Digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion: Applying deliberative theories of democracy to political parties

Author:

Odzuck EvaORCID,Günther Sophie

Abstract

AbstractToday’s election campaigns are heavily data-driven. Despite the numerous skeptical voices questioning the compatibility of specific campaigning practices with fundamental principles of liberal democracies, there has to date been little comprehensive work in this area from the perspective of normative democratic theory. Our article addresses this gap by drawing on recent research on the normative theory of political parties in the field of deliberative democratic theory. The deliberative theories of democracy proposed by Habermas and Rawls contain structural elements of a normative theory of the political party: the special status of political parties as mediators between background culture and the political forum, between the political system and the public sphere, and between the individual and the state, confers on them a central position as actors in in the public use of reason and deliberation.We argue in this article for a view of digital campaigning as a policy of democracy promotion and for the proposition that, alongside other actors, political parties have a special responsibility in this regard. We point to the implications for the evaluation and design of digital political microtargeting that arise from the application of deliberative principles to political parties and consider the need they reveal for the ongoing development of detailed, nuanced normative theories of democracy.

Funder

Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Reference73 articles.

1. Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2016. Democracy for realists. Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

2. Baldwin-Philippi, Jessica. 2015. Using technology, building democracy. Digital campaigning and the construction of citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

3. Baldwin-Philippi, Jessica, Letitia Bode, Daniel Kreiss, and Adam Sheingate. 2020. Digital political ethics: aligning principles with practice. https://citapdigitalpolitics.com/?page_id=1911. Accessed 2021-02-13.

4. Bay, Morten. 2018. The ethics of psychometrics in social media: a Rawlsian approach. ACM Transactions on Social Computing https://doi.org/10.1145/3281450.

5. Becker, Hartmuth. 2003. Die Parlamentarismuskritik bei Carl Schmitt und Jürgen Habermas. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

1. Watching the digital grassroots grow: assessing party members’ social media campaigning during the 2021 German Bundestag election;Policy Studies;2023-07-04

2. Political (Election) Advertising;Springer Studies in Media and Political Communication;2023

3. »Demokratische digitale Souveränität«;Was heißt digitale Souveränität?;2022-11-07

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3