Faced with the crisis of political parties, many voices, like that of the 5 Star Movement in Italy, are calling for a shift to direct participation, made possible by the widespread use of the Internet. However, the two systems should complement each other rather than be mutually exclusive.
The political debate seems polarized on the question of democracy: on one hand, there are those advocating for direct cyberdemocracy, and on the other hand, defenders of representative democracy as we have known it, considering it, despite its flaws, as the best of possible systems.
Before turning to the future, however, it is good to revisit a few contextual elements.
First element: Political parties have been, for years, the least appreciated institution, regularly hitting low percentages of favorable opinions in polls. The parties have not yet found the right way to address this crisis of legitimacy—worsened by a rise in abstentionism.
Second element: Parties still enjoy colossal power and a true monopoly over public life, even as distrust towards them reaches new heights and they no longer possess the legitimacy they once had when they had numerous members.
Third and final element: Globalization, which since the 1970s has progressively reduced the ability of democracy to regulate the economy, also led to a generalized increase in inequalities.
In short, it is not surprising that many citizens feel as though they live in an opaque political system where their voice only counts during elections—and even then, only within the limits of a political offer they had no influence over. A democracy that we might consider as “weak.”
While democracy was retreating, another process was underway, namely the democratization of the digital revolution, which first affected the developed world, then extended to the rest of the planet.
More and more people equipped with a computer began using the Internet to communicate, organize, express their opinions, seek information, and much more. Millions have now learned to seek information independently and aspire to participation and transparency.
Meanwhile, as citizens increasingly gathered online for information, debate, and organization, political parties largely ignored—and continue to ignore—a transformation occurring among millions of potential voters (especially young people).
In other words, while the Internet was playing a growing political role in the lives of citizens, its influence on politics remained negligible.
However, cyberdemocracy applied to large groups of people, like an entire country, does not escape criticism, far from it. Criticism—often justified—must not make us forget that political activity is an essential art for democracy; an art founded on virtues such as prudence, conciliation, compromise, and adaptability.
The second critique is that there is a difference between constant polling and voting: democracy requires balance, a rigorous evaluation of pros and cons, a capacity to give meaning and coherence to the planned roadmap.
Finally, the third obstacle is the digital divide: one in two citizens is not connected. These are generally socially disadvantaged people, such as the elderly and families of unskilled workers, who it is unacceptable to exclude.
It is therefore better to think about ways to evolve representative democracy towards more participative forms, towards what we might call “continuous democracy.”
In other words, an evolution from representative democracy towards more participative forms: will someone rise to the challenge?
