To receive
The Riley Report
free
by e-mail,
CLICK HERE
Back Issues
February 2001
Following is the Riley Report for February, 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 some more observations on Electronic Governance and Electronic Democracy, particularly the rapid changes that are occurring around the world in this regard.
Electronic Democracy and Change
Rarely 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 Galileo, 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 are denied government or academic grants, or simply excluded from the decision making process.
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 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. 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.
In the wired 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:
· citizen to government interaction,
· citizen to group,
· group to government interaction and, the most predominant,
· citizen to citizen engagement on the social, cultural and political issues of the day.
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 reelected. 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, is using the Internet as a medium 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, attempts are now underway by some individuals and groups to try and engage citizens in the General Election, anticipated sometime in spring, 2001. As the Westminster style of Parliaments are more restrictive representative bodies, in that it is the party with the most seats that forms the government of the day, it will be interesting to see the results.
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. But this is the subject of the next Riley Report.
Note: Steven Clift, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, is the recognized leader in the world in the movement towards E-democracy. If you want to keep updated, or even participate, in the online discussions of E-democracy then you might want to subscribe to his Democracy Online listserv: Do-Wire. To subscribe, e-mail: listserv@tc.umn.edu Message body: SUB
DO-WIRE You can also visit his website: http://www.publicus.net
Thomas B. Riley
Visiting Professor,
University of Glasgow
President, Riley Information Services,
Ottawa, CanadaPh: 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.