You define communication as the field of power making. This field has been transformed by interactive communication technologies. At the same time, politicians are struggling with the demoralizing effects of scandal politics. What are the most critical implications for political communication if trust and legitimacy are to be successfully rebuilt?

The main issue is for politicians to trust citizens and democracy. It is therefore key to ensure that the Internet is an open space of debate so that deliberative democracy [Note: political decision-making that relies on popular consultation to make policy; see also Wikipedia] can exist on a mass basis. The new requirement is quite simply intelligence, it’s simply a question of politicians understanding that they cannot hide behind the walls of bureaucracy and the traditional mass media. They must be ready to go out into society, engage citizens and engage each other in full daylight, so that the citizens can decide.

Which characteristics of Obama’s winning campaign do you find the most exemplary? Which ones will become “mainstream” political practice?

Trusting the self-organized grassroots groups on the Internet and in the localities to take ownership of the campaign without control from the top. Then, under these conditions, the Internet becomes an essential tool. Social networking space is the new public space. Politicians and parties will have to be present, and most of them are just not ready – I don’t mean technically, but culturally and politically.

In 20 to 30 years from now, which political processes might be fundamentally different from today?

I never, ever talk about the future. But what we are already seeing is the demise of political parties in terms of their capacity to control the political process.

New media have made it easier to organize counter-powers. You cite the ecological movement as a successful example. What are the critical prerequisites for ensuring the success of this kind of counter-power via networked media? Are networked individuals themselves enough to bring about change?

Networked individuals are the ONLY basis for social change in the network society. As soon as an organization is set, it loses appeal, it becomes another institutionalized form of action. This is of course necessary in democracy, but it only becomes a means of social change in the political arena if new values, new projects emerge from free networks of free individuals who are in control of their lives and their networks, networks that are always being reconstructed, always evolving with society and the values of society.

In what way are online social movements dependent on “offline” action? How do they relate to one another?

They need each other, they cannot exist without each other in social practice. But they originate online because the first call to action comes from spontaneous initiatives that are launched the easiest way, on the Internet and via wireless communication. But their call has to be taken up in the local community and turned into face-to-face encounters in which people love being together as well as fighting together.

The financial crisis is currently forcing many governments to introduce massive cost-cutting programmes. In Greece, this led to major (offline) protests. Do you see any other signs of a counter-power or social movement forming as a reaction to the current events?

Economic crises usually cause panic, and panic is usually prone to trigger very ugly reactions such as racism and xenophobia. Most protest movements will reproduce the traditional social movements, mainly unions, who actually want capitalism as usual. They are actors of resistance, and that is important, but not actors of change. The most important impact is that when people can no longer live by working to consume, they may look for other ways of life, and then they may find thousands of people (both young and not so young) who are living in different ways, concentrating on what they enjoy and want to be, people practicing urban farming, engaging in housing cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, exchange networks, alternative currency networks, free art and so on. This is the real alternative to the crisis because, except for a small minority, the old model of speculative financial capitalism is dead. So most people will react violently because they do not know how to live without consuming themselves in the consumption process. But that is a dead end. Therefore the alternative eco-economic cultures may become a mass alternative because, once banks decide they can’t lend us money any more, it becomes possible to live without banks.

The traditional mass media have lost their position as gatekeepers. At the same time, you define the “network-making power” as paramount in the field of communication. Does that imply that everyone should aspire to the position of a programmer/switcher?

Absolutely, that is what citizen journalism is all about. It is also why open source software is crucial. And that is the reason why the struggle for freedom on the Internet is the defence of the commons of the Information Age.

In what way has the gate-keeping position been taken over by new players like Facebook or Google? What are the consequences for individuals and their autonomy?

Yes, the largest Internet spaces are owned by corporations. But: a) Many other spaces are being created every day by people with the technical knowledge to do so, minimal resources and the possibility of being on the net. b) Because of the low entry barriers in social networking, Google, Facebook and even MySpace have to let people communicate freely because otherwise they would be challenged by hundreds of similar social spaces. They sell freedom, it’s true, but we are free. c) All this works as long as the networks are free, as long as corporations (e.g. Comcast) do not own unrestricted access to the telecom networks. This is why the battle for Internet neutrality is fundamental and why citizens must pressure public regulators to regulate on their behalf.

Do you see any risks of abuse by programmers/switchers? How can those risks be avoided?

Any programmer or switcher will try to advance his interests. That’s why we are engaged in a battle to programme and switch the networks according to values and interests rooted in the social structure.

How can a “democratic” flow be ensured?

By means of public pressure on public regulators. People have to understand that, in our society, freedom means a free Internet. Free from corporate control and free from government control. Neither governments nor corporations are ready for that. That’s why this will be a struggle, the most fundamental struggle of our time.