Web-Based Participatory Democracy: Findings from Italy - Information and Communication Technologies in Public Administration - page 77

surrounded the spread of the upcoming global-scale use of the Internet. The web,
argued the enthusiasts, would provide a low-cost and adaptable “platform” where
civil society activists could rapidly acquire information, engage in peer-to-peer
conversations, share their knowledge, and therefore maximize the results of their
efforts. Flowery dot-org fantasies suggested that an epochal shift was about to be
realized. At the national level, the Internet seemed to have the capacity to open
up the world to users even in shut-in places and could erode dictatorships. At the
supranational level, the promise was even greater. The Internet, it was suggested,
would enable civil society actors to operate on a global scale, profoundly impacting
on the spread of democratic values in transnational policy making.
Undoubtedly, the proliferation of the Internet on a planetary scale has contributed
to some of the largest advancements in democracy, social activism, and advocacy. The
increased availability of high-speed connections and the expansion of mobile-based
services, media-rich, real-time data sharing, and voice-data communications have
enhanced the potential of civil society. In the age of “global collaboration,” informa-
tion is disseminated online, awareness and engagement are fostered through social
networks, and advocacy relies on heavy usage of web-related tools. When discuss-
ing the most visible results of these transcontinental information flows, one might
include the Zapatista Movement, the campaign against the Multi-lateral Agreement
on Investment, or the campaign for the development of the International Treaty to
Ban Landmines. The former began as an almost entirely web-based endeavor; the
anti-Multi-lateral Agreement on Investment and the Ban Landmines campaigns pro-
vide seminal examples of the usage of web-related technologies in raising awareness
and coordinating an ongoing response by a multitude of actors.
Meanwhile, online political organizations and petition platforms attracted mil-
lions of members, raised tens of millions of dollars, and campaigned for a vast array
of issues. Examples include the United States-based left-leaning groups MoveOn.org
and Change.org, the world's large petition platforms, with 70 million users in 196
countries. Also known is the case of Avaaz, an online community involved in cam-
paigning, signing petitions, funding direct actions, e-mailing, calling, and lob-
bying governments in 15 languages, served by a core team in six continents and
thousands of volunteers. Avaaz became internationally recognized after the 2007
climate change summit in Bali, when the delegation of Canada credited it with
motivating the delegation's change of position. Finally, smaller initiatives include
iPetitions and Petitions Online.
This is not, however, the revolution celebrated by the fanatics of a digital
democracy. At the supranational level, the vulgate of a widespread, democratic,
decentralized, and virtual network of nonstate actors capable of promoting global
values is little more than fable. Supranational activism has not given birth to the
nonhierarchical and self-organizing meshwork sketched by Harcourt (2003), nor
has it generated the virtual communities described by Howard Rheingold (1993)
as “caretakers of electronic public space.” At the national level, the spread of the
Internet has neither increased the trust in politics nor boosted citizens' engagement