Jurnal Good Governance Volume 16 No.
2 September 2019 | 179
EFFECT OF DIGITAL COMMUNITY TOWARDS DEMOCRACY
PROCESS: DIGITAL PARTISIPATION ANALYSIS IN INDONESIA
Alih Aji Nugroho STIA LAN Jakarta alihnugroho@gmail.
Abstract The world is entering a new phase of the digital era, including Indonesia.
The unification of the real world and cyberspace is a sign, where the conditions of both can influence each other (Hyung Jun, 2.
The patterns of behavior and public relations in the virtual universe gave rise to new social interactions called the Digital Society.
One part of Global Megatrends has also influenced public policy in Indonesia in recent Critical mass previously carried out conventionally is now a virtual movement.
War of hashtags, petitions, and digital community comments are new tools and strategies for influencing policy.
This paper attempts to analyze the extent of digital society's influence on public policy in Indonesia.
As well as what public policy models are needed.
Methodology used in this analysis is qualitative descriptive.
Data collection through literature studies by critical mass digital recognition in Indonesia and trying to find a relationship between political participation through social media and democracy.
By processing the pro and contra views regarding the selection of social media as a level of participation, this paper finds that there are overlapping interests that have the potential to distort the articulation of freedom of opinion and participation.
- which is characteristic of a democratic state.
The result is the rapid development of digital society which greatly influences the public policy process.
Digital society imagines being able to participate formally in influencing policy in Indonesia.
The democracy that developed in the digital society is cyberdemocracy.
Public space in the digital world must be guaranteed security and its impact on the policies that will be The recommendation given to the government is that a cyber data analyst is needed to oversee the issues that are developing in the digital world.
Regulations related to the security of digital public spaces must be maximized.
The government maximizes cooperation with related stakeholders.
Keywords: Digital Society.
Democracy.
Public policy.
Political Participation INTRODUCTION Nowdays, there is a shift in the pattern of relations in society.
The internet has become a mainstream means of communication which greatly affects the real life of society (Hyung Jun, 2.
According to a survey from Hootsuite .
the total human population in the whole world in 2018 reached 7,593 billion, 53 percent or 4,021 billion were internet users .
ctively browsing and searching for information through the interne.
While 42 percent or 3,196 billion are social media users.
More than half of the world's population are active internet users and more than 40 percent communicate using social media.
If seen from the distribution of internet users by region, all countries in the European region have more than 70 percent of the total internet users, even in the Northern Europe region, more than 90 percent of the population are internet users (Nugroho, 2.
Countries in the Americas region more than 60 percent are internet users.
Only in the Central and East African regions are internet users under 40 percent.
Social media users when viewed by region, almost all countries in the world have more than 40 percent of the total population of social media users (Turley et al.
Mainland 180 | Effect of Digital Community Towards Democracy Process: Digital Participation Analisys in Indonesia Europe and North America have even more than 60 percent of social media users.
Only the Central and East Africa regions where social media users are below 10 percent.
The trend of increasing internet users is also experienced by Indonesia.
Indonesian active internet users are more than 50 percent of the total population or 132.
7 million users (Nugroho, 2.
Social media users in Indonesia as of January 2018 reached 130 million or 49 percent of the population.
The activeness of internet users in Indonesia is also quite On average each person spends more than 8 hours accessing the internet from various devices (Turley et al.
While the average time spent accessing social media is 3 hours 23 minutes every day.
These conditions justify the mainstream view of scholars who say we are entering a 4.
industrial revolution.
A number of industry key markers 4.
0 according to Nugroho .
as follows:
Cyber-physical systems: the merging of the physical, digital, and biological worlds The Internet of things (Ashton, 1.
-Connected all online and offline artifacts to local and global networks continuously through the internet Cloud computing Utilization of computing in an internet network to run programs or applications through computers connected at the same time.
The internet is the central server for managing user data and applications Cognitive computing Systems with learning features and continuous adaptation like the human brain The pattern of community interaction by using internet devices raises a new entity called digital society.
The digital community is conceptually not yet getting enough consensus because the study of this matter still tends to be small (Ferdiansyah and Faturahman, 2.
Digital society according to the OECD-ILA PISA poject is to have an effective communication relationship using digital information technology, in which there are activities to access, organize, integrate and evaluate information for an interest .
an Joolingen, 2.
To clarify the scope of the influence of digital society on public policy, this paper focuses on the use of social media in democracy in digital space.
Not many studies have analyzed the influence of social media and the internet on public policy making in participatory democracy terminology (Ferdiansyah, 2.
Ferdiansyah .
also stated that there were only 13 scientific articles that discussed social media and internet relations to democracy and public policy in the period between 2007 and 2018.
In essence, social media was designed to streamline and streamline human communication.
At this writing, "social media" is not interpreted as a micro example such as Facebook.
Twitter.
Youtube.
Instagram, blogs, etc.
- but a reference to internet terminology.
The large level of social media use in Indonesia has made many observers smell the great potential behind social media to enhance and strengthen democracy in Indonesia.
according to Dahlan .
9: .
, communication is the backbone of democracy.
the whole democratic process is carried out with communication.
Rapid technological advancements of late have driven information globalization, which in turn brought intense pressure on developing countries to reform towards Western democracy.
Technology on social media.
Jurnal Good Governance Volume 15 No.
2 September 2019 | 181 according to Dahlan, "is increasingly being applied in the democratic process in Asia although it does not always work well and can sometimes also cause a lack of success.
Along with the presence of social media, such as Facebook.
Twitter.
YouTube and Blogs, the political participation of the community, especially young people through the internet, is increasing rapidly.
Political participation through social media in Indonesia is one thing that had become a phenomenon a while ago, when citizens launched political pressure and mobilized public opinion online.
Although the political movement did not always succeed in carrying out certain political issues to pressure the government, it was not uncommon for movements through social media to successfully urge the government to change these controversial policies.
For example in the case, the KPK VS POLRI, the Primate Mulyasari case, and the Century Bank scandal, until the hottest: the 2014 presidential election saga took public attention long enough.
The phenomenon is able to involve millions of users of social media in a relatively short time.
In this context.
Ibrahim .
1: .
, calls this event a form of cyberdemocracy, cyberpolitic, or cyberprotest in Indonesia.
Some experts even concluded that social media had a significant impact on the development of democracy in Indonesia.
The assumption is that democratic theorists have always believed that democracy can be maintained because there are political participation of citizens who are active and concerned about civic affairs.
In addition, in the view of Terri L.
Towner .
3: .
the use of social media in the realm of democracy is a positive predictor of political participation, and as the media landscape has changed, social media has played an increasingly important role in politics.
Some observers have raised the role of social media as a tool that can help the democratic process by giving citizens exposure to political information and providing tools for participation.
However, in Towner's view, the relationship between social media use and the level of participation is still being debated among experts.
Some experts argue that the use of social media has a positive influence on political participation, and knowledge and civic engagement through social capital, while others argue that the use of social media has little and no significant influence on political participation (Towner, 2013: .
Apart from the above, the use of social media in the realm of government - actually is in the arena of the concept of E-Government .
-Go.
E-Gov is essentially the simplification of the implementation of participatory government with the use of information and communication technology.
E-Gov has been considered a solution in the era of globalization in order to realize public services that are far more effective, accountable and E-Gov first developed in the United States in 1993 after the use of the internet in government affairs identified since the 1970s.
E-Gov services are related to the use of information technology .
uch as: wide area network, internet, and other forms of mobile communicatio.
organized by government institutions.
According to Ndou .
4: .
the inherent nature of the implementation of e-Gov is its ability to transform Government relations with citizens, business actors .
, between government institutions, and government and employees - which derives the variety of terms of G2C (Government to Citize.
G2B (Government to Busines.
, and G2G (Government to Governmen.
, and G2E (Government to Employe.
To achieve the objectives of the concept.
Valentina Ndou .
bid: .
describes the location of e-Gov in the governance arena through the following 182 | Effect of Digital Community Towards Democracy Process: Digital Participation Analisys in Indonesia Figure 1.
E-Govt Position in Goverment Source: Ndou .
4 : .
e-Administration: With regard to the implementation of administrative tasks and the implementation of strategic functions carried out automatically through computerization - within the scope of internal agencies according to the duties and functions of each department.
e-Citizen and e-Services: With regard to enabling reciprocal relations between government institutions and citizens for automatic systemic services in computers.
e-Society: To enable relations and interactions outside the boundaries between public institutions, and civil society in general The presentation of Valentina Ndou above implies overlapping preference in the Then assume e-Gov is a solution to deal with overlapping community preferences - through the provision of integrated and implementative "arenas".
It makes So from here the author places this writing in the utopian realm of e-Gov.
So from this writing chose the title "Social Media and Participatory Democracy Imagery: EGovernment Analysis.
In other words, this paper does not intend to present strategic recipes for e-Gov implementation.
The question is in the context of participatory democracy, what aspirations from the community - can the government implement it? Or is it possible that e-Gov is only a program to create conditions that "lead" the public to unwillingly accept the government-provided conference? To answer this question the author feels the need to look at the relationship between political participation on social media - as part of e-Gov with democracy.
This paper takes a theoretical position by linking this study with the normative value of public sphere from a German thinker.
Jurgen Habermas.
It is quite important to see the role of the public space normatively in the formation of democracy through social media as stated by Hardiman .
0: .
Many discourses on public space in politics enter the normative region.
intact and autonomous public space from market and state imperatives is considered the most important condition for democracy.
And democracy, as Hardiman said, always presupposes the freedom to think, speak and communicate without discrimination, manipulation and repression.
For this reason, the writing also tries to explain the Jurnal Good Governance Volume 15 No.
2 September 2019 | 183 relationship between political participation and democracy in terms of positivity and CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK Cyberdemokrasi.
Democracy in Social Media As stated earlier, that this writing takes the perspective of the influence of digital society in the social media corridor on public policy in this case e-Gov, then in the opinion of the author - cyber democracy is quite relevant as an indicator of e-Gov implementation.
The concept of cyber democracy is a combination of cyberspace and democracy, cyberdemocracy relies mostly on the principles of free access and information exchange.
Social media, with its accessible and participatory characteristics, makes it an ideal democratic space where people can communicate freely and participate in forums that are built for collective decision making.
Cyber democracy also encourages the adoption of social media technology and encourages the ethos of free exchange of information, which will make it easier for people to access information, and encourage democratization.
As Nicholas Negroponte .
n Hartley, 2002: .
, which in 1995 stated that, "access, mobility and the ability to make changes are what will make the future different from the present, and that digital information will be" empowering force " exceed the expectations of many people.
Cyber democracy is a concept that sees social media as a technology that has transformative social influences and broadens democratic participation.
According to John Hartley .
Cyberdemocracy is an optimistic concept that emerged since the beginning of social media presence.
The origin of this concept is related to the initial concept of "electronic democeacy".
In 1970 Robert Paul Wolf emphasized that barriers to direct democracy can be overcome through electronic democracy, in which voting machines can be formed electronically in every house and attached to television.
The head of state who first practiced this concept was the President of J.
Kennedy.
When campaigning and Kennedy's way of communicating on television has increased his popularity even throughout the world.
Then the leader who is famous for his populism in Venezuela.
Hugo Chaves - at the beginning of his tenure did a "mess" in two ways: namely to go to the community directly, and use National TV to hold interactive talks with its citizens on the Halo Presidente event.
While in the era of social media, in 2008 President Barack Obama was the head of state who first used social media technology both during campaigns and in the management of his government to date.
Proponents of Cyberdemocracy see social media as a means to provide greater constituent control over their representatives (Ferber, et al, 2008: .
According to Barry Hague and Brian Loader .
4: .
, there are two things that are the main justifications for revisiting the practice of democracy in the information age: first, concerning the growing perception that current political institutions, democratic actors and practices advanced liberals are in a weak condition and held in a bad way.
Second, it relates to the belief that a period of rapid social, economic and political change, signaling the emergence of the information age, provides opportunities to rethink and, if necessary radically overhaul or replace these both democratic actors and practices.
In this context we can see that the idea of cyber democracy is important and an interesting study at this time.
The representative democratic model that characterizes twentieth century society - has begun to lose its charm.
Antony Giddens, a British sociologist famous 184 | Effect of Digital Community Towards Democracy Process: Digital Participation Analisys in Indonesia for structuralist theory, in his book Runway World, calls this phenomenon a phenomenon of the "paradox of democracy".
In the mini essay which was initially prepared for the 1999 BBC Reith Lecturers.
Giddens stated that the paradox of democracy is a situation where a country has undergone a process of democratization, whose democracy has been established, disappointment and dissatisfaction with democracy.
This paradox of democracy, in the Giddens view, is marked by the decline of trust in political parties and its elites.
Most of the people in the community view cynicism towards democracy, and consider politics to be corrupt, where political leaders are more concerned with themselves than really prioritizing the interests of their citizens.
Furthermore, as with e-Gov, the concept of Cyber-democracy cannot be separated from the view that society is experiencing a paradigm shift.
In a changing society, the role of the potential of communication and information technology (ICT) on deliberation in the context of the formation of political institutions and democratic practices becomes very According to Barry Hague and Brian Loader .
bid: .
, there are several key features of social media.
Interactive social media is believed to offer the potential for the development of new varieties in democracy, namely: interactivity, global networks, freedom of speech, freedom of association, construction and dissemination of information, container of opposition, and actualization of national identity.
But Cyber democracy with all kinds of utopians is not without criticism.
Paul Virilio, a cultural observer from France - is one of those who sees cyber democracy with a contradictory point of view, he even considers defenders of cyber democracy as too In Virilio's view, the idea of the possibility of using technology to improve democracy is wrong.
New media technology, which has interactive characteristics and the speed of information flow, in Virilio's view has a number of consequences: First, speed destroys the thoughts and possibilities of democratic deliberation.
Speed of technology produces a culture where communication is used to condition responses from the Second, the global spread of communication and information technology creates the formation of a "terminal citizen".
By destroying the temporal relationship between near and far, humans become more concerned with screen reality than physical Third, the paradox of the information society is that it increases virtual mobility on the one hand, but causes physical weakness on the other.
"Terminal citizens" do not require mobility, so there is not so much possibility of public action, so it can cause "intensivity Fourth, accelerating reality in real time has an individualistic impact where information becomes increasingly focused on oneself.
This process is also interpreted as a shift in the formation of "real" reality to virtual, thus causing people to ignore the material aspects of social relations.
Despite its limitations.
Virlo's analysis of the relationship between social media and democracy can be used to analyze the impact of the development of democracy through internet technology.
His analysis of mass communication media has added a skeptical voice in terms of technological innovation, and to focus our attention on the temporal dimension of communication systems.
Political Participation and Netizen Aristotle once said, "Things related to behavior and questions about what is good for us do not have a certainty, more than health problems .
Agents themselves must in each case consider what is appropriate for the opportunity, such as occurs also in the art of medicine Jurnal Good Governance Volume 15 No.
2 September 2019 | 185 or navigation.
n Sandel, 2.
Scholars who study political participation believe that political participation is the life of democracy.
As in the view of George Moyser .
, citizen participation is the heart of democracy, because without their voices there is no real democracy.
Democracy, in other words, the substantive side is active engagement of citizens in the process of making government policies that affect all aspects of their Participation in politics may seem simple, namely how citizens take part in the process of formulating and implementing public policy.
This view is useful for showing the requirement that political participation must involve some degree of effectiveness and minimal intentionality in contributing to public policy making.
However, in Moyser's view .
bid, .
, political activities by the masses mobilized by the political elite, such as those that can occur with campaign political action and demonstrations, cannot be considered political participation.
Because the role of citizens in political participation has actually been debated, what is actually called "political participation? How is an individual considered to have been involved in political participation? Such as whether political participation is the involvement of individuals or groups? Can expressing verbal support or rejection of government policies be categorized as political participation? Then what about the radical actions that seem to violate democratic principles, such as political violence, silent action or even "sewing the mouth"? Are these actions part of what we call political participation? In this stage.
Moyser provides indicators to answer the questions above.
For Moyser .
bid, .
, the issue of an action can be categorized as political participation through two levels, namely: first, what is called political participation is action that always involves good information used by citizens who are responsible and open to interests together.
In this context, political participation is only - and only - occurs if done responsibly to produce good information.
Thus, participation is related to efforts to improve political knowledge .
olical knowledg.
Second, it relates to the impact that arises from political participation on public policy making.
Indeed, it is rather difficult to measure the impact that arises from political participation, given that we adhere to a representative democratic system.
However, at least we can make a kind of minimum limit, that political participation must have an impact, at least to increase political awareness and to provide political knowledge to the public.
Social media, with its open and interactive nature, is a new form of political participation.
Social media even has the potential to increase greater participation in democratic Information and communication technology (ICT) has many aspects which are called "positive extranalities", namely "side" social benefits that are obtained by individuals who use technology.
And this has the potential to be able to encourage political participation if the information available online helps citizens get more information about politics and is more likely to participate, and people benefit from wider deliberative participation in the democratic process.
Participation in the virtual world is what then creates the creation of "digital citizens" .
opularly known as Netizen.
, which by Karen Mossberger et al.
8: .
are defined as the ability to participate from the community online.
More broadly it can also be said that netizens are those who often use technology for political information to fulfill their obligations as citizens, and who use technology in the workplace for economic benefits.
Thus what is called online political participation can be said which includes political 186 | Effect of Digital Community Towards Democracy Process: Digital Participation Analisys in Indonesia discussion through group e-mail, and sharing political links on Facebook, to posting comments on Blogs, etc.
Participation through social media is indeed different in many ways with participation carried out through traditional .
One of them is through social media, individuals can build more active and significant relationships with official institutions, and in the end they feel empowered to express their opinions more openly and freely.
But, in this context.
Homero Gil de Zyyiga, et al.
0, .
views social media - it can also bring political elites closer to society, making it easier to express views to elected officials and journalists.
The most important convenience of communication on social media - in the author's opinion is to reduce the cost of online participation.
With these facilities, every citizen can be easily involved in online participation, send e-mail to a politician or sign an online petition, with the hope that their political messages will be able to influence the formulation of related decisions.
with public policy.
With this convenience, everyone can make political messages and post them to YouTube, sometimes generating millions of These are things that cannot be done when people want to make political participation through conventional media, such as television, radio, or print media.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Existence of Public Space and Democracy in the E-Gov Era The term "public space" can refer to two meanings: first, this term refers to a space that can be accessed by everyone, so it also limits itself spatially from the existence of other spaces, namely private space.
Second, the term public space has a normative meaning, which means the role of citizens in democracy.
Public space in the normative sense - which is also called "political public space" - is a communication space for citizens to participate in overseeing the course of government (Hardiman, 2010: 10-.
From the term itself, people have been able to recognize their informal and inclusive traits, because the term "public space" or offentlichkeit .
n Germa.
means "a condition that is accessible to everyone" and refers to an open, inclusive character .
bid, .
Whereas "public space", in the view of Alan McKee .
5: .
is not a physical space .
, but only a metaphor to describe virtual space where people can interact.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, academic interests in the issue of public space began to In the opinion of Veronika Koller and Ruth Wodak .
8: .
, it was significantly driven by the first English language translation of Jyrgen Habermas's book entitled "Stuctural Transformation of The Public Sphere" - a study of public space has provided various theoretical approaches, namely destruction " public space "at the end of modern In his book.
Habermas describes a transformation and virtual destruction throughout the 19th and 20th centuries from the ideals of a rational public space inspired by 18th-century cultural institutions: the bourgeoisie in England.
France and Germany.
Habermas himself had been Adorno's assistant throughout the 1950s, from which he sympathized with the diagnosis of the paradoxical character of the modernization process which rationally technical progress turned out to provide freedom and dominance (Johnson, 2006: .
Jurnal Good Governance Volume 15 No.
2 September 2019 | 187 Discourses on public space - are the blood of every reconceptualization of democracy.
The democratization of "space-between" preference in the public means that citizens have the possibility to express their own opinions publicly and publish relevant themes for the community so that voices that are sensitive to this problem are managed by the existing political system.
Such democratic space, where citizens can express their opinions, interests and needs discursively is the main idea of public space which is the core of the idea for Habermas .
n Hardiman 2011: .
Public space in Habermas's view allows citizens to freely express their position, because public space creates conditions that allow citizens to use the power of argument.
Political public space - conditioned as conditions of communication - is not an institution and also not an organization with certain membership and binding rules .
bid: .
Lately, along with the increasing use of ICT, the theme of social media and public space has a permanent place in the realm of intellectual research and inquiry, even entering the mainstream of political communication studies.
As Peter Dahlgren .
5: .
said, that for at least a decade, many researchers and observers have raised the question, does social media have an impact on public space? Questions like this, in Dahlgren's view, have become very important in the context of the general consensus, since the early 1990s, about democracy which is experiencing difficult times.
Besides that, every observer has hopes that the internet might have a positive impact on democracy and help alleviate the In the present, we do see that politics is mediated by the mass media, the press, electronic media and computers.
In view.
Sastrapredja.
Political Media has brought this public world to "glass screens" and "touch screens".
Sastrapredja .
0: .
then defines this as the "domestication of the public sphere".
The shift of public space into private space.
Media communication, according to Sastrapredja, has turned into a media dialogue.
The function of public space is understood as a communicative space constellation in This space, where the internet as a new media plays its role, also functions to facilitate communicative relations between citizens and community power holders (Dahlgren, 2005: .
In this context, social media with its interactive rubric serves as a forum for citizens to have dialogue, both on issues regarding public policy and contemporary political issues.
This is what we can call a public space in the virtual world.
In Habermas's view, a group of people becomes a "public" after they use the ratio and dialogue itself is a process of "using a ratio".
Peter Dahlgren .
5: 148-.
, explains that there are at least three constitutive dimensions that we can use to analyze public space in new media, these dimensions are:
structure, representation, and interaction.
Structural dimensions regarding formal institutionalization features.
The structural dimension, here serves to direct attention - such as the problem of classical democracy as freedom of speech, access, and the dynamics of inclusion / exclusion.
Outside the media organization itself, the structural dimension also shows the political institutions of society, which function as "political ecologies" for the media and boundaries set for the nature of information and ways of expression.
A society where weak democratic tendencies will not create a healthy institutional structure for public space, which in turn means that the dimension of representation will be adequate.
Meanwhile the dimension of representation refers to the output of mass media and "minimedia" which target certain small groups through, for example, newsletters, leaflets, to promotions / campaigns.
And given the increasingly massive communication through 188 | Effect of Digital Community Towards Democracy Process: Digital Participation Analisys in Indonesia social media, representation becomes very relevant for the online context of the public The final dimension, interaction, is related to Habermas's opinion, that the public must be conceptualized as something different from just the "media audience".
Thus the dimension of interaction reminds us of the classic premise, that "democracy ultimately resides with citizens involved in dialogue with each other".
With the emergence of ICT, citizen interaction with online means and the broad character of the public space is increasingly emphasized.
Entering the E-Gov Paradox This section will analyze the relationship between participation through social media as a feature of the implementation of e-Gov in the context of democracy.
What is the form of the relationship, whether negative or positive, and what conditions enable democratization through - and within - social media.
Online political participation in Indonesia in recent years has indeed increased rapidly.
This is marked by the increasing number of users of internet technology, with data costs and affordable devices for the public.
Besides that, the use of Facebook.
Twitter.
YouTube and Blogs also contributes to increasing the role of participation through new media.
Examples of participatory political actions carried out through social media include creating a political .
iscussion foru.
online, writing and distributing blog posts about political issues, posting videos related to political issues through social networks, and discussing or filling in online petitions.
However, as in the view of Merlyna Lim .
2: .
, although some observers say that social media contributes to democracy and freedom of speech, it triggers social change and has become "the fifth estate in Indonesian democracy", but this statement in Lim's view is only true to some degree.
Such views only apply sectorally and certain rare events - such as online movements to support .
or exampl.
Prita and Bibit-Chandra.
Questions that should be asked when anyone can post information via Twitter, blog or Facebook easily.
and making our information content very rich and abundant, the question is: "when there are many voices, who are heard?" .
In research conducted by Merlyna Lim on social media in Indonesia, the distribution of weblinks and traffic .
of the blogosphere in Indonesia is not balanced, in the sense that only a few bloggers .
he name for Blog user.
get considerable attention.
Although there are more than 5 million Indonesian bloggers, posting about 1.
2 million new items every day, however, there is no political influence, as measured by traffic or hyperlinks.
Besides that, the use of social media in Indonesia is still very much done by companies.
Most of the contents also represent opinions, expressions, lifestyles and middle class urban Among the 539 groups on Facebook that are well known, 193 groups contain brands / products / services / companies.
there are 188 groups whose interest in media / entertainment / celebrity.
Meanwhile, only 66 groups were interested in public campaigns / movements / activities / information, reflecting the preferences and choices of the urban middle class.
With the data above, we seem to be somewhat hesitant about improving the quality of democracy that might arise in internet use in Indonesia.
Because by following the views put forward by Moyser, this is not at all related to political participation or improving the Jurnal Good Governance Volume 15 No.
2 September 2019 | 189 quality of democracy, both in terms of the type of information and the effects and political influences that arise.
Following the views of George Moyser .
3: .
, political participation can be explained at two levels: first, what is called political participation always involves good information used by citizens who are responsible and open to common interests.
In this context, political participation is only - and only - occurs if done responsibly to produce good information.
Second, it relates to the impact that arises from political participation on public policy making.
It may be difficult to measure the impact that emerges from political participation, given that we adhere to a representative democratic system.
However, we can at least make a kind of minimum limit, that political participation must have an impact, at least to increase political awareness and to provide knowledge to the public.
This Moyser view can be used to analyze whether increased participation through social media in Indonesia can be classified as "political participation"? The views of skeptical observers also reinforce the argument that social media has not been significantly related to the quality of democracy in Indonesia.
Following Paul Virilio's view, the idea of the possibility of using technology to improve democracy is wrong.
Characteristics of new media, such as speed and interactivity, which some optimistic observers see as a force.
Virlo is actually viewed as a weakness, which if it is used for political activities has consequences: the destruction of the possibility of democratic deliberation: humans care more about virtual reality than physical reality, and with "real" being "virtual", humans tend to pay less attention to environmental material aspects real.
Virilio's view is very plausible, that with the ease of people to simply post information or share .
political messages through social media, making humans potentially have the tendency to neglect the material reality of social life.
This is in line with the thinking of Karlina Supelli .
0: .
, that "everyone easily throws opinions and comments on various types of cases, but no one is willing to look directly .
n" real "political movements or activitie.
and also not who have a sense of responsibility.
"More specifically.
Tod May .
8: .
regards conditions as" political passivity ", that is, when citizens have expectations of the government, however, prefer not to engage in political action, some citizens, in fact, taking part in politics as done in sports or music became fans rather than In this context, the public could be trapped into false empowerment.
In pseudo empowerment, everyone thinks that the opinions he makes and spreads as widely as possible have an impact on the common good, even though they are only floating in the virtual space.
He felt that he was very productive, even though what he did was only collecting information, commenting on it and passing it on to other people (Supelli, 2010:
The things above, have implications for "pollution of the public space".
The most important requirement for democracy is the creation of a complete and autonomous public space from the market and state imperatives.
And democracy, always presupposes the freedom to think, speak and communicate without discrimination, manipulation and repression (Hardiman, 2011: .
When social media content has more to do with matters relating to products, brands, and various kinds of capitalist artifacts, the public space will be distorted by market interests.
The implication is that normative values of public space will be difficult to achieve.
As a critical question posed by Graeme Burton .
5: .
, "there is an issue as to whether the Internet offers new democracy or a new marketplace?".
In Burton's view, e-Gov failed in terms of becoming an open forum and public dialogue.
190 | Effect of Digital Community Towards Democracy Process: Digital Participation Analisys in Indonesia Whether social media, as the antithesis of conventional media, has provided "freedom" - as a feature of a democratic state, or even distorted by the interests of power limped by overlapping preferences in society - as described by Valentina Ndou.
This is a participatory political image in the utopia of e-Gov.
CONCLUSION
The rapid development of digital society is very influential on the public policy process.
Digital society imagines being able to participate formally in influencing policy in Indonesia.
The democracy that developed in the digital society is cyberdemocracy.
Public space in the digital world must be guaranteed security and its impact on the policies that will be determined.
Digital society must be empowered to build better public policies.
But don't get caught up in pseudo In pseudo empowerment, everyone thinks that the opinions he makes and spreads as widely as possible have an impact on the common good, even though they are only floating in the virtual space.
People feel that they are very productive, even though what they do is only collecting information, commenting on it and passing it on to other people.
Through an analysis of the influence of the digital community on e-gov that has taken place in Indonesia there are several recommendations to the government as follows:
There is no government in charge of analyzing traffic from the interests of the digital A cyber data analyst is needed to oversee the issues that are developing in the digital world.
The analyst is also tasked with classifying which issues are truly community issues and which issues have the potential to hoax.
Having a mapping of the issue of the government can be more responsive to the demands of the community.
Regulations related to the security of digital public spaces must be maximized.
Regulations should not be too restrictive but also not to be too loose so that digital public space.
Technical regulations are needed for the implementation of the ITE Law to be more optimal.
The government maximizes cooperation with related stakeholders.
For example, by embracing Change.
org, one of the platforms used by digital communities to convey their interests.
REFERENCES