Riski ja progressi kujutamine avalikus kommunikatsioonis e-valimiste näitel
Date
2006
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Tartu Ülikool
Abstract
Description
The present thesis examined representation of risk and progress in public communication by
the example of e-elections. Discourse analysis were used in the work to find out how critical-
rational and constructive a debate was; what subjects and contexts were linked with
discourses; if parties argued for their standpoints and how they did that, and whether
something changed in social practice as a result of the debate or not.
The framework of the research is the theory of risk society by Ulrich Beck according to which
modern Western societies are in the middle of moving from the first stage of modernity or an
industrial society towards the so-called second stage of modernity or a risk society. Unlike all
former cultures and development stages of society, notwithstanding dangers they faced in
many different ways, a modern society is confronted with itself in handling risks (Beck 2005:
236). According to Beck, the political system is also going through changes because of
continuously increasing risks, and competent governmental control authorities and risk-
sensitive public media begin increasingly take the floor and interfere in the system. Consensus
existed previously regarding progress, according to which the technological progress was
equalized to the social progress. In a risk society those mechanisms are changing and Beck
considers involving citizens and discussing risks important.
Progressive mentality has been prevailed in Estonia after the restoration of independence. The
state has been introduced as a successful e-state; innovative technologies have been willingly
adopted by people and came into use. Virtualization of elections or the concept of e-elections
where people having the right to vote can make their choices via Internet was also proposed in
connection with the increasing flow of e-services. Such an innovative step raised discussions
both in media and the Parliament of Estonia during development of respective statutes.
The present research examined opinion articles published in dailies, debates in the Parliament
of Estonia and commentaries in Internet in 2005. A selection of texts based on the results of
content analysis of seminar paper by Mari-Liis Jakobson and texts aggregated in the sample
included risk and/or progress arguments. The sample included 14 texts from opinion articles of dailies and Internet commentaries to those articles. The longest debate on the 3rd
of May
and also debates on the 11th
of May and 9th
of June in the Parliament of Estonia were included
in analysis.
The work examined, on the basis of discourse analysis, risk and progress discourses that
figured in different environments. Discourses divided into subdiscourses similarly in all
environments. Three main fields differentiated in subdiscourses in case of both risk discourse
and progress discourse: innovation versus counter-innovation, technological progress versus
technological untrustworthiness, and progress of democracy as the third discourse. The
analysis showed that discourses collided with each other and there were little intersection and
constructive discussion. Manipulative tricks were often used and an argument of other party
served as a basis in arguing: generally the argument was disproved by an opposite argument.
Interests of an individual user (security, subjects of fraud, privacy) were mainly pointed out in
the risk discourse. The analysis of social development and opportunities was represented to a
lesser extent. Progress discourse depicted e-elections rather as a constructive force for society
(increasing electoral activity, involvement of young people). Risk discourse gave more
reasons in the context of conventionality and legality.
Briefly we can say that risk discourse was more represented both in the Parliament of Estonia
and opinion articles and commentaries but progress discourse prevailed nevertheless. In proof
of the latter we can point out the fact that e-elections were enacted and also implemented
without major changes that were requested by speakers of risk discourse.
Against Beck’s risk society and on the basis of examined debate, we can say that risks are
more often a subject in Estonia than before but the quality of the debate and the manner and
form of dialogue in order to find results that would satisfy all parties was weak and striving to
self-profit.
Keywords
H Social Sciences (General), bakalaureusetööd, poliitiline kommunikatsioon, valimised, e-hääletamine, kommunikatsioon, suhtekorraldus