The Internet and digital media have certainly made an impact onpolitics. The ability to distribute information, mobilize like-minded people around common causes, reach the masses via outlets such as Twitter and Youtube and raise funds via crowdfunding campaigns are but a few innovations that technology has introduced to politics.
In theory, these should have had a largely positive impact. One would expect the open distribution of information to lead to more informed decisions by voters. Similarly, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter have become fertile ground for citizens to analyze and dissect missteps by their governments and sway public opinion to drive changes. Crowdfunding has theoretically made it possible for a complete outsider to the political establishment to make a viable run for high office, without the war chest of a mainstream political party.
In reality, this positive impact is barely visible. The plethora of information flowing through digital media has led to information overload and creating ‘clickbait’ to stand out – via public stunts and outrageous statements – become the norm. Donald Trump’s campaign has proved the effectiveness of this strategy. While Twitter and Facebook can facilitate open public debate, they have a worrying tendency to get hijacked by extremists. Social media is the great leveller and experts are pitted against over-zealous laymen armed with a handful of selective statistics and facts. In this melting pot of fact, falsehood and opinion, the winner is often the more aggressive and vocal party, leaving no room for self-doubt or moderation. Hashtags are the new slogans and 140 characters is enough to state a position, with no accompanying explanation or references to sources of information. While crowdfunding can theoretically be used to fund independents, it has so far benefited mostly mainstream parties, who use it to play down the role of bigger direct donors.
Of course, wider trends at the core of the problem cannot be ignored. A stagnant global economy leading to lower employment and wage growth has left the majority of the developed and developing world in a state of disenchantment. Nationalism and economic mercantilism are enjoying a resurgence in popularity. Recent events such as Brexit are visible symptoms of a worrying new way democracies are reacting to crisis. In the past, when voters switched to a new regime, they were in effect voting in a new school of thought. Voters rejecting the laissez-faire classical economics of the time to back Franklin Roosevelt’s interventionist Keynesian approach to tackling the Great Depression is one such example. The current trends in global geo-politics shows growing distrust and rejection of experts by voters. Brexit and the rise of populist politicians like Donald Trump are hardly backed by policy or coherent logical solutions. Instead, they are characterized by populism, rhetoric and the rejection of the establishment – including all accepted economic and political schools of thought.
Sensationalism and populism are hardly novel political strategies. However, they are proving alarmingly effective in the post-internet era. What has changed? Could it be that voters are discounting the importance of knowledge and expertise, as information is just a Google search away making everyone a pseudo-expert? Or could it be that information overload is driving voters to flock around personalities rather than policies, because they simply aren’t sure who is correct? Neither paints a positive picture for the future of democracy.
The structure of digital media – where more eyeballs equals more money – and social media, where the unusual and quirky goes viral while heavier subject matter receives the standard TLDR (too long, didn’t read) response, are certainly making an impact on politics. Coupled with the current disenchantment with mainstream traditional political parties and career politicians – who haven’t quite mastered the social media game yet – there is a window of opportunity for an outsider with showmanship.