Abstract

This study examines whether social media contributed to the success of the Korean presidential impeachment protests of 2016–17 and promoted participatory democracy. The 2016–17 candlelight protests contributed to the overthrowing of a corrupt regime. However, was it a victory of participatory democracy? To answer this question, we must first be clear on what kind of participatory democracy is being referred to. Therefore, while social media played a crucial role in the success of the protests, the impact of social media on participatory democracy should be addressed separately. For this purpose, we first analyse the contributions of the digitally connected movements during the 2016–17 protests with two social movement theories: resource mobilisation and collective identity. Second, we examine whether the success of digitally connective movements during those protests promoted participatory democracy. To discuss this issue, we use Arnstein’s concept of a ‘ladder of participation’, which describes participatory democracy as falling within three levels, from non-participation through tokenism to citizen power. This study shows that the proliferation of social media politics by itself does not convert representative democracy into participatory democracy. This implies that even if social media augments citizens’ power of resistance, it cannot transform citizens into a governing power.

摘要

这项研究探讨了社交媒体是否对2016-17年度韩国总统弹each抗议的成功作出了贡献，并促进了参与性民主。2016-17年的烛光抗议助长了一个腐败政权的推翻。但是，这是参与式民主的胜利吗？要回答这个问题，我们首先必须弄清楚所指的是哪种参与式民主。因此，尽管社交媒体在抗议活动的成功中起着至关重要的作用，但社交媒体对参与式民主的影响也应单独解决。为此，我们首先使用两种社会运动理论：资源动员和集体认同来分析2016-17抗议活动中数字化联系运动的贡献。第二，我们研究了在抗议期间数字化结盟运动的成功是否促进了参与性民主。为了讨论这个问题，我们使用阿恩斯坦的“参与阶梯”概念，该概念将参与式民主描述为三个层次，从不参与到通过象征主义到公民权力。这项研究表明，社交媒体政治的扩散本身并不能将代议制民主转化为参与性民主。这意味着，即使社交媒体增强了公民的抵抗力，它也无法将公民转变为统治力量。从不参与到象征主义再到公民权力。这项研究表明，社交媒体政治的扩散本身并不能将代议制民主转化为参与性民主。这意味着，即使社交媒体增强了公民的抵抗力，它也无法将公民转变为统治力量。从不参与到象征主义再到公民权力。这项研究表明，社交媒体政治的扩散本身并不能将代议制民主转化为参与性民主。这意味着，即使社交媒体增强了公民的抵抗力，它也无法将公民转变为统治力量。