The Role of the Clinton White House in Facilitating Electronic Democratization and Political Interactivity
 

Kenneth L. Hacker, Ph.D.

Department of Communication Studies .
New Mexico State University, Cruces, NM 88003 USA. (505) 646-4839.

Paper presented to the Political Communication division of the Speech Communication Association, November, 1996.
 

ABSTRACT

This paper reports an analysis of the Clinton White House system of computer-mediated communication between American citizens and the White House. While empirical in intent and exploratory by the nature of the topic, the analysis evaluates the White House system in relation to communication theory and political theory. With a review of sociological, large-sample user data gathered by system designers, interview data, and qualitative small-sample user data, the author makes the following generalizations about the system. The logic of the White House system centers on the premise that electronic democratization is possible and has begun, yet will take many years to have its positive effects on citizen empowerment empirically visible. Existing forms of empirical data indicate that the White House system effectively provides an easy channel for citizens to access government documents and to send electronic mail to the president or other administration staff. However, there is little support at this time for claims that the system has contributed to electronic democratization or democratization in general. Theoretically, it is possible that if sociotechnical designs move toward greater political interactivity, it will be possible to use the system for socializing citizens into more political participation. This is a positive possibility that requires more theoretical focus and political will.
 
 

The objective of this paper is to extend previous analyses of the use of computer-mediated communication (CMC) to extend electronic democratization, by describing and evaluating the progress made in the design and use of the Clinton White House electronic mail system (and its accompanying systems of document retrieval). Differing layers of data are examined and summarized. These layers include questions asked to designers of the system, sociological data contextualizing the system, user survey data gathered by the system designers, and exploratory observations of first-time user reactions. These various data are juxtaposed with communication theory and political theory in order to formulate generalizations about the system's contribution to electronic democratization.

This analysis attempts to avoid definitive generalizations about the system in favor of noting the philosophical and sociotechnical aspects of its development in relation to theoretical propositions regarding democracy and participation of citizens within a democracy. This entails addressing the objectives of the designers, the empirical realities of current usage, struggles for future directions, and potentials for contributing to new forms of political communication and citizen empowerment. Included here are an analysis of system development and a suggested framework for building more effective political interactivity. We begin by conceptualizing and defining electronic democratization. This is followed by a description of the rhetorical claims made by advocates of electronic democratization.

From there we examine the claims made by designers of the Clinton White House e-mail infrastructure. Communication theory principles of interactivity are introduced and the concept of political interactivity is discussed. Following this are data about users of the system. Finally, we analyze all of the above from a political communication perspective, that is, one informed by both theories of democracy and arguments regarding improvements that are necessary for American political communication. This culminates in a more systematic attempt to formulate a model of political interactivity which can enhance the work done by the White House system designers.

Conceptualizing Electronic Democratization

The words "democracy" and "democratization" have been used with great imprecision by government officials, journalists, and scholars. Giueseppe Mantovani (1994) notes how there are many technological determinist claims regarding the inherent democratization of CMC systems and how these claims are false. While CMC can affect social relations, social relations and social contexts also affect CMC. Participation in organizational CMC groups discussions is confused with democracy in the workplace--a concept and reality much more dimensional than simply the existence of message input. Mantovani argues that barriers in social status are more social than technological issues and that "...the search for a technological remedy to social inequality seems somehow naive." (p. 48). Contrary to early CMC experiments with college students, field studies with employees indicate that CMC is great for overcoming geographic barriers, but not for social or status barriers (Mantovani, 1994). The cautions Mantovani makes about organizational democratization may apply to larger societal levels of CMC and democracy.

Essentially, electronic democratization is the expansion of democracy and citizen participation in governance with computer-mediated communication (CMC) and affiliated new technologies of communication. [1] Related concepts are "cyberdemocracy" and "virtual democracy." The conceptualization of democratization used here is derived from theoretical approaches to democracy which have three major assumptions. The first assumption is that democracy involves continuous responsiveness of government and leaders to the concerns and preferences of its citizens. Second, leaders and citizens are political equals. Third, citizen preferences are evaluated with no discrimination by content or source of preference (Dahl, 1971).

The concept of electronic democratization must be distinguished from the concept of electronic democracy. Proponents of electronic democracy argue that representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy, leaves citizens out of contact with their leaders. The term electronic democracy signifies a system of participation in which direct electronic expression and voting are viewed as replacements for democracy by representation. By contrast, electronic democratization is defined here as the enhancement of a democracy, already initiated, with new communication technologies in ways that increase the political power of those who usually have minimal roles in key political processes. We assume that such democratization brings new people into power rather than granting additional power to those who are already empowered.

Types of Democracy

A useful typology of democracies, particularly in relation to communication technologies, is presented by Jan van Dijk (1995). This typology offers five classes of democracy which clarify what designers are attempting to do with political CMC. The first is .us legalist democracy. This is akin to what was described above as liberal democracy. Like the original ideology of liberalism, liberal democratic thought stresses liberties of individuals, majority rule, free speech, and private ownership of property (Ball & Dagger, 1995). Liberal democracy is grounded in the belief that democracy is not a goal in itself, but that democracy should safeguard freedoms and liberties of individuals. It is subscribed to by both liberals and conservatives. The CMC for legalist democracies is intended to share more information and to make the political system more visible.

The second model of democracy is the .us competitive democracy model. This one is strongly committed to representative democracy and views politics as competition between parties and leaders for the support of voters. CMC in this model is intended to target audiences with select messages.

The third model is that of .us plebiscitary democracy. This is direct democracy and assumes that political decision making should be given to private and individual voters. It is rule by referendum. It is interesting to note that political scientists Ball & Dagger (1995) describe direct democracy or "people's democracy" as a system that can fit systems as diverse as that of the ancient Athenians and that of contemporary Communists. Rule in this kind of democracy favors the demos, or common people, but it is permissible to have dictatorship enforce such rule (Ball & Dagger, 1995). The CMC systems appropriate to this model are telepolls and voting by either phone, TV, or computer networks.

A fourth model of democracy is .us pluralist democracy. Organizations and associations of civil society mediate between government and citizens. Democracy is seen as a shifting coalition of minorities rather than the power of majority vote (van Dijk, 1995). CMC that fits this model includes e-mail, computer lists, and group decision support systems.

The fifth model is .us participatory democracy. Its central aim is citizenship. It borrows heavily from the political theory of Jean Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau argued that the will of the people is not shown in measuring the views of individual citizens, but rather in collective discussion and education. It is necessary to educate the citizens as active members of communities. The totality we call the will of the people is created in public discussion. This argument opposes direct democracy and sees it isolating individuals and encouraging manipulation. Public will can be created in discussions and education. CMC systems most appropriate to this model are those which are most likely to stimulate opinion formation, learning and active participation (van Dijk, 1995). Virtual communities via CMC and Internet may be possible for this.

Backdrop of Democratization Rhetoric

There are many rhetorical claims being made about how political CMC will enhance democracy (Tambini, 1996). One claim is that such technology will increase the scale and speed of providing information, thus creating more informed citizens. A second common claim is that The Internet allows new political communities to arise free from State intervention, thus helping a hierarchal political communication system to become more horizontal. Another claim is that citizens will have more voice in creating agendas for government, as CMC helps remove distorting mediators like journalists, representatives, and political parties. Another claim is that CMC will help resolve the problems of representative democracy such as territorial bases of constituencies, etc. There are more that could be listed, but the point here is that new cures for the ills of democratic systems are being attributed to the expansion of the Internet as a channel of political communication.

As has been the case with new communication technologies before it, many observers claim that CMC is capable of reducing the barriers which separate many citizens from the democratic process. The telegraph, telephone, television and radio have all, at one point, been hailed as revolutionary new technologies which were going to help citizens become more involved in the political system (Crowley & Heyer, 1991). Benjamin Barber (1984) argues that new communication technologies are necessary to fortify civic education, to provide more equal access to information, and to enhance discussions and debates that increase the participation of citizens in political communication. Barber describes CMC as a new form of town meetings. Like Barber, others see CMC as restoring the voice of American citizens in their political system by creating feedback links between citizens and leaders. In such visions of cyberpolitics, citizens and leaders work together in a sustained stream of plebiscites to shape the best future.

According to Patrick Sullivan (1995), proponents of this view believe that "electronic town halls," like those used by Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election, give citizens the ability to bypass traditional political institutions and become more directly involved in the political process. In this way, CMC acts as a direct feedback link to elected representatives though which they are able to voice their opinions about various legislative issues. Author Michael Chamberlin (1994) has gone so far to say that these new types of media will make elected officials (and bureaucracies) both more accountable and accessible to American citizens. As with George Gallup's claims about the democratization force of public opinion polling, some observers assume that direct democracy is increased with new expressions of public attitudes.

Claims Made by White House CMC Designers

The White House CMC system has numerous components including document retrieval, World Wide Web (WWW) pages, electronic mail for citizens, and methods of collecting and aggregating input from large groups of people on certain policy issues. The people who design and manage the White House e-mail system are confident that American democracy will be enhanced with CMC. They argue that it will take time, but the increasing use of the system will encourage greater participation (Hacker, 1996). One part of the White House CMC system is the electronic mail link between citizens and the White House. Citizens can send e-mail to the president and vice president at the White House. The mail is scanned by subject lines and possibly forwarded to a specific agency in the federal government. The sender of the mail usually receives a computerized acknowledgment and thank-you note.

The White House WWW pages are also part of the CMC system. This site has links to various federal agencies, White House photo archives, press releases of presidential statements or press secretary, and a virtual tour of the White House. The Web site is part of the White House electronic publications service which distributes transcripts of speeches, executive orders, and other presidential documents. A third part of the White House CMC system is electronic gathering of large groups of people evaluating policy discussions.

Hurwitz and Mallery (1995) have developed and are evaluating technical means of managing collaborative CMC. Communicators can discuss and make suggestions regarding policies while linking their utterances to points that are made in an ongoing hypertext of policy assertions. They believe this technical innovation allows participants to refine their participation in ways that increase the productivity of the discussions. The need for such technology is ostensibly the fact that participants can comprise a large number of physically separated individuals. An example for applying this is Vice President Al Gore's ideas about meetings of government agencies which could bring together thousands of workers from many organizations. The technology would allow participants to retrieve texts relevant to their concerns easily and to connect their opinions to ongoing virtual conversations. MIT researchers also were interested in how this can help citizens in participating in governmental processes. One application could be having citizens append their opinions to policy proposals. The White House CMC system is related to the MIT Intelligent Information Infrastructure Project. This project is working on means to distribute and obtain data and reports through the Internet as easily as possible. This includes designing automation technologies for handling increasingly large quantities of mail.

The Clinton White House CMC system is part of a vision for a National Information Infrastructure (NII). This vision sees the NII as a marketplace network that will enrich the social, economic, and political lives of most Americans (NRENAISSANCE Committee, 1994). What was formerly conceived of as a noncommercial education and research network called the National Research and Education Network (NREN) was replaced by the concept of a larger information infrastructure that would include marketplace dynamics. The NII conceptually links commerce, public interests, education, and overall quality of life into one large integrated system. The purposes of the Internet and NII are described as the formation of an information infrastructure that supports services, communication, and access to information (NRENAISSANCE Committee, 1994). This appears to be consistent with what the key functions of the White House e-mail system: contact and information retrieval.

The Clinton-Gore vision for the NII and its component sub-systems like the White House e-mail system consists of a network that links all major institutions, that has access availability, that encourage free market investments, that makes information for citizens easy to find and retrieve, and which creates more citizen empowerment through facilitating better citizen-government communication (NRENAISSANCE Committee, 1994). The Clinton Administration announced its National Information Infrastructure initiative in 1993. This initiative stated that there is a "national consensus" that the construction of an NII will "help unleash an information revolution that will change forever the way people live, work, and interact with each other." (Background on the Administration's Telecommunications Policy Reform Initiative, 1994). Vice President Al Gore gave speeches announcing numerous legislative and administrative proposals for new information policies and government provision of information. Part of what Gore stressed was the need to encourage private investment in the NII, promotion of competition, open access to the NII, advancing universal access to the NII, and flexibility of the network. Universal service is a principle made common with the Communications Act of 1934.

The Clinton administration argues that "...the full potential of the NII will not be realized unless all Americans who desire it have easy, affordable access to advanced communications and information services, regardless of income, disability, or location." (Background on the Administration's Telecommunications Policy Reform Initiative, 1994). This commitment states that by the year 2000, all classrooms, libraries, and hospitals will be connected to the NII. While the Clinton administration is fully committed to a national communication infrastructure (the NII), it is not committed to making full access to advanced services available to all Americans at any particular time. In other words, its approach to the NII views the government as the enabler of NII technology but corporations and the private sector as the source of innovations and investments (Branscomb & Kahin, 1995). Just as the telecommunications industry grew as "classic mass-market provider, with universal service as a means of expanding that market," so the NII has been shaped as a platform of value-added services for information consumers (Branscomb & Kahin, 1995, p. 91). The NII is grounded in a vision of a unified and evolving network of interoperable economic, educational, national security, research, and commercial services.

Communication Interactivity and Political Interactivity

Traditional mass communication provided channels for one-way dissemination of political information that is fast and inexpensive. Theoretically, mass communication is grounded in a linear view of communication. Many current discussions about networks and democracy also rely on a linear model of human communication. Computer networks, because of their two-way messaging abilities, are assumed to be something more than mass communication. However, in the absence of interactivity, these networks still serve as means of dissemination from one source (formal or informal, single or plural) to many receivers. According to James Carey (1987, p.14), "The public will begin to awaken when they are addressed as a conversational partner and are encouraged to talk rather than sit passively as spectator before a discussion conducted by journalists and experts." Carey argues that interactivity is necessary to make citizens out of consumers. Citizens are engaged in interaction about policies, issues, and leadership. Consumers simply respond to mediated messages in routine ways.

Much of human communication theory is based on the observation that humans interact when they communicate. In other words, one action leads to another in a reflexive pattern of message exchange. The construct of communication interactivity is formally defined by communication scientist, Shezaf Rafaeli. Rafaeli (1988) defines interactivity as message interdependency or the extent that messages are produced in direct or indirect responses to each other in regard to an ongoing topic.

Message interdependency is not the same as message dependency. An easy example of message dependency is where the content of a response addresses the content of a query. This type of communication is reactive since statement refer only to preceding ones as in answers to questions. Interdependence is where there are statements involving the history or development of the subject matter. A move away from broadcasting or simply gaining information about citizens, toward interactivity, requires that new systems be grounded in principles of openness and feedback. Linear communication supports traditional power structures resting on active leaders and quiescent citizens. Interactive communication creates more symmetry in communication between leaders and citizens. This shifts the balance of power and is a threat to leaders who wish to remain elitist in their administration. Interactive approaches to political communication expand the public sphere and decrease the elite sphere of power and influence.

Linear political communication, that which exists now despite computer networking, maintains unequal social and political relationships. To the extent that these relationships are maintained, democratization is stagnant. The more democratic a communication system, the more it will accommodate interactivity. In conditions of high interactivity, communication roles are interchangeable. Thus, power as a factor of communication is lessened. In conditions of low interactivity, formal and rigid power relations remain high in influence. One human may simply give commands to others. Power is skewed and privileged. Interactivity in human communication is part of the mutual determinacy that is possible in good conversation and negotiation.

Democracy as Dialogue

Democracy is sometimes thought of as a systems construct which names a type of political structure. In this structure, citizens are allowed to elect representatives to express their views and concerns. A more communication-based view of democracy sees democracy as process, and more specifically, as a type of political communication. In this view, democracy is defined by free speech, active voices in decision-making, and communication between leaders and citizens.

The only connection that Americans have to their government is through various forms of communication. To the extent that citizens have interactive communication with those who represent them, they have influence in the political system and function as system participants. To the extent that citizens only view news and talk with peers who share viewers' positions (with their "viewpoints") in the system, they are spectators in the making of decisions and structuring of power. It is essential to note that interactivity is not only a matter of message initiators getting some form of feedback. Concepts like bandwidth, fast response, personalness, social presence, etc. do not explain interactivity. What is most defining about interactivity is how messages are related closely together in a sequence of message exchange. Sending e-mail notes to President Clinton is not interactive. Nor is getting a form letter stating that the President is glad to hear from you. Receiving a personal note (or other form of message) in which answers are given to questions and responses are made directly to assertions, is interactive.

Gonzales' (1989) argument about interactivity, similar to Habermas' ideal speech situation, says that public decisions and policies are based on public argumentation. Gonzales assumes that senders of messages obtain feedback to comments and questions. There is no such thing as one-way messaging in this view. Gonzales (1989) observes that feedback is not solely generated by receivers of messages. Senders of messages can actively stimulate the receivers to provide feedback. However, to have interactivity, feedback must be responded to as feedback, not simply as messages.

Applying Gonzales to what we discussed from Rafaeli, a key idea emerges that democratic communication involves both message interdependence and systemic encouragement of feedback. In conditions of political interactivity, citizens may interact, discuss, debate, and argue about political matters. When applied to computer networks and society, political interactivity means two-way communication about issues raised from any level to any other level. Such interactivity is not simply an uncertainty-reduction mechanism. Rather, its purpose is the co-creation of political perceptions and policies. In such communication, communicators work together to ask questions, find answers, and formulate policies and actions. To the extent that computer networks facilitate only informal discussions among citizens, there is limited political interactivity in terms of the political system.

For systemic interactivity, there must be informal, formal, and informal-formal exchanges of messages and message dependence. Gonzales (1989) notes that while face-to-face communication generally offers the greatest opportunities for fast and immediate feedback to messages, this advantage over other contexts declines as the number of communicators increases. This is a critical point for considerations of computer networking for political communication. While "town hall" depictions of computer conferencing seem shaky on the surface, if they in fact, can facilitate interaction among large numbers of citizens and leaders, they may have certain advantages over face-to-face meetings that are so large that many citizens are inhibited from speaking and interacting. Delays in message feedback are less important than the quality of the messages that respond to others and constitute what we call feedback. In other words, a face-to-face conversation may contain immediate feedback, but the feedback messages may be grounded in shallow analysis. It is possible for computer-mediated messages to be less immediate, but richer in content. Still, this is never guaranteed.

Gonzales (1989) argues that cumulative feedback, that which is delayed intentionally across time, can have specific benefits which are not possible with discrete feedback messages, or those done at the moments of receiving other messages. Gonzales argues that cumulative feedback is valuable because the long-term nature of the communication exists as a social relationship.

Necessary Conditions for Political Interactivity

Hacker (1996) argues that political interactivity is necessary for electronic democratization and that it depends upon numerous conditions including the following. First, there must be connectivity of citizens through either private, publicly provided, or universally available public access networks. Second, there should be interactivity of diverse social groups such as citizens, government officials, academics and government agency experts, and journalists. Third, the virtual discussions and interactivity that occur with CMC should lead to concrete actions taken by government. Hacker's list is heuristic but it does not address the logic of the deeper plans embedded in the Clinton system designers approach to virtual democracy. We will attempt to add that now.

The logic of the White House system was described to us in a 1994 interview conducted with Jock Gill, then White house director of the e-mail system. Gill explained that this administration was committed to changing things to involve citizens more in governance. This would involve communication between the citizens and the White House free from filters and third-party interpretations. With the White House e-mail system, more citizen access would lead to less top-down message dependence. Gill expressed confidence that improving communication between the president and the citizenry through CMC will eventually create higher levels of political participation.

The Sociological Context for Political CMC Usage

Nielsen Media Research findings indicate that about 24 million people (about 11% of the populations) in the United States and Canada use the Internet. Data also show that WWW users have higher incomes than the rest of the population. The same research shows that about two-thirds of the WWW users are male, that males have the most access to the Internet, and that males account for about 77% of the time spent on the Internet (Internet World, October 30, 1995). Data for 1996 usage indicate that women are increasing in percentage but are still only 31.5% of the total users (Neubarth & Kantor, 1996). Web users are far more affluent that the rest of the general population. For example, 25% of the users have an income over $80,000 per year while the general population has only 10% with that level of income. The average Internet user annual salary is presently $59,000 (Neubarth & Kantor, 1996).

A recent Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press poll (n=4,005) indicates the following about American computer network usage. There has been a doubling of the number of people who access the Internet in the past year. While there is fast growth with the World Wide Web, the Times survey indicates that only 20% of CMC users access the Web. There is impressive growth in the number of households who have computers in the United States. About 36% of American households presently have computers. About 33% of the computers have been obtained in the last 2 years. However, 9% of American families had computers at one time and gave them up. Recent data indicates some slowing of Internet usage. The Yankelovich Citizen Report (Newsweek, September 23, 1996) indicates that average hours spent online per month declined from 16.1 in 1995 to 12.1 in 1996.

The overall number of Americans engaged in CMC continues to increase dramatically. However, there is a social stratification of CMC use. Individuals who use CMC have more accurate information about political and professional matters than those who do not (Anderson, Bikson, Law, & Mitchell, 1995). Research also indicates that individuals who use CMC benefit from the strong and weak ties created through their network use (Anderson, et al., 1995). Increased CMC could help many Americans become more informed about political affairs and to become more involved in political dialogues. In 1993, only about 7% of lowest income households had computers while 55% of the highest income households had computers (Anderson, et al., 1995). In the same year, only 3% of the lowest income individuals used CMC while 23% of the highest income individuals used CMC (Anderson, et al., 1995). Worse than this general picture of CMC disparity by income level is the fact that the gap between high-income and low-income CMC use has been widening. Higher-income Americans are adopting the new CMC technologies at a faster rate than lower income citizens (Anderson, et al., 1995). Approximately 13% of Americans without high school degrees have computers, while about 49% of college graduates have computers (Anderson, et al.,1995).

The highest penetration rates for household computers are for Anglo and Asian Americans. Over 30% of Anglos and over 37% of Asians have computers in their households (Anderson, et al., 1995). Hispanics, African Americans, and Native Americans all have a penetration rate about 13% (Anderson, et al., 1995). A study done by Wirthlin Worldwide and described this year, says that there has been a 60% increase in American Internet users in one year (Winston, 1996). The study also found that users of the Internet in the United States are well-educated, wealthy, and younger than the national average. Almost half earn over $40,000 per year and 57% of online users are male. The study also indicates a positive relationship between income and consistent usage. While on-line access to political information seems intuitively vital for citizen participation, we must remind ourselves that only about 1% of all U.S. households use videotext services and less than 7% were using computer networks in general in the early 1990s (Forester, 1992). More important than facts like this, however, is a search for patterns of data over time that indicate either positive, negative, or neutral sociological developments. The RAND data cited above is one example doing this.
 

For Part II of this paper, click here.