27 May 2003

Definining E-Government and E-Governance: Staying the Course

By Thomas B Riley

"Government's foremost job is to focus society on achieving the public interest"

"Governance" is a way of describing the links between government and its broader environment - political, social, administrative."¹

There have been some suggestions in different jurisdictions in Canada and other countries recommending that the definitions we are seeing emerge as a result of the applications of Information and Communications Technologies in Government (ICTs), and the way the terms are being described, that is e-government, e-governance and e-democracy, should no longer be used, nor should definitions for these new constructs be attempted. This approach is subject to debate and exploration rather than outright rejection of any definitions. A case can be made that it is through the development of terminology that a subject matter can be evolved.

Putting the "e" on services, such as e-health, e-participation, e-voting, e-environment or e-weather, for example, serves as a guide to the wider subject matter of e-government and e-governance, that can, in time, be imprinted on the public mind. More importantly, the use of terms such as e-government, e-governance and e-democracy, leads to the creation of an identifiable discipline. This then widens the development of the subject beyond the parameters of simply government boundaries to the larger spheres of civil society, associations, unions, the business community, international organizations and the academic world.

A moving away from definitions of what government is doing in the "e" world only leads to a lessening of accountability of the activities in which any government is engaged. In society, it is the identifying of concepts through words and phrases that leads to cohesion and order. Subject matters create an ambience between stakeholders throughout the society. For example, "public transportation" or "environmental" issues are phrases understood by citizens who then relate them in their minds to the mass movements of our times. This is the way e-government must go. To move away from this identification that has been communicated through government websites, at the political level, and in the media, can only lead to confusion.

Attempts to redefine, or remove all together, the terms e-government, e-governance and e-democracy, would only create a disservice to the public. We need to keep the current framework so that society knows the goal that government is trying to achieve. In time, technologies will change the way society shapes itself and this will lead to a widening of this subject matter into new spheres. At that point a new nomenclature will arise reflecting the change articulated in future generations, but this will only be an extension of the discipline that began to evolve in the late twentieth century. The danger in this time of modernity is the urge to move with the latest "craze" or "fad". It is the job of governments to maintain stability at times of great change in which we are now living. Part of this stability is being forward thinking while keeping rooted in acceptable principles and processes. Government, governance and democracy have been with us for a long while. By adding the "e" to these words we maintain a stream of thought and a conceptual framework with which the public can relate. Governments are not in the business of creating fads.

For these reasons, writers and thinkers, seek to explore the concepts of e-government and e-governance and to separate out how these two terms differ and how workable they are in our new digital environments. As can be seen, through recent studies and reports on the Internet, and offline, many international organisations have come to accept these terms and they, and other respected thinkers and authors, are contributing to this important process of change.

Numerous groups are looking at the nature of government and governance. Particular focus is devoted to how each of these terms are approached in the context of public administration. The goal is then to tie them together in the context of the emerging "e" environments. The purpose here is to create clarity in relation to these terms precisely because e-government and e-governance have been used so interchangeably. Such clarity could lead to a greater depth of exploration of the subject matter and assist in the development of the internal process of government, and the impacts these processes and subsequent delivery mechanisms are having on individual citizens and groups overall (governance).

E-democracy and online consultations are dealt with as the natural extension of e-governance. In pre-Internet times, interactions between governments and targeted institutions, groups and society were an important part of policy development. Now, with these new tools, more citizens and stakeholders can be embraced into the process. However, this is not going to be an easy progression and many changes (in both the government and society at large) will need to occur before any major engagements take place.

The Canadian governments, at the federal and provincial levels, are making tentative first steps. Research of the activities of our governments and many others around the world, and of international organisations, shows that much is to be done to move into this new form of governance. Governments on the whole are aware of the changing expectations of their citizenry, and the desire by especially not for profit groups, and emerging e-democracy groups, to have a say in the evolution of government policy. This is a serious governance issue that many governments are now facing. How governments deal with this could very well determine future relationships between government and the citizenry.

Government and governance are both about getting the consent and cooperation of the governed. But whereas government is the formal apparatus for this objective, governance is the outcome as experienced by those on the receiving end. E-government can be a more productive version of government in general, if it is well implemented and managed. E-governance can evolve into participatory governance if it is well supported with the appropriate principles, objectives, programs and architectures.

The transition to participatory governance will probably be slow but democracy itself has evolved in a long and slow manner. The process has yet to be completed. There are already strains of thought, growing in civil society and through groups and individuals online, that the nature of democracy itself will undergo significant change in the next two generations. The reasons for this are, partly, because our new media allows increased abilities to share information and, more importantly, the capacity to communicate in ways not known by previous generations. This is all the more reason as to why the concepts of e-government, e-governance and e-democracy should not be dropped or changed in pursuit of some societal evolution in the future that has yet to occur.

¹   Donald F. Kettl, The Transformation of Governance, John Hopkins University Press 2002

Note:

A most recent report on Information Management and e-Government produced by Thomas Riley is available here. This is the first of five reports examining how information, knowledge management, informatin policies and legislation and the emerging e-democracy movement are driving e-government evolutions. Over the next four months these reports will be placed on the website of the Centre for e-Governance and Riley Information Services.

Other articles by Thomas Riley:
- The Role of Information in eGovernment Implementation
- Change Management and the Relationship to eGovernment
- Privacy Trends: Meeting New Demands
- eDemocracy in a Changing World

Thomas Riley is the co-Founder, Chair of the Board and Chief Executive of the Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance, a think-tank set up under a Commonwealth Secretariat programme in London. He is also the President of Riley Information Services, a consultant and advisor specialising in national and international IT policy development, and a Visiting Professor of Law and Technology at the University of Glasgow. For further information he can be contacted at Tom@Rileyis.com

Thomas Riley's independent opinion appears courtesy of Prospect - a recruitment consultancy committed to 'enabling better futures' and sourcing the people to drive eGovernment. For further information go http://www.prospectmsl.com/ or e-mail info@prospectmsl.com