Citizenry today all over the globe is more or less disenchanted with political representatives and disilusioned with the patterns of political participation that are behind the time. But people at once marvel hopefully at the magical powers of digital technologies. The global reach, instantaneous speed, unlimited information and interactive capacities of digital technologies have broadened the horizons of civic engagement to an enormous extent. The optimists claim that the most advanced technology available to humans today will facilitate a new era of direct democracy characterized by widespread participation of ordinary citizen in democratic discourse and decision-making. This complex phenomena of the postindustrial Information Society is called ‘Digital Democracy.’1

Some enthusiasts are even of the view that this development actually represents ‘a shift from depending on representatives to representing ourselves.’2 Pippa Norris puts this view well:

The Internet for instance, forms an open forum for social and political activists to play a proactive role in public affairs. The world has just experienced a number of mass movements, violent as well as peaceful. Though they were driven by deeper passions, the Internet played vital role in facilitating their organization and mobilization. In the recent upsurge in Egypt, which ousted President Hosni Mubarak, the technology is claimed to played a prominent have role in mobilizing the popular movement. The internet can also be a potent tool to facilitate opportunities for direct democracy such as electronic voting for referenda and elections.5

Moreover, strikingly in the Gandhian spirit, ‘the Internet provides a distinctive structure of opportunities that has the potential to revive civic engagement, especially for many peripheral groups currently marginalized from mainstream politics.’7 The main matter of concern in this connection is the present patterns of unequal technological access that has to be overcome urgently.

Thus a deeper synthesis between the two paths – the Digital technology and the Gandhian vision of village republics – has now to be achieved. This kind of synthesis requires a ‘total transformation of society’. Many indeed believe that ‘just such a transformation is now under way, carrying us towards a radical new synthesis: Gandhi, in short, with satellites.’8

Insofar as matters of value are concerned, the industrial and the postindustrial civilization are of a piece. The worst feature of Western Civilization, according to Gandhi, is that it ‘takes note neither of morality nor of religion.’9 The digital revolution too does not take religion and morality into account. But politics in the Gandhian way must be based upon these perennial sources of value.

In Gandhian way, no civilization can be ‘true civilization’ without firmly founded upon the basic principles of Truth (Satya), Simplicity of lifestyle leading to non-possession (Aparigraha) and an integration of the Temporal and the Spiritual (Samanvyaya).10 But the digital revolution, which constitutes the core of post-industrial civilization, promotes only the typical pragmatic values embedded in American culture. It reflects the values of free market, entrepreneurial individualism and faith in Nasdaq.

In sum: the real issue behind all this development is not of the character of ‘either/or’. It is not really a question of direct democracy versus indirect one; we are not faced with a decisive choice between representing ourselves and represented by others. Rather, the point is, that in the wake of the digital revolution, "there are highly creative, as yet underutilized, ways to combine direct citizen participation with ‘representation’ in a new system of semi-direct democracy."11