IT As A Growing Political Factor

December 15, 2004 Edgar Maldonado
IST 501
Section 01
IT as a growing political factor.
Abstract
The political arena has new guests: the Internet and all the online ways of sharing
information. The effect of these artifacts in the game has not been clearly defined. The
literature has different visions about it (Howard, 2003; Krueger, 2002): a) The landscape
of the politics is being shaped by this technology; the people is being stimulated to take
part in the political game (Westen, 2000); b) This technology is a mere tool; people
involved in politics can take advantage of it, but those that do not have political interests
are not going to change their mind (Davis, 2000; Howard, 2003). Difference of
perspective is one reason for these two dissimilar points of view. What are the political
situations that the authors consider to make those statements? Are there the elections of
representatives in the government, the achievement of localized community goals, the
fight for environmental issues, or the emerging of new political systems in countries? The
purpose of this review is to give an evaluation of the broad opinions found in the
literature about the Internet and its interaction with the political domain. This analysis is
done taking special attention in how the concepts of Information, Technology and People
are handled. Using this frame, the paper attempts to lead to the conclusion that Internet is
actually changing the political game: with small steps at a time, with an increasing rate,
and from a small scope to a larger one.
Structure of the paper
The first part of the paper exposes the concepts of Technology, People and Information,
giving a sketch of the principal in which these definitions appear in the literature. The
second part presents the three principal positions that the literature has taken about the
This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

topic. These three visions would be called Skeptic vision, Optimistic vision, and Realistic
Vision. In DiMaggio words:
“(…) the literature about politics on the Internet has progressed through three stages:
unjustifiable euphoria, abrupt and equally unjustifiable skepticism, and gradual
realization that Web-based human interaction really does have unique and politically
significant properties.”(DiMaggio, Hargittai, Neuman, & Robinson, 2001) (p.319).
Then in the third part, some documented cases are presented where the Internet has been
used to achieve specific political goals. These cases complete the frame that leads to the
assumption that Internet relevance cannot be studied from a static level; the Internet
seems to be taking place in the political world with slow but firm steps.
Part I
Concepts of Technology
The concepts of the information technologies that are involved in the political field vary
from author to author. These differences are due to the “function” that the author
considered the Internet performs. Basically the ways that Internet Technologies are
addressed in the literature can be divided in two; I will denominate them 1) Network
building technologies; and 2) Informative Technologies.
1) Network building Technologies: They are those Internet Technologies that allow the
interchange of messages between two or more persons. This exchange can be
synchronous or asynchronous, and is generally text-based. Email is the most
representative of these technologies. Conklin denominates Email as a push technology
because the person that starts the process of transferring the information is the person that
elaborates the information (Conklin, 2003). This “pushing” is carried out with the hope of
receiving a feedback, or it is the answer for a prior message. Listservs or forums and chat

rooms are included in this category. Strictly speaking, forums are considered only when
the user is an active member otherwise the technology would be part of the second type.
Network Building technologies transfer information across Internet to a specific audience
with the option of transmitting data in the opposite direction. They are exempt of distance
or time-zone restrictions (Krueger, 2002).
2) Informative Technologies: They are the technologies that allow the display of texts,
videos, sounds or images in a specific web site on the Internet or the World Wide Web
(WWW). In this case there is not a direct interaction; the person is a spectator. Conklin
calls the WWW a pull technology because that person that initiates the communication is
receiving the information. In this perspective the WWW is similar to any broadcast media
technology, for example television (Stanley & Weare, 2004); it is a massive medium.
Because a web site is “localized” in a specific “address”, it has a static character.
However its content is dynamic; it can be changed at any time.
People Involved
The definition of this group is not clear in the literature. There is a hidden “agreement”
about what people are involved in the politics-Internet interaction. The reason is that the
studies already take for granted “access”. The observation of the effect of the Internet on
politics does not make sense in those segments where there is no access to the Internet.
This simple division between people with or without access to the Internet is the origin of
a whole field of investigation. The Digital Divide is the name that was given to this issue.
Although the focus of this paper is not the Digital Divide phenomenon, it seems
convenient to point out some facts about it. This would give to the reader a perspective of
the people included in the analysis.

Table 1 presents the percentage of penetration of the Internet in the world, according to
NetRatings, Inc and the International Communication Union, assembled by
http//www.InternetWorldStats.com (updated September 30, 2004).
Table 1: Percentage of Penetration of Internet in the World Population
Region Population Internet Users Penetration % Users in the

(% population) world
Africa 893,197,200 12,937,100 1.4 % 1.6 %
Asia 3,607,499,800 257,898,314 7.1 % 31.7%
Europe 730,894,078 230,886,424 31.6% 28.4%
M. East 258,993,600 17,325,900 6.7% 2.1%
North America 325,246,100 108,096,800 68.3% 27.3%
Latin America/ 541,775,800 18,068,919 10.3% 6.9%
Caribbean
Oceania 32,540,909 15,787,221 48.5 % 1.9%
World 6,390,147,487 812,931,592 12.7 % 100%
The difference among territories is evident. It is logical to expect a more intensive

interaction of the Internet and Politics in regions whit high rate of Internet access, but the
influence of the Internet can even be recognized in places with lower penetration. The
most known case of an online political movement in a low Internet penetration region is
the Zapatista Movement in Mexico (Olesen, 2004).
Since North America and Europe are the continents with the highest amount of online
population, they are convenient places to study the influence of the Internet. This
explains why the majority of cases in this review are focused in the United States and
some countries of Europe.

Taking the case of the United States, it is worthy to give a qualitative description of the
population that has access to the Internet in the country:
• Younger Americans are much more wired than older Americans.

• Well-to-do Americans are more wired that less well-off Americans and the
employed are far more wired than the unemployed.
• White Americans are more wired than African-Americans and Hispanics.
• Well-educated Americans are more wired than those than only completed high
school.
• Suburban and urban residents are more wired than rural residents.
• Parents of children living at home are more wired than non-parents.
(J. Horrigan et al., 2003)(p.4)
Starting with this defined universe – population with Internet access, the literature
characterizes the people inside of this universe from two major perspectives: (1) People
who have a clear inclination to the political participation and (2) people that go on line
with any other purposes than politics (Davis, 2000). There is a third group considered by
some authors that includes those users that are in the space between the two first ones: the
people that have not been involved in politics because of the lack of traditional resources
(Krueger, 2002).
What is information?
The concept of information is blurry and evasive; it becomes even more so when the
analysis is done from a “political” perspective. Starting from a global standpoint, almost
every message that is received through the Internet could be mapped in a political frame.
Furthermore, Conklin (Conklin, 2003) goes further and cites Ellul (Ellul, 1965) writing
‘(…) any information is propaganda because it helps shape attitudes” (Conklin, 2003)

(p.3). With this scenario, the Internet can be described as a continuous source of political
discourse: news, pornography, music, online war games, advertisements, shopping
places; everything can be considered political information. Neil Postman describes this
situation eloquently:
“(…) we have transformed information into a form of garbage and ourselves into
garbage collectors. (…) Information comes indiscriminately, directed at no one in
particular, in enormous volume, at high speeds, severed from import and meaning. (…)
No transcendent narratives [exists] to provide us with moral guidance, social purpose,
intellectual economy.”(Postman, 2004) (p. 4)
Or in Horward words:
“The political content online is a base kind of political pornography in which

information is grossly simplified, easily misrepresented, and often perverted.”
(Howard, 2003) (p.217)
This pseudo-apocalyptic vision is not broadly considered in the majority of the evaluated
articles. The literature uses an implicitly definition of information that is more related
with political participation. The term “political participation” is used with the definition
given by Krueger (Krueger, 2002); it is a Conway’s Citation (Conway, 1991):
“(…) the term political participation is being used here to mean those activities of
citizens that attempt to influence the structure of government, the selection of government
authorities, or the policies of government. These activities may be supportive of the
existing policies, authorities, or structures, or they may seek to change all of these.”
(Krueger, 2002) (p.483)
Now, information in the scope of this review has a clear definition. The information is a
set of messages in any format (text, video, images, etc.) that are transmitted by the
Internet whose meanings are directly or indirectly related with political participation.

Below this concept, the authors handle three subcategories of information. This
classification is related with the intention of the information.
1) Propaganda: This is the kind of information where the user is a spectator. Banners,
web sites, and paid searches are the principal media for these messages (Jagoda, 2004a).
This information is intended to transmit a political ideology, for example party web sites,
or to direct the attention of the person to a political issue, for example environmental
campaign banners.
2) Messaging: This is the information that is produced when the user utilizes Internet as a
tool to interact with other people. The distinction in this case is that the information is
oriented to create, support or expand organizations. Brainard calls these groups “Cyber-
organizations” (Brainard, 2002). A Cyber-organization can be an entity by itself or can be
the presence of a physical organization on the Internet.
3) Citizen Participation: This is the information that is the result of the citizen opinions
and concerns, and it is sent to any government agency. The flow of this kind of messages
has been rising in the last years (J. B. Horrigan, 2004; Larsen & Rainie, 2002).
Part II
Skeptic Vision
Technology equals loneliness?
The use of electronic technologies to entertain or to communicate have been associated

with self-isolation of the users (Putnam, 2000). This new mass media phenomenon that
began in 1950 with the introduction of the Television has brought private and passive

ways of spending free time. Although there is no empirical data that can determine a clear
relation between electronic communications and social connectedness, there is a
coincidence in time when this kind of technology arrived to the houses and the number of
social activities began to decrease (Putnam, 2000).
The Internet cannot be compared directly with the TV - the principal protagonist in the
mass media. The Internet allows the user to interact with somebody else or with a group
— something almost impossible for a TV set (DiMaggio et al., 2001). But the interaction
in the Internet is not enough for some authors. A Carnegie Mellon University's study
carried out in 1995, involving 93 families without prior experience in the use of Internet,
showed the existence of a phenomenon where "Internet use causes declines in social
involvement" (Kraut et al., 1998) (p.1029). Those families had access to electronic email
and web browsing and received training to use them, but the use of Internet resulted to be
an activity that took away time from other social practices.
On the other hand, a study of a representative sample done by the University of Southern
California did not find any decrease in the pro-social behavior of the Internet users.
“Internet Users, compared to non-users, socialize slightly less with the member of their
household, but spend slightly more time with clubs and volunteer organizations” (Cole et
al., 2000) (p.35).
The mismatching results of Kraut and Cole are brought together by Morahan-Martin.
Morahan-Martin’s 2003 paper establishes a hypothesis for the ambiguity: lonely persons
“are more likely to be drawn to the Internet and to use the Internet excessively because of
the expanded social networks provided online (…) Social interaction is altered online in
ways that may be particularly attractive to those who are lonely” (Morahan-Martin &
Schimacher, 2003) (p.661).
In other words, the Internet enforces conducts. For those that are social involved, the
Internet is a great way to continue their social activities beyond face-to-face
communication; and for those that are lonely it is a possibility to “socialize” where the

concept of “socialization” can differ of the model of face-to-face interaction. This idea of
“rich get richer” is taken for a Kraut study published in 2002 (Kraut et al., 2002), where
some of the people from the original 1995 study was re-analyzed. It was found that “(…)
using the Internet predicted better outcomes for extraverts and those with more social
support but worse outcomes for introverts and those with less support.” (Kraut et al.,
2002) (p.49).
The whole analysis to the problem of loneliness and the Internet can be expressed in the
following way: Although it can be argued that “Internet provides an ideal social
environment for lonely people to interact with others” (Morahan-Martin & Schimacher,
2003)(p. 662), it is clear that “the rise of electronic communications and entertainment is
one of the most powerful social trends of the twentieth century” (Putnam, 2000) (p. 245).
Putnam goes further and indicates that this technology brings “ news and entertainment
(…) increasingly individualized” and it “allows us to consume this hand-tailored
entertainment in private, even utterly alone” (Putnam, 2000) (p. 217). The conclusion he
gives in his book, supported with more that thirty years of statistical data, is that the
decrease of Civic Engagement and then of political participation in the United States
coincides with the grow of new information technologies.(Putnam, 2000).
Internet as a tool
“Internet Technologies are not agents, but structures” (Howard, 2003) (p.218). Howard
summaries in this sentence the principal reason that makes some authors doubt about the
impact of the Internet on politics. The use of the Internet depends on the “users”. Stanley
points out prior studies that indicated that the employ of Internet in politics is dictated for
persons or organizations that have been already involved in politics (Stanley & Weare,
2004). The author cited three different sources (Harpham, 1999; Margolis & Resnick,
2000; Sadow & James, 1999) where the conclusion was the same: “politics in Internet is
simply politics as usual” (Stanley & Weare, 2004) (p. 504). Although Howard agrees

that Internet technologies can make the processes faster and more efficient, he thinks they
do not significantly influence the political-participation process (Howard, 2003).
Davis exposes the same idea in other terms. “Americans will not be different people just
because there are now resources at their disposal to follow politics quite closely” (Davis,
2000) (p.6). His argumentation is simple: the majority of Internet users do not go online
for political reasons. The people want to shop, be entertained, or communicate with
others. Because the users do not choose to get involved in the political game, the user’s
control feature that characterizes the Internet permits to remove any political-oriented
message from the medium.
In short, the Internet cannot produce dramatic changes in human behavior. The success of
this technology as a democratic tool is conditioned by the willingness of the citizens to
use these new technologies and become engaged citizens (Davis, 2000).
Education and Participation
Some authors question the influence of the Internet taking as argument the education of
the people that use it. Basically, the idea is that the Internet technology is not a silver
bullet that will educate the less politically informed group of citizen and will transform
them into a politically active group (Davis, 2000). Howard denominates that segment as
“lower-educated” and “information-poor groups” (Howard, 2003). He cites two prior
articles (Moore, 1987; Tichenor, Donohue, & Olien, 1970) where the authors indicated
that the gap of political knowledge cannot be solved with technology, and that more
technology makes the lower-educated groups more susceptible to manipulation by
political advertisements.
That means that the digital divide is not the only division that the Internet plots. There is
a political subdivision between people online that are politically educated and those that
are not. For Davis this subdivision could be described as a historic process. In Davis

words: “ (…) as Internet usage expands across the population, a new group of less
political interested (and therefore more ordinary) users is appearing” (Davis, 2000) (p. 5).
Davis explains how the pioneer Internet users were “well educated, affluent, and more
politically interested than the common person” (Davis, 2000) (p.5). This opinion can
cause negative response, and any conclusion about it would need a deeper study. But the
principal idea of Davis is clear; that there is a political-educational division in the
Internet.
Age Divide
This aspect was brought up by Stanley (Stanley & Weare, 2004). Senior citizens are more
likely to get engaged with political issues (Campbell, 2003), but elder people are less
likely to use Internet Technologies (J. Horrigan et al., 2003). So, the influence of the
Internet in the political participation of elder citizens does not seem to be significant.
Optimistic Vision
This category contains the authors than describes the Internet as a successful and
revolutionary tool. The effects of the technology are analyzed from two perspectives: a)
Elections in general (Jagoda, 2004b) and b) Grass-roots activism (Ayres, 1999).
Elections in general
The principal arguments in this point are the advantages the Internet offers against other
mass media. Jagoda makes this by saying: “Whereas a television commercial can tell you
that a candidate needs your help, only an online advertisement can send a viewer directly
to a web site that accepts credit card” (Jagoda, 2004b) (p. 76).

The ability to bring funds is the principal feature of the Internet when it is playing in the
political arena. This characteristic looks superior to its capacity of transmitting political
messages or propaganda. According to Cornfield, “The presidential campaign world
today regards the Internet as an asset for fundraising, voter-profiling, and insider
communication, but not for advertising.”(Cornfield, 2004) (p. 1).
The benefits the literature gives to the employ of Internet in political campaigns are based
in numbers and comparisons. For example:
- An Internet banner costs $5,000 - $10,000 to develop against $50.000 of a television ad

(Jagoda, 2004b).
- “The dean Campaign [raised] nearly 3 million dollars online in the space of one week”
(Stuart & Miller, 2004) (p.36).
- Internet Technologies can use advertising in the same way that probed traditional means
(Bassik & Malchow, 2004).
- Online ads can target by individual. A campaign can focus different types of ads
according to the “profile” of the online users. This strategy can be droved by context (if
the web site that the user is visiting is a financial one, the ad must reflect the economic
aspect of a campaign) or by behavior (the system knows the browsing behavior of the
user so it can employ ads accordingly with it)
Finally, the fact that the two principal candidates running for president in the 2004
elections invited the electors to visit their web sites during their nomination acceptance
speeches is a clear signal of the importance of the Internet in the political campaign
(Cornfield, 2004) .

Grass- root activism
The term grass-root activism is mentioned by several authors (DiMaggio et al., 2001;
Howard, 2003; Rogerson, 2003; Simon, Corrales, & Wolfensberg, 2002), but there is no
clear concept of it. Using the context in which the expression is used in the literature,
grass-root activism can be defined as the compendium of activities that are not sponsored
by a big economic or political organization and bring together individuals and groups
with not big resources (usually economic ones) in order to achieve a common goal. It is
related to fight for human rights, environmental issues and political issues in general. A
grass-root based group can become a successful non-governmental organization (NGO)
with considerable economic power, as the MoveOn.org’s case (Stuart & Miller, 2004).
The possibilities that Internet offers for communication, organization, and its universal
character make it a perfect tool for grass-root activities. In words of Ayres:
“From the rainforests of the Mexican state of Chiapas, to the streets of small-town
U.S.A., to the capitals of Europe, The Internet is one of the hottest tools in the burgeoning
arsenal of protest” (Ayres, 1999) (p.133)
The literature uses international organizations that have successfully used Internet to
coordinate grass-root activities as principal examples (Ayres, 1999; Conklin, 2003;
Danitz & Strobel, 1999; Olesen, 2004). The reasons of that success can be clearly
pointed:
a) Internet is an inexpensive tool, so it fits the economic capacities of grass-root groups

(Danitz & Strobel, 1999).
b) Studies have shown that Internet tools can aid social networking across traditional
socioeconomic boundaries (Howard, 2003).

c) Internet provides a decentralized less-hierarchical forms of organizations ideal for

grass-root activism (Pickerill, 2003).
d) Internet allows user to select their level of participation, so grass-root organizations

can fit the work of low-commitment and high-commitment members (Danitz & Strobel,
1999)
It is important to note that the literature warns of the disadvantages of the Internet as
grass-root tool:
- Internet is not a secure channel (Danitz & Strobel, 1999).
- The “immediate” nature of the information on Internet affects accuracy. ”Internet also
holds the power to turn unreliable and unverifiable information into a global electronic
riot” (Ayres, 1999) (p. 132).
- Movements based on the Internet are generally decentralized. Although this kind of
organization has its advantages, they are not likely to become stable structures (Danitz &
Strobel, 1999).
Realistic Vision
This is the segment of the literature that adopts a critical approach to the relation of
Internet and politics with analysis of past studies and with a vision of future researches.
DiMaggio is a clear example. He considers that the literature has “enthusiasts”
(Browning, 1996; Hill & Hughes, 1998; Negroponte, 1995) and “skeptics” (Beniger,
1996; Lessig, 1999).
According to DiMaggio, now is the perfect time to do research in the area because of due
to several reasons a) the early stage of the technology, b) the Internet’s unique multiple

modes of communication that could socially impact deeper that radio and television, and
c) legislation that is being developed. The understanding of today’s Internet structures
will contribute to understand the shape of the future technology (DiMaggio et al., 2001).
The authors that consider more research in the area necessary give ideas about what
specific topics that must be tackled. The general scheme is to take possibilities that the
Internet brings and try to figure out their pros, cons, and future influence in the political
arena.
Internet Possibilities
Low- Cost Tool
Krueger sees Internet as a tool, and he agrees that some people are more likely than other
to participates in political activities (Krueger, 2002). According to him, political
participation requires money and time. The high costs of nonvoting political activities
make engagement of persons that lack the resources to afford their participation harder,
although such people have a will to participate. Krueger points that money and time are
not a good explanation of why people get involved in the political game, but it could
explain why they do not. Krueger, basing on empirical data, concludes that the Internet’s
ability to reduce costs “(…) shows genuine potential to bring new people into the
political process” (Krueger, 2002) (p.494).
It is necessary to mention that Krueger suggests that the low-cost of the Internet can
decrease its potential. “Is an e-mail sent from a constituent governmental responsiveness
the equivalent of a handwritten letter? Do ordinary people severely discount the political
discussion in chat rooms compared to face-to-face communications?” (Krueger, 2002) (p.
495).

More voices
Information is a key component in the political formation of a citizen. Howard points that
in some cases citizens do not have choices in the sources of information that they receive
(Howard, 2003). Dessauer considers that the Internet has given a new perspective of
news to the United States citizens (Dessauer, 2004). At this point, the Postman’s thought
exposed at the first part of this paper are valid. The access to information does not
guarantee a clear understanding of the world. Herbert makes this issue clearer:
“A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of

Maryland found that nearly 70 percent of President Bush's supporters believe the U.S.
has come up with "clear evidence" that Saddam Hussein was working closely with Al
Qaeda. A third of the president's supporters believe weapons of mass destruction were
found in Iraq. And more than a third believe that a substantial majority of world opinion
supported the U.S.-led invasion. “(Herbert, 2004)
Davis indicates that “Internet serves primarily as an information source when voters want
information” (Davis, 2000) (p. 7). With this dilemma (people lack complete information
and they do not choose to look for more information), future researches can study the
Internet as a possible “trigger” for the seek of diverse information
E-vote
Even “skeptics” agree that the Internet can facilitate the process of voting (Davis, 2000).
Davis highlights that “ With appropriate security checks against fraud, the Internet could
be useful for facilitating the vote for those who are unable to go a polling place on
election day” (Davis, 2000) (p.7). The pros and cons are widely explained in the parallel
work of Mohen (Mohen & Glidden, 2001) and Phillips (Phillips & Von Spakovsky,
2001). Mohen explains all the levels of security that were successfully implemented in
the 2000 Arizona Democratic Party’s elections; Phillips warns that the technology and
legislation are not mature enough. Both authors agree that the “Internet voting can be

implemented only with absolute commitment to maximum inclusiveness and accessibility

for all voters” (Mohen & Glidden, 2001) (p. 85).
Government’s ears
Larsen exposes how the Government has figured out the potential of the Internet to
reduce cost related with business between governmental offices and citizens (Larsen &
Rainie, 2002). The author describes in her work the rising of users visiting Official web
sites. It is interesting that according to Larsen, the principal reason that drives users to
Governmental web sites is doing research for work or school and the least important
purpose is getting information about elections.
Larsen’s findings are confirmed in Horrigan’s work (J. B. Horrigan, 2004). He agrees
with the rising of the “e-citizen”, but affirms basing on empirical data that “E-gov is not
yet the “killer app” among the available tools to contact government” (p. I). The reasons
for this, according Horrigan, are that a) Internet has not a Universal-access character, b)
People still prefers other channels, for example by phone, and c) Some problems are not
easy to handle without using “Real Time” interaction (J. B. Horrigan, 2004).
Level of analysis
Table 1 in the appendix A is a summary of the levels of analysis used in the articles
included in this paper. In the table authors are mapped according to their concepts of
Information, Technology and People. The table also includes the position that they take
about the Internet-political relation.

Part III
Political Participation, some facts
Rogerson gives a categorization of the levels of political discussion where the Internet
plays some role (Rogerson, 2003): Local Movements, National Movements, Subnational
Movements, and International (Trans-border) Social Movements. This classification is
not perfect, according to Rogerson, since some examples could fit in different categories,
but can be useful in organizing the cases presented in the literature.
Local Movements
Local movements have a neighborhood or city scope, and they are generally focused on
infrastructure problems in the communities. Kellogg documents a case where the Internet
technologies were used in Cleveland low income communities in order to spread
information about the environmental issues in the neighborhoods (Kellogg & Mathur,
2003). In that study Kellogg found that, despite the multiple problems related to access,
“Participants viewed the Internet as one of the most effective mechanisms to allow them
to influence environmental decision-making processes in their communities” (p. 581).
Kellogg also points out that the participants acquired new skills during the experience
and that “These new or improved skills have begun to overcome many of the aspects of
the Internet technology paradox” (p. 581).
National Movements
The Internet has been easily adopted for groups to gather people with common problems
or interests. Brainard describes cyber-organizations that have given national character to
specific health problems (Brainard, 2002). Examples in her article belong to two groups:
DES daughters (girls with problems due to a during-pregnancy medicine) and

Hemophilia/HIV patients (hemophilic patients who were infected with HIV by

contaminate transfusions). Both groups began with a web site whose intention was to be a
place for the interchange of experiences between patients, and later it became a tool for
the advocacy of their cause. The Internet helps both cyber-groups to coordinate actions
such as letter-writing campaigns to congress and public media campaigns.
Subnational Movements
These movements have national connotation, but they intend to catch international
attention due to the characteristics of the issues. Danitz exposes a relevant example: The
case of Burma (Danitz & Strobel, 1999). That paper exposed how some geographically
dispersed Burmese exiles use Internet tools to drive an International campaign. They
concentrate efforts and denounce the repressive Burman’s Government. The campaign is
considered one of the most successful since that movement was one of the reasons that
made President Clinton to ban any US investment in Burma in 1997.
International Movements
Issues with International character and political connotation abound. Rogerson points to
the case of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (Rogerson, 2003) as an
example of the use of the Internet for international political advocacy. The ICBL
(www.icbl.org) was founded in part by Nobel Prize winner Jody Williams. This
organization has caught the attention of the government of more than 130 countries,
contributed with 1400 organizations in 90 countries, and destroyed more than 30 millions
of landmines. The web-site works as informative medium and a fund rising tool.

Conclusion
During the research in the literature, a comparison of the arriving of the Internet with the
Gutenberg invention was found in an article by Max Kaase (Kaase, 2000). It is a sensible
comparison. The two inventions are technologic products that make information more
available, and their impact on the society is indisputable. The similarities between these
two developments can be taken further and be used as perspective to analyze the
relationship involving the Internet and politics.
The influence of the Gutenberg invention in the development of politics cannot be

refuted. Books, independent press, and pamphlets can be taken as some examples of
successful political-oriented printing forms. In a mental exercise it is possible to map
reasons that some authors give to underestimate the Internet as a political protagonist in
the printing.
• Digital Divide. In the beginning, the printing word was not accessible to all
economic levels. Even more, literacy was a privilege of a few. This is a problem
that the society still has not overcome. According to the UNESCO, 26 % of the
adult population in the world is illiterate.
• Social isolation. Reading a book could be considered as an isolated and
individual practice. Are people who read books lonely? Are they not involved in
political affairs?
• The Internet is only a tool. It is understandable that only people interested in
politics read books on the topic, but it is also clear that more people have been
involved in politics since the mass production of the printing products.
• Education and Participation. There is a tacit accepted idea that says: the more you
read, the more educated you become. In addition, some authors agree that the
level of education of people is related to their political interest (Davis, 2000).
Why the Internet is not considered from that perspective?
• Age divide. Senior Citizens are more likely to engage in political issues, and they
are the biggest newspaper reader population (Putnam, 2000). It is not hard to

imagine the same situation with future Senior Citizens and computers; actually it
is happening right now.
Printing has been out there for more that 550 years in contrast with the 10 years that the
Internet has. In less than ten years the Internet has made possible political achievements
in shorter periods of time than the Gutenberg invention; for example, the online Dean
Campaign that raised 3 million of dollars from small contributions in just a week (Stuart
& Miller, 2004).
The place of the Internet in the political arena is not clear, but it definitively is not
negligible. Statements found in the literature that limit its importance are based in a
historically static perspective and with a short vision of the horizon. It is necessary to take
an approach to this topic with a broad perception. In order to do that, technology must be
accepted as a factor whose importance is growing.
DiMaggio is right in saying that now is the perfect time to begin with the analysis of the
Internet influence in our society (DiMaggio et al., 2001). The idea is valid for the study
of the political inherence of the Internet. The following questions can be taken as a good
start: Is there a pattern between the people that begin getting involved in political affairs
and their online behavior? Are there differences between social classes and their political
online preferences? Can online campaigns be designed to target by gender or ethnicity?
The field is open to multiple studies. Knowing what the literature has said about the topic
is just the first step to address them.
The future of the research in this field is encouraging. The Internet has a particular
advantage over the Gutenberg invention: It did not take hundreds of years to know that it
would change the way the society works.

Appendix A
Level of analysis considered in the paper
Utopist Vision Skeptic Vision Realistic Vision

(Ayres, 1999),(Danitz & (Putnam, 2000), (Phillips & (Westen, 2000),
Propaganda Strobel, 1999),(Stuart & Von Spakovsky, 2001), (DiMaggio et al.,
Miller, 2004) (Morahan-Martin & 2001), (Rogerson,
Information Schimacher, 2003), (Postman, 2003)
2004)
(Ayres, 1999),(Bassik & (Kraut et al., 1998),(Howard, (Stanley & Weare,
Messaging Malchow, 2004), (Jagoda, 2003),(Davis, 2000), (Phillips 2004), (DiMaggio et
2004b) & Von Spakovsky, 2001), al., 2001), (Rogerson,
(Morahan-Martin & 2003)
Schimacher, 2003)
(Mohen & Glidden, (Putnam, 2000),(Phillips & (Westen, 2000),
Citizen 2001),(Kellog & Mathur, Von Spakovsky, (DiMaggio et al.,
Participation 2003), (Brainard, 2002) 2001),(Howard, 2003), 2001),(Krueger,
(Phillips & Von Spakovsky, 2002), (Larsen &
2001) Rainie, 2002), (J. B.
Horrigan, 2004),
(Kellog & Mathur,
2003)
(Ayres, 1999),(Mohen & (Kraut et al., 1998), (Howard, (Stanley & Weare,
Network Glidden, 2001), (Stuart & 2003), (Davis, 2000), (Phillips 2004), (Westen,
building Miller, 2004), (Kellog & & Von Spakovsky, 2001), 2000), (DiMaggio et
technologies Mathur, 2003), (Brainard, (Howard, 2003), (Phillips & al., 2001), (Krueger,
Technology 2002) Von Spakovsky, 2001), 2002), (Larsen &
(Morahan-Martin & Rainie, 2002), (J. B.
Schimacher, 2003) Horrigan, 2004)
(Danitz & Strobel, (Putnam, 2000), (Davis, (DiMaggio et al.,
Informative 1999),(Bassik & 2000), (Howard, 2003), 2001), (Rogerson,
Technologies Malchow, 2004), (Jagoda, (Phillips & Von Spakovsky, 2003)
2004b) 2001), (Postman, 2004)
On-line (Ayres, 1999),(Danitz & (Davis, 2000), (Howard, (Stanley & Weare,
politically Strobel, 1999), (Mohen & 2003), (Phillips & Von 2004), (Westen,
involved Glidden, 2001), (Bassik & Spakovsky, 2001),(Morahan- 2000), (DiMaggio et
People Malchow, 2004), (Jagoda, Martin & Schimacher, 2003) al., 2001), (Krueger,
2004b), (Stuart & Miller, 2002), (Rogerson,
2004), (Kellog & Mathur, 2003)
2003), (Brainard, 2002)
On-line non (Jagoda, 2004b), (Putnam, 2000),(Kraut et al., (Krueger, 2002),
politically 1998),(Howard, 2003),(Davis, (Larsen & Rainie,
involved 2000), (Howard, 2003), 2002), (J. B.
(Phillips & Von Spakovsky, Horrigan, 2004)
2001), (Morahan-Martin &
Schimacher, 2003)
(Krueger, 2002), (Kellog (Putnam, 2000), (Milner,
Non online & Mathur, 2003) 2003)

Appendix B
Origin of the resources
The first articles used in this literature review were found using the services of
Cambridge Scientific Abstracts (CSA) with the PSU license. The search was performed
using the following keywords: politics; Internet; on line; political; advocacy; campaign;
and elections; in six of its databases: Political Science: A SAGE Full Text Collection,
Social Service Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Sociology: A SAGE Full Text
Collection, and Worldwide Political Science Abstracts. Then, the references of those first
articles lead to other authors and so on. In addition, Professor Andrea Tapia provided
some authors whose works (generally books) are related to the topic.

Bibliography
Ayres, J. M. (1999). From The Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Difussion of

Contention. The Annals Of The American Academy of Political and Social
Science (AAPS), 566, 132-143.
Bassik, M., & Malchow, H. (2004). New Methods For 2004: Changing The Approach To
Online Political Ad Sales: E-Voter Institute.
Beniger, J. R. (1996). Who shall control cyberspace? In L. Srate, R. Jacobson & S. B.
Gibson (Eds.), Communication and Cyberspace: Social Interaction in an
Electronic Environment (pp. 49-58). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Brainard, L. A. (2002). Citizen Organization in Cyberspace. Ilustrations From Health
Care and Implications for Public Administration. American Review of Public
Administration, 33(4), 384-406.
Browning, G. (1996). Electronic democracy: Using the Internet to INfluence American
Politics. Wilton CT: Pemberton.
Campbell, A. L. (2003). How policies make citizens: senior political activism and the
American welfare state. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Uiversity Press.
Cole, J. I., Suman, M., Schramm, P., van Bel, D., Lunn, B., Maguire, P., et al. (2000).
The UCLA Internet Report. Survying The Future. Year one.Unpublished
manuscript, California.
Conklin, D. (2003, August 28 - August 31, 2003). The Internet, Political Dissent, &
Technological Capabilities. Paper presented at the Meeting of the American
Political Science Association.
Conway, M. M. (1991). Political Participation in the United States (Second ed.).
Washington, DC: CQ Press.
Cornfield, M. (2004). Presidental campaign advertising on the internet: PEW Internet &
American Life Project.
Danitz, T., & Strobel, W. P. (1999). The Internet's Impact on Activism: The Case of
Burma. Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 22, 257-269.
Davis, R. (2000, Fall 2000). The Net Effect. Brigham Young Magazine, 54.
Dessauer, C. (2004). New, Media, Internet News, and the News Habit. In P. N. Howard
& S. Jones (Eds.), Society Online (pp. 121-136). Thousand Oaks, California:
Sage.
DiMaggio, P., Hargittai, E., Neuman, W. R., & Robinson, J. P. (2001). Social
Implications of Internet. Annual review of Sociology, 27, 307-336.
Ellul, J. (1965). Propaganda. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Harpham, E. J. (1999). Going On line: The 1998 congressional campaign. Atlanta, GA:
American Political Science Association.
Herbert, B. (2004, November 8, 2004). Voting without the facts. New York Times.
Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the
Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Horrigan, J., Rainie, L., Allen, K., Boyce, A., Madden, M., & O'Grady, E. (2003). The
Ever-Shifting Internet population. A new look at Internet access and the digital
divide. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project.
Horrigan, J. B. (2004). How Americans Get in Touch with Goverment

Howard, P. N. (2003). Digitizing the Social Contract: Producing American Political

Culture in the Age of New Media. The Communication Review(6), 213-245.
Jagoda, K. A. B. (2004a). E-Voter 2003/2004. ShakeUp, MakeWaves, and PressOn.
Research and Reports on Changes in the Political Landscape.
Jagoda, K. A. B. (2004b). Political Online Advertising: The 800-Pound Gorilla That
Can't Be Ignored Much Longer: E-Voter Institute.
Kaase, M. (2000). Political Science and the Internet. International Political Science
Review, 21(3), 265-282.
Kellog, W. A., & Mathur, A. (2003). Environmental Justice and Information
technologies: Overcoming the Information- Access Paradox in Urban
Communities. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 573-585.
Kellogg, W. A., & Mathur, A. (2003). Environmental Justice and Information
technologies: Overcoming the Information- Access Paradox in Urban
Communities. Public Administration Review, 63(5), 573-585.
Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002).
Internet Paradox Revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49-74.
Kraut, R., Patterson, M., Lundmarck, V., Kiesler, S., Mukopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W.
(1998). Internet Paradox: A Social Technology That Reduces Social Involvement
and Psychological Well-Being? American Psychologist, 53(9), 1017-1031.
Krueger, B. S. (2002). Assesing the Potential of Internet Political Participation in The
United States. A Resource Approach. American Politics Research, 30(5), 476-
498.
Larsen, E., & Rainie, L. (2002). The rise of the e-citizen. How people use government
agencies' Web sites
Lessig, L. (1999). Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as usual: The Cyberspace "revolution".
Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.
Milner, H. V. (2003, August 28-31, 2003). The Digital Divide: The Role of Political
Intitutions in Technology Diffusion. Paper presented at the 2003 APSA
Conference, Philadelphia.
Mohen, J., & Glidden, J. (2001). The case for Internet Voting. Communications of the
ACM, 44(1), 72-85.
Moore, D. (1987). Political Campaigns and the Knowledge-gap hypothesis. Public
Opinion Quarterly, 51(2), 186-200.
Morahan-Martin, J., & Schimacher, P. (2003). Loneliness and Social Uses of the Internet.
Computers in Human Behavior, 19, 659-671.
Negroponte, N. (1995). Being Digital. New York: Knopf.
Olesen, T. (2004). The transnational Zapatista solidarity network: an infrastructure
analysis. Global Networks, 4(1), 89-107.
Phillips, D. M., & Von Spakovsky, H. A. (2001). Gauging The risks of Internet Elections.
Communications of the ACM, 44(1), 72-85.
Pickerill, J. (2003). Cyberprotest. Environmental activism online. Manchester, UK:
Manchester University Press.
Postman, N. (2004). The Information Age. A Blessing or a Curse? Harvard International
Journal of Press/Politics, 9(2), 3-10.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rogerson, K. (2003, February, 2003). More Channels and More Voices? The Internet
and Political Advocacy Groups Around the World. Paper presented at the 44th
Annual Convention of the International Studies Association, Portland, Oregon.
Sadow, J. D., & James, K. (1999). Virtual Billboards? Candidate Web sites and
campaigning in 1998. Atlanta, GA: American Political Science Association.
Simon, D. L., Corrales, J., & Wolfensberg, D. R. (2002). Democracy and the Internet.
Allies or Adversaries? Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.
Stanley, J. W., & Weare, C. (2004). The Effects of Internet use on Political Participation.
Evidence From an Agency Online Discussion Forum. Administration & Society,
36(5), 503-527.
Stuart, R., & Miller, J. (2004). The Net Works: Prospects For Advocacy and Mobilization
Online: E-Voter Institute.
Tichenor, P., Donohue, G., & Olien, C. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth
in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.
Westen, T. (2000). E-Democracy: Ready or Not, Here It Comes. National Civic review,
89(3), Fall 2000.

IT As A Growing Political Factor

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

IT As A Growing Political Factor

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

December 15, 2004 Edgar Maldonado

IT as a growing political factor.

Structure of the paper

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Table 1: Percentage of Penetration of Internet in the World Population

Region Population Internet Users Penetration % Users in the

The difference among territories is evident. It is logical to expect a more intensive

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

• Younger Americans are much more wired than older Americans.

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

“The political content online is a base kind of political pornography in which

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Technology equals loneliness?

The use of electronic technologies to entertain or to communicate have been associated

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Education and Participation

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

- An Internet banner costs $5,000 - $10,000 to develop against $50.000 of a television ad

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Grass- root activism

a) Internet is an inexpensive tool, so it fits the economic capacities of grass-root groups

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

c) Internet provides a decentralized less-hierarchical forms of organizations ideal for

d) Internet allows user to select their level of participation, so grass-root organizations

- Internet is not a secure channel (Danitz & Strobel, 1999).

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Low- Cost Tool

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

“A recent survey by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

implemented only with absolute commitment to maximum inclusiveness and accessibility

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Political Participation, some facts

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Hemophilia/HIV patients (hemophilic patients who were infected with HIV by

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

The influence of the Gutenberg invention in the development of politics cannot be

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Utopist Vision Skeptic Vision Realistic Vision

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Origin of the resources

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Ayres, J. M. (1999). From The Streets to the Internet: The Cyber-Difussion of

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Howard, P. N. (2003). Digitizing the Social Contract: Producing American Political

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License

You might also like