ITRODUCTION
In an attempt to understand ‘new media’ and politics we need to define what ‘new media is and what politics is. First we start by defining politics. According to Mansoor Maitah, Politics, in the broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. Lasswell also defines politics as the process of who gets what, when, and how. He believes that politics is the process of allocating scarce values. He comes up with this equation; politics = allocation values (resources) wealth status power.

By definition ‘new media’ according to Marshall McLuhan (1980) generally refers to the digital media which is interactive, incorporate two- way communication and involve some form of computing as opposed to ‘old media’ such as telephone, radio and TV. However there is a thin line between ‘old media’ and ‘new media’. This is because the ‘old media are getting digitized and some have consolidated with some ‘new media’ forms. Therefore we surround the term ‘new media’ with quotation marks to signify that they are digital interactive media. Without the quotation marks we generally are denoting media which is new to the context of discussion. To illustrate this, TV at is invent was new media and therefore cannot be said to be ‘new media’. Also parts of the world that have not received certain types of media will call them new media when introduced to them.
GAGETRY DEFFERETIATION FROM THE PLAT FORMS.-TO BE DONE
VIRTUAL SPACE
TERMS USED IN RELATION TO NEW MEDIA- ICT, DIGITAL MEDIA, SOCIAL MEDIA, ALTERNATIVE MEDIA

TRANSFRORMATION OF POLITICS POLITICS AND ITS IMPACTS ON DEMOCRACY (TO STAND FOR THE LAST PATR ON TRANSFORMATION OF DEMOCRACY)

The role the new media has had on politics is immense and cannot go unnoticed. The media has transformed politics from a street-level bureaucracy into a system level bureaucracy. By street-level bureaucracy I mean, many contacts between citizens and the public authorities involve individual transactions. This is to imply that political activities before the ‘new media’ era was based on personal and face-face contact. However, traditional media in keeping tabs with the changes in technology have their content online hence drawing a thin line between old and new media. Richards Davies and Diana Owen (1998) agree to this fact by positing that Traditional media, recognizing the importance of keeping current with technology, have taken steps to adapt. Electronic versions of newspapers, which frequently include more details about the stories that appear in print, are available online. Larger news organizations, such as the Washington Post and New York Times, for example, make available the results of entire surveys to their online subscribers.
According to Richard Davies and Diana Owen (1998), the new media have significant potential to educate, facilitate public discourse, and enhance citizen participation. They provide mass audiences with a seemingly boundless array of sources that transcend the time and space constraints of traditional media. In addition, new media technologies easily bypass national and international boundaries
The new media has had an impact on political activities beginning from campaigning, public access to political information and public participation in politics. Richard Davies and Diana Owen (1998) argue that, In particular, the new media enhance the public's ability to become actors, rather than merely spectators, in the realm of media politics. They further assert that the new media's role in politics is hardly limited to campaigns and elections. Policymakers, interest groups, and political organizations embrace the new media as fresh resources for information retrieval and dissemination, agenda-setting, and public opinion formation. Citizens use new media as a mechanism for accessing the polity. This argument clearly shows how the new media has shaped politics.
The internet and its applications most notably have been in the forefront in transforming politics according to Richard Davies and Diana Owen (1998), The Internet burgeoned with political information. Internet sites proliferated throughout government at all levels: federal, state, and local. While only a few members of Congress were on the Internet in 1993, all had personalized Web sites by 1998. Nongovernmental players also have gone online, including interest groups, news media organizations, and political parties. The Library of Congress's online legislative archive of the 104th Congress, White House speeches and press releases, interest group position statements, political party platforms, public opinion poll results, video of campaign commercials, debate transcripts, and much more are available to the Web-connected public
They further assert that, Computer networks can be used in conjunction with other media to facilitate citizen input into the political process, as when e-mail messages accompany televised political broadcasts. Political information of all types and levels of sophistication abounds on computer networks. Citizens, politicians, political parties, and interest groups can dash off cryptic comments or treatises to be read by a single individual or by millions. Public officials, policymakers, and candidates have recognized the utility of establishing a presence on computer networks to reach constituents. The World Wide Web is host to numerous government and campaign homepages, which provide citizens with mountains of information at the click of a mouse. This is what Joseph Weizenbaum terms as the ‘Googlization of our lives’. Whenever we need any political information we just seek the help of search engines. By typing a phrase to any of the common search engines such as Google, Bing, MSN, yahoo just to mention a few, one is able to access an overload of information. The question we need to peg is; does just typing a phrase give us the exact and ideal information that we need? Through the use of the internet, Members of the political institutions invite the public to provide feedback via electronic mail.
Social media has been a major player in the transformation of politics. According to Stefan and Dang-Xuan (2012), social media such as twitter and facebook in particular are increasingly used in political context recently by both citizens and political institutions (e.g. politicians, political parties, political foundations, think tanks e.tc). they further assert that social media represents the ideal vehicle and information base to gauge public opinion on policies and political positions as well as build community support for candidates running for public offices.
Hong and Nander (2001) observes that in a very short space of time politicians in modern democracies across the world eagerly adopted social media for engaging their constituents, entering into direct dialogs with citizens and enabling vivid political discussions. On the other hand social media is said to have the potential for increasing political participation and discussions among citizens.
The social media for instance has been used worldwide during political campaigns. According to Wattal et al (2010), US politicians are said to have a leading role with the prominent example of Barrack Obama being able to successfully employ the social media within his campaigns. Also on the same note during the march 2013 general elections in Kenya, presidential candidates and other politicians used the social media as a vehicle of selling their manifestos.
Do the new media really provide all this services discussed? And if they do, in whose interest are they?
However the transformation that the new media has brought into the political sphere has got the side effects. Considering the characteristics of the new media, there are bound to be challenges to it. For instance in Kenya during the 2007/2008 post election violence which was alleged to have been fueled by traditional media; most notably radio, now the country is burning and fighting on social media networks. Facebook most notoriously has been a major ground for political hatred and political prejudices. This is due to the fact that there are no laws in Kenya that can govern the conduct of new media subscribers. Therefore measures for the management of the new media ought to be in place for the new media to realize positive transformation of the political sphere in Kenya.
TRANSFORMATION OF DEMOCRACY
By way of definition, democracy can be defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens participate equally- either directly or indirectly in the proposal, development and creation of laws. It encompasses the social, religious, cultural, ethnic and racial equality, justice and liberty.
The new media especially the internet and its application has got a huge role to play in the democracy of any given country. Barber et al., (1997), observes that following the 1996 US presidential elections, researchers at Rutgers University completed a comprehensive analysis of the content of political websites and presented an overview of possibilities impacting in the internet’s potential to contribute to a more participatory, direct democracy. Their overview demonstrates that the internet contains the following structural possibilities for electronically enhanced democracy: a) Inherent interactivity b) Potential for lateral and horizontal communication c) Point-to-point and non-hierarchical mode of communication d) Low costs to users(once a user is set up) e) Rapidity as a communication medium f) Lack of national or other boundaries and g) Freedom from intrusion and monitoring of government.
Apart from the characteristics that were brought up by Barber et al. 1997, Sparks (2001) also point out other characteristics of the internet that help in advancing democracy. Sparks points out the anonymity of social actors, discursive arguments, and search mechanisms as central advantages of the internet in aiding in the democratic process. Anonymity has been looked as a disadvantage of the internet and its applications but Sparks argues that it should be rather looked at as an advantage. He explains that anonymity removes otherwise repressive, socially identifiable criteria such as sex, age, race and accent that might otherwise prejudice or exclude a participant’s contribution to political dialogue.
Therefore the ‘new media’ offers an opportunity and platform for enhancing and developing the democracy of a given country. According to The Democratic Progress Institute (2012), they argue that, ‘New Media’ can offer the inclusive and open space for conversation about dominant discourses to occur, outside of the hegemony of established institutions such as the government or the traditional media.
The Democratic Progress Institute further posit that, this space can encourage mass participation in the conversation which can allow individuals to challenge dominant narratives and develop new, more democratic discourses concerning individual, cultural, social and political representations. With the transmission of new ideas in the networked space of ‘New Media’ which allows a vast conversation to take place, citizens can engage with one another based on an inclusive set of values. ‘New Media’ offers an open and inclusive discussion space which allows expression of oppositional positions. Through discussion of these ideas, users are engaging with one another democratically. This may be crucial to the prevention of an escalation of opposition and the polarization of society. ‘New Media’, as a space for discussion, encourages mass peer-to-peer conversations, inclusive dialogue and active participation, which are crucial components of the development of democracy.
One may look at the ‘new media’ as Americanizing our cultures hence Americanizing our political system. This fact can be either true or false depending on productivity and significance of the adoption. For instance the presidential debate conducted in Kenya prior to the March 2013 general election was viewed as an adoption of the American case. Therefore can we call this as a move to Americanize our political system and cultures? Also on the use of the social media by the Kenyan presidential aspirants in 2013 was also a copy and paste of what propelled US president Barrack Obama into power in 2008. Can it also appear as if it is Americanizing our political activities? However the Democratic Progress Institute has got different ideas. They argue that, New Media does not necessarily lead to an ‘Americanization’ of culture brought about by globalization, instead, New Media can allow new ideas to be expressed traditionally, interpreted culturally and developed for a local context.
‘New Media’ has the capacity to challenge the cultural hegemony of the state which can create a stagnant culture of ‘poor quality’ which serves only to solidify stereotypical and established presentations of social types. The question we need to ask is does it? Take for instance facebook in kenya, doe it solidify stereotypes and established social types? This is therefore to suggest that besides the ‘new media’ having a possibility of solidifying stereotypes and established social types, it also has the possibility of escalating stereotypes and established social types. This takes us into looking at the ‘new media’ with a more critical eye. In turn what impact does this factor have on democracy? If the ‘new media’ can eliminate stereotypes and social types as posited by the Democratic Progress Institute (2012), then what is the fate of the democracy of a given society? This means there is bound to be more democratic space. When the new media escalates stereotypes and social types then democracy of a society is bound to be undermined.
The pluralistic nature of ‘New Media’ with its networked and non-hierarchical structure can offer the potential to develop national culture as well as challenge dominant social discourses. According to the Democratic progress Institute, the new media can also play a role in promoting the growth of a civil society. They explain the civil society as ‘the free space in which democratic attitudes are cultivated and democratic behaviour is conditioned’ and it is crucially the wider participation of the ‘third sector’ (that is to say individuals and organizations of individuals distinct from the state) which characterizes civil engagement in civil society. A relevant example is the case of post- revolutionary (and even non-revolutionary) states seeks to foster a more democratic culture in light of popular demand in the MENA regions (Middle East and North of Africa).
However the new media has proved to hinder democracy through the challenge of digital divide. Digital divide can be defined as the perceived gap between those who have access to the latest information technologies and those who do not.
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) (1998) cautioned that social indicators such as education, income and age demonstrated a digital divide between the information haves and have-nots. Sparks 2001 also indicates data collected between 1994 and 1997 showed a widening gap in diffusion rates of computer technology among higher income and lower income households. This therefore indicates that people who are left out of the due to these social alienating factors (age, gender, income, education) are not able to take part in democratic development process. This means that they are not able to get access to information hence will not contribute in the democratic process. For instance people with lower or no education will not be in a position to interact with the new media hence left out on important political discussions, opinions and the entire democratic process that is made possible through the new media.
Another factor in the digital divide is that of age. The elderly people in society do not have knowledge in the use of the ‘new media’. Majority of the new media users are the youths. This therefore implies that the youths are the most likely people to take part in the democratic discussions and giving opinion about policies, governance and law making. This works to the disadvantage of the older generation in society. However it is not all the older generation that are new media illiterate.
Apart for the social factors that lead to digital divide, Hindman (2000) demonstrates the structural barriers based on residential location and physical equipment. However he states that these factors are not as strong as the social barriers of age, income and education. Therefore digital divide can be a dangerous hindrance to democracy. As Hammond, 1997) indicates, the world moves towards technological and media convergence, the consequences of citizens to join the new era of communication could result in complete detachment from society hence affecting democracy

References
Robert k. Logan (2006) Understanding ‘New media. Extending Marshall McLuhan
Mic Cady (1999) New media and Corporate communication. Hawksmere Plc, London, UK
Barrie G. Lilleker (2006) Key Concepts in Political Communication. SAGE plc, London
Richard Davis & Diana Owen (1998); New Media and American Politics. Oxford University Press, Newyork.
W. Lance Bennett (2008); Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age. MIT Press, Washington
Christopher G. Reddrick (2005) Citizen Interaction with the E-government from the Streets to the servers. University of Texas, USA
Saqib Riaz (2010); Effects of New Media Technologies on Political Communication. Journal of Political studies, Vol. 1, issue 2, 161-173
Stefan Stieglitz & Linh Dang-Xuan (2002) Social Media and Political Communication: A social media Framework. Springer-verlang
Democratic Progress Press (2012). New media and development of democracy. DPI, London UK