Amway offers a range of exclusive, competitive brands that meet proven customer needs around the world, from nutritional supplements to water treatment, cosmetics to cleaning products.

Visit Now!

In the United States social media tools have impacted presidential campaigns since the Presidential Election in 2000. Philip Howard points out on his book New Media Campaigns and the Managed Citizen that after the election in 2000, exit polls showed that “a third of the electorate had used the internet to learn about the campaigns. After the 2004 election, surveys revealed that over half the electorate had gone online to get news or information about the campaigns.” According to Howard, Tim Vickey from George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign, stated that he saw this type of work as “improving the quality of democratic deliberation” (pp 45). It is also argued that communication technology could be used to promote democratic value by making information available to the public, which can be done easily through the different social media tools available now. In addition in the book The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, the author, Joe Trippi takes the reader throughout the changes that social media tools had made in political campaigns in the United States. Trippi states that what Barack Obama and his campaign achieved in 2008 “qualifies as yet another quantum leap in campaigning, in the use of the Internet, and in our democratic history.” Social media tools have brought to the United States a sense of true democracy in which the people have a voice. Now it’s not a one way communication as it was before, today is a two way communication where people can talk, share, organize, and mobilize politically.

In other democratic countries, social media tools have started to make an impact as well. Chile in South America and Egypt in the Middle East (part of the African Continent) are using some of these tools as part of their democratic right. However, due to political and cultural history, these tools are not being used with the same purpose as in the United States.

Digital Democracy in Chile & Egypt

Chile

Historically, Chile has been a political divided country since General Augusto Pinochet took over the country by displacing the president Salvador Allende. Pinochet was the president of Chile from 1973 to 1990 when democracy went back to Chile. This historical event divided the country in two groups, the group that was against Pinochet and the group that supported Pinochet. After Pinochet left the presidency of Chile, the country remained divided and it became very difficult for people to express their political opinion without getting in trouble with neighbors, friends, co-workers and family members. After Pinochet, two coalitions were created; these coalitions were integrated from different political parties. Each party has its own candidate, but only one is chosen to represent the coalition. Since 1990 a candidate from the same coalition has been elected as a president.

Chile has a total population 16,284,741 million. Currently, 11.7 million of people are eligible to vote (over 18 years old), however, only 8.1 million are registered to vote and during the last municipal elections only 6.2 million voted. This means that about 3.1 million of voters (less than 27% of the population eligible to vote) is needed to elect the next President of Chile (in Chile, a president is elected with a 50% + 1 of the voters). Out of the 8.1 million who are eligible to vote, 85% is older than 35 years old. This means that only 15% of the current voters are younger than 35 years old. This shows a lack of interest in voting of younger people.

This means that younger generations are not interested in voting, first because in order to avoid confrontation from neighbors, co-workers and family members, they prefer not to talk about politics at all. In addition, due to the Chilean constitution, an ex-president can run again after one term which last four years (this means that the former president from 2001-2005 can run again for presidency in 2009). As a result, the majority of the candidates from one of the coalitions are former presidents of Chile.

Younger people just don’t want to be involved in a system that is not working for them. However, now younger generations have found a way to talk about politics in social platforms like Facebook, which is the most used platform in Chile. Chile is among the ten countries that use Facebook the most. They use Facebook and blogs to express their opinion about presidential candidates. The way that younger Chileans are using social media now is bringing a new hope for younger generations to achieve democracy in this particular political system of Chile.

Currently there are government informative websites and blogs for citizens of Chile to be informed about current government issues and to exchange their thoughts. Chile has one of the strongest economies in Latin-America with only a 2% of unemployment rate. About 32% of Chile’s population has access to the internet. Social media tools are being used by current candidates as part of their political campaigns, but so far none of the candidates have had the effect that Obama had in United States. This is the result of the political division caused by Chlile’s political history. Due to this division, the vast majority of younger generations doesn’t want to vote and doesn’t want to get involved in a presidential election campaign.

Egypt

In the Arab Republic of Egypt, the relationship between society and state has long been a controversial issue. The relationship between society and state in Egypt has long been a controversial issue. Many questions have been raised concerning the current political situation in Egypt and how does this affect Egyptians negatively? How does the nature of the Egyptian government shape the society? If democracy is one of the Egyptians’ simple rights, then what are the real reasons for preventing democracy? Is the state responsible for lack of democracy or is there other external power? Does democracy in Egypt aggravate the crisis in the Middle East?

Before diving into these interesting findings, providing brief description of how the modern political system in Egypt has been transformed during the times of Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak’s regimes since 1956 until now is critical in understanding the role of democracy in the Egyptian land. The political party system has transformed from a weak single-party to an equally weak multi-party system under Sadat 1970-1981. According to the Egyptian Constitution, approved on September 11, 1971, the political system is divided into executive, legislative and judicial branches.

The Executive Branch of the Presidency and the Cabinet

The executive branch is composed of the Presidency and the Cabinet, which was initiated by Nasser in 1956. Also, “he established rights to appoint and dismiss the Prime Minister, the Cabinet, the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces and senior officers.” The President has legislative powers, and “he is the arbitrator between the three branches.” He also has the right to “veto bills passed by the National Assembly.” Under Sadat 1970-1981, “the President was empowered with even more rights” such as the power to issue laws in economic matters. “Sadat removed the limit on the number of times any one could serve as President.” “The President is the head of the government party, the National Democratic Party and the High Commander of the Armed Forces”, (Fahmy, 2002). The Cabinet is headed by the Prime Minister as he implements the public policies of the state.

Legislative Authority, Advisory and People’s Assembly

In 1979, the first legislative elections were held in Egypt within the framework of a multi-party system, in which many political parties participated. The legislative bicameral system consists of the People’s Assembly (Majlis al-Sha’b) with legislative powers, and the Advisory Council (Majlis al-Shura) which functions only as a consultative role. The People’s Assembly has 454 seats, 444 elected by popular vote and 10 appointed by the President. Half of the members must be peasants and workers with the same conditions. “People’s Assembly is empowered with legislative authority and must approve the public policies of the state, the economic and social development plan and the general budget”, (Fahmy, 2002). Not only that, but the People’s Assembly has wide control over the executive branch, for example, questioning the Prime Minister or any of his cabinet ministers. The Advisory Council has 264 seats, 176 members are elected by popular vote and 88 are appointed by the President, members serve six-year terms, mid-term elections for half of the elected members, this council was established in 1980.

Under the 1971 Constitution, “Egypt has a Republican form of government and in theory a limited democratic system… In reality, however, it is the President who wields the most power and who appoints key officials to serve in all areas of government. Islam is the official state religion and at least indirectly it guides the direction of most decisions and policies”, (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2003).

The Judicial System

Egypt’s Permanent Constitution supports a democratic parliamentary system, encourages the power of law, asserts the independence of the judiciary and urges pluralism. “The 1971 constitution declares that the judiciary is independent of other state powers and that judges are independent and not subject to enforced retirement.” “The Supreme Constitutional Court is responsible for enforcing adherence to laws and regulations and for interpreting legislation and the Constitution.” The Office of the Socialist Public Prosecutor is responsible to the People’s Assembly for the security of the people’s rights, the integrity of the political system, and other matters”, (Encyclopedia of the Nations, Africa, Egypt).

Mubarak’s Era and Electoral System

In October 1981, following the assassination of Sadat, Mubarak was elected to be the President of the Arab Republic of Egypt. He has been the President since then. In every presidential election, Mubarak wins with at least 78 percent to 88.5 percent of votes. Egyptians are frustrated since the country’s economics is very far from satisfactory, even though they don’t dare to elect another president. There is a joke said by Egyptians, a man votes against the current government in a parliamentary election. On his way home, he starts to think about all the terrible things that might happen to him and his family members if the authorities find out, so he returns back to the polling station and says to the officer in charge “I am very sorry, but I think I made a mistake on my ballot paper”, the officer says “yes, you did, but not to worry, fortunately we spotted your mistake and have already corrected it, please be more careful next time.”

Last presidential election in Egypt, Mubarak won a huge majority with 88.5% for a fifth six-year term. “There were the usual complaints of vote-buying, block voting by government employees and other irregularities”, (Whitaker, 2008). Sadly to say, but Egyptians always say “the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t know” and they constantly remark that Mubarak is bound to win, whether or not the majority actually voted for him. Recently, Mubarak has promoted his son “Gamal Mubarak” to be the next president of Egypt.

Society and Economy

“Egypt is the most populous country in the Middle East; it has a population of 78,887,007 (2006 est.), 90% of Muslims, 9% of Coptic Orthodox and 1% of other Christians”, (Wiki, 2008). Economically, Egyptians have been striving to maintain a stable financial status but with a population growth rate of 1.75% and the limited sources of income, there is a dramatic decrease of the country’s economy. This decrease led to a series of outcomes such as unemployment, lack of education, poverty, immigration, famine, spread of diseases, violence, drugs, crimes and child labor and abuse. In some cases, many Egyptians have developed a sense of cold feelings, hopelessness and apathy as a result of the financial status and/or the extensive use of cheap drugs; a lot of Egyptians, especially younger generation, use chemicals to feel drugged such as coughing syrup and other cold medicines that have DXM “Dextromethorphan”. In other cases, Egyptians have found other ways to escape this democratic drama by comedy. Recently, MBC channel has released a documentary regarding the connection between low economic level of the country and comedy in Egypt; Egyptians have the greatest sense of homer among other Arabs, they could spend hours sharing jokes with friends and family members. In addition, they have the largest business of comedy movies and theatre in the Middle East. Psychologists say that Egyptian’s comedy is a way to escape economic reality.

Provoking Anger

On the other hand, many Egyptians have recently protested against their government. Demonstrators are asking Mubarak to step down and calling for elections rejecting a 5th term for the president that has been ruling the country with emergency law since 1981 after the assassination of President Anwar Sadat, or to introduce significant democratic reforms.  The slogan held by the demonstrators was “Kifayah”, which means “enough is enough”, is a grassroots reform initiative, but this Egyptian movement for change is now suffering from a loss of membership and momentum. Social media now is playing a significant role in opposing the current regime and bringing together more activists online. Facebook, Flickr and Twitter accounts have been created to speak up and protest digitally in addition to other online communities. But, the tyrant government of Egypt acts against digital democracy whether by blocking many political websites such as “Kifayah” or imprisoning bloggers and online activists for free speech and demanding human rights such as the famous case of “Kareem Amer’s imprisonment”.

In addition, Egyptians know very few things about Mubarak- the person. He is a mystery to his own people as he always appears in state ceremonies and public events only; Egyptians hear that he is a fan and a good player of squash, but he has never played in public. But, lack of clarity of politicians’ characteristics is very common in the Middle East.

Presidents and kings of the Middle East have agreements with the United States to ensure the region’s safety, not to aggravate the Israel-Palestinian conflict and to secure Israel. Most of the democratic claimers/ demanders are extremely religious such as the “Muslim Brotherhood” in Egypt and “Hizb Allah” in Lebanon. These groups have different standards of democracy, and they want to elect a President who shares the same views and beliefs. But, before granting them democracy, they need to learn about “Real” democracy since it is very easy to abuse. Regardless of that, there are innocent people who are dying every day because of inefficient and unqualified leaders. Egyptians seek “Change” for their simple rights of having food, education and security. Nothing will change overnight, but the hope of having a genuine multi-party system is not far from reach. This battle between state and democracy will remain for not a short period of time. According to history, Egyptians are not only fighters but winning fighters.

Conclusion

Social media tools are being used in other democratic countries in the world with the purpose of increasing their democratic right to have a voice. Not only different cultures required different tools, but also the way and purpose of each culture uses social media tools are different. While in Chile, it’s being used by young people to express their political opinion freely without any judgment or criticism from others, in Egypt, it’s being used to bring political change.

References

_Chile, A. (2006). Los Jovenes no votan (the youth doesn’t vote) Chile. Retrieved November 18, 2008,

From

http://www.atinachile.cl/node/7642

_Dessouki, A. (1978). Democracy in Egypt: Problems and prospects. Cairo: The Cairo Paper.

_Egypt judicial system. Encyclopedia of the Nation, Africa, Egypt. Retrieved December 4, 2008, from

http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/Africa/Egypt-JUDICIAL-SYSTEM.html

_Ezzat, D. (2005). Mubarak runs for president. Al-Ahram Weekly Online, Issue No. 753. Retrieved

December 5, 2008 from

file:///C:/Users/Tharaa/Desktop/eg4.htm

_Fahmy, N. (2002). The politics of Egypt: State-society relationship. London: LoutledgeCurzon.

_Howard, P. (2006). New media campaigns and the managed citizen (pp 1-243). New

York: Cambridge University Press.

_Maghraoui, A. (2006). Liberalism without democracy. The United States of America: Duke University

Press.

_Miniwatts Marketing Group, Internet World Stats, (2008). Usage and population statistics. Internet Users in South America. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from

http://www.internetworldstats.com

_National Geographic Glimpse Correspondents Program, (2002). An older September 11, remembering

Pinochet in Chile. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from

http://www.glimpse.org/Remembering-Pinochet-in-Chile

_Sriramesh, K., & Verčič, D. (2003). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research,

and practice. LEA’s communication series. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

_The World Fact Book, (2008), Chile. Retrieved December 03, 2008, from

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/print/ci.html

_Trippi, J. (2004-2008). The revolution will not be televised (pp 1-276). New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.

_Visione Alternativas (Alternative Visions). Por que los Jovenes no votan? (why do youth doesn’t vote?),

Chile. Retrieved November 18, 2008, from

http://va.prensa-latina.cu/index.php?option=com_deeppockets&task=contShow&id=67013&Itemid

_Whitaker, B. (2008). How Mubarak won the election. Guardian.co.uk. Retrieved December 4, 2008,

from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/13/worlddispatch.egypt

_Wise, L. (2006). Anti-government protesters in Egypt fight apathy. VOA News. Retrieved December 5,

2008, from

http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2006-04/2006-04-20-voa27.cfm

Throughout this course, I have learned about the impact of digital media on democracy and vice versa. The influence of Digital Democracy is vast; it influences e-commerce, marketing and social media. In this class, determination of political outlines and how politics is implemented in DM were considered such as political blogs and forums/ websites, political advertising, news sites and more recently open source software news sites.

As learned, power is shifting towards the collective force that resides in DM. Also, fighting for network neutrality is a must to insure higher levels of democracy. As a non-American person, this class taught me a lot of fundamental/ important information to understand the US political system; for example, bills and laws, the power of lobbyists, interest groups, US legislature and the role of legislators to adopting new technologies.

In general, DD is not all about building political campaigns, yet it evolves political concepts and educates people about effective political tools which bring to understanding real democracy. The internet is a powerful tool in which it brings political change.

Indeed, it is very ironic that people live in the age of information abundance, yet some lack crucial knowledge, as indicated in “Are People Better Informed in the Information Society” reading. Many researchers have been done and proved that people now know as much as before or maybe less; two experts in public opinion and political behavior find that many citizens are remarkably informed about the details of politics, while equally large numbers are nearly ignorant of political facts. (Carpini, 1997). But the question here is, why lacking information is a big issue?

In general, considering traditional media alone in acquiring information is not a good idea since it became a powerful political institution and a subject to bias, according to Cook. Therefore, people tend to utilize web 2.0 tools such as blogging, forums and other online communities in collecting political information, “I believe in democracy above everything. I believe that the best government is one in which the people are allowed to govern themselves. I believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that Americans must participate fully in democracy for it to work. And I believe the internet is the best tool we’ve ever created to help achieve that”, (Trippi, 2004, p. 226). Learning from all news media collectively is effective in information inquiry.

To have certain knowledge about national or sometimes international politics is vital. For example, Surveys have showed that voters are remarkably ignorant about names of congressional candidates. Many Americans can’t recall their governor’s name, according to Robinson. In 1989, 74% could come up with Dan Quayle’s name when asked who the vice president is. In 2007, somewhat fewer than 69% were able to recall Dick Cheney. The whole findings suggest little change in overall levels of public knowledge. Despite the fact that news formats are changing, they are not having a great deal of impact on how much the public knows about national and international affairs, (What Americans Know, 2007).

People learn about politics to achieve different goals:

• To protect themselves, their family and societies
• To make the right decision about each candidates
• To build a better future for the next generation
• Ignorance will enable news media to power
• To affect what candidates can do or what decisions they make, lack of knowledge will affect how candidates speak about everything.

A while ago, I noticed that many Americans don’t grasp solid information about international politics. Oddly enough, many Americans are ignorant towards local or national politics.

When I first read the question “Are People Better Informed in the Information Society”, I thought that I know the answer, not really. While reading, I came across two opposite views, Wade Roush affirms that the society is informed due to the existence of technology; more technologies equal better services.

The other view is adopted by Mathew Robinson who disagrees with Roush’s claim. Robinson addresses questions as, Are we really politically informed despite the fact of the amount of information and technologies surround us? Is the information society brings to better world or we already lost what we have?

Definition of Information

Before taking those two views into consideration, defining “information” and what it is meant by “being informed” is very important to add to the effectiveness of this argument. The internet is a tool to store, read and spread news either by using different web 2.0 technologies or by utilizing the internet as a whole. It is obvious that people, especially internet users, are widely exposed to many online news contents; people now may know general political news/ information by browsing web pages, reading headlines and being engaged in forums, blogs and other political communities. Also, they can get information by subscribing to RSS feed, browsing Youtube videos or getting viral messages from friends or colleagues (i.e. emails, Facebook or Twitter). In addition to having access to news, they can create news “journalists” and spread them worldwide. But, the question here is, is this sufficient information to be politically informed? Is this information the whole truth? Who is the provider of news, friends, random people or official websites? Are they reliable? What do people really need to know and why?

Information Abundance vs. Factual Knowledge of Politics

Living in the information society doesn’t mean that people know everything nor they are politically informed. In fact, some know insufficient information in politics or lack some important facts. For example, “29 percent think the Constitution guarantees a job and 75 percent think it guarantees a high school education”, (Robinson, 2002). Also, “66 percent of Americans could correctly name Regis Philbin” the host of “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, while “only 6 percent could correctly name Dennis Hastert”, the speaker of the House of Representatives in Washington, according to a January 2000 Gallup poll. Many Americans could name Pete Rose who was accused of gambling than could name any of the five U.S. senators in the late 1980’s of unethical savings and loan scandal, according to Robinson. Limited knowledge in politics is not enough; actually ignorance of basic civics could be dangerous. They must to protect themselves with knowledge. People must acknowledge the impact of ultimate knowledge on their societies and political decisions.

Why We Need to know?

Citizens in the American society appear no more or less informed today than half a century ago, according to “Carpini” in “What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters.” I believe that people’s knowledge nowadays is getting weaker since they have the privilege “access to information” that they didn’t have long time ago. Knowing about national politics is a must; people want to defend/ protect themselves, their families and societies. Moreover, they want to make the right decisions whether in voting for a presidential candidate or a local governor. They want to be able to build a better future. Also, while being politically informed is important, ignorance will enable news media to power; it is important to find ways to affect what candidates can do or what decisions they make, lack of knowledge will affect how candidates speak about everything.

Information Sources

People can acquire political information from many sources such as TV stations (TV news media), newspapers, schools or the internet. I believe that utilizing one medium only is not enough to get the accurate and sufficient political information; people need to learn about different views from different media. Not only that, school education plays a crucial role in knowledge enhancement. Many people differ in the way they acquire knowledge about certain issues, they also differ in their interests, beliefs, educational and cultural backgrounds. But after all, people learn when they want/need to learn.

The Role of Media

News media is king and it has a big influence on people. It is very promising to see news media is getting their independence from governments and shaping another political power, but the question here is, is the news media reliable /equipped enough to make political decisions? Traditional channels of news are bias in nature either towards politics, structures or situations, and the fact that journalists are not politicians is a must to be considered, “the news media are drawn to particular kinds of stories, with particular values, more than to others”, (Cook, 1998). Cook proves that Media are collective institution rather than distinct organizations. That’s why people have to have other sources of information to cover all sides of knowledge; utilizing the most democratic medium (the internet) would be a great source of information to the public, “I believe in democracy above everything. I believe that the best government is one in which the people are allowed to govern themselves. I believe, as Thomas Jefferson did, that Americans must participate fully in democracy for it to work. And I believe the internet is the best tool we’ve ever created to help achieve that”, (Trippi, 2004, p. 226)

Posted in Discussion Leader Tagged: Digital Democracy ]]> http://bayazidt.wordpress.com/2008/11/18/information-abundance/feed/ 0 Trading Media http://bayazidt.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/people-of-change/ http://bayazidt.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/people-of-change/#comments Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:43:09 +0000 Tharaa Bayazid http://bayazidt.wordpress.com/?p=350 ]]>

Yesterday was the most exciting political experience of my life. I witnessed something different, something I’ve always longed for–change.  The United States of America has proven to the world that it is different from any other nation. I have always known the U.S. to be a multicultural country; yet I’ve also been cognizant of the fact that power has rested mainly with the white majority. Not anymore.  Today the United States is a country where the presidency is accessible by individuals of all races, cultures and beliefs.

It has reached a level of democracy that I believe no other country will attain in the near future. It is a country of people, not a country of its president; the people have elected a leader who reflects the life they desire for themselves.  To be honest, I felt a little jealous since I belong to a monarchical country, a country where you are forced to live the life of its king not the other way around. But, at least I was happy being in the U.S during this historical time and experiencing democracy for the first time.

Since many online services are scoring the greatest success based on the remarkable nature of the interactivity and accessibility of the internet, political researchers, with respect to electronic voting, regard voting no differently than other online services. While reading “Voter-Centered Design: Toward a Voter Decision Support System”, I came across the notion of creating internet-based electronic voting system.

This notion reminds me of the Japanese “i-mode” mobile phones. “i-mode” mobile phones are unique internet services which vary from other regular mobile phone with internet access. “i-mode” phones were created to meet all possible internet usages and services. Likewise, Political researchers aim to create the ultimate internet natured E-voting system which will facilitate online inquires/services.

Internet Services

1. Information acquisition/ sharing

• Unidirectional: websites and emails
• Bidirectional: chats, blogs and forums

2. Building communities “deliberation and discussion”

3. Formation of an opinion/ decision

Current E-voting systems lack information gathering, organizing and sharing, deliberation and discussion “community building” which facilitate making the appropriate decision. Voters are compelled to use this scarce voting system without having the chance to browse information by using combined filtering from ballot materials.

Political researchers studied four different dimensions “Society, Technology, Law and Politics”, in which a good E-voting system must consider, to facilitate the process of collect and share information and create electronic dialogues in such a timely manner.

This system, if implemented adequately, will effectively sustain the usability and transparency of the E-voting system. Without doubt, adding the mobility feature to this system is a key factor to its efficiency.

E-Voting System

1. Information acquisition/ sharing

• Unidirectional: websites and emails
• Bidirectional: chats, blogs and forums

2. Managing information

3. Building communities “deliberation and discussion”

4. Formation of an opinion/ decision

5. Static and mobile voting

Few days ago one of my friends sent me an email titled “New Presidential Candidate…Someone We know!” I was so excited to learn more about the content of this email because I knew that it will be strongly related to my “Digital Democracy” class. I typed in my instructor’s name of this course “Kathy Gill” and here what I have got.

http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=46832&altf=Lbuiz1&altl=Hjmm

Actually, I wasn’t so shocked since I am very familiar with the nature of the web; many people use digital technologies to produce practical jokes, but what amazed me the most was the possibility of creating false campaigns which will mislead the online crowd. I will point out two aspects of this alleged campaign, the technical and the ethical side.

On the technical side, I believe adopting videos to promote campaigns is a very smart approach since we are flooded with online videos that compete with each other. While watching the video, I noticed saying “to elect the virtual unknown to the highest office of the country”, I believe that this statement could be very true, and candidates can get the attention they want if they adequately employed the online tools. This video simply illustrates how social media and online coverage can boost candidates when saying “It began on a popular online chat site…”, and “literally thousands of people were chatting and texting in to support this random person…”

On the moral side, this can easily mislead the online population especially if it was done to serve the purpose of manipulation_ this video is a practical joke only. Many politicians have reservations regarding the Web because it has created a fertile ground for fraud.

We all know that the internet has reinforced services/businesses such as e-commerce and effective social interactions (Social Media). On the other hand, Digital democracy (online voting) is a double-edged sword by all means.

While reading “A Nation Divided: How Technology Influences the American Political Process” (Cannon et al., 2001), I came across many important principles regarding Digital Democracy.  Without a doubt, the notion of internet voting, which will increase the number of voters due to the availability and accessibility of the internet, is valid, but this number might increase in favor of one party than the other based on the online population, the availability of political information on news sites and security issues (Kanter, 1999; Cannon et al., 2001). Many things seem to interfere with the validity of online voting such as selling online votes, lack of privacy while voting, or the attack of viruses to change or forward votes to third parties. Politicians along with online voting critics are torn apart between the effectiveness and the total adoptability of this tool and the possibility of fraud.

I believe that the security issues and the uniqueness of the voter individuality can be guaranteed if the right methods have been implemented adequately. Other than the personal identification numbers (PINs), biometrics such as voice or fingerprint recognition might be incorporated to ensure the security of the internet voting, and the credit card identification method to ensure the uniqueness of the voter individuality. If privacy, security and identification issues were taken to the higher level of online implementation, then the online voting would be the one and only voting system nationwide. By implementing E-voting (online voting) and putting it into practice, many benefits will be attained:

• Better democratic nation

• Modernizing electoral system

• Increase the number of voter due to the mobility of the system and the availability and accessibility of the internet

It seems that the only democratic approach in the election is choosing the political leader, but the way/method used to elect the politician is far from being democratic (online voting). I feel that politicians want to control or at least to keep an eye on the voting flow in such a legal way, but since the internet is designed to be democratic _ no one can control the flow of online information or at least very hard_ and interfering in online voting is against the fundamentals of democracy, I don’t believe that it would be their ideal method to guarantee more votes.

In Christensen’s “Breaking the Wire”, he clearly suggests that our ways of communication are moving toward online and wireless worlds. With no doubt, consumers now are more precise about what they want; they want to be able to communicate remotely and effectively at the same time with no constraints. Therefore, telecommunication companies have to adopt what is more convenient to customers in terms of portability and quality.

In general, the wireless connection becomes the magic word in communication industry. Let’s first consider what enhances this technology. The growth of wireless media was driven by the adoption of new business models and new technology enablers. First, the high-speed internet was behind the growth of new forms of content. Then, the emerging of mobile data networks have contributed to the adoption of new forms of wireless content such as 3D games. Wireless gained a very important role since some products and services enabled users to transfer content from physical and online channels to their mobile phones. Indeed, such technologies have contributed in altering consumer perceptions in mobile phones. Wireless carriers and media companies can seize these evolvements to increase their revenue in the near future; wireless represents a new channel to which media companies can directly market their content and services. Media companies and wireless carriers will each need to undertake a series of initiatives if they want to overcome all constraints. They need to consider the application of new business models and technology enablers in order to excel in the communication world.

Questions:

1. How does the wireless value chain function for media industry?
2. What are the new business models and technology enablers that will accelerate adoption of wireless media content?
3. How do media companies and wireless carriers differ nowadays in terms of priority initiatives and quality?