Digital Political Participation and the Digital Divide: Insights from the Cambodia Case

Marc Pinol Rovira

doi:10.22452/mjir.vol8no1.5

Abstract

Political participation in Cambodia is broadly characterised by high voter turnouts and limited democratic constitutionalism to ensure that elections are inclusive and a fairly contested process. The popularisation of digital media and tools profoundly impacted political participation in Cambodia: on the one hand, digital media improved people’s political engagement – for example, with organisational skills to take part in political rallies – but, on the other hand, challenges like digital surveillance or unequal opportunities to benefit from digital media emerged. This article uses existing literature to explain how digital media has changed political participation, and primary data from in-depth interviews to key members of civil society to analyse the impact of the digital divide on political participation. It is suggested that digital media is valuable opportunity to improve democratic governance, but the digital divide is limiting its democratising capabilities; young citizens with critical thinking skills are more likely to benefit from digital democracy, while adults with lower critical engagement with digital media are more exposed to threats like fake news. This article feedbacks debates on political participation in the digital era and, more broadly, on the democratisation capabilities of digital media, and endorses the views of techno-sceptics, who acknowledge the opportunities of digital democracy, but they show great(er) concern for the challenges.

Highlights

Cambodia’s history is tumultuous: from the great Khmer Empire that expanded across Southeast Asia in the 12th century (Jacques & Lafond, 2007) to its decline - ninety years of colonial rule; the genocide during the Khmer Rouge regime; civil war in the 1970s; and the Vietnamese occupation during the 1980s exemplify it (Chandler, 1993; Strangio, 2020; Vickery, 1999)
An examination of history provides context to understand the major political developments in the country, and how they are still relevant today: decades of conflict and authoritarian rule that resulted in power dynamics that have placed a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of elites; lack of democratic tradition that translated in political participation mostly based on electoral democracy; and, more recently, why the popularisation of digital media to practise politics has shaken the current system of governance
This paper engages with digital political participation and the digital divide; the first half uses existing literature to explain why digital democracy became a relevant political development in the early 2010s, while the second half uses primary data to make a qualitative analysis of the digital divide using age and education

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Cambodia’s history is tumultuous: from the great Khmer Empire that expanded across Southeast Asia in the 12th century (Jacques & Lafond, 2007) to its decline - ninety years of colonial rule; the genocide during the Khmer Rouge regime; civil war in the 1970s; and the Vietnamese occupation during the 1980s exemplify it (Chandler, 1993; Strangio, 2020; Vickery, 1999). In Cambodia, the co-optation of digital media and crackdown on liberties happened after the elections of 2013 and peaked in 2017, just one year before the general elections of 2018; channels for political engagement were closed and, opportunities for political participation were reduced, contributing to a democratic regression (Cambodian Centre for Independent Media, 2018; Croissant, 2018; Lamb, 2018; Shahbaz, 2018) Another challenge to political participation that is often less obvious is the digital divide - a challenge that impacts citizen’s possibilities to fully benefit from digital politics. Fixing the digital divide is not the ultimate answer to improve digital political participation, but it is one factor that contributes towards finding out how digital media contributes to the country’s democratic development

METHODOLOGY

Findings

CONCLUSION