نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی‌دکتری‌حقوق‌عمومی، دانشکده حقوق‌و‌علوم‌اجتماعی، دانشگاه‌تبریز، تبریز، ایران

2 استادیار ، گروه حقوق دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی ، دانشگاه تبریز ،تبریز ، ایران

3 دانشیار ، گروه حقوق دانشکده حقوق و علوم اجتماعی ، دانشگاه تبریز ،تبریز ، ایران

چکیده

محیط‌ دیجیتال فرصت‌ها‌‌‌ی‌جدیدی را برای مشارکت سیاسی شهروندان ایجاد می‌کند.‌ در این میان،‌‌‌‌‌‌ نظارت بر مراکز قدرت سیاسی و اقتصادی برجسته و مهم است. این نظارت در واقع شامل بررسی عمومی در مورد مدیریت وجوه عمومی‌و فعالیت‌های سیستم‌های عمومی و اقتصادی است،‌ بنابراین فرآیندهای نظارت سیاسی‌ازطریق‌دموکراسی‌در محیط‌دیجیتال ویژگی‌های ناکارآمد را محکوم می‌کند. هدف این مقاله توصیف، تمایز و طبقه بندی اشکال مختلف نظارت است که می-تواند در‌ دموکراسی‌های کنونی مورد نظر واقع شود. نتایج نشان می‌دهد که سه زمینه اصلی نظارت وجود دارد که عبارتند از : نظارت دولتی، نظارت مشترک و نظارت مدنی.این پژوهش با مشخص کردن چهار نوع گونه شناسی نظارت مدنی ( عملکرد نگهبان، استخراج و تصفیه اطلاعات محرمانه،گسترش مسائل از طریق روزنامه نگاری جایگزین و گسترش نمایندگی فراتر از پارلمان ها )، موضوعات مذکور را محور بررسی و تمرکز قرار داده است. این پژوهش در پی یافتن پاسخ این سؤال است که در پس زمینه دموکراسی نظارتی در محیط دیجیتال، عوامل نظارت دقیقاً چه کسانی هستند؟ بعلاوه اینکه چگونه می‌توان این فرایندها را در حوزه سیاسی بین المللی شناسایی و متمایز کرد؟ یافته های پژوهش با بهره گیری از روش توصیفی تحلیلی و جمع آوری اسناد کتابخانه‌ای نشان می‌دهد که با اجتناب از بررسی عمیق تجزیه و تحلیل موضوعات درگیر در فرآیندهای موشکافانه، سه بخش اصلی که نظارت بر آنها سازماندهی شده است را می‌توان بر اساس بازیگر یا سازمان پیشرو درگیر متمایز کرد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Typology ofdemocracy political surveillance processes in the context of digital communications

نویسندگان [English]

  • HosseinAli Kkalhor 1
  • Hossein Malakouti hashtjin 2
  • Mohammad Mazhari 3
  • Ayat Mulaee 2

1 PhD student in Public Law, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz. , Tabriz, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

3 Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Social Sciences, University of Tabriz

چکیده [English]

The digital environment creates new opportunities for citizens' political participation. This oversight actually includes a general review of the management of public funds and the activities of public and economic systems, so political oversight processes, through democracy, in the digital environment, condemn inefficient features. The purpose of this article is to describe, differentiate and classify the various forms of governance that can be considered in the current valley of democracies. The results show that there are three main areas of oversight: government oversight, joint oversight and civil oversight. This study has identified four types of civil surveillance typologies (guardian performance, extraction and refinement of confidential information, expansion of issues through alternative journalism, and expansion of representation beyond parliaments), focusing on these issues. This study seeks to answer the question of who exactly are the supervisors in the context of regulatory democracy in the digital environment? Furthermore, how can these processes be identified and differentiated in the international political arena? Findings of the research using descriptive-analytical method and collection of library documents show that by avoiding in-depth analysis of issues involved in meticulous processes, the three main parts that are organized to monitor can be Distinguished based on the actor or leading organization involved.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Monitoring
  • Democracy
  • Online Activities
  • Digital Environment
  • Journalism
  • New Media
Reference
Agarwal, S. Bennett, W. L. Johnson, C. N. & Walker, S. (2014). A model of crowd-enabled organization: Theory and methods for understanding the role of Twitter in the Occupy protests. International Journal of Communication, 8, 646–672.
Allan, S. & Thorsen, E. (2009). Citizen journalism: Global perspectives. New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Bailey, O. Cammaerts, B. & Carpentier, N. (2007). Understanding alternative media. Maidenhead, UK: McGraw-Hill International.
Bakardjieva, M. (2012). Reconfiguring the mediapolis: New media and civic agency. New Media and Society, 14(1), 63–79. doi:10. 1177/1461444811410398
Bennett, W. L. & Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics.Information, Communication and Society, 15(5), 739–768. doi:10. 1080/1369118X. 2012. 670661
Bjornlund, E. C. (2004). Beyond free and fair: Monitoring elections and building democracy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Bossewitch, J. & Sinnreich, A. (2012).The end of forgetting: Strategic agency beyond the panopticon.New Media Society, 15(224), 224–242.doi:10. 1177/1461444812451565
Cabannes, Y. (2004).Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy, Environment and Urbanization, 16(1), 27-46. doi:10. 1177/095624780401600104
Casero-Ripollés, A. & Feenstra, R. A. (2012). The 15-M movement and the new media: A case study of how new themes were introduced into Spanish political discourse. Media International Australia, 144, 68–76.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication power. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Castells, M. (2012). Networks of outrage and hope: Social movements in the Internet age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Chester, J. (2007). Digital destiny: New media and the future of democracy. New York, NY: The New Press.
Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press,
Davis, A. (2010). Political communication and social theory. London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
Della Porta, D. (2011). Communication in movement: Social movements as agents of participatory democracy. Information Communication and Society, 14(6), 800–819. doi:10. 1080/1369118X. 2011. 560954
Downing, J. (2001). Radical media: Rebellious communication and social movements. London, UK: SAGE Publications.
Duranti, A. (2013). The green screen: Neda and the lost voices. International Journal of Communication, 7, 1344–1370.
Dylko, I. & McCluskey, M. (2012). Media effects in an era of rapid technological transformation: A case of user-generated content and political participation. Communication Theory, 22, 250–278. doi:10. 1111/j. 1468-2885. 2012. 01409. x
Earl, J. & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally enabled social change: Activism in the Internet age. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Feenstra, R. A. (2012). Democracia monitoriza en la era de la nueva galaxia mediática [Monitory democracy in the new media galaxy age]. Barcelona, Spain: Icaria.
Feenstra, R.A. & Keane, J. (2014).Politics in Spain: A case of monitory democracy.VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Online First, 1–19. doi:10. 1007/s11266-014-9461-2
Fuchs, C. (2010). Alternative media as critical media. European Journal of Social Theory, 13(2), 173–192. doi:10. 1177/1368431010362294
Garcelon, M. (2006). The “Indymedia” experiment: The Internet as movement facilitator against institutional control. Convergence, 12(1), 55–82. doi:10. 1177/1354856506061554
García-Marzá, D. (2008). Sociedad civil: Una concepción radical [Civil society: A radical conception]. Recerca. Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi, 8, 27–46.
Gripsrud, J. (2009). Digitising the public sphere: Two key issues. Javnost–The Public Journal, 16(1), 5–16.
Habermas, J. (2006).Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16, 411–426. doi:10. 1111/j. 1468-2885. 2006. 00280. x
Harlow, S. (2012). Social media and social movements: Facebook and an online Guatemalan justice movement that moved offline. New Media and Society, 14(2), 225–243. doi:10. 1177/1461444811410408
Hindman, M. (2009). The myth of digital democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Howard, P. N. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy: Information technology and political Islam. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media collide. New York, NY: NYU Press.
Keane, J. (2009). The life and death of democracy. London, UK: Simon and Schuster.
Keane, J. (2013). Democracy and media decadence. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kovach, B. & Rosenstiel, T. (2007). The elements of journalism: What newspeople should know and the public should expect. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press.
Lathrop, D. & Ruma, L. (2010). Open government: Collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.
Lievrouw, L. (2011). Alternative and activist new media. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Lomicky, C. S. & Hogg, N. M. (2010). Computer-mediated communication and protest: An examination of social movement activities at Gallaudet, a university for the deaf. Information Communication and Society, 13(5), 674–695. doi:10. 1080/13691180903214515
McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the agenda: The mass media and public opinion. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
McNair, B. (2006). Cultural chaos: Journalism, news and power in a globalised world. London, UK: Routledge.
Micó, J. L. & Casero-Ripollés, A. (2014). Political activism online: Organization and media relations in the case of 15M in Spain. Information, Communication and Society, 17(7), 858–871. doi:10. 1080/1369118X. 2013. 830634
Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: The dark side of Internet freedom. New York, NY: Public Affairs.
Munck, G. L. (2009). Measuring democracy: A bridge between scholarship and politics. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Murthy, D. (2011). Twitter: Microphone for the masses? Media, Culture and Society, 33(5), 779–789. doi:10. 1177/0163443711404744
Norris, P. (2004). Building knowledge societies: The renewal of democratic practices in knowledge societies (UNESCO World Report). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government.
Perritt, H. H. (1997). Open government. Government Information Quarterly, 14(4), 397–406. doi:10. 1016/S0740-624X(97)90035-6
Pickard, V. W. (2006). United yet autonomous: Indymedia and the struggle to sustain a radical democratic network. Media, Culture and Society, 28(3), 315–336. doi:10. 1177/0163443706061685
 Ramón A. Feenstra & Andreu Casero-Ripollés, p (2014) Democracy in the Digital Communication Environment:A Typology Proposal of Political Monitoring Processes: Universitat Jaume I de Castelló, Spain. Pp. 2448-2468
Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-democracy: Politics in an age of distrust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rosanvallon, P. (2011). Democratic legitimacy: Impartiality, reflexivity, proximity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Scheuch, E. K. (2003). History and visions in the development of data services for the social sciences. International Social Science Journal, 55(177), 385–399. doi:10. 1111/j. 1468-2451. 2003. 05503004. x
Schudson, M. (1998). The good citizen. A history of the American civic life. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Schudson, M. (2004). Click here for democracy: A history and critique of an information-based model of citizenship. In H. Jenkins & D. Thorburn (Eds.), Democracy and new media (pp. 41–69). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schudson, M. (2010). Political observatories, databases and news in the emerging ecology of public information. Daedalus, 100–109. doi:10. 1162/daed. 2010. 139. 2. 100
Sifry, M. L. (2011). WikiLeaks and the age of transparency. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Silverstone, R. (2007). Media and morality. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
Sousa, A. Agante, P. & Gouveia, L. (2010). Governmeter: Monitoring government performance. A web-based application proposal. In K. N. Andersen, E. Francesconi, A. Grönlund, & T. M. Van Engers (Eds.), Electronic government and the information systems perspective (pp. 158–165). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Springer.
Sunstein, C. (2007). Republic. com 2. 0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tewksbury, D. & Rittenberg, J. (2012). News on the Internet: Information and citizenship in the 21st century. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Torcal, M. Teorell, J. & Montero, J. R. (2006). Political participation: Mapping the terrain. In J. Van Deth, A. Westholm, & J. R. Montero (Eds.), Citizenship, involvement in European democracies. A comparative analysis (pp. 334–357). London, UK: Routledge.
Trägardh, L. Witoszek, N. & Taylor, B. (Eds.). (2013). Civil society in the age of monitory democracy. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Trapel, J. & Maniglio, T. (2009). On media monitoring – The media for democracy monitor (MDM). Communications, 34, 169–201. doi:10. 1515/COMM. 2009. 012
Van Laer, J. & Van Aelst, P. (2010). Internet and social movement action repertoires: Opportunities and limitations. Information Communication and Society, 13(8), 1146–1171.doi:10. 1080/13691181003628307
Van Laer, J. (2010). Activists online and offline: The Internet as an information channel for protest demonstrations. Mobilization, 15(3), 347–366.