Is deliberation on the Internet a democratic improvement for a better governance ?

laurence Monnoyer-Smith
University of Technology of Compiègne, France

     Full text: PDF
     Last modified: May 1, 2005

Abstract
This paper is based on a two-year long French case study financed by the Ministry of Environment which analyses the original procedure followed by the National Public Debate Commission about the opportunity and the potential location of the 3d International Parisian Airport.
Because of the technical complexity of the decision, the various environmental and political issues at stake, the former left-wing government decided not to impose on the population a final decision which would have provoked emotional and violent reactions among the concerned public. They instead decided to involve all stakeholders in a public debate with both an off and on-line dimension : public meetings were organised and their transcription on the internet was to feed the public forum opened to any type of comments, questions etc. for 6 months.
The objective of our research was to evaluate the deliberative dimension of the debate : our multidisciplinary team (which includes a political scientist, a media and political communication specialist, linguists, rhetoric and argumentation specialists) has used various methodologies to compare both dimensions of the public debate. The structure of off and on-line argumentations and the on-line quoting discourse have been analysed ; extended exploratory interviews have been conducted among 25 participants of both off and on-line parts of the debate by our research team.
Our analysis shows that this debate can be qualified as a Latourian hybrid Forum despite its many incoherencies and amateur aspects. The use of Internet as such has enhanced the participation in the debate by allowing different types of contributions to be made, different people to be involved and different types of arguments being heard. We would therefore like to demonstrate that an appropriate use of the Internet can be something other than a pure gimmick in political debates, even when political stakes are high as it was in this case.