Untitled - socium.ge

368 Araba Sey and Manuel Castellscitizens, in contrast to models that prioritize consultation or participation(Chadwick and May, 2003). Thus, although Coleman (2001) identifies threepossible e-campaigning models in UK politics, he concludes that, while thecampaigns concentrated on the “e-marketing” model, and Internet usersfocused on the “voter empowerment” model, the “e-democracy” model,based on interactive participation, was conspicuously absent.It is not unusual for old models of political communication to linger whilepoliticians get used to, and find effective ways to work with, emerging methods(Kamarck, 2002; Katz and Rice, 2002). However, the primary reason forthe continued dominance of traditional communication models is not thegradual easing in of a new model, but the reluctance on the part of politiciansto lose control over the political process. “Control of the message in acampaign is as much an obsession as is money and candidates fear this lossof control,” which is likely to happen in an open Internet campaign(Kamarck, 2002: 98). Not only can Internet users exchange information thatmay not be “on-message,” but both supporters and opponents also have thecapacity (thanks to hypertext and other Internet capabilities) to produce newmessages using campaign information without approval from the officialcampaign, what Foot and Schneider (2003) call “unilateral coproduction.”Furthermore, politicians anticipate “burdensome exchange among candidates,campaign staffs, and citizens, which would entail . . . losing the abilityto remain ambiguous in policy positions” (Stromer-Galley, 2000: 112).Consequently, political institutions consciously develop only those aspectsof Internet campaigning that are less subject to manipulation and input fromusers and more in tune with how they believe politics should be conducted.In sum, if the added value of the Internet is its interactivity and its potentialfor autonomous communication, a political system predicated on thecontrol of messages and the gatekeeping of access to institutions of representationand governance is unlikely to use the medium to its fullest potential.On the other hand, the more a political process is based on the buildingof citizens’ autonomy, the more the Internet may play a role as an enhancingmedium of political mobilization and influence. Let us explore this hypothesis.THE INTERNET AS A MEDIUM OF POLITICALAUTONOMYWhile politicians seek to retain control over the political process, somesegments of the electorate seek to attain greater autonomy in politicalengagement. The Internet potentially offers two levels of autonomy to theonline electorate. First, users can access more campaign information without