Democracy, formally known as “government by the people”, is seen as a form of government governed by the people, for the people. Modern civilization sees democracy as an ideal, but many people forget that this ideal is very difficult to achieve. The creation of the public sphere, as well as communication technologies intended to achieve one of the most important goals: strengthening democracy. The public sphere was created to have an area where people could meet and freely discuss issues within society (Ironstone 21 March 2014). On the other hand, the emergence of communicative technologies links to the idea of ​​communicative capitalism, which emphasizes that the market is the “site of democratic aspirations” (Dean 2005, p. 54). Using the ideas of Nancy Fraser, Jürgen Habermas, and Jodi Dean, this essay will argue that neither the public sphere nor societies' unrestricted access to communicative technologies actually enhance democracy as it promises. The idea of ​​the public sphere was originated in the 18th century by a German philosopher, Jürgen Habermas. Habermas explains that the goal of the public sphere was for private individuals to come together to form a public body (Habermas 1974, p.49). In doing so, it would allow private individuals to identify and discuss social problems, thus finding a way to influence political action. The idea of ​​forming a public body was important to Habermas because it separated the state from the workplace and rejected hierarchy (Habermas 1974, p.49). It promised access to autonomy, inclusion, and a place to discuss common concerns. Habermas believed that there was a connection between the public sphere and the ideals of a democratic society. To have a functioning democratic society, all paper leaders not only have additional power, but also have greater importance over its citizens. The public sphere was created so that citizens could be active with their opinions, ideas and beliefs to examine change even if it resisted state power. Fraser in this essay demonstrates that the public sphere did not improve democracy because it had many defects, such as being non-inclusive and partial. On the other hand, Dean demonstrates in this essay that communication technologies have not strengthened democracy. Instead, it created the idea of ​​a communicative capitalism in which technology serves as a fetish and creates a fantasy of participation. It is clear that democracy is a difficult ideal to achieve. Dean and Fraser would agree that for the public sphere and our current political system to achieve the hallmarks of democracy, structural change is necessary.