05 February 2004
ICT Populism vs. Democracy
The “non-democratic” government of China seems to have been compartmentalized by the growth of Internet use there. As reported in the New York Times, February 1, 2004, citizen initiatives in the form of online petitions appeal to the country’s Constitution, which professes the defense of human rights and, by extension, civic freedom. China’s government is enjoying the fruits of entrepreneurial economic growth, but has not admitted popular control of its actions. It has withdrawn state control from much of the economy while keeping political authority under the control of a narrow elite.
This may allow the evolution of a type of populism, instead of democracy, that subjects the government to boundaries on its actions that are defined by independent commentators and petition organizers who mobilize support through their use of Information and Communications Technology on the Internet. Their government is wise to permit the Internet to act as an outlet for popular dissent and, truth be known, as a continuous referendum on its management of the state. In fact, the government has increasingly withdrawn into domains (like public services, national defense, monetary policy, etc.) where it operates without popular control. The rest of society operates on its own, particularly in the areas of business activity; the government’s role here is to encourage entrepreneurship. Eventually, it will have to establish standards. Where there is a conflict between the domains, ICT has begun to provide a method of resolution that can preserve human dignity and, at the same time, assuage the security concerns of the ruling elite.
The “non-democratic” government of China seems to have been compartmentalized by the growth of Internet use there. As reported in the New York Times, February 1, 2004, citizen initiatives in the form of online petitions appeal to the country’s Constitution, which professes the defense of human rights and, by extension, civic freedom. China’s government is enjoying the fruits of entrepreneurial economic growth, but has not admitted popular control of its actions. It has withdrawn state control from much of the economy while keeping political authority under the control of a narrow elite.
This may allow the evolution of a type of populism, instead of democracy, that subjects the government to boundaries on its actions that are defined by independent commentators and petition organizers who mobilize support through their use of Information and Communications Technology on the Internet. Their government is wise to permit the Internet to act as an outlet for popular dissent and, truth be known, as a continuous referendum on its management of the state. In fact, the government has increasingly withdrawn into domains (like public services, national defense, monetary policy, etc.) where it operates without popular control. The rest of society operates on its own, particularly in the areas of business activity; the government’s role here is to encourage entrepreneurship. Eventually, it will have to establish standards. Where there is a conflict between the domains, ICT has begun to provide a method of resolution that can preserve human dignity and, at the same time, assuage the security concerns of the ruling elite.
Comments:
Post a Comment
