electronic technologies to either cast or count votes.

So the idea is for the voting process to work just like a trip to the ATM, you would cast your vote using touchscreen technology or a number of buttons. All ballots would be tallied electronically. This could prove to be faster and more effective than the current manual counting.

There are a number of advantages to this electoral system. With computers adding up the votes, there is less room for human error. Audio can be introduced for blind voters and zoom in capabilities would cater for those with poor vision. The screen can be displayed in a number of languages and polling stations can never run out of printed ballots.

Voter turn-out in Zimbabwe sits at less than 20%. This is due to, among many more reasons, the fact that many Zimbabweans have left their country in seek of refuge as where. With e-voting citizens could potentially place their vote from anywhere in the world if the necessary online networks and links were enabled.

South African youth are becoming more computer literate and are becoming regular Internet users. However their political engagement and involvement calls for great improvement. Creating a link between electronic media and voting could increase the number of youth voters in national and provincial elections.

However, e-voting is far from being flawless, especially in Africa. Computer literacy, for both the voters and the facilitators, would be a major hurdle. Electronics do not do away with room for human error as these computers are programmed and used by humans, who are at times impartial.

To fund such a project, the private sector would need to be called on board. Voters would be correct in questioning just how impartial the system would be if it is powered by companies with political clout and business interests.

Thabo Mbeki has been seen as good for business and a strong economy. The same would be hard to say about Jacob Zuma, as some have noted. It is totally plausible that an e-voting system programmed, run and managed by these interest would present Mbeki as the next president even if it were against the will of the people.

Even in America where e-voting has been in use, it is still under much scrutiny and heavily criticised. Democracies work only when the people trust that their vote has been counted fairly and freely. This can never happen with a system with so many flaws.

Same ol’ politrix…just a different shade

Ok, so now we have the Internet, this new technology that’s open to all, allowing everyman expression. That sounds great!

The notion of democracy is based on issues of representation and participation. For any democracy to be strong it needs the masses to be politically active, engage in public debate and be able to express their views and concerns.

The web is an open medium that allows the average man a voice louder and more far-reaching than any other. The gate-keeping mechanisms that come with traditional journalism can be bypassed with great ease.

It’s really simple; you start up a blog about cyber-politics and publish your own work…for free. No printing units, no media houses, no distributors, just you the masses and your opinion.

The connectivity and interactivity of its users allows for networks to be created between users with the same views, interests and concerns.

In my third year politics class, our lecturer went on about how the details of where South African parties get their funding for political campaigns was hidden and near impossible to get a hold of. Clearly he never Google searched “who funds South African politics”.

With the Internet information that was previously, near impossible to get a hold of is now just a couple of clicks away. From who funds local political parties to questioning why the ANC Youth League still exists, it’s all on the net, available to every user.

However this is in no way an answer to the question of political apathy or weak democracies. The Internet is open medium only to those who have Internet access and who are computer literate. A quick glance at local statistics, clearly shows that South Africa is far from celebrating the effectiveness, or even just the birth of cyber-democracy and cyber-politics.

Although Internet use increased from 5.5% in 2000 to 9.9% in 2005, these figures are extremely low. This becomes increasingly apparent when looking at the United Kingdom’s 55% and the United States’ 71% figures. The third world simply does not have the capacity to compete.

South Africa’s illiteracy rate is just alarming. Between six and eight million adults are not functionally literate, never mind computer literate. Statistics show that “65% of whites over 20 years old and 40% of Indians have a high school or higher qualification, this figure is only 14% among blacks and 17% among the coloured population”.

The digital divide speaks heavily to the issues of Internet access and use and to education levels. This means that even in the advent of this great cyber-democracy, those who were marginalised by the politics of the apartheid regime are still marginalised by the politics of this new virtual-democracy.

If democracy is about the majority, then we can only really speak of cyber-democracy when the masses can at the very least send an e-mail with a basic attachment.