Democracy needs three things to thrive. People need a sense of civic agency, groups need a minimum of social trust and the public as a whole needs a minimum of trust in institutions.
Digital technologies, particularly social media, can undermine each ingredient. Designed for profit, many social-media sites lend themselves to autocratic leaders who seek to distract the public, generate fear and control public narratives with disinformation. Yet digital technologies can also support democracy.
In my PeaceTech and Polarization Lab at Notre Dame, I work with new “deliberative technologies” that hold promise to reignite our ability to practice democracy together. Deliberative technologies are designed differently than social media. Participants are invited to discuss an idea or answer a question. Seed responses offer examples they can vote to “agree, disagree or pass” on and then add their own ideas. Future participants vote on those new responses.
The deliberation often occurs over weeks as responses accrue. Many platforms allow anonymity and do not offer a “reply” button in order to keep the focus on the ideas and prevent personal attacks.
In these ways, deliberative technologies offer new methods of civic engagement, build mutual trust among diverse groups and reweave the web of public trust between citizens and institutions.
Technology for Civic Agency
Civic agency refers to the belief that individuals can shape policies that affect their lives. When it declines, people stop voting and getting involved in their communities. As loneliness and anxiety rise, many people stay in their comfort zones and give in to apathy.
Research suggests that “doom scrolling” through the flood of false and deceptive information on social media, browsers and artificial intelligence contributes to a feeling that the world’s problems are too numerous, too complex and too chaotic for anyone to try to change them.
One problem with social media is its cacophony of angry voices. Most platforms are designed like the Colosseum: Roughly 1 percent of users are doing the talking, while most remain silent “by-scrollers” who read and watch arguments, unwilling to enter the digital fray.
Democracy thrives when people understand a breadth of viewpoints and the nuances of issues. While traditional polling involves researchers gathering input on curated ideas, deliberative technologies allow participants to help frame discussions. Users may contribute but not reply to others’ contributions. People using deliberative platforms report feeling empowered to influence public decision-making.
Taiwan, for example, uses a platform called Polis to shape its approach to digital democracy. When a matter arises for public debate, users may vote on it anonymously. Polis’ visualizations show points of agreement and potential compromise across the ideological spectrum. Participants may refine their views to garner support. In time, statements attracting broad consensus move forward, creating a resource for new policy.
When the ride-sharing service Uber tried to enter the Taiwanese market in 2015, the company met opposition from taxi drivers. Strong pro and con viewpoints were expressed, but Polis users came to agree that Uber should not have a competitive advantage over taxis and its cars should be registered. The government instituted regulations based on those digital deliberations.
Technology for Social Trust
Social trust refers to the quality of relationships among social groups. When it breaks down, an “us against them” mentality sets in. People no longer believe they can coexist. Fear and hatred predominate.
Autocracy feasts on fear. Democracy depends on trust. Unfortunately, social media gives hateful rhetoric a platform, amplifying “good versus evil” attitudes and cancel culture, where people respond to contrary opinions by breaking off communication. This road leads to further animosity and gridlock, as people become unable to work together across divisions.
Democracy flourishes amid wide-ranging experiences and views. Just as biodiversity improves ecosystem resiliency and a diverse gut microbiome strengthens health, a rich variety of ideas helps us find solutions to pressing problems, from migration to economic inequality to social injustice.
Deliberative technologies enable us to source and synthesize our collective intelligence to make sense of a wealth of perspectives. While social media helps people speak, deliberative technologies help us listen at scale, mapping different points of view to facilitate understanding.
Paradoxically, the solution to toxic polarization is to create such a map, which reveals more poles. Policy solutions are not usually binary. Mapping potential solutions offers a richer pool of ideas toward outcomes that benefit the most people possible.
In war-torn Libya and Yemen in 2020, the United Nations adapted a deliberative tool called Remesh to allow citizens to weigh in on peacebuilding efforts among factions. Participants in both countries were invited to answer open-ended questions anonymously. Public officials responded to input on live television, and the U.N. reported a high level of citizen engagement.
Technology for Public Trust
Public trust refers to the bonds between citizens and the institutions that serve them, such as local, state and national governments, journalism outlets, academia, religious organizations and community groups. When public trust breaks down, populism sets in, pitting people against their government and other institutions. Social-media newsfeeds in many countries — including the United States — offer little more than a litany of conspiracy theories and deceptive information.
Democracy requires the airing of public grievances as well as transparency and accountability. But the endless scroll of complaints on social media acts like a wet blanket smothering democracy’s waning flame.
The government of the United Kingdom has used Polis to explore how to deploy collective intelligence to promote public trust and civic participation. The technology has also unearthed new ideas, strengthening faith in the government’s receptiveness to citizen input. One teenager participating in a digital deliberation on climate change received funding for a rotating solar-panel mechanism that increases energy production and generates clean water.
Similar successes offer hope for the restoration of relationships among the public, the government and other institutions that have been weakened by cynicism and disengagement — making deliberative technologies a potential antidote to toxic polarization and a win for the rekindling of democracy.
Lisa Schirch is Richard G. Starmann Professor of the Practice of Peace Studies at the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies in the Keough School of Global Affairs, where she directs the PeaceTech and Polarization Lab.