By Shell C 
I’ve been participating in the Australian electoral process since early childhood. Progressive dinner fundraisers were part of my life so early I was going to them in my pyjamas. Letterboxing from five and handing out how-to-vote cards in our teens, my sister and I grew up “knowing” election outcomes were important enough to dedicate months to a campaign. It didn’t end there. If my father didn’t agree with something the government was currently doing, he’d be meeting with our local member of parliament to discuss it. As an adult, I would march, sign petitions, write letters: whatever it took to make my voice heard. When elections rolled around, I informed myself about the issues and knew very definitely which way I was going to vote (and in the upper houses I always vote below the line).
Over the years I’ve had the odd reminder not everyone has the same awareness of civic participation: the person who thought a 40-minute wait at the polling booth gave them more time to decide who to vote for, the friend who was gobsmacked grassroots political party members exist. I had a conversation with someone who, following the recent referendum result, had just realised voting was not just a chore but a decision which had real ramifications. These people who are disengaged from the process are not the exception but the rule. It’s not even a new phenomenon. McAllister (1993) reported only around a third of Australians knew the answers to key questions about our system of government, and that this was linked to age and when people arrived in Australia. It’s not just political life people are disengaged from, but our community in general. Lewis (2023) pointed out less than half the population are members of any type of organisation, and if only those engaged people voted it would have meant a different outcome for the referendum.
If people haven’t learnt about civics using more formal methods, can social media help with this education and engagement? Park et al. (2023) found correlations between online interaction and civic engagement, although the measures of both were superficial. There are many ways technology can be used to improve civic literacy, including some amazing work being done in allowing students to participate in civic life in virtual cities (Bers, 2008). I’d like to focus on two particular suggestions a colleague and I recently made to the Inquiry into civics education, engagement, and participation in Australia, and explore some of the benefits and limitations of these.
Suggestion 1: Videos on social media
We need some absolutely basic videos about our system of government. The main benefit of having these on social media is that anyone can access them. Unfortunately, a limitation is there’s no way to ensure people get the accurate, reliable information. Algorithms result in the “echo chamber” phenomenon, where people tend to get presented with information that fits with their existing view of the world (MacNamara et al., 2012), and misinformation and disinformation abound (Fielding, 2024). Also, current creators of this type of content seem bound by what’s always been and the result looks just like television advertisements. No engagement, no feedback, no nothing. I think these videos need:
- Empowerment: Universal suffrage is amazing in that every person gets a say in how our government runs (Brett, 2019). Let’s lean into that.
- Call to Action: Fine. So my vote is powerful. But what should I do?
- Dialogue: This is the important one. What’s the point of using social media like it’s television? Let people engage in a conversation.
I’ve a made an example of what I think they should look like.
Suggestion 2: Online conversations with public figures
We have a (very large) group of Australians who are completely disengaged from not just the electoral process but civic life in general. Then we have a much, much smaller group of people who are tasked with governing the country. I’ve found myself recently thinking “I wish this person could speak with my local member (who is a government minister) about that.” But then: Why can’t they?
Gone are the days we could only interact with the people we can meet in person. Social media (well, the internet, really) has made it possible for me to take classes with fellow students from all over the country, and I regularly have meetings – both personal and professional – with people around the globe. That’s therefore the second suggestion: Members of the public submit questions which are triaged to the appropriate member of parliament, public servant or academic to answer. The answering should be done in real-time online with the questioner so they can ask clarifying questions. At the end of the conversation, the questioner will fully understand whatever concept they wanted to know about. Of course, one questioner at a time isn’t a super-efficient way to educate the country. That’s where the social media part comes in. If questioners are invited to record the session and share it on social media, these interviews can serve the twofold purpose of allowing viewers to learn from their answers and also to see how everyone’s voice can be heard.
Like the videos, a benefit of social media in this instance is that it can reach anywhere. Additionally, the ability to connect on a personal level with strangers is a unique advantage of social media, and civic education is most effective when it involves interaction and participation (Coleman, 2008). Unfortunately, the dark side of this idea is how exposed questioners could be to strangers everywhere. Harassment on social media is a very real danger (Lahti et al., 2024) and it will be necessary to do proper assessment and mitigation of the risk of psychological harm to participants.
Pros and cons
The following infographic summarises some of the considerations of both suggestions.
What do you think?
Do you think either of these suggestions will help Australians understand the workings of our civic processes? Please let me know in the comments below if you have thoughts or different ideas. Or if you’ve got a question you’d like answered in a video, let me know here.
Credits
Video credits
Video created by Shell C using Canva
Music
“Make A Difference” by SILVER AEROPLANE is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
Images
“Australian Parliament – panoramio” by Jim Bowen is licensed under CC BY 3.0.
“House of Representatives, Australian Parliament, Canberra” by Between a Rock is licensed under CC BY 2.0.
Reference
Brett, J. (2019). From secret ballot to democracy sausage. How Australia got compulsory voting. The Text Publishing Company.
Blog post credits
Images
“Pony rides at a campaign fundraiser” by Roger C is used with permission
Question mark made by Shell C using Canva
Zoom call image created by Shell C using generative AI. Canva Magic Media (Prompt: young adult in zoom call with politician). *Post-editing done using Canva to cover a flag (American) and remove the other meeting participants from the computer screen.
Infographic made by Shell C using Canva
“Cogs” by Shell C
References
Bers, M. U. (2008). Civic identities, online technologies: From designing civics curriculum to supporting civic experiences. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. (pp. 139-159). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7893.001.0001
Brett, J. (2019). From secret ballot to democracy sausage. How Australia got compulsory voting. The Text Publishing Company.
Coleman, S. (2008). Doing IT for themselves: Management versus autonomy in youth e-citizenship. In W. L. Bennett (Ed.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth. (pp. 189-206). MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7893.001.0001
Fielding, V. (2024). Failing Democracy: The Voice Referendum Shows a Media Inquiry is Needed. AQ: Australian Quarterly, 95(1), 12-18.
Lahti, H., Kulmala, M., Lyyra, N., Mietola, V., & Paakkari, L. (2024). Problematic situations related to social media use and competencies to prevent them: results of a Delphi study. Scientific Reports, 14(1), 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55578-5
Lewis, P. (2023, October 17). The voices of division will keep winning unless we learn these hard lessons from the referendum. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2023/oct/17/the-voices-of-division-will-keep-winning-unless-we-learn-these-hard-lessons-from-the-referendum
Macnamara, J., Sakinofsky, P., & Beattie, J. (2012). E-electoral Engagement: How Governments Use Social Media to Engage Voters. Australian Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 623-639. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2012.731491
McAllister, I. (1998). Civic education and political knowledge in Australia. Australian Journal of Political Science, 33(1), 7. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361149850697
Park, S., Lee, J. Y., Notley, T., & Dezuanni, M. (2023). Exploring the relationship between media literacy, online interaction, and civic engagement. Information Society, 39(4), 250-261. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972243.2023.2211055