Politics Final Essay - Google Docs PDF

Preview

Summary

final essay for politics aimed for first year students...

Description

How has the rise of ‘social media’ affected politics? Draw on evidence from two democratic countries to identify the most important changes to politics associated with social media. Democratic Nations chosen: United States of America and Australia. Student: 510483180

Facebook’s mission statement is to “Give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together” ("Company Info | About Facebook", 2021). Social media as a whole closely operates under this notion, in that it is a form of technology that facilitates a sharing of ideas, communication and the mobilisation of people that is historically confined to close quarters. In turn social media has significantly altered the operation of democracy within certain countries with prime examples being the United States of America (U.S hereafter) and Australia. We see this through developing an understanding of how the core tenants of democracy within each country have been distorted due to the rise of social media. Democracy is underpinned by political participation, party campaigning, public perception and elections (Diamond, 2016). Within these countries it is evident that the rise of social media has in turn resulted in a rise of public mistrust in politics and simultaneously has altered the way in which political parties campaign. Social media has additionally played a monumental role in shaping the public perception of political parties by allowing parties to censor and select information that will be received by the public. Moreover, this form of technology has had a catalytic role in mobilising individuals and political groups through its ability to share ideas and communicate instantly, most poignantly influencing politics within the U.S.

Within the democratic nation states of the U.S and Australia it is evident that social media has played an influential role in both increasing political participation as well as changing the nature of such political participation. Political participation is paradigmatically defined as behaviours by individuals directed towards influencing political outcomes (H.Brady, 1999) and academics such as K.Seshadri note that it is “an essential condition for the working of democracy” (1974). With an increase in technology usage and by extension the prevalence of social media it is evident that political participation is increased due to an increase in public exposure to politics. C.Uhler (2015) observes that political participation historically was a voluntary activity and involves “voting in elections, helping a political campaign, donating money to a candidate or cause, contacting officials, petitioning, protesting, and working with other people on issues”. Although, Jan W. Van Deth posits that as a direct result of social media which he coins ‘connective action’ it is almost now impossible

to recognize political participation as it has morphed into our daily internet consumption (2016). Due to social media, unintentional exposure and simultaneously political participation is rising exponentially whereby individuals who may be uninterested in social media are exposed to a tool that facilitates active engagement in political activities. Within the U.S where 82% of adults have a social media profile (H. Tankovska, 2021) and Australia where 80% of adults have a social media profile (T,Hinton, 2021) it is clear the plight of individuals are exposed to this form of unintentional political participation. Tang and Lee (2013) re-iterate this suggesting that through the rise of social media there is simultaneously a rise in an accidental or unintentional exposure to public political affairs. This is because content is pushed to people by their acquaintances “whether or not they want to see it”. Politics was historically confined to a physical dimension whereby individuals had to actively seek political participation In contrast people are now unintentionally and arguably passively exposed to political activities through the facilitative tool of social media.

Particularly within the U.S, social media influences democratic politics by playing a catalytic role in the mobilisation of factions. Any entity that enables and/or facilitates a greater mobilisation of factions and/or members of political parties is fundamentally warping the operation of democracy by changing the way in which ideas are spread, communication operates and ideas are received. Democracy is founded on the fair election of representatives, therefore if a mechanism has the propensity to change, in any way, the functioning of the factions that these representatives are drawn from it would be evident that such a mechanism has changed political activity. This is seen palpably through the rise of social media. Haidt and Rose-Stockwell note that factions “fuel men with mutual animosity….. And forget about the common good” (Madison, as cited by Haidt, 2019), yet simultaneously contend that it is through the vastness of the U.S and the constitution within the U.S that have allowed democracy to historically hold strong as “passions are cooled” (Haidt, 2019). They are thus contending that while the vast nature of the U.S as well as the U.S constitution have fostered deliberation and forethought in regards to political activity - rather than continued animosity that comes with the close contact of factions, resulting in factionalism - social media mobilizes this animosity and has allowed for greater communication that can spread dissent that in turn has the propensity to threaten democracy. Through this analysis of factionalism and democracy within the U.S we can come to understand the role of social media in political participation. We can thus deduce that social media poses a great threat to democracy. It allows like minded individuals to communicate instantly, as opposed to communication historically, which was confined to phone calls, railway lines,

letters etc. Haidt (2019) goes as far to say that social media “lures people into this new gladiatorial circus” suggesting that by serving as a mechanism that allows for the greater communication of individuals, social media can allow for the communication of groups and factions, facilitating their mobilization. When analysing the role of social media in influencing politics, particularly democratic politics it is also critical to analyse how the rise of social media has led to a rise of misinformation. Social media has played a catalytic role in the spread of misinformation and “fake news” in turn drastically influencing the operation of party campaigning, elections, public perception and overall the free expression of beliefs, all of which are inherent elements of a democratic society. Nielsen and Fletcher contend that there are large scale “democratic implications” (2020) of social media underpinned by technological platforms' ability to spread misinformation, particularly as it pertains to political misinformation. A 2017 study by William J. Brady and other researchers at NYU measured the reach of half a million tweets and found that each moral or emotional word used in a tweet increased its virality by 20 percent, on average. Moreover, an additional 2017 study demonstrated that posts containing “indignant disagreement” were twice as popular as other types of content on Facebook. The social media platforms thus facilitate a form of communication that incites malignant content. The most potent empirical evidence for the way in which social media has affected political participation within politics is the 2021 storming of Capitol Hill. As a direct result of social media, the democratic fabric of the U.S was threatened by a seditious act borne out of mobilisation via social media, demonstrating how these platforms affect politics. The U.S c,apitol Washington was violently attacked by a riot. This riot was incited by social media against the U.S congress that was assembled to count electoral votes in an effort to formalize Joe Biden’s victory, an act that is inherent to the democracy of the U.S (Fisher, 2016). As De Groot (2021) notes, “what should have been a routine legislative gathering to certify Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s election victory, turned into a deadly siege”. Scholar Claire Finkelstein (2016) notes that these were acts of sedition, vandalising the “democratic machinery” upon which the nation is built and that we must now attempt to preserve what is evidently a fragile democracy. It is critical to note that this threat to democracy is underpinned by social media and therefore demonstrates the strong influence of social media on politics. The storming of Capitol Hill was catalyzed by a claim that the election was “stolen” from Trump, a claim perpetuated by social media, demonstrating its role in underpinning the siege. On November 4th 2020 the day after Donald Trump lost to Joe Biden, a ‘Stop the steal’ group formed on facebook and

grew at an incredible rate. The group grew with 100 members every 10 seconds and reached 320,000 followers before being shut down. However, in the days that followed hundreds of similar accounts surfaced (Barry and Frenkel, 2021). These accounts were fundamentally calling for political action, inciting political participation by calling for the political mobilisation of thousands of citizens. Such a feat was unbeknown before the inception of social media. Trump's tweets in reference to a rally that was being held in Washington the same day as the capitol hill siege such as: “Big protest in D.C on January 6th”(Trump, 2020) and “Be there, will be wild!”(Trump, 2021) engendered political mobilisation and political participation that was nowhere near as easily done prior to social media. This is most accurately accentuated by Mike Wright who notes that the role social media played in the storming of capitol hill is “incalculable”. Moreover, Frenkel (2021) in an article aptly titled “The Storming of Capitol Hill was organised on social media” notes that social media sites such as ‘Gab’ and ‘Parler’ were catalytic in this political event. Renee DiResta or the Stanford Internet Observatory comments that “the violence upon congress was the direct result of online movements whereby claims of voter fraud and of the election being stolen from Mr. Trump was perpetuated and turned into physical political action due to social media” (2021). I am not contending that political participation, the mobilisation of factions and events such as that of Capitol Hill are not capable of occurring in a pre social media world, but it is evident that within a social media based society these events have a much higher propensity to occur, ultimately affecting politics to a high degree. Social media thus affects politics by facilitating political participation as well as political action.

The changes to political participation and factionalism are seen similarly within Australia. When it comes to politics in Australia, Australians are not and have not been historically as involved in news and political affairs (Fisher, 2019) as citizens of the U.S. Nevertheless social media has had a similar effect on political participation and factionalism. Within Australia social media usage is akin to that of the U.S and it’s rise from the inception of platforms such as facebook has been almost mirrored (Litang and Prosser, 2014), making the impact of social media on it’s democracy similar.

Whilst social media has indubitably increased our overall exposure to politics, simultaneously it can be deduced that there has been an increasing distrust and disengagement with politics. According to the 2012 Australian Electoral Commissions Electoral engagement report on the democratic participation of Australians through social media “voters are showing declining trust in politicians

and political institutions. Citizen interest and traditional forms of political participation have been on a downturn with declining sign-ups to political parties, unions, meetings and rallies.(2012)” The report then cites a cause, that being social media, it suggests that social media has perpetuated a mistrust in the government through its facilitation of access to an expansive amount of information, often too expensive where citizens began to question those in power. We can thus see that social media can perpetuate a sense of mistrust in governments, which is particularly seen within Australia. As a democratic country reliant on political engagement for the operation of such democratic values such as political participation, social media has evidently affected politics within Australia. However, scholars such as Ariadne Vromen suggest that social media within Australia is the core means of getting rid of this disengagement as it is the preferred media source for Australians that receive information about politics (2016). Vroman's 2016 book ‘Digital Citizenship and Political Engagement’ is a poignant text illuminating the effect of social media on democratic politics within Australia. This is due to its underlying thesis that whilst political disengagement is underpinned by a mistrust catalysed by social media, it is this social media that is now an inherent aspect of our political world as it is the mechanism of engaging our voters, especially the younger voters. Kiera Wright expands upon Vromen’s notion by suggesting that “With many political campaigns going digital, new forms of democratic participation have started to emerge. Voters are redefining what political discourse looks like online by liking, posting or creating political content” (2020). Social media has thus facilitated a shift of political discourse towards being technologically based.

It is evident that as we as a society have moved towards a technological based world, so too has the way in which political parties campaign. Party campaigning has been significantly altered due to the prevalence of social media.Peter Chen in an article by the ANU press in 2014 titled “Australian Politics in the digital age” noted that the 2007 elections was like no other as party campaigning incorporated ‘social media’ to target supporters and key groups. The article further noted that this marked a generational shift as it meant that social media was/is “moving party campaigns further away from the mass-media strategies that dominated political campaigns since the 1960s (Chen, 2014)”. This is highly evident as Kevid Rudd’s campaign involved a strong use of social network services, online videos and a website, all of which was largely unbeknown to the plight of political campaigning in Australia. It is this form of campaigning that demonstrates the impact of social media on politics as it has allowed party campaigning to transcend simply flyers and public speeches but has allowed the campaigns to be witnessed and accessed 24/7. We see this similarly within America.

Peter Suciu of Forbes magazine released an article in 2021 noting that “Social media was crucial for Joe Biden'', emphasizing that it allowed him to “Connect with young voters and avoid his infamous gaffes”. Herein, it is evident that social media has facilitated a connection with voters that would not so much have been achieved through the traditional campaigning strategies such as the likes of speeches. Suciu refers to Biden’s infamous ‘Gaffes’ whereby he often mispronounces and stumbles in speech and as a result of Biden’s use of social media in which his accounts are devoid of such mistakes he was able to influence the voters. This demonstrates that social media has facilitated in party campaigning by allowing each party to choose or edit what voters and citizens are seeing when it comes to their party. This serves as a threat to the democratic value of free thought in selecting a party to vote for when it comes to the democracies of the U.S and Australia. If in each country the parties campaigned online, they can censor their content and only show the audience what they want them to see. With social media comes the ability to warp and shape public perception of each party that they want to perpetuate due to an ability to ‘hide behind a screen’, if you will. Therefore it is evident that social media has played a highly influential role in the democratic nations of the U.S and Australia, affecting party campaigning to a great extent.

In conclusion it is clear that social media has played a monumental role in shaping the democratic politics of the U.S and Australia. Through its ability to facilitate rapid, instant communication and great reach, social media has facilitated political mobilisation. These platforms' ability to reach the masses has also drastically altered the way in which political parties campaign, marking a generational shift as the campaigns switch online to reach the masses. Via social media these parties are also able to censor information therefore not only being able to change their public perception but also creating a public distrust with politics as they begin to question the validity of the information they are consuming. Social media has also enabled a greater exposure to politics whether or not those exposed to it want to be. Iit is evident that social media has significantly altered the way in which the democracies of Australia and the U.S operate, demonstrating that social media has significantly affected politics.

Citation list APA 6th: -

Barry, D., & Frenkel, S. (2021). ‘Be There. Will Be Wild!’: Trump All but Circled the Date. from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/capitol-mob-trump-supporters.html

-

Brady, H (1999) Political participation. In: Robinson, JP, Shaver, PR, Wrightsman, LS (eds), Measures of Political Attitudes. San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 737–801.

-

Chen & Walsh, Lucas, 2010, ‘E-election 2007? Political competition online’, Australian Cultural History, 28(1): 47–54.

-

Diamond, L., Lecture at Hilla University for Humanistic Studies 21 January 2004: "What is Democracy"; Diamond, L. and Morlino, L., The quality of democracy (2016). In Diamond, L., In Search of Democracy. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-78128-2.

-

Finkelstein, C. (2021). Capitol attack: Where does American democracy go from here? | Penn Today. from https://penntoday.upenn.edu/news/capitol-attack-where-does-american-democracy-go-here

-

Fisher, C., Fuller, G., Lee, J. Y., Park, S., & Sang, Y. (2019, June 12). Australians are less interested in news and consume less of it compared to other countries, survey finds. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/australians-are-less-interested-in-news-and-consume-less-of-itcompared-to-other-countries-survey-finds-118333

-

Frenkel, S. (2021). The storming of Capitol Hill was organized on social media. Retrieved 8 June 2021, from https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/06/us/politics/protesters-storm-capitol-hill-building.htm l

-

Haidt, J., & Rose-Stockwell, T. (2019, November 12). Social Media Is Warping Democracy. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/social-media-democracy/600763/

-

Knoll, J., Matthes, J., & Heiss, R. (2020). The social media political participation model: A goal systems theory perspective. Convergence, 26(1), 135–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/

-

Nielsen, R., & Fletcher, R. (2020). Democratic Creative Destruction? The Effect of a Changing Media Landscape on Democracy. In N. Persily & J. Tucker (Eds.), Social Media

and Democracy: The State of the Field, Prospects for Reform (SSRC Anxieties of Democracy, (pp.139-162). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. -

Seshadri, K. (1974). Mass Political Participation and Democracy. Social Scientist, 2(11), 3-25. doi:10.2307/3516953

-

Tang, G, Lee, FL (2013) Facebook use and political participation: The impact of exposure to shared political information connections with public political actors and network structural heterogeneity. Social Science Computer Review 31(6): 763–773.

-

Van Deth, J. (2016) What Is Political Participation?. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://oxf...