Description
Authoritarianism threatens democracy but coexists within democracy in the digital era. Digital authoritarianism and democracy scholars, using a practice approach, have asserted that authoritarian and democratic regimes implement authoritarian practices (AP) in the digital sphere, such as blocking websites or filtering their contents. While this approach helps us comprehend real-world practices, it needs a comprehensive framework to examine the dynamics behind them.
Current studies have neglected the relationships among entities involved in digital authoritarian practices (DAP). The practice lens enables a focus on the entities implementing AP, more than on the government. The digital era, characterised by technological advancements, has seen corporations emerge as major political actors, transforming traditional government-centred governance.
Furthermore, scholars overlook democracy's interactive features. While the practice approach is beneficial in examining authoritarianism in democracy, it should not neglect the outcomes of DAP. In a democracy, the social reaction to AP is an input into the political process. Therefore, it is crucial to consider the existence of authoritarianism in democracy in the digital sphere and the results of these practices.
Adopting the concept of a “hybrid regime”— authoritarian and democratic traits coexist in a single state—expands the digital sphere. Analysing the Republic of Korea as an explorative case study highlights two distinct relationships among four entities - government, parliament, citizen and social media enterprise, involved in DAP within a democracy: cooperative and conflictive. Examining the legal framework for AP in a democracy and developing policies that align with emerging technologies will help us understand the involvement of democratic government entities in AP and the public's response to them.
This research aims to develop a framework for analysing DAP in democracy by exploring why democracy allows digital authoritarian practice? How are multiple actors engaging in these practices in democracy? What are the relationships between these entities?
