DIGITAL TENSION: A COMPARISON BETWEEN DEMOCRACIES AND AUTHORITARIAN REGIMES

There is no looking back from the ever-increasing digitalization of political processes and administration. This is a global phenomenon, but it has different impacts in democratic and authoritarian regimes. This theoretical paper seeks to explain this difference using the concept of digital tension. Digital tension refers to incompatibility among the different components of digital technology, which gives rise to incongruence and even conflict between different outcomes of use of digital technology to political processes. Digital technology promotes openness, transparency, and decentralized use, but it also facilitates centralization of monitoring and control. The outcomes of openness, decentralization, and transparency in actual practice go against the centralizing tendencies inherent in the same technology. In political discourse we say that digital technology empowers ordinary citizens, but we can also assert that it equally empowers rulers in a political regime. However, the interests of the rulers and the ruled are not the same even in democratic regimes. Since governing authorities are more resourceful, they are likely to use digital technology to enhance their power. This tendency is found in both democratic and authoritarian regimes. In democratic regimes, the ruling regime may use digital technology not only to centralized monitoring and control, but also for greater surveillance of opponents and critics. However, digital tension is well managed in authoritarian regimes, and hence the empowerment of rulers through digital technology is more pronounced. Thus, digital technology for centralized monitoring, supervision, and control is a boon for authoritarian regimes. This paper is divided onto four parts: Part one deals with theoretical issues related to digital technology and digital tension, Part two analyzes the role of digital technology in democratic regimes, Part three explains the use of this technology in authoritarian regimes, and Part four compares democratic and authoritarian regimes with respect to the use of digital technology and lists conclusions of this study.