Araştırma Makalesi
BibTex RIS Kaynak Göster

Deliberative Democracy in the Digital Age Opportunities and Challenges of Online Public Discourse

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 62 - 75

Ali Çiçek

https://doi.org/10.54089/ecider.1549272

Öz

Deliberative democracy is a model of democracy in which decision-making processes are based on public participation, and public debate is prioritised. In this model, citizens make joint decisions through rational discussion and negotiation, and this process forms the basis of democratic legitimacy. As one of the main actors in 21st-century democracy debates, deliberative democracy aims to create more inclusive and fair policies by encouraging broad participation. In the digital age, the concept of deliberative democracy faces new challenges and opportunities. This study examines the intersection between deliberative democracy and digital technologies, focusing on how online platforms influence public discourse and democratic engagement. The core objective is to explore how digital technologies enhance inclusivity, speed, and scalability in deliberative processes while simultaneously raising concerns about misinformation, polarization, and exclusion. Drawing from the theoretical framework of deliberative democracy, which emphasizes rational discourse and public reasoning, the paper investigates the benefits and challenges that arise when deliberation moves online. Through case studies such as Iceland's crowdsourced constitution, global climate change discussions, and the role of social media during the 2020 U.S. election, the paper highlights how digital platforms facilitate rapid, large-scale deliberation but also contribute to political fragmentation and echo chambers. The study employs a qualitative research methodology, analyzing the impact of digital platforms on deliberative processes through literature reviews and case studies. The hypothesis is that while digital platforms offer significant potential for enhancing democratic deliberation by broadening participation, they also present new risks to the integrity of public discourse, particularly due to misinformation and the manipulation of algorithms. Ultimately, the paper argues that deliberative democracy must adapt to the realities of the digital age by integrating online and offline deliberation, fostering digital literacy, and establishing regulatory frameworks for transparency and accountability. The findings offer theoretical contributions to understanding the relationship between digital technology and democracy while also providing practical recommendations for enhancing the quality of digital public discourse.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Deliberative democracy Digital public discourse Online platforms Misinformation Political polarization.

Kaynakça

  • Altincik, H. (2020). Halkla ilişkiler perspektifinden medya ve yerel yönetim ilişkisi. Kriter Yayınevi.
  • Aral, S., & Eckles, D. (2019). Protecting elections from social media manipulation. Science, 365(6456), 858–861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8243
  • Arslan, E. (2018). İngiltere'de yerelleşme politikaları ve yerel yönetimler. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 2868–2884.
  • Asenbaum, H. (2018). Anonymity and democracy: Absence as presence in the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 459–472.
  • Ball, B. (2021). Defeating fake news: On journalism, knowledge, and democracy. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 8(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2019-0033
  • Bani, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing democracy: The case of icelandic social constitutionalism. Politics and Policy in the Information Age, Springer. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128531
  • Benaissa Pedriza, S. (2021). Sources, channels and strategies of disinformation in the 2020 US election: Social networks, traditional media and political candidates. Journalism and Media, 2(4), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2040036
  • Blasio, E. D., & Sorice, M. (2016). Open government: A tool for democracy? Media Studies, 7(14), Article 14. https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/medijske-studije/article/view/6180
  • Bossetta, M., & Schmøkel, R. (2023). Cross-platform emotions and audience engagement in social media political campaigning: Comparing candidates’ facebook and ınstagram ımages in the 2020 US election. Political Communication, 40(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2128949
  • Burgess, S., & Keating, C. (2013). Occupy the social contract! participatory democracy and ıceland’s crowd-sourced constitution. New Political Science, 35(3), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2013.813694 Çağ, B. (2013). Katılımcı anayasa yapımı ve izlanda örneği. Yasama Dergisi, 25, 71-91.
  • Chambers, S. (2021). Truth, deliberative democracy, and the virtues of accuracy: Is fake news destroying the public sphere? Political Studies, 69(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890811
  • Chambers, S. (2023). Deliberative democracy and the digital public sphere: Asymmetrical fragmentation as a political not a technological problem. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 30(1).
  • Chen, J. (2022). Research on the echo chamber effect. 2021 International Conference on Public Art and Human Development (ICPAHD 2021), 874–877. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icpahd-21/125969460
  • Choi, J.-W. (2006). Deliberative democracy, rational participation and e-voting in south korea. Asian Journal of Political Science, 14(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370600832547
  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). The ınternet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.3.1.47_1
  • Deitelhof, N. (2017). Deliberation. H. Brunkhorst, R. Kreide, & C. Lafont (Eds.), The Habermas Handbook (pp. 528–532). Columbia University Press. Doi:10.7312/brun16642-053
  • Demir, Ş., & Sesli, M. (2007). Kamusal alan (Türkiye’de kamusal alan kavramlaştırılmasının muhtevası: tektiplilik mi, çoğulculuk mu?). Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 273-292.
  • Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative global politics: Discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity Cambridge. Dutton, W. H., Reisdorf, B., Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2017). Social shaping of the politics of internet search and networking: Moving beyond filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2944191
  • Erdoğan, M. (2018). Özgürlük, hukuk ve demokrasi. Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Ertugay, F. (2022). Türkiye’de politik kutuplaşmanın tarihsel kökenleri/kolektif hafıza. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 55(2), 27–62.
  • Fasihullah, A., Awan, B., & Hulio, A. K. (2023). Negotiating in the digital age: Exploring the role of technology in modern negotiations. Law and Policy Review, 2(1), 61–86.
  • Freeman, J. (2013). E-Government and monitory democracy: Iceland’s crowdsourced constitution. ANZCA 2013 Global Networks-Global Divides: Bridging New and Traditional Communication Challenges, 1–20. Gaus, G. F. (2003). Contemporary theories of liberalism: Public reason as a post-enlightenment project (First Edition). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Gerodimos, R. (2006). Democracy and the internet: Access, engagement and deliberation. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(6), 26–31.
  • Grecu, S.-P., & Chiriac, H. C. (2021). Challenges for deliberative democracy in the digital era. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 26, 922–929.
  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity Press.
  • Habermas, J. (2015). Kamusallığın yapısal dönüşümü (M. Sancar & T. Bora, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları. Habermas, J. (2023). Kamusallığın yeni bir yapısal dönüşümü ve müzakereci demokrasi (T. Bora, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları.
  • Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560847 Hauser, G. A., & Benoit-Barne, C. (2002). Reflections on rhetoric, deliberative democracy, civil society, and trust. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2), 261–275.
  • Helbing, D., Mahajan, S., Fricker, R. H., Musso, A., Hausladen, C. I., Carissimo, C., Carpentras, D., Stockinger, E., Sanchez-Vaquerizo, J. A., & Yang, J. C. (2023). Democracy by design: Perspectives for digitally assisted, participatory upgrades of society. Journal of Computational Science, 71, 102061.
  • Hicks, D. (2002). The promise (s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2), 223–260.
  • Hudson, A. (2018). When does public participation make a difference? Evidence from ıceland’s crowdsourced constitution. Policy & Internet, 10(2), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.167
  • Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 702–719.
  • Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Política, 40, 317–335. Karin, B. (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Khalil, L. (2024). Overcoming digital threats to democracy. Lowy Institute for International Policy. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/KHALIL-Overcoming-digital-threats-to-democracy.pdf
  • Kim, J., Wyatt, R., & Katz, E. (1999). News, Talk, Opinion, Participation: The Part Played by Cemversation in Delibrative Democracy. Political Commucation, 4(16), 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198541
  • Kreide, R. (2016). Digital spaces, public places and communicative power: In defense of deliberative democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(4–5), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715623831
  • Kuehn, K. M., & Salter, L. A. (2020). Assessing digital threats to democracy, and workable solutions: A review of the recent literature. International Journal of Communication, 14, 22.
  • Mansbridge, J. (2007). “Deliberative democracy” or “democratic deliberation”? In S. W. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy (pp. 251–271). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_12
  • Marinho, F. A., Cançado, A. C., & Iwamoto, H. M. (2019). Icelandic crowd-sourced constitution and social management: Practice and theory in citizens democratic participation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento Regional, 15(2).
  • McKay, S., & Tenove, C. (2021). Disinformation as a threat to deliberative democracy. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920938143 Min, S.-J. (2007). Online vs. face‐to‐face deliberation: effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1369–1387.
  • Moore, A. (2018). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and deliberation: Why not everything should be connected. Journal of Political Philosophy, 26(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12149
  • Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
  • Podgórska-Rykała, J. (2024). Deliberative democracy, public policy, and local government (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032670799
  • Popescu, D., & Loveland, M. (2022). Judging deliberation: An assessment of the crowdsourced Icelandic constitutional project. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(1). https://delibdemjournal.org/articles/10.16997/jdd.974/
  • Rishel, N. M. (2011). Digitizing deliberation: Normative concerns for the use of social media in deliberative democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806330305
  • Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6e357e97-7b16-450a-a827-a92c93729a08
  • Sainz, G. M., & Hanna, A. (2023). Youth digital activism, social media and human rights education: The Fridays for Future movement. Human Rights Education Review, 6(1), 116–136.
  • Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. W. (2008). Democracy and e-rulemaking: Web-based technologies, participation, and the potential for deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J516v04n01_04
  • Simon, J., Bass, T., Boelman, V., & Mulgan, G. (2017). Digital democracy: The tools transforming political engagement. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/33129/33129.pdf
  • Simone, M. A. (2010). Deliberative democracy online: Bridging networks with digital technologies. The Communication Review, 13(2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421003795527
  • Sitembölükbaşı, Ş. (2005). Liberal demokrasinin çıkmazlarına çözüm olarak müzakereci demokrasi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(10), 139–162.
  • Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446
  • Storozhenko, L., Ignatenko, O., Yaroshovets, T., Antypenko, I., & Vlasenko, V. (2023). E-democracy in the context of the information society: Prospects, challenges and opportunities. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 12(70), 63–77.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayek’s challenge to Habermas). Episteme, 3(3), 192–213.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2014). On rumors: How falsehoods spread, why we believe them, and what can be done. Princeton University Press.
  • Terren, L. T. L., & Borge-Bravo, R. B.-B. R. (2021). Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Communication Research, 9. https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/16
  • Völker, T. (2019). Deliberative democracy in the age of social media| democracia deliberativa na Era das Redes Sociais. Revista Publicum, 5(2), 73–105.
  • Weare, C. (2002). The ınternet and democracy: The casual links between technology and politics. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(5), 659–691. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120003294
  • Willis, R., Curato, N., & Smith, G. (2022). Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. WIREs Climate Change, 13(2), e759. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.759
  • Yolcu, T., & Kaya, M. S. (2023). Sosyal medyada siyaset ve dezenformasyon: Haber metinlerine yönelik bir söylem analizi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 674-692. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1230547

Dijital Çağda Müzakereci Demokrasi: Çevrimiçi Kamusal Söylemin Fırsat ve Zorlukları

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2, 62 - 75

Ali Çiçek

https://doi.org/10.54089/ecider.1549272

Öz

Müzakereci demokrasi, karar alma süreçlerinin halkın katılımına dayalı olduğu ve kamusal tartışmaların ön planda tutulduğu bir demokrasi modelidir. Bu modelde, vatandaşlar rasyonel tartışma ve müzakere yoluyla ortak kararlar alır ve bu süreç, demokratik meşruiyetin temelini oluşturur. 21. yüzyıl demokrasi tartışmalarının başat aktörlerinden olan müzakereci demokrasi, geniş katılımı teşvik ederek daha kapsayıcı ve adil politikaların oluşturulmasını amaçlamaktadır. Dijital çağda müzakereci demokrasi kavramı yeni zorluklar ve fırsatlarla karşı karşıyadır. Bu çalışma, çevrimiçi platformların kamusal söylemi ve demokratik katılımı nasıl etkilediğine odaklanarak müzakereci demokrasi ile dijital teknolojiler arasındaki kesişimi incelemektedir. Temel amaç, dijital teknolojilerin müzakereci süreçlerde kapsayıcılığı, hızı ve ölçeklenebilirliği nasıl artırdığını ve aynı zamanda yanlış bilgilendirme, kutuplaşma ve dışlama ile ilgili endişeleri nasıl artırdığını araştırmaktır. Rasyonel söylem ve kamusal akıl yürütmeyi vurgulayan müzakereci demokrasinin teorik çerçevesinden yola çıkan makale, müzakerenin çevrimiçi ortama taşınmasıyla ortaya çıkan fayda ve zorlukları araştırmaktadır. İzlanda'nın kitle kaynaklı anayasası, küresel iklim değişikliği tartışmaları ve 2020 ABD seçimleri sırasında sosyal medyanın rolü gibi örneklerle, makale dijital platformların hızlı, büyük ölçekli müzakereyi nasıl kolaylaştırdığını, ancak aynı zamanda siyasi parçalanmaya ve yankı odalarına nasıl katkıda bulunduğunu vurgulamaktadır. Çalışma, dijital platformların müzakere süreçleri üzerindeki etkisini literatür taramaları ve vaka çalışmaları yoluyla analiz eden nitel bir araştırma metodolojisi kullanmaktadır. Çalışmanın hipotezi, dijital platformların katılımı genişleterek demokratik müzakereyi geliştirmek için önemli bir potansiyel sunarken, aynı zamanda özellikle yanlış bilgilendirme ve algoritmaların manipülasyonu nedeniyle kamusal söylemin bütünlüğüne yönelik yeni riskler ortaya çıkardığıdır. Sonuç olarak bu makale, müzakereci demokrasinin çevrimiçi ve çevrimdışı müzakereyi entegre ederek, dijital okuryazarlığı teşvik ederek ve şeffaflık ve hesap verebilirlik için düzenleyici çerçeveler oluşturarak dijital çağın gerçeklerine uyum sağlaması gerektiğini savunmaktadır. Bulgular, dijital teknoloji ve demokrasi arasındaki ilişkiyi anlamaya yönelik teorik katkılar sunarken, aynı zamanda dijital kamusal söylemin kalitesini artırmaya yönelik pratik öneriler de sağlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Müzakereci demokrasi dijital kamusal söylem çevrimiçi platformlar yanlış bilgilendirme siyasi kutuplaşma.

Kaynakça

  • Altincik, H. (2020). Halkla ilişkiler perspektifinden medya ve yerel yönetim ilişkisi. Kriter Yayınevi.
  • Aral, S., & Eckles, D. (2019). Protecting elections from social media manipulation. Science, 365(6456), 858–861. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaw8243
  • Arslan, E. (2018). İngiltere'de yerelleşme politikaları ve yerel yönetimler. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 7(4), 2868–2884.
  • Asenbaum, H. (2018). Anonymity and democracy: Absence as presence in the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 459–472.
  • Ball, B. (2021). Defeating fake news: On journalism, knowledge, and democracy. Moral Philosophy and Politics, 8(1), 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2019-0033
  • Bani, M. (2012). Crowdsourcing democracy: The case of icelandic social constitutionalism. Politics and Policy in the Information Age, Springer. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2128531
  • Benaissa Pedriza, S. (2021). Sources, channels and strategies of disinformation in the 2020 US election: Social networks, traditional media and political candidates. Journalism and Media, 2(4), 605–624. https://doi.org/10.3390/journalmedia2040036
  • Blasio, E. D., & Sorice, M. (2016). Open government: A tool for democracy? Media Studies, 7(14), Article 14. https://hrcak.srce.hr/ojs/index.php/medijske-studije/article/view/6180
  • Bossetta, M., & Schmøkel, R. (2023). Cross-platform emotions and audience engagement in social media political campaigning: Comparing candidates’ facebook and ınstagram ımages in the 2020 US election. Political Communication, 40(1), 48–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2022.2128949
  • Burgess, S., & Keating, C. (2013). Occupy the social contract! participatory democracy and ıceland’s crowd-sourced constitution. New Political Science, 35(3), 417–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2013.813694 Çağ, B. (2013). Katılımcı anayasa yapımı ve izlanda örneği. Yasama Dergisi, 25, 71-91.
  • Chambers, S. (2021). Truth, deliberative democracy, and the virtues of accuracy: Is fake news destroying the public sphere? Political Studies, 69(1), 147–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719890811
  • Chambers, S. (2023). Deliberative democracy and the digital public sphere: Asymmetrical fragmentation as a political not a technological problem. Constellations: An International Journal of Critical & Democratic Theory, 30(1).
  • Chen, J. (2022). Research on the echo chamber effect. 2021 International Conference on Public Art and Human Development (ICPAHD 2021), 874–877. https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icpahd-21/125969460
  • Choi, J.-W. (2006). Deliberative democracy, rational participation and e-voting in south korea. Asian Journal of Political Science, 14(1), 64–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/02185370600832547
  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). The ınternet, deliberative democracy, and power: Radicalizing the public sphere. International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics, 3(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1386/macp.3.1.47_1
  • Deitelhof, N. (2017). Deliberation. H. Brunkhorst, R. Kreide, & C. Lafont (Eds.), The Habermas Handbook (pp. 528–532). Columbia University Press. Doi:10.7312/brun16642-053
  • Demir, Ş., & Sesli, M. (2007). Kamusal alan (Türkiye’de kamusal alan kavramlaştırılmasının muhtevası: tektiplilik mi, çoğulculuk mu?). Sosyal Bilimler Araştırmaları Dergisi, 2(1), 273-292.
  • Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative global politics: Discourse and democracy in a divided world. Polity Cambridge. Dutton, W. H., Reisdorf, B., Dubois, E., & Blank, G. (2017). Social shaping of the politics of internet search and networking: Moving beyond filter bubbles, echo chambers, and fake news. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2944191
  • Erdoğan, M. (2018). Özgürlük, hukuk ve demokrasi. Siyasal Kitabevi.
  • Ertugay, F. (2022). Türkiye’de politik kutuplaşmanın tarihsel kökenleri/kolektif hafıza. Amme İdaresi Dergisi, 55(2), 27–62.
  • Fasihullah, A., Awan, B., & Hulio, A. K. (2023). Negotiating in the digital age: Exploring the role of technology in modern negotiations. Law and Policy Review, 2(1), 61–86.
  • Freeman, J. (2013). E-Government and monitory democracy: Iceland’s crowdsourced constitution. ANZCA 2013 Global Networks-Global Divides: Bridging New and Traditional Communication Challenges, 1–20. Gaus, G. F. (2003). Contemporary theories of liberalism: Public reason as a post-enlightenment project (First Edition). SAGE Publications Ltd.
  • Gerodimos, R. (2006). Democracy and the internet: Access, engagement and deliberation. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 3(6), 26–31.
  • Grecu, S.-P., & Chiriac, H. C. (2021). Challenges for deliberative democracy in the digital era. Technium Social Sciences Journal, 26, 922–929.
  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. Polity Press.
  • Habermas, J. (2015). Kamusallığın yapısal dönüşümü (M. Sancar & T. Bora, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları. Habermas, J. (2023). Kamusallığın yeni bir yapısal dönüşümü ve müzakereci demokrasi (T. Bora, Trans.). İletişim Yayınları.
  • Hansson, K., Belkacem, K., & Ekenberg, L. (2015). Open government and democracy: A research review. Social Science Computer Review, 33(5), 540–555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314560847 Hauser, G. A., & Benoit-Barne, C. (2002). Reflections on rhetoric, deliberative democracy, civil society, and trust. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2), 261–275.
  • Helbing, D., Mahajan, S., Fricker, R. H., Musso, A., Hausladen, C. I., Carissimo, C., Carpentras, D., Stockinger, E., Sanchez-Vaquerizo, J. A., & Yang, J. C. (2023). Democracy by design: Perspectives for digitally assisted, participatory upgrades of society. Journal of Computational Science, 71, 102061.
  • Hicks, D. (2002). The promise (s) of deliberative democracy. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 5(2), 223–260.
  • Hudson, A. (2018). When does public participation make a difference? Evidence from ıceland’s crowdsourced constitution. Policy & Internet, 10(2), 185–217. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.167
  • Jaeger, P. T. (2005). Deliberative democracy and the conceptual foundations of electronic government. Government Information Quarterly, 22(4), 702–719.
  • Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2005). Online forums and deliberative democracy. Acta Política, 40, 317–335. Karin, B. (2010). Environmental politics and deliberative democracy: Examining the promise of new modes of governance. Edward Elgar Publishing.
  • Khalil, L. (2024). Overcoming digital threats to democracy. Lowy Institute for International Policy. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2024-02/KHALIL-Overcoming-digital-threats-to-democracy.pdf
  • Kim, J., Wyatt, R., & Katz, E. (1999). News, Talk, Opinion, Participation: The Part Played by Cemversation in Delibrative Democracy. Political Commucation, 4(16), 361–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/105846099198541
  • Kreide, R. (2016). Digital spaces, public places and communicative power: In defense of deliberative democracy. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(4–5), 476–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453715623831
  • Kuehn, K. M., & Salter, L. A. (2020). Assessing digital threats to democracy, and workable solutions: A review of the recent literature. International Journal of Communication, 14, 22.
  • Mansbridge, J. (2007). “Deliberative democracy” or “democratic deliberation”? In S. W. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, Participation and Democracy (pp. 251–271). Palgrave Macmillan UK. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230591080_12
  • Marinho, F. A., Cançado, A. C., & Iwamoto, H. M. (2019). Icelandic crowd-sourced constitution and social management: Practice and theory in citizens democratic participation. Revista Brasileira de Gestão e Desenvolvimento Regional, 15(2).
  • McKay, S., & Tenove, C. (2021). Disinformation as a threat to deliberative democracy. Political Research Quarterly, 74(3), 703–717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920938143 Min, S.-J. (2007). Online vs. face‐to‐face deliberation: effects on civic engagement. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1369–1387.
  • Moore, A. (2018). Anonymity, pseudonymity, and deliberation: Why not everything should be connected. Journal of Political Philosophy, 26(2), 169–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12149
  • Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.
  • Podgórska-Rykała, J. (2024). Deliberative democracy, public policy, and local government (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781032670799
  • Popescu, D., & Loveland, M. (2022). Judging deliberation: An assessment of the crowdsourced Icelandic constitutional project. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 18(1). https://delibdemjournal.org/articles/10.16997/jdd.974/
  • Rishel, N. M. (2011). Digitizing deliberation: Normative concerns for the use of social media in deliberative democracy. Administrative Theory & Praxis, 33(3), 411–432. https://doi.org/10.2753/ATP1084-1806330305
  • Ross Arguedas, A., Robertson, C., Fletcher, R., & Nielsen, R. (2022). Echo chambers, filter bubbles, and polarisation: A literature review. https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6e357e97-7b16-450a-a827-a92c93729a08
  • Sainz, G. M., & Hanna, A. (2023). Youth digital activism, social media and human rights education: The Fridays for Future movement. Human Rights Education Review, 6(1), 116–136.
  • Schlosberg, D., Zavestoski, S., & Shulman, S. W. (2008). Democracy and e-rulemaking: Web-based technologies, participation, and the potential for deliberation. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 4(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1300/J516v04n01_04
  • Simon, J., Bass, T., Boelman, V., & Mulgan, G. (2017). Digital democracy: The tools transforming political engagement. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/33129/33129.pdf
  • Simone, M. A. (2010). Deliberative democracy online: Bridging networks with digital technologies. The Communication Review, 13(2), 120–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10714421003795527
  • Sitembölükbaşı, Ş. (2005). Liberal demokrasinin çıkmazlarına çözüm olarak müzakereci demokrasi. Akdeniz Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 5(10), 139–162.
  • Spohr, D. (2017). Fake news and ideological polarization: Filter bubbles and selective exposure on social media. Business Information Review, 34(3), 150–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0266382117722446
  • Storozhenko, L., Ignatenko, O., Yaroshovets, T., Antypenko, I., & Vlasenko, V. (2023). E-democracy in the context of the information society: Prospects, challenges and opportunities. Revista Amazonia Investiga, 12(70), 63–77.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2006). Deliberating groups versus prediction markets (or Hayek’s challenge to Habermas). Episteme, 3(3), 192–213.
  • Sunstein, C. R. (2014). On rumors: How falsehoods spread, why we believe them, and what can be done. Princeton University Press.
  • Terren, L. T. L., & Borge-Bravo, R. B.-B. R. (2021). Echo chambers on social media: A systematic review of the literature. Review of Communication Research, 9. https://www.rcommunicationr.org/index.php/rcr/article/view/16
  • Völker, T. (2019). Deliberative democracy in the age of social media| democracia deliberativa na Era das Redes Sociais. Revista Publicum, 5(2), 73–105.
  • Weare, C. (2002). The ınternet and democracy: The casual links between technology and politics. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(5), 659–691. https://doi.org/10.1081/PAD-120003294
  • Willis, R., Curato, N., & Smith, G. (2022). Deliberative democracy and the climate crisis. WIREs Climate Change, 13(2), e759. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.759
  • Yolcu, T., & Kaya, M. S. (2023). Sosyal medyada siyaset ve dezenformasyon: Haber metinlerine yönelik bir söylem analizi. Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 16(3), 674-692. https://doi.org/10.25287/ohuiibf.1230547
Toplam 59 adet kaynakça vardır.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil İngilizce
Konular Sosyal Medya Uygulamaları ve Analizi, İletişim ve Medya Çalışmaları (Diğer)
Bölüm Makaleler
Yazarlar

Ali Çiçek 0000-0001-9875-2400

Erken Görünüm Tarihi 22 Aralık 2024
Yayımlanma Tarihi
Gönderilme Tarihi 12 Eylül 2024
Kabul Tarihi 15 Kasım 2024
Yayımlandığı Sayı Yıl 2024Cilt: 6 Sayı: 2

Kaynak Göster

APA Çiçek, A. (2024). Deliberative Democracy in the Digital Age Opportunities and Challenges of Online Public Discourse. Elektronik Cumhuriyet İletişim Dergisi, 6(2), 62-75. https://doi.org/10.54089/ecider.1549272
 Kapak Resmi İndir