There’s a very interesting discussion concerning weblogs and democracy going on in blogsville. Jon Lebkowsky responds toPerry de Havilland’s suggestion that blogs are not democratic: 

I think Perry de Havilland misses the point, though he posts a serviceable definition via Wikipedia (A democracy is a form of government in which the people, either directly or indirectly, take part in governing. The word democracy originates from Greek, and means rule of the people.) Having posted this, Perry goes on to assume that take part in governing means that people merely vote, as in a representative democracy, where a majority selects someone to make laws and policy by which all are governed. This all-too-common assumption actually undermines democracy, because it assumes that the people defer power to their representatives, and are more or less helpless to have an effect beyond voting.

Jon makes the point perfectly. Democracy is nothing if it is not direct. Some would argue that “representative democracy” cannot even exist because by some definitions democracy does not allow representation. They would argue that the idea has been so misused that the original is now lost or nearly. I’ve made it a somewhat regular practice to ask folks to define democracy, citizenship, and freedom. The answers are usually uninspired grammar school nonsense. Here we are smack dab in the middle of freedomland and we cannot define or describe it’s central processes, characteristics, and responsibilities?

Democracy ought to be a part of our everyday lives and our lives are a social, communal process. We’re talking about self management of our lives at various levels through the related processes of communication, deliberation, and policy creation that is directly connected to our experience. For some people, certainly a minority of the population, blogs are becoming an increasingly important part of how we communicate and deliberate. Blogs are not democratic. My blog is an expression of my opinion, my thought. It is my written voice in one realm of human activity.

What about the blogosphere or blogsville (as I prefer to call it)? Is it democratic? I would never claim to understand it and just jumped in recently. Nor do I have a strong sense of how important it may be in terms of it’s influence of the global, capitalist media. I think the interenet, as an entity is certainly having an impact of how the media and nation states function. It allows for a larger flow of information which is less controlled by capital and the state. What we’re talking about is the voices of millions now connected not just with blogs but alternative news sources such as Indymedia and thousands of forums. The internet is the street corner of 1920 cities. It is a place where some of us go to gather information from a variety of sources, discuss the validity of that information and it’s application in our daily lives.

Of course there are limitations. Many do not have consistent access to the internet or even computers. Many that do have access do not have the skills necessary to publish a website or blog. It is not flesh or blood which is both a limitation and an advantage. It is not a park bench though it could be experienced while sitting on a park bench. In the end we should remember that the internet and our blogs, while an improvement over the one way communication of television and radio, are just mediated communication which may be used to increase the level of participation in the creation of a more democratic society.