Riley Report

To receive
The Riley Report
free by e-mail,

CLICK HERE

Back Issues

April 2001

Following is the Riley Report for April, 2001. Please feel free to pass this on as you see fit. If you wish to use any or part of the Report in an offline publication please attribute me. If you are not currently subscribed to the Riley Report (there is no
charge) you can email info@rileyis.com and simply put subscribe in the body of the text. You can also go to the Riley Report at: http://www.rileyis.com and subscribe there.

This month’s column deals with the conflicting cultures of governments which operate in a linear, hierarchal system of the past, and the Internet, a non-linear culture which spans the globe, is adaptable to change, and exists in a non-linear world of speed and instantaneous interactivity.

GOVERNMENT AND THE INTERNET:
UNDERSTANDING THE CULTURAL DIVIDES

Electronic 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 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 and reaches into every part of the world where there is 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-hour, seven days a week world (now known cryptically as 24/7), 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 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. The Canadian Federal government is currently proposing radical legislative reforms, and to decentralize many of the current management systems, the aim being to make departments more responsive, and to create an operating climate that fits the times. If the old stovepipe system of government is changed, if governments develop cohesive strategies, with strong leadership and drive from the top, it will be possible to meet the goals of delivering true online government to people, whether the year is 2004 or 2005. But a first step is understanding, and dealing with, the dichotomy between a culture of government that exists from another era, and the rapid changes that new information 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.

Thomas B. Riley
Visiting Professor,
University of Glasgow
President, Riley Information Services,
Ottawa, Canada
info@rileyis.com
Ph: 613-236-7844
Fax: 613-236-7528

With author attribution, this document may be freely copied in whole or in part for online distribution.
Any offline use requires the author's permission.