 |
|
 |
 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
 |
|
CHAPTER FOUR:ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY AND CHANGE
I. Government and the Internet: Understanding the Cultural DividesElectronic democracy is leaping ahead in practice on the Internet, while debate and discussion about the subject goes on within government circles in many countries. This contrast was made abundantly clear at the recent Global Forum, which was held in Naples, Italy. Inside the conference there was much talk from government officials from around the world about bringing democracy to the people and engaging the citizen, while outside, 10,000 protestors were there as a result of electronic democracy in action. The organizers of the protest acknowledged that the Internet was a key tool in the preparations for this event. But the Internet is not about protest. Rather, it is about a larger phenomenon evolving in the online world. It is about creating new forms of online democracy far beyond the confines of world protest. The protests are just one manifestation of the deep rivers of change that the Internet is bringing to democracy and the world. This most recent example indicates that the Internet is an effective tool for communication, organization, swift exchange of information, and dialogue, that spreads around the world instantaneously, in real time. The Internet is at work 24 hours a day, seven days a week (called 24/7) and reaches into every part of the world where there exists a phone line or wireless accessibility. This has serious ramifications for governments who are increasingly looking to the Internet, and to other information technologies, as a means to deliver government programs, become a wide source of information for the public, and to seek to interact with the citizen. But this is where governments are running into trouble. There is an ever-widening gap between the culture of governance, based on old systems and precepts of operation, and the fast-paced online world that is daily changing the face of society, as we have known it. The latter represents an invisible current of change, which we will not fully understand for decades to come. Rapid change is a fact in today's world, and the question is how will governments be able to fit into, and react to, that online world. In the industrialized world, most governments operate on public administration precepts that were developed in the nineteenth century. This system of government has a built-in slowness, and inertia, in the way it operates. The reason for this is that the system of government was developed on the concept of hierarchy. In a hierarchal world there is a set chain of common and rigid infrastructure for decision-making. Power flows from the top downwards. In the online, networked world power flows in a non-linear direction, and this, in itself, changes the way in which people perceive the world. This change doesn't just give power into the hands of the individual, but creates an environment that allows people to adapt swiftly to changing events. In the past in government, for example, research was done, policies were proposed, and decisions made, on whether to move on to legislation. This form of policy development or public consultation was based on an era when there was the luxury of time for the decision-making process, and the engaging of the public, through the academic world, experts, and public interest groups. For example, in pre-Internet eras, a department in Ottawa might develop a policy on trade and seek public engagement. To do this, an advertisement would have been placed in a newspaper or professional journal, in which the content of a paper would be described in general terms, and then opinions sought. There would also be information on where to write to get a copy of this policy paper. The citizen would then have to write or phone, and then wait for a copy to arrive in the mail. When the consultation process ended, then the results would be tabulated and the department would go on to the next step, which could be recommendation of legislation to the Minister, or making significant changes, or doing more study on the matter (and more likely the latter). This process gave department officials significant control of the process. In this form there was the luxury of time because there was so much distance to cover in order to allow public input. That is, the time it took to cover the distances across the country and for the whole process to take its course.
Thus, in the pre-Internet era, time was controlled by distance. But now, on the Internet this has been reversed, and distance is measured by Internet time. In other words, in a 24/7 world, time and distance have merged. If a government puts out a policy paper today, it goes on the web and response can be accelerated. But government reactions and actions are still based on the old time paradigm. More importantly, in the past, if there were disagreements over a particular policy, there were far more hurdles for groups and individuals to express their disagreement. Today, discussions or disagreements can be instantaneous, and a thousand and one newsgroups, listserves, and other forms of discussion can be up and running in less than a day, with or without government input. Issues of the day are reflected on the Internet in all manner of form, from the serious to the comedic, in text or multimedia sight and sound. The Internet has become a complex matrix of change and diversity. This is a dilemma for governments as they are faced with a puzzling dichotomy. On the one hand, governments are preparing to reach out more and more to the citizen. This is measured through the current move to government online, in which citizens will be able to receive speedy and efficient services, but also the aim is to allow citizens to interact with government. Some countries, such as the UK, are working on ways to enhance electronic democracy through ways and means of engaging citizens in online discourse and debate. Many other countries, such as Sweden and Finland, are working towards these same goals of enhanced democracy, with Finland being quite successful in engaging the citizen (and proving to be the exception rather than the rule among governments). Meanwhile, the citizens of the Internet are moving in a medium that is outpacing time and distance, as we have traditionally known it. People can respond, if they so chose, instantaneously, whether it is sending an electronic card to someone, engaging in e-commerce or taking part in a thousand and one activities, depending on the choice of the individual. Individual officials in governments, in their roles in life as individuals using the Internet, are part of this change. But collectively, as part of the government process itself, these same people, as a group, are operating at a snail's space that cannot equate with what is happening on the Internet, which is expanding and changing daily. And it is this gap that is the dichotomy facing governments. This dichotomy is about to accelerate as the Net migrates to the wireless world. In the emerging wireless world citizens will be able to seamlessly be connected to their environments, and the world, in newer and faster ways. This will create even deeper, fundamental changes in our cultures. This is the challenge facing governments. The solution to this challenge lies not in conducting the "business" of government in the same old ways, but in reform of the way in which the public service, no matter what country, operates. But a first step is in understanding, and dealing with, the dichotomy between a culture of government that exists from another era, and the rapid changes that new information and communication technologies, the Internet, and our new era are bringing, with the concomitant new culture arising. This is an essential first step - creating public administrative systems that will be in harmony with this changed world.
II. Electronic Democracy, Electronic Governance and Electronic Government: The Differences in TerminologyRarely have major changes in society been led by governments. New and radical ideas, that have changed the course of history, have always come from independent, exterior sources. Throughout history, radical writers, philosophers, prophets, scientists and artists have mostly been reviled in their times. Many examples spring to mind, from Socrates to Gallileo, to Jean Jacques Rousseau, to the poet William Blake. History is scattered with the remains of those who were persecuted in their times but revered in the future, with their genius, in time, fully recognized. In today's democratic societies, radicals in the democracies are no longer put to death but are ostracized in other ways. In the past, critics of government might have found themselves in London's infamous Tower, or Paris's Bastille, for unacceptable radical thought, and summarily executed or subject to long time persecution. Today those who do not fit within the acceptable parameters of thinking can use the Internet or hundreds of other forums to express their views. This is not a negative criticism of government or traditional institutions. Rather, it is a reflection of the nature of institutions themselves. Organizations have the inherent characteristic of being slow to change and not easily adapting to new ideas. The reason for this is that each organization builds, as it grows, internal bureaucracies to ensure efficient administration and long-range survival. Thus, as the knowledge economy has grown, due to the rise of all-embracing information technologies that have changed the way society works and plays, many large private companies have suffered, due to the inability to react swiftly to the changing currents washing over the post-industrialized world. The same is true for Government. Traditionally, governments have evolved institutions to ensure the social good of the country, continuing public order, some form of social justice, and the maintenance of sovereignty on the world stage. Thus, governments and elected bodies are reactive by nature. A social problem, for example, must first be realized, contemplated, and then legislation brought forth to deal with the "problem" or social need of that time. This makes the institutions of government necessary and invaluable to society, but at the same time, these institutions are cumbersome in nature and slow to react to change. With the transformation from the post-industrial society to the age of cyberspace, it has become increasingly difficult for governments to adapt or respond to the changes upon us. This is especially true in the area of electronic democracy. The term, electronic democracy, is now becoming a whole subject in, and of, itself. In its nascent stages in the early eighties the term actually referred to online voting. It has now grown to encompass the multitude of ways in which citizens can interact within the democratic process, to means whereby citizens can influence the political and policy making processes of elections, elected legislative bodies, and government institutions, ranging from the policy making process to the economic, social, cultural, and other major issues of the day. When discussing this subject it is important to discuss the differences between the terms electronic government (e-government), electronic governance (e-governance), and electronic democracy (e-democracy). Briefly, E-government constitutes the way public sector institutions use technology to apply public administration principles and conduct the business of government. E-governance is the movement of governments online to electronically deliver their services and programs, provide government information, and interact with the citizen. E-democracy is about how the citizen interacts with government or influences the legislative or public sector process. E-democracy is also about how citizens use the Internet as an organizational tool in seeking to influence government policies, or, the wider phenomena, engage in discourse on the larger social issues of the day. Electronic democracy is all about participatory democracy as opposed to representative democracy, which is now the currency of elected, democratic governments around the world. Electronic democracy is also about how citizens can interact with each other to use the Internet and other new technologies as organizational tools to reach their goals of aspiring change. That is not to say that the vast majority of the online population are engaged in some form of e-democracy, they are not. The important point here is that the new culture evolving because of the rise of the Net, and information and communications technologies, are representative of a new culture, different from anything that has come before.
III. E-Democracy in the Connected WorldIn the wired and wireless world the online citizen is increasingly playing more and more of a role in the democratic process. There are now hundreds of groups involved, from the community and local level to the national and international stage, in some way working to have an influence on government policies and programs, and on societal issues of our age. Citizens are engaged online in:
Because of these changes, the process of government will soon no longer be controlled from the top and micro-managed by a few. In the changing wired world, citizens are voicing their say. Governments may not necessarily be listening, but the thousands upon thousands of people engaging in discourse on the thousand and one issues of the day are certainly listening to each other. This is resulting in powerful currents of change, which are only beginning to manifest themselves. The new voices are by no means cohesive, as there are so many dissonant voices and disagreements on what exactly online activism means. Also, as can be seen when analyzing the online groups, often many do not know of the existence of others, but this could change, as groups and individuals with similar interests find each other. The most important characteristic of the growing forces of online democracy is the fact that the Internet is recognized as the most advanced communication tool devised in history. Equally important is the fact that the Internet is an organizational tool for the thousands of people who want to use it to play some role in the democratic process. The E-democracy movement is being driven in different ways around the world. In the United States, E-democracy is a citizen-driven phenomenon. Early evidence suggests that it is the Americans who are currently the most involved in E-democracy activities, from engaging in debates (candidates and citizen alike) during the recent elections, to acting as effective drivers of change for many groups and individuals wanting to impact on issues. The Americans have been primed for quick adaptation of the Internet as an experiment in E-democracy, not just because the US population jumped onto the Internet so early and adapted it as part of their daily lives, but because of their long history of town hall meetings. The tradition of the town hall runs deep in American society, its roots based in the eighteenth century, and this concept of the belief in citizen engagement in the democratic process transferred itself easily to the Internet. In the 2000 U.S. elections, citizen engagement on the Internet was widespread. Many politicians were also quick to take advantage of the growing movement. A recent American survey showed that 76% of what are now being called Wired Elected Officials (WEOs), were re-elected. WEOs are officials who effectively use the Internet to stay in touch with their constituents and engage individuals in the political and governing process. In Canada, attempts to galvanize individuals to use the Internet to impact on the Federal General Election in November, 2000, was generally met with a muted silence.
In the rest of the world, the E-democracy movement is mostly driven by governments. For example, in Sweden, it was Prime Minister Carl Bild who, in 1995, recognized the Internet as a tool to enhance democracy and engage the citizen. In 1997, the young Blair Government experimented with online discussions of some important policy initiatives and, most recently, with the UK Citizen Portal, is using the Internet as a medium to attempt to engage communities and citizens alike. Many online E-democracy initiatives also receive government funding, but the most successful cases in the United Kingdom appear to be those emanating at the community level. In the United Kingdom, many individuals and groups to engage citizens in the 2001 General Election. Many individual and groups also developed mirror sites to the web sites of the traditional parties or developed their own sites to comment on the political parties and the issues. Also, there were many parody sites during the election period. All the mainstream political parties also developed their own sites for posting information and scheduling of their leaders and local candidates. What the political parties were able to do is post the full statements of their policies and press releases as well as archive video taped speeches of their leaders. Thus, in this way political candidates were able to by-pass the traditional mainstream media in getting out their message.95 Recent analysis of Internet voting shows that online voting is still a long way from fruition. While some experiments have been done, serious problems have arisen. The two major problems are security and authenticity. It is essential to ensure that the individual's vote is kept secret and is not subject to scrutiny or revealed to others. Part of the problem is determining how a secure network can be built to ensure that the citizen's individual vote is kept sacrosanct. This is essential to preserve the whole value of a democratic vote in an open society. Another major problem is authenticity, that is, ensuring the voter is who he/she says, and that a vote can only be cast once. Another important issue is that in the digital divide, it is important that the ability to vote on the Internet is universal, and that it is not exclusive to the literate and affluent middle class voter. These are just some of the issues that need to be resolved before Internet voting in our form of representative democracy can become a reality. There are many difficulties when setting out to engage the citizen in the public policy process. The Internet is not the only technology. Our electronic and information technologies offer an array of choices. But for the moment, part of the problem as to why there is not more of a migration to the Internet, and engagement in electronic democracy, lies within the institutions of representative, elective bodies who have vested interests not to change. It is not that government institutions are not aware of the changes going on in society and the fact that there is a tool there to engage the citizen. Rather, the problem is historical and requires a willingness to develop the tools of change that will further engage the citizen. This is a theme that is consistently referred to within this paper. Citizen interactivity with government is now a major issue of our age.96 Research on e-democracy suggests that much of the activity is occurring at the community and local level.
IV. The Shape of Information to Come: Democracy's Best ToolAs the Internet takes hold in our daily lives, and begins to take a new and ubiquitous shape and form, the need for governments to develop information policies to suit the changing nature of these technologies is becoming more evident. In much of the developed world, the Internet is a communications force that is growing. According to NUA plc, a company in Ireland that tracks the growth of the Internet and the implication of our growing information technology infrastructure, as of March 2001, 65% of the population in the United States and Canada had some form of online access to the Internet. (96) This was in the office, the home, an educational institute or some public space, such as libraries, community halls, Internet cafes and other public venues. In the United Kingdom, over 50% of the population now enjoy some kind of Internet access. (97) There, much of the growth of the Internet has been stimulated because many companies offer Internet access free. The citizen pays only for local calls. In Europe, the whole question of measured rates is a serious issue, as many contend, this does impede not only access to the Internet, but, even if there is access, then the individual has to be careful about how long one is online. This is because the cost factor can act as an inhibitor to accessing the Internet and the amount of time spent online. However, despite these problems, there are now over 200 million people online around the world. We are now awash with information in our new cyber environments. There are currently billions of pages out on the world wide web. There is so much information that no single search engine can go out and suck up all the information an individual might be seeking. In fact, there is such a proliferation of information that many search engine companies now do not give total access to everything that is on the web. What some of the search engine companies are now doing is giving priority to companies who pay to have their company or organization show first on a search, when a given topic or key word is entered into their search engine. This is now giving an edge to those who can afford to pay the necessary fee to be at the top of the list. The Web is now so big that some web sites are not even getting joined to the network of networks because there might be a connection problem in their local area. Also, government and private organizations are now building web sites that can only be accessed through their own Intranets, or by having a specific address for a web site with a password to enter. The world is at the fingertips of the citizen, but the new challenge is actually finding what is out there. The freewheeling, widely democratic, open, ubiquitous, and accessible Internet is still there, but the shadows of secrecy are beginning to move in. The danger exists that corporate dominance, with the economic rules of the market force at play, could inherently impede the free nature of the Internet over time. When entering cyberspace, the challenges for the citizen who wants an open and accountable society, both from government and the private sector world, are now many. The success of our new information technology environments is going to depend on how much say and control citizens will have on information in the decade to come. Information is shaping our world. We now live in the Digital Age, in which information, in a global knowledge economy, has become the supreme commodity. Information is not only a piece of barter for the business world to use for competitive and commercial value. Information is now a precious commodity for the citizen. In our new Internet environments, citizens are increasingly demanding more privacy rights to protect their personal information. However, there is also a contradiction here, as at the moment, citizens are sharing and using personal and aggregate information more than ever before. But in a cyberspace environment, the citizen is becoming increasingly sophisticated in understanding the impact that information can have on one's life. The individual wants to ensure that one's own personal information is not abused. The individual wants the ability to control his/her personal information environment in cyberspace. At the same time, the individual wants unfettered access to all manner of information. But the sheer amount of information available, the ability to communicate information, and the value that individuals put on information, is bringing a new understanding of the nature of information itself. This understanding is also what is driving the new forces for change in the growing democracy online movement around the world. Thus, on the side of freedom of information, the public is starting to demand more information for all facets of their lives. We see more data on labels of commercial products; shareholders demand more information about the activities of the companies in which they are investing (not just the usual "hyped" good news about the company's activities in the past year). Citizens are demanding and seeking more information about many activities in society. The Digital Age appears to be bringing more demands for accountability. In the years to come, the public will come to expect more and more accountability, in the form of enlightening information, from private sector organizations. The Internet is an open network, which has created open environments. With this openness has come a demand for certain rights, to ensure the inherent democratic nature of the Internet is maintained. This idea is now spreading into society as a whole, resulting in demands for more and more accountability from all our public and private sector organizations. Thus, it appears that the next wave of information rights will spread out to the private sector. As the average citizen becomes armed with more knowledge (or at least has the capacity to be armed with knowledge), then it will be private sector organizations, along with governments, who are going to have to become more forthcoming about the information held in their organizations. The private sector here means not just large corporations or businesses, but rather all organizations, including non-profits. Just as privacy moved into the domain of the private sector thirty years ago, when Sweden passed the first data protection law in the world, so will freedom of information become a part of the private sector domain. The shape and form it takes will be different, but the providing of more information to society will occur. We currently live in an age of individuals' rights, because in our current climate of the citizen as consumer, the individual is paramount. This will change, as the recognition dawns that it is also aggregate rights that strengthen the citizenry as a whole. As this idea flourishes, then privacy will now hold the same sway, and demands for information on a more sophisticated level will grow. Privacy will become a part of civil society's infrastructure. As the knowledge economy grows, and the knowledge professional comes to be seen as a powerful force in our society, so will the demands for wider swathes of information grow. It might seem at the moment that we already live in a world with too much information. This change of demand for information will be for "organized" information that informs, not overwhelms, the citizen. Information is now an issue in a new form. Governments are also going to be subject to pressures from emerging information forces in society. For example, the secrecy of governments, at the moment, is defined to the degree that information is shared with the public. The lack of efficacy of a freedom of information law is shown by the narrowness with which government exempts information from the public. Canada's information law is currently under review, because of the criticisms that the statute too much favours the public sector, and too much information is withheld on specious grounds. Another reason for a review of the Canadian Access to Information Act is that it was developed in the late seventies, and passed by Parliament in 1982, before the emergence of new information technologies. But the challenge of governments now is not just to pass or amend freedom of information laws.
V. The Discipline of InformationIn our new environments, we have to look at information as the force it has become in society. Changing environments bring different attitudes. For example, as governments go online with electronic service delivery, more content is going to become available to the public. But it is not going to be enough to put information up on a web site. Any information is going to have to be organized. In many cases, there is too much information on a web site, which makes the site virtually unusable by the citizen. Thus, information management is rising as a discipline within government. This is vital, so that policies can be evolved which ensure citizens are getting the information they need and want (not what someone 'thinks' the public want), while at the same time protecting individual privacy. Once governments put content online, a policy issue will immediately emerge. The private sector learned this in the early days of the web. The growth of online marketing and e-commerce brought with it major privacy and copyright issues. For the citizen, who is going online for government information, if a request is rejected, the issue will become: why can't I have access? In an information-intensive society, citizens want more from both governments and the private sector alike. The above is simply an overview of the emerging issues and problems. Solutions need to be sought, as these new technologies become even more persuasive forces in our society.
VI. Possible Solutions: Information as a Practical ToolThere are numerous ways that governments at the local, regional and national level can facilitate these new forms of democracy that are emerging. One is to take the example of Canada. The Canadian government, through their Community Access Program (CAP) has a goal to establish over 10,000 public access sites in rural and urban communities across Canada. Launched in 1997, CAP has already established over 4,200 sites in approximately 3,000 rural and remote communities and is a key component of the government's "Connecting Canadians" strategy - aimed at making Canada the world's most connected nation." The program is now being expanded to include urban centres with populations over 50,000. CAP matching funds of up to $17,000 per site are available to eligible applicants such as educational institutions, public libraries, community organizations, and municipal and territorial governments. The community funds can include cash or "in kind" contributions such as facilities, equipment and staffing of public access sites. This is a good model to be followed not only by national governments but international organizations. If we are to handle the digital divide between those who have the opportunities to be online and the vast numbers of people who cannot necessarily afford the costs of going online, it is going to be essential to level the playing field. In any populist democracy it is important that initiatives embrace all the people. At the moment it is estimated there are only between 250 million to 300 million people online. These are small numbers where our world population has exceeded 6 billion people. International organizations could also provide programs to educate people on usage of the Internet. Education then leads to individual usage. It will, naturally, vary from individual but through knowledge of how to use the Internet people can be participants in this new trend in democracy as they see fit. Such programs can embrace many peoples around the world and ensure that the users who most benefit are not just those in the affluent, industrialized countries.
VII. RECOMMENDATIONSNational Government should seek ways to engage their citizenry in the process of government. They can do this in many ways such as:
As indicated above, the Internet is a medium that has allowed people to involve themselves in the democratic process in new and unique ways. Governments at all levels and international organizations will increasingly be impacted by these changes. Thus, there is also a need for awareness building within governments and international organizations of the changes that are occurring. This can be accomplished through educational and training programs. Whatever the methodologies governments choose to deliver services to their citizenry or work to expand democracy, the challenges are daunting but doable. To change in the new environments it is going to be important that all governments recognize the need to change their current systems of governing and governance. Modern technologies, changing attitudes and major shifts in society are creating these pressures to change.
|
 |
