Role of Internet in Democracy Marketing Meets

Question: Discuss about the Role of Internet in Democracy for Marketing Meet? Answer: In less of a Generation, The Internet has altered the daily lives of individuals in various ways. Initially, a playground for the computer savvy, the world of blogs and the tweets were found to be equally voiced with any other person with a computer along with web connections. It is also, where the Americans increasingly suggested for the news and information. According to the report of Pew Research Centre for the People and the Press, it was observed that Internet surpassed newspapers as the sources of domestic and international news. It was Barrack Obama who channeled the power of Internet in order to reach millions of citizens during his presidential campaign. The administration of the United States of America developed various methods to use The Internet in Democracy to (or intending to) monitor (and communicate) with the citizens of the country (Sreekumar and Vadrevu, 2013). Thus, the internet has a wide role in the fields of democracy that is implemented by most of the states o f the world. Concept of Democracy Democracy is considered as a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity are involved in making decisions about its affairs typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly." According to the Political Scientist Castells, 2015 it can be stated that Democracy mainly focuses on four essential elements. These are as follows: a) An effective political system for choosing and thereby replacing the existing the government through a fair and free conduction of election b) An active participation of various people, which includes citizens for civic and political life c) Protection of the human rights of all citizens d) A rule of law where the legal protocols are equally applied to every citizen of the country. Democracy mainly contrasts in the forms of the government where the power is either held by an individual associated with an absolute monarchy, or where the power is generally maintained by a small number of people (as observed in the case of oligarchy). However, it can be clearly stated that these oppositions (inherited from the Greek Philosophy) are considered to be ambiguous as the present government has oligarchic, democratic and monarchic element. According to the concept of Karl Popper, democracy is a complete contrast to the notion of dictatorship, which mainly focuses towards the idea of targeting the opportunities for the people to enhance the control of the leaders and thereby oust them with the need for revolution. E-democracy (which is a combined word including Electronic and Democracy) is also known as Internet Democracy of Digital Democracy. This mainly incorporates the 21st-century communication and information technology, which mostly tend to promote democracy primarily. It mainly highlights towards the form of government where all the citizens (adult- depending on the age scale of the country) are presumed to be eligible in order to participate in the development, proposal, and creation or laws. The parameter of democracy in the United States of America has become reliant to a huge extent on Internet. This is mainly due to the fact that The Internet is considered as the primary source of information for the majority American citizens. The Internet helps in educating the people on Democracy. This is mainly achieved by updating the information regarding the various prospectus of Government. The factor of online advertisements has become a current venture, which is primarily targeted by the political candidates concerning their propositions. In most of the western countries, The Internet is considered as the primary place where most of the people (along with the young voters) find reliable and easy accumulation (Hargittai and Shaw, 2013). The Internet allows people to express their opinion regarding the principles of government through an alias, anonymous and judgment. Thus showing a user-friendly internet approach definitely links the political factor primarily. Taking an example of the situation, Generation X was disillusioned. This was mainly because large-scale public protests (The United Kingdom Strike of 1984- 1985) were observed before the advent of Information Technology. Thus, it was not generally available to the citizens resulting in several massacres. The factor of e- Democracy was considered as a remedy for such situation. It was apparently assumed that the parameters of concentrated power, insular nature and the lack of pos election accountability associated with the traditional democratic protocol was found to be organized in the various United Kingdom Political Parties. Based on this consequence, Tom Watson (Deputy Leader, United Kingdom Labor Party, it was stated that "It feels like the Labor frontbench is further away from our members than at any point in our history and the digital revolution can help bring the party closer together. I'm going to ask our NEC to see whether we can have digital branches and digital delegates to the conference. Not replacing what we do but providing an alternative platform. It's a way of organizing for a different generation of people who do their politics differently, get their news differently." Thus, it can be analyzed from the statement that the countries in Western Europe focused hugely on developing the internet platform, which would magnify the efficiency of their democracy considerably. Internet Penetration and Internet Usage in Democracy Internet has been vastly credited with serving spur democracy revolutions in the Arab world and elsewhere. Based on the new Multinational Study, it can be analyzed that the web is most likely to play a role in the various situation of democracy. Based on the evidence of Ohio State University, it can be analyzed that The Internet spurs the pro- democratic attitudes in most of the countries, which already have initiated several reforms in the direction (Kellner, 2015). According to Erik Nisbet (Lead Author and Assistant Professor of Communication Department, Ohio State University), it was stated that "Instead of the internet promoting fundamental political change, it seems to reinforce political change in countries that already have at least some level of democratic freedoms. Internet use is a less effective means to mobilize citizens for democracy in extremely authoritarian countries." Adding more to this, democracy is termed to be highest in a country when more people are found to be interconnected to the Internet. Moreover, people tend to spend more time in online transactions and other activities, which highlights towards the influence of the internet on Democracy (Nisbet, 2012). According to Elizabeth Stoycheff (Co- author and Doctoral Scholar of Communication Department, Ohio State University), it was clearly stated that, "Internet penetration in a country matters in terms of how much people want democratic reforms. But it is even more important that people are spending greater amounts of time on the internet and that they are connected to other people in their community". This statement was based on the study of Stoycheff and Nisbet along with Katy Pearce (University of Washington, 2012) which highlighted towards the parameter of Internet access in Democracy to a huge scale. Based on the article Journal of Communication', the authors dedicated the concept of internal communication and democracy sincerely, and thereby co- related the influence of social media and political change (Farrell, 2012). In 2008, several researchers were subjected to primary data collection based on 28 countries of Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. The data were mainly extracted from an enormous sample size of 37,549 members, who actively responded to the survey. Two practical survey parameters were established; Afrobarometer (for the sub-Saharan Africans) and Asian Barometer (for the Asiatic population). The main theme of the investigation was based on the influence of the internet and its effect on democracy. Apart from this, the researcher also focused towards the country label data which measured the factor of freedom in each country. The other factors, which were involved in the research survey, included international bandwidth per internet user, internet penetration accessibility, and other affecting socio-demographic factors. Based on the report of this study regarding internet penetration and the influence of democracy, it was apparently assumed that most of the respondents responded positively to the theme (Berthon et al. 2012). The results mainly suggested that the internet is more likely to play a role in the field of democratization in these 28 countries which have a moderate to high internet penetration and that have at least a partly democratic political regime. The countries, which are ruled by the authoritarian regimes, the citizens, may have access to the internet, but it is often observed that the rulers may have a control on the content available and how the users interact with one another. It also emphasizes on the interaction with one another and analyzing the fact that whether they may get enough information from outside their own country. According to Stoycheff, it was stated that "The internet's effect on citizen demand for democracy is somewhat contingent on both the technological context and the political context." Focusing on the statement and the result of the survey, it was clearly analyzed that some of the countries that currently appear to have right political along with special mix for the internet in order to play an efficient role in political and social change. The countries, which are found to be enlisted in this domain, includes Senegal, Zambia, Kenya, and Singapore. However, on the other hand it was observed from the survey report that some of the countries are influenced by high authoritarian regimes (McChesney, 2013). Countries, such as Zimbabwe and Vietnam are not likely to be involved in the factors of democracy to a huge extent. The influence of internet in the democratic parameter was observed to be limited in such states. Countries, such as Tanzania and Mozambique ate found to be partly free but gave a low citizen demand for the factor of democracy. The internet penetration is found to be very limited to these countries. However, it was clearly assumed by the researchers that if there were an opportunity for the growth of the internet in these countries, then it would trigger the potential to encourage more people in order to challenge their autocratic regimes. Based on the findings of Nisbet, it was clearly addressed that, "Our results suggest that the internet can't plant the seed of democracy in a country. However, the internet may help democracy flourish if it has already started to grow." Thus, there is a huge scope for all these countries of Asia and sub African regions in order to develop the internet accessibility. This would in turn reflect the actual scenario of Democracy associated to the country in a significant manner. Conclusion Thus, it can be concluded "Democracy is not a spectator Sport". The words mainly insists that democracy efficient action need to be implemented in various countries where democracy policies need to be rectified. Based on the variety of reports, it can be directly stated that internet provides various information, which mainly dedicates in developing the mass communication networks to a huge scale. Internet in the initial period ten to mold the citizens in an efficient manner, which would be effective in communicating about the factors of policies, associated in politics. Effective studies based on the validation of claims regarding the increase in the political activities are still not appreciable, which highlights towards the inefficiency of the context. The concept of Media in an International Context' still needs to be verified. There is no basic evidence compiled regarding the determination of the fact that whether internet along with mass communication networking system has been surpassed other types of media outlets as the basic (primary) information source during the election process. It is more likely considered as an integration of various information from wide range of sources that leads the citizens to determine a decision during the election process and thereby sustain democracy in the country. References Berthon, P.R., Pitt, L.F., Plangger, K. and Shapiro, D., 2012. Marketing meets Web 2.0, social media, and creative consumers: Implications for international marketing strategy.Business horizons,55(3), pp.261-271. Castells, M., 2015.Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. John Wiley Sons. Farrell, H., 2012. The consequences of the internet for politics.Annual Review of Political Science,15, pp.35-52. Grofman, B., Trechsel, A.H. and Franklin, M. eds., 2014.The Internet and democracy in global perspective: voters, candidates, parties, and social movements(Vol. 31). Springer. Hargittai, E. and Shaw, A., 2013. Digitally savvy citizenship: The role of internet skills and engagement in young adults' political participation around the 2008 presidential election.Journal of Broadcasting Electronic Media,57(2), pp.115-134. Kellner, D., 2015.Media spectacle and the crisis of democracy: Terrorism, war, and election battles. Routledge. Kent, M.L., 2013. Using social media dialogically: Public relations role in reviving democracy.Public Relations Review,39(4), pp.337-345. Kriesi, H., 2013.Conclusion: an assessment of the state of democracy given the challenges of globalization and mediatization(pp. 202-215). Palgrave Macmillan UK. McChesney, R.W., 2013.Digital disconnect: How capitalism is turning the Internet against democracy. New Press, The. McChesney, R.W., 2015.Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New Press, The. Nisbet, E.C., Stoycheff, E. and Pearce, K.E., 2012. Internet use and democratic demands: A multinational, multilevel model of Internet use and citizen attitudes about democracy.Journal of Communication,62(2), pp.249-265. Schuck, A.R., Vliegenthart, R., Boomgaarden, H.G., Elenbaas, M., Azrout, R., van Spanje, J. and De Vreese, C.H., 2013. Explaining campaign news coverage: How medium, time, and context explain variation in the media framing of the 2009 European parliamentary elections.Journal of Political Marketing,12(1), pp.8-28. Sreekumar, T.T. and Vadrevu, S., 2013. Subpolitics and democracy: The role of new media in the 2011 general elections in Singapore.Science Technology Society,18(2), pp.231-249. Zhuo, X., Wellman, B. and Yu, J., 2015. Egypt: the first internet revolt?.Boletim do Tempo Presente, (02).