SOCIAL NETWORKS: THE RESCUE OF DIRECT DEMOCRACY IN THE DIGITAL AGE José Ribamar Tôrres Rodrigues PhD in Education from USP Master in Education from PUC / SP Internship in Teacher Training in the IUFM of DOUAI / France Former member of the State Board of Education / PI Former Coordinator of the State Education Forum Former Member of Appraisers Bank MEC / INEP Former Municipal Secretary of Education of Teresina, Piauí. Abstract This paper addresses the role of digital social networks as instruments for rescuing and reconfiguring direct democracy in contemporary times. It begins with the crisis of representative democracy, the distrust of institutions as social representations of collective interests, their ideologicalpolitical use, the promiscuity of institutional relations with organized crime, the disrespect for constitutional norms that underpin and legitimize the Social Contract, and the emergence of digital democracy as a sociopolitical phenomenon. The research, of a qualitative and bibliographical nature, is based on authors such as MANUEL CASTELLS (2014), JÜRGEN HABERMAS (2014), PIERRE LÉVY (1999) and ROBERT PUTNAM (2006), EVGENY MOROZOV (2011), JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU (2006), WILSON GOMES (2018), articulating concepts such as public sphere, network society, and collective intelligence. It is concluded that social networks broaden citizen participation and reconfigure democratic practices, although they present limitations related to misinformation, unequal access, and discursive manipulation. Contemporary democracy is going through a crisis of legitimacy characterized by the distance between representatives and the represented, low trust in political institutions, and reduced citizen participation in decision-making processes. In this scenario, digital social networks emerge as instruments capable of reconfiguring forms of political participation, approaching the principles of direct democracy. Thus, this article seeks to answer: to what extent can social networks contribute to the recovery of direct democracy? The concept of direct democracy finds its classic foundation in Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for whom popular sovereignty is inalienable. According to the author, "sovereignty cannot be represented, for the same reason that it cannot be alienated." Keywords: Digital democracy; social networks; political participation; public sphere; network society. The so-called "knowledge society" is an attempt to understand a new social dynamic—a shifting mosaic of relationships that are constantly constructed, reconstructed, and crystallized at specific, synchronous moments in history. This new social logic is primarily founded upon relativism, complexity, and the virtual nature of the forms of creation and expression found across various fields of knowledge. Meanwhile, the crisis of classical, totalizing paradigms—such as positivism, Marxism, and structuralism—has created space for emerging theories and the recovery of local cultures within the broader context of universal culture. Furthermore, methodological relativism—drawing on the work of Thomas Kuhn (1996) and Paul Feyerabend (1977)—has gained scientific acceptance, not as a universal cultural framework, but as a perspective applicable within specific historical eras and distinct systems of values. Contemporary democracy faces a crisis of legitimacy linked to the growing distance between representatives and those they represent. In this context, social media emerge as alternative spaces for political participation, enabling new forms of civic engagement. Information technology has brought about a new logic for living and interacting with the natural world. It has introduced new ideas and possibilities that were previously inconceivable. Among these, the concept of interactivity via the Internet stands out—though it is not limited to the Internet alone; for instance, some television programs now allow viewers not only to choose the type of content they watch but also to determine its outcome. The concept of connectivity facilitates the exchange of various forms of information between computers anywhere in the world, as well as the collaborative resolution of problems. The interpretation of society—and of the "knowledge society"—introduces, among other concepts, the idea of "deconstruction," as developed by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1960s. Initially, this concept exerted influence through literary theory, most notably via the "Yale School"—which included Paul de Man, Harold Bloom, J. Hillis Miller, and Geoffrey Hartman, alongside Derrida himself. Deconstruction does not signify the opposite of construction, nor does it imply destruction; rather, it serves as a philosophical response to intellectual movements such as Husserl’s phenomenology, Saussurean structuralism, and the psychoanalysis of Freud and Lacan. In a deconstructivist reading, meaning emerges not only from the differences between words—within a process of combination, differentiation, and deferral that renders meaning infinite—but also by incorporating social meanings generated through the relationships inherent in a given socioeconomic context. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution already provides for mechanisms of direct democracy, such as plebiscites and referendums. However, the advancement of digital technologies significantly expands these possibilities, ushering in what is known as digital democracy. The concept of direct democracy traces back to both classical and modern traditions—most notably in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who advocated for popular sovereignty exercised directly by the citizens. For Rousseau, the "general will" cannot be represented; rather, it must be expressed by the people themselves. The 1988 Brazilian Constitution already provides for mechanisms of direct democracy, such as plebiscites and referendums. However, the advancement of digital technologies significantly expands these possibilities, ushering in what is known as digital democracy. The concept of direct democracy traces back to classical and modern traditions—most notably in the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who advocated for popular sovereignty exercised directly by the citizens. For Rousseau, the "general will" cannot be represented; rather, it must be expressed by the people themselves. Thinkers such as Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill also emphasized the importance of citizen participation as a foundational element of democracy. In the 20th century, John Dewey conceived of democracy as a way of life rooted in active participation, while Hannah Arendt emphasized political action as the essence of freedom. Jürgen Habermas’s theory of the public sphere is central to understanding the role of social media. For Habermas, democracy depends on spaces for rational deliberation among citizens. In this sense, social media can be interpreted as an expansion of the public sphere, facilitating a broader circulation of discourse and an enlargement of political debate. However, this expansion does not necessarily guarantee the quality of deliberation, as it may be permeated by misinformation and polarization. Regarding the issue of communicative power in society, Manuel Castells argues that we live in a society structured by digital networks, in which power is exercised through communication. Social media platforms constitute a new space for decentralized political action. In this sense, social media not only reconstructs the possibility of direct democracy but also fractures the singular, absolute communicative power of traditional networks—which once dictated the information agenda through the filter of a political and economic elite. Social media restores a pluralistic form of power, where voices previously excluded by the weight of political and economic forces emerge as a democratic power of the people; in this process, new agendas clash with the established, monolithic traditional networks that once served as instruments of social conformity. In this sense, Castells states that networks are “sets of interconnected nodes” that enhance social mobilization and the coordination of political movements. This phenomenon gives rise to what is known as “net-activism”—characterized by political actions organized within digital environments—which expands citizen participation. Digital social networks, such as Facebook, X (Twitter), and Instagram, significantly broaden the possibilities for political participation by enabling the immediate expression of public opinion, the mobilization of social movements, the organization of protests and campaigns, and the exertion of direct pressure on government officials. These tools transform democracy from an episodic model (centered on voting) into a model of continuous participation. In this sense, digital democracy does not replace representative democracy but rather complements it, creating an additional layer of civic engagement. This helps overcome long-standing criticisms—such as the disconnect between citizens and their representatives, or the oft-cited claim that direct democracy is unworkable. Through social media, citizen participation establishes a mechanism for oversight and social organization; it disrupts the complacency of those in power, compelling them to act in response to the demands of society. Despite this potential, social media platforms present significant challenges, including disinformation and "fake news" that undermine public debate; "information bubbles" that diminish pluralism; unequal access to digital tools, which limits participation; and algorithmic manipulation, which influences public opinion. On the other hand, authors such as Evgeny Morozov warn against the risk of “techno-utopianism,” which overestimates the democratic potential of the internet. Furthermore, digital participation does not always translate into a real impact on public policy, highlighting a gap between online engagement and institutional transformation. Social media platforms establish a new paradigm for political participation, contributing to the revival of elements of direct democracy. By amplifying citizens' voices and facilitating social mobilization, these platforms strengthen the participatory dimension of democracy—a development that challenges the complacency and lack of commitment often shown by political representatives toward the essential issues of collective life. In the field of contemporary democratic theory, Jürgen Habermas contributes by highlighting the centrality of the public sphere to the democratic process. For him, the legitimacy of political decisions depends on rational deliberation among citizens. In this sense, he states: “The public sphere can be described as a network for communicating content and taking positions” (HABERMAS, 2014, p. 92). Digital social networks expand this communicative network, allowing individuals to participate actively in public debate in real time, without rigid institutional mediation. The emergence of the network society, as analyzed by Manuel Castells, redefines the structures of power and participation. According to the author, “networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies” (CASTELLS, 1999, p. 497), which implies a reorganization of the forms of political mobilization. In this context, social movements begin to organize themselves through digital platforms, expanding their reach and influence. Pierre Lévy, in his discussion of cyberculture, highlights the potential of digital technologies for the construction of collective intelligence. As he puts it: “No one knows everything; everyone knows something; all knowledge resides within humanity” (LÉVY, 1999, p. 29). This statement highlights the collaborative potential of social networks, which can function as spaces for the collective development of decisions, approaching practices of direct democracy. Furthermore, Robert Putnam emphasizes the role of social capital in the consolidation of democracy. According to the author, “networks of civic engagement facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit” (PUTNAM, 2006, p. 67). In this sense, digital social networks can strengthen social ties and expand citizen participation. However, the democratic potential of social networks is not free from contradictions. Evgeny Morozov critiques so-called techno-utopianism, warning that: “The internet is not intrinsically liberating; its impact depends on existing political and social structures” (MOROZOV, 2011, p. 15). This argument points to the limitations of social media as democratic tools, particularly in the face of phenomena such as disinformation, algorithmic manipulation, and political polarization. Consequently, social media should not be viewed as a substitute for representative democracy, but rather as a complementary mechanism that expands the possibilities for direct participation. Its effectiveness depends on factors such as digital inclusion, media literacy, and the regulation of platforms. Furthermore, the manipulation of these mechanisms hinders the universalization and critical mastery of information. This not only limits immediate outcomes but also acts as a counter-force—a form of domination employed to maintain power—by excluding a large segment of the population that has yet to master the processes of analysis, judgment, and decision-making. This, in turn, fuels the reproduction of mechanisms of domination within a culture that bars citizens from accessing their civil, political, and social rights—most notably education, and by extension, the labor market, which would otherwise provide them with a degree of critical autonomy. It can be concluded that digital social networks represent a significant opportunity for reclaiming elements of direct democracy by expanding citizen participation and strengthening the public sphere. However, their emancipatory potential is contingent upon overcoming structural challenges that continue to limit their contribution to the deepening of democracy. The crisis of contemporary representative democracy has sparked debates regarding the need to expand citizen participation. In this context, digital social networks emerge as potential tools for reviving direct democracy. Nevertheless, this potential must be examined in light of various theoretical perspectives, which at times converge and at others diverge concerning the role of digital technologies in politics. The classical conception of direct democracy, as formulated by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, posits that popular sovereignty cannot be delegated. For Rousseau, “sovereignty cannot be represented” (ROUSSEAU, 2006, p. 25), which implies the necessity for citizens to participate directly in political decision-making. This perspective finds resonance in the contemporary analyses of Pierre Lévy, who argues that digital technologies enable a distributed collective intelligence, thereby expanding the capacity for social deliberation. As Lévy states: “No one knows everything; everyone knows something; all knowledge resides within humanity” (LÉVY, 1999, p. 29). In this regard, a convergence emerges between Rousseau and Lévy: both emphasize the centrality of the collective subject in the formation of decisions. However, while Rousseau envisions this participation within a face-to-face and limited context, Lévy projects it into the digital environment, extending its reach and scale. On the other hand, Jürgen Habermas introduces a critical mediation to this enthusiasm by emphasizing that democratic legitimacy depends not merely on participation, but on the deliberative quality of that participation. According to the author, the public sphere must be structured by rational communication: “The public sphere can be described as a network for communicating content and taking positions” (HABERMAS, 2014, p. 92). In this sense, although social networks expand communication, Habermas allows us to question whether this expansion effectively ensures highquality deliberation. Thus, a theoretical tension arises: while Lévy highlights the inclusive and collaborative potential of networks, Habermas implicitly points to the need for normative conditions for such participation to be democratic. This tension is further explored by Manuel Castells, who analyzes the structural transformation of the network society. According to the author, “networks constitute the new social morphology of our societies” (CASTELLS, 1999, p. 497), enabling new forms of decentralized political mobilization. Castells aligns with Lévy in recognizing the emancipatory potential of networks; however, unlike Lévy, he emphasizes the dimension of communicational power, highlighting that networks are also arenas of contestation. At this juncture, it is possible to establish a critical dialogue between Castells and Habermas: while the former underscores the capacity of networks to reorganize power, the latter questions the quality of the debate generated within these spaces. Thus, digital democracy emerges simultaneously as both an opportunity and a challenge. Robert Putnam contributes to this debate by introducing the concept of social capital. According to the author, “networks of civic engagement facilitate coordination and cooperation” (PUTNAM, 2006, p. 67). In this sense, digital social networks could strengthen social ties and expand political participation. However, this view is challenged by Evgeny Morozov, who critiques technological optimism by stating: “The internet is not inherently liberating; its impact depends on existing political and social structures” (MOROZOV, 2011, p. 15). A direct counterpoint is established here: while Putnam emphasizes the positive effects of networks on the construction of social capital, Morozov warns of their risks, such as manipulation, surveillance, and disinformation. This divergence highlights that social networks do not possess an intrinsic democratic character; rather, they are shaped by institutional and economic contexts. Thus, the contemporary debate reveals three major theoretical positions: the optimistic perspective (Lévy, Castells) – which holds that social networks expand participation and strengthen direct democracy; the normative perspective (Habermas) – which posits that participation is only democratic if it involves rational deliberation and appropriate communicative conditions; and the critical perspective (Morozov) – which suggests that these networks can reinforce inequalities, manipulation, and social control. In light of these approaches, it can be concluded that digital social networks represent an ambivalent space: while they expand citizen participation and revive elements of direct democracy, they also introduce new challenges regarding the quality of deliberation and democratic legitimacy. Thus, the revival of direct democracy through social media should not be understood as an automatic process, but rather as a historical and political construction that depends on the interplay between technology, institutions, and democratic culture. Quadro Comparativo – Redes Sociais e Democracia Direta Autor Jean-Jacques Rousseau Jürgen Habermas Manuel Castells Pierre Lévy Robert Putnam Evgeny Morozov Obra/Referência Do Contrato Social (2006) Mudança estrutural da esfera pública (2014) A sociedade em rede (1999) Cibercultura (1999) Comunidade e democracia (2006) The Net Delusion (2011 Conceito Central Soberania popular Esfera pública e deliberação Sociedade em rede Inteligência coletiva Capital social Crítica ao tecnoutopismo Visão sobre Democracia Democracia direta como ideal político Democracia deliberativa baseada no diálogo racional Democracia mediada por redes digitais e comunicação Democracia participativa digital Democracia fortalecida por redes de engajamento Democracia condicionada por estruturas políticas Contribuições para o tema Fundamenta a participação direta do cidadão nas decisões Oferece critérios normativos para avaliar o debate nas redes sociais Explica o papel das redes sociais na reorganização do poder político Defende o potencial colaborativo das redes para decisões coletivas Relaciona redes sociais à cooperação e participação cívica Alerta para riscos como manipulação, vigilância e desinformação Limitações / Critica Inaplicabilidade em sociedades complexas e massificadas Idealiza condições comunicativas difíceis de alcançar no ambiente digital Pode superestimar o potencial emancipatório das redes Visão considerada otimista diante de problemas reais como desinformação Não considera plenamente os efeitos negativos das redes digitais Pode subestimar usos positivos das redes sociais Comparative Table – Social Media and Direct Democracy Author Work/Reference Core Concept View on Democracy Contribution to the Topic Limitations/Criticisms Jean-Jacques Rousseau The Social Contract (2006) Popular sovereignty Direct democracy as a political ideal Provides a foundation for direct citizen participation in decision-making Inapplicable to complex, mass-scale societies Jürgen Habermas The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (2014) Public sphere and deliberation Deliberative democracy based on rational dialogue Offers normative criteria for evaluating debate on social media Idealizes communicative conditions that are difficult to achieve in a digital environment Manuel Castells The Network Society (1999) Network society Democracy mediated by digital networks and communication Explains the role of social networks in the reorganization of political power May overestimate the emancipatory potential of networks Pierre Lévy Cyberculture (1999) Collective intelligence Digital participatory democracy Argues for the collaborative potential of networks for collective decision-making A perspective considered optimistic in light of real-world problems like disinformation Robert Putnam Community and Democracy (2006) Social capital Democracy strengthened by networks of engagement Links social networks to cooperation and civic participation Does not fully account for the negative effects of digital networks Evgeny Morozov The Net Delusion (2011) Critique of techno-utopianism Democracy conditioned by political structures Warns of risks such as manipulation, surveillance, and disinformation May underestimate the positive uses of social networks The framework highlights three major interpretive axes: classical foundations (Rousseau), which establish the basis for direct democracy centered on popular sovereignty; normative mediation (Habermas), which introduces criteria for democratic quality based on deliberation; and digital reconfiguration (Castells and Lévy), which points to the potential of social networks to amplify participation. Additionally, the sociopolitical approach (Putnam) underscores the role of networks in strengthening social capital, while contemporary critique (Morozov) examines the limitations and risks associated with digital technologies. A comparison among these authors reveals that social networks can be understood simultaneously as instruments for expanding democracy (Lévy, Castells, Putnam), spaces that require normative regulation (Habermas), and environments fraught with political and informational risks (Morozov). This theoretical tension reinforces the idea that digital democracy is not a linear process. Direct democracy in the digital age emerges from the convergence of classical foundations (Rousseau), normative criteria (Habermas), and technological transformations (Castells and Lévy). This dynamic is mediated by social capital (Putnam) yet strained by contemporary critiques (Morozov), revealing the ambivalent nature of social networks as democratic tools. Nevertheless, their emancipatory potential depends on factors such as media literacy and digital inclusion. Thus, social networks do not, in themselves, guarantee a fairer democracy; rather, they represent a historic opportunity to reconfigure democratic practices. Referências • CASTELLS, Manuel. A sociedade em rede. São Paulo: Paz e Terra, 1999. • DEWEY, John. Democracia e educação. São Paulo: Companhia Editora Nacional, 1959. • HABERMAS, Jürgen. Mudança estrutural da esfera pública. São Paulo: Unesp, 2014. • LÉVY, Pierre. Cibercultura. São Paulo: Editora 34, 1999. • PUTNAM, Robert. Comunidade e democracia. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2006. • ROUSSEAU, Jean-Jacques. Do contrato social. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2006. • TEIXEIRA, Carla N. et al. Democracia digital no Brasil. • BENNETT, W.; SEGERBERG, A. The logic of connective action. • MOROZOV, Evgeny. The Net Delusion. New York: Public Affairs, 2011. • GOMES, Wilson. A democracia no mundo digital: história, problemas e temas. São. Paulo: Edições Sesc São Paulo, 2018. • FEYERABEND, PAUL. Contra o método; tradução de Octanny S. daMota e Leonidas Hegenberg. Rio de Janeiro, F. Alves, 1977. • KUHN, THOMAS S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996. • ARENDT, Hannah. Entre o passado e o futuro. São Paulo: Perspectiva, 2007. • PUTNAM, Robert (junho de 2007), «E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century The 2006 J