ICT as the Facilitator of Postmodern and Empowered Forms of Citizenship: Myth or Reality?

  • Tit Neubauer
  • Tina Vuga
  • Blaž Ilc


This chapter critically examines the pervasive notion that the use of new information communication technologies (ICTs), which are perceived as inherently democratic, will automatically empower citizens in their relations with the state and that the majority of socio-political issues can be addressed solely through citizens’ technological empowerment. In the first part, we focus on the general characteristics of this universal solution frame. In the following part, the conditions of possibility of the frame are identified as neoliberal and technophilic rationality and are interrogated. The central aim of the third part is to critically evaluate the role of ICTs in empowering citizens, generating socio-political change and determining social progress through examples of recent events in North Africa and the Middle East. In conclusion, critical steps for reconceptualising the relationship between use of ICTs and empowered forms of citizenship are elaborated, and a set of factors that could be taken into consideration in future policy developments is discussed.


Social Medium Information Communication Technology Direct Democracy Prevailing Discourse Popular Uprising 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Agre P (2002) Real-time politics: the Internet and the political process. Inf Soc 18(5):311–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson E (2009) Democracy: instrumental vs. non-instrumental value. In: Christiano T, Christman JP (eds) Contemporary debates in political philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Banjac M (2010) Developing Tanzanian civil society: desiring democracy, self-empowerment and the World Bank. J Organ Chang Manag 23(6):669–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barlow JP (1996) A declaration of the independence of cyberspace. Electronic Frontier Foundation. Accessed 15 May 2011
  5. Biesta G (2011) The ignorant citizen: Mouffe, Rancière, and the subject of democratic education. Stud Philos Educ 30(2):141–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breindl Y (2010) Critique of the democratic potentialities of the Internet: a review of current theory and practice. TripleC TripleC 8(1):43–59Google Scholar
  7. Burchell G (1993) Liberal government and techniques of the self. Econ Soc 22(3):267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campion MG (1989) Technophilia and technophobia. Aust J Educ Technol 5(1):23–36Google Scholar
  9. Chadwick A (2003) e-Government and e-democracy: a case for convergence? Paper for presentation at public policy in the e-government Era (II)Google Scholar
  10. Chadwick A (2006) Internet politics. Oxford University Press, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  11. Clift S (2004) E-Government and democracy. Representation and citizen engagement in the information age. http://www.publicusnet. Accessed 15 Sep 2011
  12. Coleman S, Gøtze J (2001) Bowling together: online public engagement in policy deliberation. Hansard Society, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Coleman S, Norris DF (2005) A new agenda for e-democracy. Int J Electron Govern Res 1(3):69–82Google Scholar
  14. Collin P, Richardson I, Third A (2011) The benefits of social networking services. Cooperative Research Centre for Young People, Technology and Wellbeing, Melbourne, VICGoogle Scholar
  15. de Tocqueville A (1961) Democracy in America. With a critical appraisal of each volume. Schocken, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  16. Dewey J (1985) The later works, 1925–1953. Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, ILGoogle Scholar
  17. Doctorow C (2011) We need a serious critique of net activism. Scholar
  18. European Commission (2010a) A digital agenda for Europe, COM(2010) 245 final/2, 26.8.2010. Accessed 30 Jun 2011
  19. European Commission (2010b) Europe 2020 flagship initiative innovation union, COM(2010) 546 final. Accessed 28 May 2011
  20. Fitzpatrick M (2001) The tyranny of health doctors and the regulation of lifestyle. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  21. Foucault M (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977. Pantheon Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Foucault M (2008) The birth of biopolitics: lectures at the Collège de France, 1978–79. Palgrave Macmillan, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  23. Foucault M (2009) Security, territory, and population: lectures at the college de France 1977–1978. Picador USA, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  24. Greenwald G (2010) The inhumane conditions of Bradley Manning’s detention, Accessed 10 Dec 2011
  25. Grossman LK (1995) The electronic republic: reshaping democracy in the information age. Viking, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  26. Hagen M (1997) A typology of electronic democracy. Accessed 15 May 2011
  27. Hand M, Sandywell B (2002) E-topia as cosmopolis or citadel: on the democratizing and de-democratizing logics of the Internet, or, toward a critique of the new technological fetishism. Theor Cult Soc 19(1/2):197–225Google Scholar
  28. Hauslohner A (2011) Is Egypt about to have a facebook revolution? TimeGoogle Scholar
  29. Held D (1995) Democracy and the global order: from the modern state to cosmopolitan governance. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CAGoogle Scholar
  30. Hindess B (2001) The liberal government of unfreedom. Alternatives 26(2):93Google Scholar
  31. Hoff J, Horrocks I, Tops PW (2000) Democratic governance and new technology: technologically mediated innovations in political practice in Western Europe. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  32. Isin EF, Turner BS (2002) Handbook of citizenship studies. Sage, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Jensen JL (2006) The Minnesota E-democracy project; mobilizing the mobilized? In: Oates S, Owen DM, Gibson RK (eds) The Internet and politics: citizens, voters and activists. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  34. Kampen JK, Snijkers K (2003) E-democracy: a critical evaluation of the ultimate e-dream. Soc Sci Comput Rev 21(4):491–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leary T (1996) Chaos and cyberculture. Editions du Lezard, ParisGoogle Scholar
  36. Magniant S (2011) Will “Facebook generation” shape citizenship 2.0? Accessed 20 Sep 2011
  37. McCullagh K (2003) E-democracy: potential for Political Revolution? Int J Law Inf Technol 11(2):149–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Morsi H (2011) Abdel Muti Hihajzi gets it: on revolutions, false miracles and social media. Accessed 22 Dec 2011
  39. Nadesan MH (2008) Governmentality, biopower, and everyday life. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Neocleous M (2003) Imagining the state. Open University Press, Maidenhead, BerkshireGoogle Scholar
  41. Pateman C (1970) Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  42. Pikalo J (2010) Nova državljanstva v dobi globalizacije. Sophia, LjubljanaGoogle Scholar
  43. Richards B (1993) Technophobia and technophilia. Br J Psychother 10(2):188–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Richards R (2010) Digital citizenship and Web 2.0 tools. MERLOT J Online Learn Teach 6(2):516–522Google Scholar
  45. Rose N (1996) Governing “advanced” liberal societies. In: Barry A, Osborne T, Rose NS (eds) Foucault and political reason: liberalism, neo-liberalism, and rationalities of government. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, ILGoogle Scholar
  46. Rose N (1999) Powers of freedom reframing political thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rousseau J-J (1955) The social contract and discourses. J.M. Dent, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Rupert M (2000) Ideologies of globalization contending visions of a new world order. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  49. Sahraoui S (2007) E-inclusion as a further stage of e-government? Transforming government: people. Process Policy 1(1):44–58Google Scholar
  50. Shapiro SM (2009) Revolution, facebook-style. Revolution 6:40Google Scholar
  51. Shirky C (2011) The political power of social media. Foreign Aff 90(1):28–41Google Scholar
  52. Smith C (2011) Egypt’s facebook revolution: Wael Ghonim thanks the social network. The Huffington PostGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor C (2011) Why not call it a facebook revolution? CNN TechGoogle Scholar
  54. Thampi BV, Kawlra A (2010) Empowering women leaders at the local level: translating descriptive representation to substantive representation through ICTs CITIGEN. Accessed 28 May 2011
  55. Tolley M (2010) Citizenship betrayed: understanding today’s threats to democratic citizenship. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  56. Turner B (2001) The erosion of citizenship. Br J Sociol 52(2):189–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van de Donk W, Loader BD, Nixon PG, Rucht D (2004) Cyberprotest new media, citizens and social movements. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  58. van Dijk JAGM (1996) Models of democracy—behind the design and use of new media in politics. Javnost 1:43–56Google Scholar
  59. Vedel T (2006) The idea of electronic democracy: origins, visions and questions. Parliam Aff 59(2):226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Visan LC (2011) Houses that cry: online civic participation in post-communist Romania. McMaster J Commun 7(1):3Google Scholar
  61. Vromen A (2008) Political change and the Internet in Australia: introducing GetUp. In: Häyhtiö T (ed) Net working/networking: citizen initiated Internet politics. University of Tampere, TampereGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilhelm AG (2000) Democracy in the digital age: challenges to political life in cyberspace. Routledge, New York, NYGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LjubljanaLjubljanaSlovenia
  2. 2.Entelehia – Agency for Public Support to PoliciesLjubljanaSlovenia

Personalised recommendations