Background

The democratization of democracy is what modern internet technology brings into traditional people culture and society. The democratic features of web 2.0 tools have completely unfounded the rather stifling tendencies that may have characterized governance and the styles with and in which it is practiced. Combined with the pervasiveness of mobile phones, modern web tools have, and will continue to disrupt the once centralized power centered governance forms and transform them to those in which powers are extended to the edges, the peripheries, where standard forms of governance were, in the first place, designed. It is as if participatory governance was waiting for a catalyst that will accelerate the combustion of citizen involvement and power management at the center; a bridge that would link two very dependent but often disjointed entities in the governance process – the governed and the governors. The glue that will crystallize the relationship that is required for progressive and forward thinking nation states – entities. It is perhaps the conceptualization of web 2.0, not as the end in itself but as a means to an end2 that seeks to bring a certain dimension of ubiquitousness to this technological sphere. Indeed, technology, in and of itself may not in any direct way change the course of nature but it is its application to the socio-economic aspects of living that brings about this very disruptive tendencies that we only now see a tip of. It is yet still in a phase where life is totally dependent on it but it is not too long before over-dependence gives way to what becomes tradition, culture and finally defines an identity of a people or society. For it is the layering of certain forms, norms, and habits onto tradition that results in culture and identity.

Certain characteristics define today’s internet technology developments. For instance, the social networking platforms carry a collaborative characteristics of sharing, of community ownership, and of dependence for and on information flow. They further highlight the fact that the voice of the community do actually lie with the people of the community themselves. It is in these forms that modern forms of technology assumes an African attribute of dependence, of communal living, of democratic voices in the community village square, of ubuntu – a state of living that consist not of itself alone but of the community as a whole and as an entity of itself and by itself. So, when modern technology tools are adapted to the traditional African society, they present a form most powerful, most pervasive and most disruptive of what have become a large deviation and a variation of our traditional governance structure and style. Indeed, these tools could play an important role in the return to the forms of governance and administration as we once knew it – in the village square participatory forms, in which every citizen has a say in the price of fish in the next market day. Perhaps the adaptation of technology to normal societal forms may pose the greatest of challenges to the revolution of our now imbibed governance styles, but that may be the reasons for which they must and should be introduced in the first place. Like alluded, not as an end it itself but as a means to an end. In a form that it does not change what already consists but rather a layering of it to existing culture and tradition. This is expressed today in the way, for instance, the mobile phones have become an essential and integral tool in African society. Perhaps leveraging our vocal culture but more so layered over it to provide a now visible but unobserved and unrecognized neo-techno-cultural African society – the dependence on technology for daily living. It is this unobtrusive but pervasive adaptation that I speak of.

The Ghana Elections and the Role of modern technology in cultural democracy

As with any process, culture or society, things will happen whether technology is present or not. The sun will rise and set, business will run as usual and society will engage in its affairs as always. People will speak to each other whether the mobile phones exists or not. They do not need modern social networking internet tools to relate with themselves. Indeed, the very topological structures and forms of their immediate community is designed in forms that social networks have assumed, way before these tools ever got invented. Ultimately, Africa do not need these tools to run its affairs.

But also, as with everything, a little help as provided by technology goes to accelerate if not complement the efforts of normal practices. An abacus would help tally the numbers much more effectively than if the counting was done on the finger tips or if the marks were made on the sand. So, would a calculator and consequently a computer aid in the final sales of fish by the local fisherman in the traditional village setting.

So, when the opportunity to layer modern collaborative technology tools became apparent during the Ghana elections, it was not only out of necessity but more to leverage what have already become an integral part of the African society today.

To start with, social forms were recognized and leveraged. For instance, the social relationship between the electoral commission and the media was synonymous with existing cultural and traditional forms. I would argue that this relationship was the bedrock of the transparency that characterized the electoral process in Ghana – the establishment of a trust relationship that must remain respected throughout the electoral process. Indeed, the trust relationship was necessary in order not to call the election before its time even though the immediate sense of reason seeks to do otherwise. While technology itself cannot ensure the firmness of a trust relationship, it is the layering of technology on the relationship that enhances the trust itself. To expatiate, the use of twitter, (a web 2.0) tool, which is democratic in nature, to announce provisional results in an up-to-date form, while the use of a blog site to announce Electoral Commission verified results only goes to enforce that relationship. Images, flickred to the site further provided an eye to the happenings at pollen stations and around the elections in ways that benefited the absent. Together, these tools have ensured a powerful but yet simplified and transparent forms of monitoring. Eyes, voice and ears were needed everywhere, and the tools only went to ensure that these happened.

Now, the Ghana process was initiated with journalists, media persons, that themselves were new to the process. While they may have received their capacity reinforced in the use of modern technology tools for election monitoring, the global sense of their contribution may have eluded them. It is this lack of a fuller, more holistic understanding of the process that may pose a challenge to the larger more disruptive nature of participatory democracy. For if, only an ‘elitist’ few media practitioners are skilled enough to ‘contribute’ to knowledge on the elections, this certainly would not be representative of the electorate nor its wishes. The electorate is a number that far surpasses the the quantities that our representative eyes, ears and voice offered during the Ghana elections. Indeed, the ideal is for citizens themselves to be empowered in the use of the ‘tools’ that have become an essential part of their culture and identity. To use these tools in airing their views, opinions; and to participate in the democratic process. The quality of gleanings will improve, the voices will be numerous and transparency would be insurmountable If a check and balance, as provided by these tools were to come into play in the electoral process. While this larger test bed may present ambitious intentions potentially jeopardizing these concepts, it may be possible to incentivise citizen participation. This should be the next phase, not only in the process leading to the elections but, most importantly, the post election process where citizens are themselves involved in the monitoring of new governments and administrations.

Conclusions

We are only beginning to see the impact that Web 2.0 tools have on the daily lives of an average citizen, indeed, in the cultural and traditional forms that define today’s global citizen. The potential, mind blowing tendencies will define the way people interact with themselves, live amongst themselves and determine how they arrive at decisions – critical or trivial. If it does not outrightly take over the forms by which democracy is characterized, it would not be long before it actually takes over completely. And we would be best prepared to handle its disruption by the way we position ourselves.

— footnotes