The Digital Public Sphere and the Opportunity for Global Democratic Transformation.

‫مإلف حماعي‬ ‫‪2022‬‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‪ :‬السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬ ‫الفظاء العام الغكمي وفغصت الخدىٌ الضًملغاػي خىٌ العالم‬ ‫‪The Digital Public Sphere and the Opportunity for Global Democratic‬‬ ‫‪Transformation‬‬ ‫هـاصعصاغـغ‪-‬ػالب صهخىعاة ومؿاعض بدث وجضعَـ‪ /‬حامعت فلىعٍضا ‪ /‬الىالًاث اإلاخدضة ألامغٍىُت‬ ‫‪Nader Dagher- Graduate Assistant and Ph.D. student \ University of Florida \ U.S.A‬‬ ‫‪ndagher@ufl.edu‬‬ ‫مسلص‬ ‫‪٢‬ضم ًىع‪َ ًٚ‬ابغماؽ ‪٨ٞ‬غة ال‪ًٟ‬اء الٗام ‪٦‬ىمىطط لخ‪ٟ‬ؿحر الخدى‪ ٫‬الضًم‪٣‬غاَي في الؿُاؾت واملجخم٘‪ .‬وجغبِ ‪٨ٞ‬غة َابغماؽ مً‬ ‫لخ‪٩‬ىن ال‪ًٟ‬اء الٗام بحن ّ‬ ‫زال‪ ٫‬ؾغص الدؿلؿل الخاعٍذي ّ‬ ‫جُىع اإلاؿاخت الخغة للخٗبحر ًٖ الغؤي واإلاكاع‪٦‬ت ‪ُٞ‬ه م٘ جُىع‬ ‫الضًم‪٣‬غاَُت الخضًشت في ؤوعوبا‪ٗٞ .‬ىضما ؤنبذ ال‪ًٟ‬اء الٗام مخاخا إلاكاع‪٦‬ت الىاؽ في الخىاع خى‪ً٢ ٫‬اًاَم الٗامت‪ ،‬والخٗبحر ًٖ‬ ‫ً‬ ‫ّ‬ ‫آعائهم‪ ،‬بُٗضا ًٖ َُمىت الضولت‪ ،‬بضؤ الغؤي الٗام بالدك‪٩‬ل‪ ،‬وبضؤث ال‪٣‬ضعة ٖلى جدغٍ‪ ٪‬الىاؽ واقترا‪٦‬هم في الٗملُت الؿُاؾُت‬ ‫والاظخماُٖت في الٓهىع‪ .‬وم٘ جُىع ج‪٨‬ىىلىظُا الاجها‪ٖ ٫‬بر الاهترهذ‪ ،‬وزهىنا ‪٢‬ىىاث الاجها‪ ٫‬الخ‪ٟ‬اٖلي‪ ،‬صزل ه‪٣‬اف ال‪ً٣‬اًا‬ ‫الؿُاؾُت والاظخماُٖت بلى مؿاخت ظضًضة‪ ،‬و‪ٞ‬غث ‪ٞ‬غنت الهًىاء ‪٢‬ضع ؤ‪٦‬بر مً الىاؽ في ه‪٣‬اقاتها الا‪ٞ‬ترايُت الجضًضة‪ .‬وٍى‪ٞ‬غ َظا‬ ‫ً ً‬ ‫ال‪ًٟ‬اء الٗام الجضًض‪ ،‬املجاوي وؿبُا‪ ،‬واإلاخٗضص املخخىي بك‪٩‬ل ‪٦‬بحر ‪ٞ‬غنت للخباص‪ ٫‬اإلا‪ٟ‬خىح لأل‪٩ٞ‬اع‪ ،‬ول‪٨‬ىه ًىاظه ؤًًا جدضًا هابٗا‬ ‫مً َبُٗخه التي حٗ‪٨‬ـ حٗضصًت ‪٦‬بحرة‪ ،‬مما ًاصي بلى ‪٦‬م َاثل مً اإلاٗلىماث اإلابٗثرة التي جاصي بضوعَا بلى الدكدذ في الغؤي الٗام‪.‬‬ ‫وج‪٣‬ترح َظٍ اإلا‪٣‬الت ؤهه بةم‪٩‬ان اليكُاء في ال‪ًٟ‬اء الا‪ٞ‬تراضخي خل اإلاك‪٩‬لت بغبِ الجمهىع ب‪ً٣‬اًاَم والغبِ بُجهم ٖبر الخضوص‬ ‫‪ُ٦‬غٍ‪٣‬ت الؾخسضام الؼزم ال‪٨‬بحر لضٖم ٖملُت الخدى‪ ٫‬الضًم‪٣‬غاَي‪ ،‬ومكاع‪٦‬ت الجمهىع في الٗملُت الؿُاؾُت وحٗؼٍؼ صوعٍ الغ‪٢‬ابي‬ ‫بُغٍ‪٣‬ت جخجاوػ الخضوص‪ ،‬وجبجي ٖلى عؤؾما‪ ٫‬اظخماعي ٖالمي ٌٗؼػ الضًم‪٣‬غاَُت والٗضالت‪ .‬وج‪٣‬ترح اإلا‪٣‬الت ؤن ؤَمُت اليكُاء‬ ‫ً‬ ‫الؿُاؾُحن والاظخماُٖحن مؿخ‪٣‬بال لِؿذ بٖاصة جىظُه وج‪ٟ‬ؿحر اإلاٗلىماث ‪٦‬ما ً‪ٟٗ‬ل ‪٢‬اصة الغؤي الٗام خالُا‪ ،‬وبهما الخىُٓم وج‪٩‬ىًٍ‬ ‫مجمىٖاث الً‪ ِٛ‬التي حٗبئ ّ‬ ‫وجدغ‪ ٥‬الجمهىع ٖبر الخضوص لخجٗل مىه ‪٢‬ىة ؾُاؾُت واظخماُٖت ٖلى ق‪٩‬ل خغ‪٦‬ت ٖاإلاُت‪.‬‬ ‫اليلماث اإلافخاخُت‪ :‬ال‪ًٟ‬اء الٗام ؤلال‪٨‬ترووي‪َ ،‬ابغماؽ‪ ،‬الخدى‪ ٫‬الضًم‪٣‬غاَي‪ ،‬ؤلاٖالم الاظخماعي‪ ،‬الخغ‪٧‬اث الاظخماُٖت‬ ‫‪Abstract:‬‬ ‫‪Jurgen Habermas introduced the Public Sphere as a model for democratic transformation. While narrating the‬‬ ‫‪historical sequence, his idea of the Public Sphere is to connect it to the story of modern democracy in Europe. When‬‬ ‫‪the Public Sphere became accessible, away from the state‗s control, it formed modern democracy. People could‬‬ ‫‪participate freely in discussing public affairs and expressing their opinions. This deliberation has led to form public‬‬ ‫‪opinion and form the power to mobilize the public. With the emerging Internet Communication Technologies (ICT),‬‬ ‫‪especially interactive communication channels, the public deliberation of sociopolitical issues has expanded to a‬‬ ‫‪new, virtual sphere. This emerging sphere offers a more inclusive, relatively accessible, and very diverse space,‬‬ ‫‪which creates an opportunity and introduces new ways to think about public opinion. This paper suggests that‬‬ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية ‪ /‬الوبًيب – بزليي‬ ‫‪187‬‬ ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ Digital Public Sphere activism and networking can lead to democratic transition, but not using the traditional way where we expect activists and opinion leaders to redirect and interpret information to the public, but by connecting people around the globe to causes and each other and capitalizing on the momentum of this connection re-invents a global public social as a social and economic power, as part of a bigger concept of globalized movement. Keywords: Digital Public Sphere, Habermas, democratic transformation, social media, social movements Introduction Habermas dates the beginning of the democratic transition to mid-seventeenth-century Europe when the private meetings of the social and political elites departed the kings' courts and became more of open meetings held in the open sphere of public spaces. The significance of that change resulted in both ending the courts‗ long-held control of the debate on public affairs and involving the public in discussing their affairs. It marked the start of balancing the power between people and their rulers, a process that began to give shape to democracy and increased the influence of public opinion (Habermas, 1989). For a long time after the conception of free speech, traditional mass media played the watchdog role by mediating the information flow from state to people and vice versa. It also offered a reporting function that informed citizens about their government, making freedom of the press one of the measures for democratic societies. However, during the past decades, internet use has accelerated so fast that connected people may have an advantage over the unconnected regarding opportunities to get informed. Internet Communication Technology (ICT) is the new press that informs and connects people in cyberspace to communicate and teg to know other people and matters. This emerging space is called Digital Public Sphere. Consequently, researchers etree that Internet Communication Technology (ICT) influences political practices by engaging citizens in political affairs (Rohlinger & Bunnage, 2015). However, an argument around the influence of ICT (mainly social media) in democratization during the Arab Spring, for example, raises the question of the role of ICT and other digital communication tools as a "Public Sphere" that contributes to social and political interaction in a democratic society. In the context of social change, was the Arab Spring, for example, a result of broad online activism? 188 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ Questions like this one, among others, arise as people seem to be divided in their perceptions of the influence of ICT and social media. While this lack of clarity surrounding the role of the ICT and Digital Public Sphere has been debated; communication tools, especially social media, have proven helpful to social movements and other entities and initiatives (Castells, 2017). In this chapter, I will explore the question of how this sphere plays a role in the political transition, how this sphere has developed as a concept and how it can be considered a tool for change. Internet as a sphere A large body of research supports the idea that Internet Communication Technology (ICT) paved the road for social media and Social Network Sites (SNS) to offer a platform for political transformation to democracy (Mutsvairo & Ragnedda, 2017). With people connecting, gathering, and disseminating news with a personal spin that reflects their perspective, ICT offered contextualization and more possibilities for information‗s interpretation and validation. For digital communication to contribute to democracy, it must be understood as a "Public Sphere" with accessibility, free speech, and equal opportunity for all voices. Internet communication is highly qualified to be a Digital Public Sphere by giving marginalized people the chance to be part of politics. However, the idea of the ―Public Sphere‖ must be examined in terms of serving the democratic transition, especially in the Arab world. In addition, a deeper exploration of the possibilities that ICT brought to sociopolitical processes is needed to estimate the role this technology can play in democratic transition. The Public Sphere The concept of the "Public Sphere" primarily referred to elite European political gatherings where state policy on public issues was deliberated behind closed doors. In the mid-seventeenth century, it became possible for people to convene and debate in other spaces, especially in the houses of the urban nobles and bourgeois upper stratum, and more specifically in the main cities of France such as Paris. As part of town life and court life, the aristocratic class helped transform places where people debated around town to Public Spheres thereby making space for the so-called ―lower class‖ to attend meetings that allowed open discussions. Thus, princes started holding 189 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ festivities in what was later called "salons," where these social gatherings were independent of the court (Habermas, 1989, p. 831). Urban societies might have offered places for public gatherings; however, starting at the mid seventeenth century, these new gatherings became different. People of influence, knowledge, or connection to the court made these gatherings significant because they were the link between the courts and the people. Elite class could communicate the king‗s court views to the people in these gatherings since no significant person (decision-maker or person of influence) attends an ordinary people's gathering, which put those with access to the king‗s courts in a unique position in a stratified society. On the contrary, upper-class people and their ideas were the most influential compared to ordinary people‗s voices because the upper-class directly or indirectly influenced the king's policies through his close circles. The king was the most crucial part of communication during these gatherings. But that was changing. Soon a new considerable power would emerge. Whether intentional or not, the transformation of these gatherings had set the stage for a more engaging Public Sphere. In the first stage of this transition, salons emerged with new stakeholders such as artists, writers, and scientists, mainly from bourgeois families (Habermas, 1989, p. 31). However, the king's court dominated the Public Sphere and the nature of discussion and decision-making despite the new actors. Leading to the second transition stage, the Public Sphere remained centered around the court until the King of France, Philip of Orleans, moved the royal palace from Versailles to Paris (Versailles Palace was relatively outside Paris). Closer to the city‗s center, the king‗s proximity to the public was the fundamental cultural transformation of the Public Sphere. This transformation meant that predominantly upper-class people started participating in the public debate. The emerging salons and cafes in Britain and France were home to ―cultural critique‖ first and later discussions of ―politics and leadership of church and state‖ According to (Habermas, 1989, p. 33). The Public Sphere had dismantled the wall between the people and public affairs, which expanded the circle of players in the social and political elites. It was no longer an elite-only privilege to discuss public affairs, setting the stage for more social and political transformation. While this might seem like a natural development, Habermas considered this a milestone in the democratic transition in Europe, and its consequences resulted in far more than participation in the political debates. 190 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ The development of the Public Sphere as a political phenomenon cannot be separated from social and economic development. The Public Sphere was about to offer an affordable and accessible space for everyone to be part of the social and political process, partially due to the rise of new economic and social forces. In the mid-seventeenth century, tea, chocolate, and coffee were standard within the upper strata, but not for long. Soon local cafes opened their doors, and these drinks were served to the public. Cafes in London and Paris offered visitors an interior design that mimicked aristocratic palaces. According to Bollerey & Grafe, ―Cafes like Procope's in Paris became part of the cultural life‖, attracting Voltaire, Diderot, Rousseau, and other writers and philosophers (Bollerey & Grafe, 2007, p. 24). The Public Sphere became more independent of European kings‗ courts by hosting people outside the palace and the king's circle. In this stage, we can imagine people discussing issues of public interest and forming what we can call public opinion throughout European cities and villages. But what does the development of the Public Sphere mean when thinking about political and social change? Public Sphere and social change The Public Sphere has given an opportunity to people who want to get involved in public affairs. Communication from the public to the leadership has become increasingly important. As a result, public opinion emerged as a new important input to policymaking. Thanks to ICT and mainly social media, governments and leaders can now bypass the social and political structure and hear the regular people. Instead of one-way communication from top to bottom, bottom to top communication has become possible. At the turn of the eighteenth century, public places had become where people stated their legitimate demands to influence the decisions of the state authority (Habermas, 1989, p. 57). Now we have politics outside the government- dominated spaces. This change meant that the Public Sphere had become part of the democratic transformation taking a new turn in the British social and political system. Political change can be part of a change in social structure and emerging new economic powers. Interestingly, the conflict between classes, the emergence of mercantilism, and the transformation of the Assembly of the Estates to a modern parliament in Britain made these 191 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ political-economic powers appeal to the new authority of the public (Habermas, 1989, p. 58). Class conflict involved two groups: the Landed (descendants of the Bourgeoisie who purchased and owned estates) and the Moneyed (people who made money through finance). The rise of the new wealthy class created a conflict between the interest of commercial and financial capital on one side, and the group of fast-growing manufacturing and industrial capitalists on the other. These two classes intended to influence policies that can protect their interest and increase their power. But with their rise, a new working class is created, with power organize. The emergence of the manufacturing working class contributed to the development of cafés and taverns as public spheres where doors are open to the streets and alleys, contrary to the previous elites' private and exclusive gatherings (Bollerey & Grafe, 2007, p. 6). In addition, this class has become a new consuming power for economics and a new concerned group. Workers worried about policies that might impact their job stability and demand for their manufacturers‗ goods. Therefore, this workers‗ class had a particular interest in politics that united it with other social or racial groups and often conflicted with the employers. To keep their interest, the working class sought unionization. This open conflict of interest between central powers dramatically allowed public debate. It gave the Public Sphere moral power to discuss and form public opinion on specific issues, influencing election and representation in the elected government. In addition, eliminating the "Institution of Censorship" in Britain (1695 Act) was a landmark in developing the Public Sphere. At this point, the Public Sphere has become the domain of social life in which public opinion could be formed from rational public debate (Habermas, 1989). The critical outcome of this conflict of interest between the Bourgeoisie and the new wealthy class was public empowerment. People's opinions became important, especially when Britain decided to pursue political reform and legalize the freedom of speech. Thus, the dialectic of the Public Sphere has become a component of democracy. According to Habermas (1989), moralpractical discourse's discussion to resolve political and social problems founded the Public Sphere. He suggests it is the space where society communicates ideas and addresses decision-makers through social institutions. The modern Public Sphere conception is not far from that; however, it considers institutions that channel public engagement. 192 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ Habermas proposed characteristics of the Public Sphere with a set of normative conditions that are summarized by (Dahlberg, 2011) as: 1. Autonomy from state and economic power. Discourse is based on citizens' concerns as a public rather than driven by the media of money and administrative power. 2. Exchange and critique of civilizable moral-practical validity claims in a space that enables learning and free expression. 3. Reflexivity. Participants must critically examine their cultural values, assumptions, interests, and social context. 4. Ideal role-taking. Participants must attempt to understand the argument from the other's perspective. 5. Sincerity. Each participant must sincerely try to publicize all information relevant to the problem under consideration. 6. Discursive inclusion and equality among all participants, disregarding their wealth or social status. The public and the sphere The public, in this context, is not an audience. Instead, it is conceptualized as a discursive interactional process. Instead of perceiving the public as passive audiences sitting in their homes consuming media, they are citizens who engage in a discussion, which makes the Public Sphere fundamental to democracy (Dahlgren, 2005). Before Habermas conceptualized the public sphere, there were always public spaces in urbanized cities. Questions arise concerning the "publicness" of space before departing the courts. While this "publicness" cannot be assumed, it should be problematized (Papacharissi, 2002). The "sphere" is frequently confused with "space," but these are different in this context. Public space is not a Public Sphere by default. The Public Sphere is a space where people gather to discuss social and political issues to solve them (Castells, 2008). It is a space where people can discuss public affairs and freely express their views. By being a place of interaction and discussion of public affairs, the Public Sphere is open to the concerned public whose goal is to deliberate and influence politics. But when it comes to the digital sphere, users mainly access it for connection and consumption of content such as entertainment rather than 193 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ networking and exchange. The digital sphere can be a Public Sphere if the public gain equal access to it (Dahlgren, 2005), but what does it offer as an additional Public Sphere? The public sphere in the digital environment From a communication point of view, most of the world around us is mediated now (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). This mediated interaction online can reach and influence public debate beyond the control of governments and institutional powers in societies (Harsij et al., 2014). However, if the Digital Public Sphere is not available to all, then the Public Sphere might not deliver on its promise to offer democratic and open space for all. Imagine a society where only certain groups with economic or social status can access social media. The internet mediates the political debate, spreads it to a wide range of audiences, and enables discussions beyond time and space limitations. Public debate is no longer in-person communication between individuals and groups. While the Public Sphere still exists in the form of in-person gatherings, it has also been branching out into cyberspace, allowing even more access to people and a diversity of views. The Digital Public Sphere has enabled people to exchange ideas online. However, is the Public Sphere described by Habermas as free and accessible for all? Or is it only a "mediated presence"? Social media can be seen as a platform for political transformation to democracy. However, the use of the Digital Public Sphere is a broad concept. Social media can help democratic transition when people use it to connect with others, gather news from diverse sources, learn different interpretations and analyses, and convey their ideas. These actions draw from additional sources beyond the mainstream media to educate people on issues. In addition, social media plays an essential role in conveying diverse opinions and thoughts of unheard voices. Cyber or digital space is now seen as a potential Public Sphere comparable to the 17thcentury coffee houses of London and the salons of Paris. Digital Public Sphere users can be considered as an audience, authors, and active participants (Dahlberg, 2011) in constructing this sphere. Suppose the idea of Habermas was about accessibility and participation. In that case, the digital sphere is mainly public, despite the gap in accessibility between people in different countries and people in the same societies. Wherever social media is an influential venue for public debate, it is also assumed that the public has enough access to that debate. The assumption here is that social 194 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ media can be more transformative based on its popularity in terms of users, not only among activists who organize and promote ideas. Social media, and ICT in general, help communicate political ideas (Bowen, 1996; Harsij et al., 2014). Activists, who believe in these ideas and promote them, became the phenomenon that took communication from information and awareness to action. In this vein, activists use social media as a channel to publicize and facilitate the discussion around these ideas (Bowen, 1996; Harsij et al., 2014). They translate these ideas into actionable and tangible behavior. In this vein, publicity of issues does not set the agenda for debaters like the traditional media and mainstream media outlets do, instead, activists‗ intervention puts forward ideas for people to act. Activists are the people who can decide and influence the public‗s agenda by raising specific issues for debate and ignoring other ideas deemed less critical. Christiano & Neimand (2017) assert the goal for activists should not revolve around raising awareness, but rather their success is in mobilizing people to take action as means of translating their awareness to actions. Is the Digital Public Sphere open to the public? Several characteristics of the digital sphere can make it comparable to the Public Sphere. For example, the Public Sphere is a buffer between society and the state. While Habermas referred to the development of the Public Sphere when it descended from the king's court to the nobles' and aristocrats' palaces (Habermas, 1989), the Public Sphere had become public when it made that transition to include more people in the process1. The idea that people are part of the discussion on their affairs has been the seed that led to representation within democratic transformation since then. In fact, the whole idea of democracy is people‗s ability to take charge of their affairs. The Public Sphere‗s basic principle drew the line between the court and public meetings held in public places. In principle, the Public Sphere is accessible to all. Harsij et al. (2014) defined ―all‖ as ―a public body‖ made of private citizens engaging in an open discussion. In comparison, the publicness of Internet Communication Technology (ICT) is negotiable. However, some factors can help decide the ―publicness‖, including accessibility and users' behavior. 1 The Public Sphere offers personal presence, not representation, even though it maintained some exclusivity for a while. 195 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ Some scholars and analysts state that online communication is a natural Public Sphere. They promise that online space and information available simultaneously and cheaply can create an online discourse that will increase political engagement and promote citizen activism. However, even though the Digital Public Sphere has created a space where ideas can be exchanged and be part of the information process, this technology cannot automatically transform this space into a Public Sphere nor its users into active public participants (Papacharissi, 2002). This confirms the previously stated idea that the nature and behavior of these users as activists or just recipients is what decides whether the digital sphere can be a Public Sphere. Inequality in access to information and technological literacy are rigid barriers between the people and the "publicness" of the Digital Public Sphere. Papacharissi (2002) suggests that the internet provides space for this politically-oriented sphere, but this does not mean that it is up to the internet—as a tool—to create the Public Sphere per se. Papacharissi (2002) deposits that the extent to which the internet is a Public Sphere is conditional to accessibility and the extent that it guarantees freedom of speech and the exchange of ideas. Fortunately, the internet is expected to be increasingly available to more people worldwide, suggesting that, theoretically, the digital sphere is becoming more of a Public Sphere. These two conditions are about users more than the medium itself, begging the question: how do they use their time online to practice their rights and influence politics? Another question stems from that which is how can the digital sphere be a Public Sphere? Representation in the digital sphere also matters. Social media is qualified for being a Digital Public Sphere due to the accessibility and engagement of marginalized people who otherwise would not have a chance (Relly & Pakanati, 2020). Thanks to the digital sphere, interaction has moved from citizens' interaction to a global connection, bringing media to a more deliberative area of the networked Public Sphere (Reese & Shoemaker, 2016). Theoretically, this should be good news for democratization and transformation. However, it is not that simple. Interaction within the digital sphere has two aspects according to (Dahlgren, 2005). First, this interaction involves the citizen's active role in using media and other resources through their interpretation of information. Passive users are consumers, with no obvious intent to act or practice of their rights. The second aspect of interaction is between citizens themselves. Digital sphere users‗ interaction can be one-way communication style, similar to audience‗s relation with the traditional 196 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ media, or in form of open channel for exchange, including the possibility to give feedback, correct information and provide alternative views. Active role interaction between citizens can be seen as activism. Activists are people with strong motivation to make a change. They organize and mobilize the rest of the public to practice their rights of speech, express their feelings and opinions, state their demands, and push for action (Martin, 2007). With its wide reach, the digital sphere is celebrated worldwide as a field of innovation. However, it is a product of the social and political system in which it was created (Jones, 1997). This necessitates activists to think and act independently from the political and economic institutions. These institutions represent the interests of the powerful and socialize and neutralize the public in ways that might not be in the public‗s best interest. But with the great potential to connect people via digital space, online debates focus on the benefits of the people who "have" and their advantages versus the ―have-nots‖ and their disadvantages. Unless activists balance the power by representing and defending the voiceless and powerless, this places the digital sphere far from being the space that reflects the fundamental concept of Public Sphere (Papacharissi, 2002). So, how does the Digital Public Sphere become a tool for democratization? Networking in the digital sphere The political establishment, such as political parties, civil society, and parliaments, is supposed to keep the sociopolitical discussion orderly and productive. However, these establishments that mediate the government, the people, and civil society in a democratic system are declining or going to decline because of constantly complicated and stratified structures, let alone the effect of corruption and decay. At the same time, activism has become a more practical approach to highlighting and defending sociopolitical causes (Castells, 2008). Activism is a bottomup approach where people‗s interest in a priority, and their voice is what makes a movement one, contrary to most political structures where leadership can develop an elite class over time and become part of the political machine. The political institutions, including political parties, are not making a vertical relationship between the people and the state to serve people's influence over politics. Instead of political parties, civil society actors defend local communities' interests within the political processes that go through existing political organization and power relations. Grassroots organizations, community 197 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ groups, labor unions, religious groups, student organizations, and interest groups are flatter in their structures, more representative and closer to their constituents. These organizations take initiative to protect the rights, shift the institutional political system, and carry the people's fundamental values to make sociopolitical influence (Castells, 2008). Influencing policies is not as easy as in the seventeenth century when the Public Sphere in Paris and London could form public opinion. Today, due to massive bureaucracy and information anxiety, public relations (PR) activities, state advertising and the unlimited number of stakeholders, there is a need for consistent messaging using legal, moral, factual, emotional, and other methods and types of frameworks to mobilize people and influence politics. Society has become more complicated, nonetheless its cultural structure. Therefore, it takes a lot of clustering, persuasion, and mobilization over a long time to transform the culture and prompt positive change in any society over a long time. This clustering of people and resources is possible through networking and alliances with social and political actors and activists. Due to its popularity worldwide, the Digital Public Sphere has become one of the most influential modern communicative technologies, substantially influencing all aspects of human life. It has become the primary mass communication tool; its person-to-person communication functions are plenty. In addition to connectivity, the digital sphere has overcome the problem of time and distance and connected people with images and audio, enabling face-to-face virtual simultaneous meetings (Harsij et al., 2014). This fact is essential for activists to understand. The Digital Public Sphere is their obvious tool to double their impact. The internet is an infrastructure for the current digital age communication revolution, not only as technology that connects people and enables data but also as a sphere where people meet, spend time, do activities, visit, and leave. Even activities that may seem trivial, such as playing games online, can enable people to communicate. However, knowing the Digital Public Sphere is an open place for everyone can be challenging to activists (Harlow & Harp, 2012; Moussa, 2018; Pain, 2021). The significance of the Public Sphere is in engaging in discussions and forming public opinion. Creating public opinion requires communicating ideas through networking, coordinating, and clustering. The Digital Public Sphere offers a platform for public presence to generate the power of networking. 198 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ Castells defined networking power as the power of individuals and organizations inside the network over people who are not (Castells, 2011). Activists have taken this concept and enacted it in many forms: information, persuasion, mobilization, and calling to take action. The power of networking lies in its ability to program these networks (Castells, 2011). It is important for democratic transformation that the public and other social entities act in a network of civil society institutions and interest groups that can influence policymaking in an organized manner. Civil society institutions are the organized expression of political views. They are a cornerstone of the relationship between the state and the people (Castells, 2008). These views are usually communicated to the state using multiple channels such as elected officials or negotiated through networks of interest groups and organizations. This communication of public opinions to the state contributes to a vibrant democracy. (Castells, 2008) predicts that the state will drift away from its subjects without this debate. Its interaction with them will be limited to elections, shaped mainly by political marketing, special interest groups, and limited options. In this case, the civil society organizations and networks of activists‗ role is going to be increasingly important as a lifeline for democracy. Networking has pushed the "Public Sphere" concept into a global position where organizations across borders gather and discuss issues that matter to them. Castells suggests that the Public Sphere has shifted from national to global level and is increasingly inclusive to global communication networks (Castells, 2008). Globalization has conceived an interdependence of networks, which amplified many issues from the local to global domain, contributing with other factors to the emergence of a global society. As a result, lots of causes are now global. For example, migration, refugees, environment, famine, pollution, democracy, youth, and health are global issues. This globalization of issues requires global networking between international NGOs and public interest clusters to make worldwide changes. Activists can use the digital sphere to network and amplify their cause. Does it serve democracy? The digital sphere per se does not necessarily increase people's political engagement or enlighten them on political issues (Papacharissi, 2002). Even though it could offer freedom of expression to groups of individuals (Jones, 1997), this does not guarantee representation of the 199 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ public nor mobilization of people to act for their rights. Instead, activists must turn that freedom into action, because awareness and self-expression alone do not solve problems (Christiano & Neimand, 2017). Among other functions, the Public Sphere provides speculation and gives hope for what could happen. For example, it can show activism like a social movement in its early stage where it struggles with culture rather than politics. For example, in order to raise demands, there might be a struggle among concerned people on what these demands are, what type of activities can help raise their voice, and what can mobilize people (Papacharissi, 2002). While this describes the passive audience, it also suggests that digital activism, not access alone, is the key to a practical Digital Public Sphere. The online one-on-one political discussion looks like a casual or formal face-to-face interaction (Papacharissi, 2002). However, it is not relevant to the real-life public debate that dominates society as a collective interaction. This difference might be due to the decentralization of the digital sphere (DeLuca & Sun, 2012). Therefore, it is not likely that political discussion online will significantly help sociopolitical transformation (Dahlgren, 2012) without interference from a moderating party. This discussion and the process of moderating such discussion in the digital sphere can be considered ―Digital Activism‖. The digital sphere does not necessarily offer an alternative to the continuation of Habermas's Public Sphere. Papacharissi (2002) suggested that even though the Digital Public Sphere can enhance dialogue and democracy in some respects, it will not necessarily serve democratic behavior in the same way that the traditional Public Sphere serves it. For example, Papacharissi refers to the new group activism of online hacking companies as a more effective way to make change as opposed to physically marching outside these companies' headquarters. To conclude, participation in digital sphere discussions is not comparable to the impact of activists who mobilize people to act on the ground. There is a need for a combination of online discussions on ground actions. Serving capitalist democracy Researchers have been debating the impact of the digital sphere on democracy for decades. The question is whether the internet, which offers the public many platforms, is helping democracy. Unfortunately, the answer is not definite. This debate by researchers is supported by the fact that 200 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ the internet has become a prominent mass media communication tool. For example, Castells (2011) explains how policies go through electronic media at some point, which makes this media the main channel to inform the public on issues regarding their societies. While this might be true, being a channel to inform and provide feedback does not mean it automatically transforms these societies towards democracy. Since democratic processes now include the Digital Public Sphere (mainly social media and grassroots organizations where activists organize and mobilize the public), studying democratic transformation in traditional and institutional forms is shortsighted (Moussa, 2018). Western democracies allow freedom of expression, but not all people have the same access to public spaces, nor are they able to get engaged and be heard in real life. The same can be said about trans-national relations. Regardless of the society or culture, there are many people worldwide whose voices are not heard or do not matter. McChesney (1995) argues that we should not overestimate the role of the internet as a digital sphere in reforming society to a more democratic one. However, McChesney admitted the inequality of using this sphere due to inequal technological and economic possibilities, or level of education. The digital sphere is the product of a capitalist economy that encourages a culture of dialogue, diversity, and democracy. But it does not promise equal opportunity for all to be part of that dialogue (Durham & Kellner, 2012, p. 3). According to Max and Engles, ―the cultural ideas of an epoch serve the interests of the ruling class, providing ideologies that legitimate class domination‖ (Durham & Kellner, 2012, p. 3). Instead, it does connect the development of every aspect of our lives to the market. In this vein, the digital sphere is designed by big corporations to make money, and then any other function it does must fit into making it profitable. This must be always in the minds of activists when considering communicating for the purpose of making positive change. In addition, there are variations in the culture of democracy and its systems worldwide (Dahlgren, 2005). The use of the Public Sphere or freedom over the internet Digital Public Sphere per se does not seem to drive societies to democratic transformation or even indicate the extent to which a society is democratic or in a democratic transformation. For example, a study that measured the relationship between cyberspace and political participation among university students in Iran found an empirical connection between the growth of social media and the development of democratic culture (Harsij et al., 2014). However, one can ask a legitimate 201 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ question: How much has Iranian society progressed toward democracy? The answer is simple: There is a political and spiritual leader whose position is of religious status and political control beyond questioning since the revolutionist‗s overthrow of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979. The influence of using the Digital Public Sphere to express personal and public views is not delusional, but its influence happens indirectly. For example, in 2011 many people worldwide perceived the Arab Spring uprisings as a transformation towards democracy that was caused by social media. In fact, social media was the primary source of information about the demonstrations, an alternative to the mass media dominated and controlled by the state. Social media helped organize and mobilize people, but it was the long-term undemocratic practices and corrupt government in the Arab world that fed the protests and encouraged revolutions. From social media to blogs, online forums, and groups, the Digital Public Sphere helped mobilize people, inform them, and communicate demands to the government. However, this use was responsive to actual activism on the ground, and it did not go much further to increase people's engagement in politics in the long term. (Dagher, 2019). Furthermore, the Public Sphere did not lead to democratic transformation, but it only offered the outraged people a platform. As a result, the Digital Public Sphere during the Arab Spring did not offer ideas that would result in social and political change. As a result, the same countries fell into the hands of new undemocratic governments a few years after. In addition, the politics of the digital sphere management and ownership makes it less exceptional regarding content, reach, and use. These online networks are primarily owned and managed by a few global multimedia, corporate networks. Even though governments have the authority over some reach and content of these networks, digital communication depends on corporations owned by investors and financial markets with one main goal: depend on what sells (Castells, 2011). If the conclusion is that using the Digital Public Sphere, mainly social media, does not lead to democratic transmission, the question is: How can this Public Sphere play a role in democratic transformation? The digital sphere at work Society needs a highly digitized communication environment for the Digital Public Sphere to start a compelling debate that enhances engagement with public affairs. In other words, the 202 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ community must be highly connected to the internet. For example, there is a limited number of places where internet is available in Cuba, connecting is a complicated process, and controlled by the government (Carter, 2021). The connected users are the potential audience and potential actors who are expected to participate in issue deliberation, in a country like Cuba, it is hard to imagine Cuban citizens involved in political discussion in government‗s sight. It is not expected that the Digital Public Sphere—especially social media—will replace the existing channels that connect the state to its citizens. However, the increasing reliance on social media makes the digital space inevitable for social and political interaction. For example, the heavy online presence of public and state institutions suggests that the digital sphere plays an essential function in connecting with and defining the role of citizens in government (Firmstone & Coleman, 2015). Hence politicians, analysts, media, strategists, and the public communicate political affairs, negotiated publicly in the Digital Public Sphere (Ausserhofer & Maireder, 2013). In addition to these actors, the Digital Public Sphere is open to all, including corporations and interest groups, which might pull the deliberation into different directions (Dahlberg, 2011), threatening genuine interaction, and making online activism a necessity to keep people‗s attention on what matters to them, and provide different interpretations to the state-of-affairs. The activists‗ impact on the public is not limited to the issue of activism. They encourage long-term change to pro-democratic social norms. For example, research shows that even low-risk political participation, such as voting in democracies, is notably shaped by peer effects (Nickerson, 2008). While this indicates the importance of activism, it also shows that people may find collective action as an incentive to use their fundamental democratic rights. Furthermore, Kim & Lim (2019) found that communities with greater online political activism have more politically committed and motivated actors. To sum it up, interaction with community activists is likely to increase the possibility of participation in democratic processes. Activism helps form the public interest in participation and transformation towards democracy. In other words, activism is a transmissible behavior. The stakeholders‗ online presence indicates the significance of the Public Sphere. In Ethiopia, one of the world's least digitally connected countries with a government that has no focus on digital media, only 3-4% of the 117 million population is connected to the internet (Pohjonen & Uduba, 2017). A considerable difference is expected in the government online presence when 203 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ comparing Ethiopia to India. With a total population of 1.4 billion and 300 million internet users, India is considered one of the fastest-growing digital media markets (Pohjonen & Uduba, 2017). This comparison between the two countries is nevertheless an example of how sizable and engaging the Public Sphere might be in a highly digitized communication society. In India‗s case, the government can reach a large percentage of its citizens online, compared to Ethiopia‗s inefficient way of reaching out to its citizens by social media. This means digital activism can make more difference in highly digitized societies. The more use to the internet in a society, the better chances are for it to serve as a Digital Public Sphere, in presence of free access and freedom of speech. Does digital activism help democratic transformation? Habermas suggested that the Public Sphere influences politics through interaction. He placed the active group of people in a frontier position, expecting these activists to formulate public opinion. This process is essential for democracy. For example, online activism developed a greater awareness among communities on global issues. This awareness allowed the exchange of ideas and formulation of universal public opinion around social and political problems, transnational threats, and matters of worldwide impact, such as climate change and civil rights. Global public opinion is what raised these issues to the global agendas. The feeling of shared identity between the protestors in Ferguson, Missouri and Palestine experienced a ―community of feeling‖ during the protests that followed the murder of Michael Brown in August 2014 (Mislán & Shaban, 2019), which shed the light on the possibilities the Transnational Advocacy Network might offer to the subaltern people around the globe. States maintain border control of transporting people and commodities, as sovereign authorities. But the Digital Public Sphere enables communication of ideas and unifying people around sociopolitical transformation demands. Even though this type of communication seems to be much of non-organized activism, its transmittable effect is indisputable, because of its decentralization nature (DeLuca & Sun, 2012). The time when the state controlled the flow of information is over. Now, the state and corporations share authority over what flows with the possibility that activists may moderate and influence this flow. Amplifying the voices of people using digital communication is effective. Issues that are discussed and publicized using internet channels are more visible than others. For example, there was little public attention and awareness 204 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ on the killing of four million people in the Democratic Republic of Congo between 1997-2003, but more publicity and flow of information about the conflict in Palestine, with more than 5 million tweets published during one month of uprising in Jerusalem in 2021. Obviously, online activism is amplifying the voice of the Palestinians. Thanks to the Digital Public Sphere, causes and current issues are more communicable. When the #MeToo movement swept through the United States in October 2017, it was echoed in several other countries. After one year, it gained momentum in India under an India-specific version: #MeTooIndia. When supersized by social media activism, the same can be said of the "virality" of issues proposed by movements such as Black Lives Matter and #TakeAKnee campaign. Social media is a cost-effective and quick way to amplifying voices (Earl & Kimport, 2011). Digital activism using intersectional message communication led to organizing one of the most extensive activist campaigns in March 2017 using social media; "The Women‗s March on Washington". Where hundreds of thousands of people marched against the misogyny and out of concerns after Trump was elected for presidency (The Women‗s March, 2017, 2020). Strategically intersectional messaging could overcome minor political or gender differences and make the march more inclusive (Vardeman & Sebesta, 2020). In short, the Digital Public Sphere made possible the "pan-mediation" of activism. Activists generate messages and take them to a different space where they take a new meaning (DeLuca & Sun, 2012). Digital Public Sphere activism might also work towards changing long-held beliefs. It enabled digital activist Muslim women to challenge the orientalist ideas that built their image through centuries of misconception as oppressed, subjugated, or silent (Said, 1979). The campaign #YourAverageMuslim led by the digital activist Muslim woman Dina Tokio has been viral, pushing back against firmly established stereotypes in Western thinking about Muslims (Vardeman & Sebesta, 2020). Mobile technology that made the Digital Public Sphere accessible has helped personalize and make the Digital Public Sphere an informing and engaging on-the-go tool. This meant information could be sent and received momentarily and personally to every user with a level of privacy and publicity modified by the user. In Nigeria, for example, the Occupy Nigeria protestors used the- internet so to plan, coordinate, inform, and document protests and spread government transparency awareness (Oladepo, 2016). 205 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ In a different case, digital activism is not a guarantee of success. As suggested earlier, the Digital Public Sphere cannot guarantee sociopolitical transformation success. For example, the Catalan pro-independence movement used the digital sphere to mainstream messaging between a network of allied parties, but it was competing with the ideas of the pro-Spain group on who is louder, or more audible on social media ( Anderson, 2019); therefore, they could not utilize the Digital Public Sphere to raise their demands and re-negotiate Catalonia‗s relationship with the king and the state. Social media must give priming to issues so these can be seen as urgent and worthy of discussion. Nobody is expected to consider negotiating issues if these are deemed business as usual. In conclusion, when issues face a highly polarized public, or an imbalance of social powers or resources, the Digital Public Sphere cannot guarantee success in transformation or making change. Even when activism is pushed to the limits, it might not result in change. Activism via the Digital Public Sphere must work with offline activism to encourage participation and activate social actors to raise their voices and act. The digital public sphere helps activists amplify and generate momentum for social movements. Only by doing that activism can activists work to effectively make change happen. Conclusion The foundation of the Public Sphere away from the state's power significantly contributed to freedom of speech through the emergence of a new power generated by the collective views of people: the power of public opinion. When people are heard, they claim their role in government. This power shifted when freedom of public debate on political matters descended from the upper strata of the society and state to the common people, where they all had equal, non-conditional access to space where they expressed their views, ideas, concerns, and demands. Social and political transformation towards democracy departs from the public‘s engagement in public affairs. It is naive to think a political regime is willing to continue and develop democratic practices without people‗s engagement in public affairs. Although it is debatable whether the Public Sphere can significantly contribute to democratic transformation, it does promote the idea that people have the right to take their role in government, which can start and 206 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ feed the democratic transformation from the bottom up. However, due to the decentralized nature of the Digital Public Sphere, information is highly diverse and distracting. The solution to this is digital activism, which gives meaning to news and events in a way that encourages people to have opinions and beliefs regarding government policies and sociopolitical affairs. Activists can lead public opinion online and offline by combining information and mobilization for democratic transformation (Harlow & Harp, 2012), especially among the marginalized, who can bring meaning and social capital to the movement (Relly & Pakanati, 2020). The future of the Digital Public Sphere as a space of influence is promising for a more significant public role in the sociopolitical processes. It is expected that increasing accessibility to digital communication around the world will enable more aspects of our lives to be conducted online, making the Digital Public Sphere a community of users with the ability to act and be heard. Nevertheless, the decentralized nature of the Digital Public Sphere requires activists to proactively communicate, inform, and explain issues to the public to earn their attention and influence them. Decentralizing the Digital Public Sphere means the end of highly stratified communications with the audience. Now that anyone can communicate with a relatively large number of people in a Public Sphere where messages are accessible to all, there is an opportunity for opinion leaders and activists to connect people to causes and issues of interest and capitalize on their willingness to engage. Global activism can unify people and create solutions to causes on a global level. Online activism in the open Public Sphere is building towards a new level of globalization where people identify with causes across borders, not only as means of solidarity but as a repositioning of their identities and beliefs. We have seen the beginnings of this trend during the Black Lives Matter protests, when people from all over the world identified with the black movement, and when activists in Palestine tweeted: ―remember not to touch your face when gassed,‖ and raised sings that read: ―we cannot breathe since 1948‖. They saw their own struggle in the Black struggle. This became a trend for a while when Palestinian graffiti included George Floyd side by side with Palestinian victims. Thanks to globalized communications and social media tools, people connect and share experiences. The Digital Public Sphere is the new global community where democracy and human rights are global causes and activists are connected. In conclusion, the Digital Public Sphere‗s main function—regarding the democratic transition, social movements, and activists— is to help them form needed networks. These 207 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ networks are not only about activists and provision of tools, but also about communities and their ability to connect, and like-minded people‗s ability to identify, organize and engage. This connection does help democratic transformation within communities and empowers transnational solidarity and global movements to establish worldwide alliances for just causes. References 1) Anderson, P. (2019). ―Independence 2.0‖: Digital activism, social media and the Catalan independence movement. Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies, 11(2), 191–207. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 2) Bollerey, F., & Grafe, C. (Eds.). (2007). Cafés and bars: The architecture of public display. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Cafes_and_Bars/h1d_AgAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=cafes+were+open+to+t he+public+in+London+&pg=PP1&printsec=frontcover 3) Bowen, C. (1996). Modem Nation: The Handbook of Grassroots American Activism Online. Random House 4) Carter, S. (2021, July 21). Internet Access in Cuba—Wifi in Cuba in 2023. Cubas Best. https://cubasbest.com/wifi-incuba/ 5) Castells, M. (2008). The New Public Sphere: Global Civil Society, Communication Networks, and Global Governance. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 616, 78–93. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 6) Castells, M. (2011). A Network Theory of Power. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 5, 773–787. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 7) Christiano, A., & Neimand, A. (2017). Stop Raising Awareness Already (SSIR). Stanford Social Innovation Review. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/stop_raising_awareness_already 8) Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four ‘positions.‗ New Media & Society, 13(6), 855– 872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569 9) Dahlgren, P. (2005). The Internet, Public Spheres, and Political Communication: Dispersion and Deliberation. Political Communication, 22(2), 147–162. 10) DeLuca, K., Lawson, & Sun, Y. (2012). Occupy wall street on the public screens of social media: The many framings of the birth of a protest movement. Communication, Culture, & Critique, 5, 483–509. 11) Durham, M. G., & Kellner, D. M. (2012). Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. John Wiley & Sons. 12) Earl, J., & Kimport, K. (2011). Digitally Enabled Social Change. Activism in the Internet Age. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 13) Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. MIT Press. 208 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ 14) Harlow, S., & Harp, D. (2012). COLLECTIVE ACTION ON THE WEB. Information, Communication & Society, 15(2), 196– 216. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 15) Harsij, H., Havva Ebrahimipour, Mahmoudreza Rahbarqazi, & Majid Malekan. (2014). A Study of the Relationship between Cyberspace and Political Participation (The Case of Students at the University of Isfahan). Jāmiʻ ahʹ shināshī-i Kārburdī, 24(4), 211–226. 16) Jones, S. G. (1997). The Internet and its Social Landscape. In Virtual Culture: Identity and Communication in Cybersociety (pp. 7–35). Sage. 17) Martin, B. (2007). Activism, social and political. In G. Anderson & K. Herr (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Activism and Social Justice (pp. 19–27). Sage. 18) McChesney, R. (1995). The Internet and US Communication Policy-Making in Historical and Critical Perspective. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 1(4). 19) Mislán, C., & Shaban, S. (2019). ―To Ferguson, Love Palestine‖: Mediating life under occupation. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 16(1), 43–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2019.1594325 20) Moussa, M. (2018). Media and learning democracy: The face of emerging political activism in Egypt. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 11(2), 215–231. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 21) Mutsvairo, B., & Ragnedda, M. (2017). Emerging political narratives on Malawian digital spaces. Communication: South African Journal for Communication Theory & Research, 43(2), 147–167. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 22) Nickerson, D. (2008). Is Voting Contagious? Evidence from Two Field Experiments [Https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/is-voting-contagious-evidencefrom-two-field-experiments/8C2E64552D946C87FD062DD2CCD9054E]. 23) Pain, P. (2021). ―It took me quite a long time to develop a voice‖: Examining feminist digital activism in the Indian #MeToo movement. New Media & Society, 23(11), 3139–3155. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 24) Papacharissi, Z. (2002). The virtual sphere: The internet as a public sphere. New Media & Society, 4(1), 9–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614440222226244 25) Peter Dahlgren. (2012). Gripsrud, Jostein and Moe Hallvard, eds: The Digital Public Sphere: Challenges for Media Policy. Norsk Medietidsskrift, 19(2), 183–185. 26) Pohjonen, M., & Uduba, S. (2017). Extreme Speech Online: An Anthropological Critique of Hate Speech Debates. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 11, 1173–1191. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 27) Reese, S. D., & Shoemaker, P. J. (2016). A Media Sociology for the Networked Public Sphere: The Hierarchy of Influences Model. Mass Communication & Society, 19(4), 389–410. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2016.1174268 209 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬ 2022 ‫أ‬ ‫ السس النظري ـ ـة والممارسـ ـ ـات المهنيـ ـة وحدود التلقـ ـ ـي‬:‫ا إلع ـ ـالم الرقمـ ـ ـي‬ ‫مإلف حماعي‬ 2022 28) Relly, J. E., & Pakanati, R. (2020). Deepening Democracy Through a Social Movement: Networks, Information Rights, and Online and Offline Activism. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 14, 4760–4780. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 29) Rohlinger, D. A., & Bunnage, L. A. (2015). Connecting people to politics over time? Internet communication technology and retention in MoveOn.org and the Florida Tea Party Movement. Information, Communication & Society, 18(5), 539– 552. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 30) The Women‗s March, 2017. (2020, March 2). National Museum of American History. https://americanhistory.si.edu/creating-icons/women%E2%80%99s-march-2017 31) Vardeman, J., & Sebesta, A. (2020). The problem of intersectionality as an approach to digital activism: The Women‗s March on Washington‗s attempt to unite all women. Journal of Public Relations Research, 32(1/2), 7–29. Communication & Mass Media Complete. 210 ‫صجلابلُت في صُغ‬ ‫ الوبًيب – بزليي‬/ ‫إصذارات الوزكز الذيوقزاطي العزبي للذراسبت االسحزاجيجية والسيبسية واالقحصبدية‬