19 January 2004

eGovernance to eDemocracy: Examining the Evolution

By Thomas B Riley, Executive Director and Chair, Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance and Cathia Gilbert, Chief Operating Officer, Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance

Does the evolution of eDemocracy practices, such as online consultations, enhance the current system whereby the polity governs society, and continues to have limited and controlled input from the citizen, or shall we see the evolution of a new form of democracy?

These are pressing issues for modern governments as the new technologies are contributing to the creation of faster communications, the sharing of information and knowledge, and the emergence of new forms of our respective cultures.

Networked communities are quickly evolving through the Internet, and citizens are increasingly using the new technologies to organise themselves so their voices can be heard, and to develop tools to attempt to influence government policy and programs at the political and public administration level.

It is important to put the whole question of how ICTs will be used to further engage the citizenry into a wider context of democracy as we practice it. There are different schools of thought as to whether ICTs will change the nature of democracy, or if ICTs will simply result in an extension of democracy we now practice and understand.

Lack of knowledge and understanding of the inner workings of government, including the public service and legislative arm, combined with the lack of government programmes, in many instances, to inform citizens of what the government is doing, or to engage people in the development of public policy are only some of the many reasons for the growing cynicism in the public in the last two decades.

It is not the role of this paper to come to conclusions about this prevailing public attitude, but to suggest that the new ICTs could contribute to creating renewed faith in government bodies through the creation of an interactive government engaged in wide dialogue with an interactive citizenry.

The important issue to hand is that there must be a vigorous debate and discussion about the nature of democracy and how all our new technologies can be used to produce a more engaged and interactive citizenry. Such an achievement is going to take commitment and hard work by many sectors of society, not solely governments or legislative bodies (the latter being the most resistant to change). This is a difficult transition to make as, traditionally, most democratic governments have relied on interest groups, experts, and academics to assist them with the input of new legislation, legislation to be amended, regulations, or public policy.

To make significant changes that would draw the citizenry more widely into the process requires commitment and attitudinal change. Cost factors also come to bear on this as well as the question of how to engage people for their input and opinion.

However, this raises an even more fundamental question: Does the public want to be more engaged in government or do they simply want the opportunity to make their views known every once in a while? If governments do engage the public more frequently into public debate over issues of the day, how often do they do this? What mechanisms will be available to facilitate this process? How often should referendums be used and what subject matters should be considered priorities for referendums? What institutions within government need to be set up to make the wider transition to eDemocracy beyond online voting and online consultations?

Governments are traditionally conservative and slow to move due to the nature of their organisations and the duty to take all interests of society into consideration when undertaking change. For the moment there is a difference in cultures occurring and a wide gap between what individuals and groups are doing online and what governments are currently capable of doing online, especially in their relationships with the public.

Governments need to take a leadership role in engaging the public on how, or if, ICTs can and should change our current dynamics of democracy

The challenge of governments in the next few years will be to set out mechanisms on how to embrace more of the public into the decision-making process. More importantly governments, especially the elected bodies, need to take a leadership role in engaging the public in wide debate on how, or if, ICTs can and should change our current dynamics of democracy. For while many might argue that being online is crucial for politicians to continue to get elected, the evidence does not point to this being a deciding factor at this time. The debate is a fluid one. We all need to become partners in a debate on the nature of democracy in our very changed world, which will then lead to ways and means whereby ICTs can be strategic tools for the democratic process. Governments are concerned about the decline in public approval of their institutions. There are tools available that can help reverse this attitude - it is now a question of how extensively these tools can be used to effect this change. It is becoming increasingly important to engage the citizen. Tools for consultation are still run from the top down but, if done properly, the goals of an interactive government and an interactive citizenry can be reached.

Democracy as practiced now by many countries is an evolving concept. There is a hint that the evolution of eDemocracy could take us into a new form of democracy, which would reflect a wider voice of the public. But there is no clear vision of what such a democracy would entail, and how it would differ from current practices or reflect the overall society.

However, as we have learned, technology is only a medium and a driver of new and important trends in society to the extent that they are driven by new ideas, conceptual constructs that contain innovation and creativity. Technology is not the creator of change, but is simply a tool. Usage of technologies, no matter their form, result in cultural evolutions because of the way that people adapt them. Implementation of new technologies may change the way societies organise and administer themselves, but they are never the driver of ideas, only the facilitator. Original ideas come from the mind of one person or from collective debate that then drives philosophical, cultural, societal, organisational, and administrative change. Thus, the usage of ICTs for the purposes of eDemocracy principles, as articulated to date, is only the beginning, and simply one tool, on the road to possible new forms of democracy. It is how we use this tool and the way in which we frame the debate that will result in these new forms and an extension of our current structures of democracy. I

It is the continued practice of eDemocracy, the development of new tools and ideas, and a debate on the overall subject of democracy, which will bring us to a possible new plateau of a system of democracy that will reflect our increasingly changing culture and societies. This is not a suggestion to change what we have, but to build on the strength of the forms of democracy that have been developed over the past centuries.

Seeking to find an interactive role for the citizen in an effective and meaningful way is one of the major challenges now facing governments.

The major obstacle governments will have to solve in order to meet this new challenge will be to develop administrative means and a sufficient back office, consisting of resources, funding, and personnel, to achieve this. Another task will be the finding of ways and means to tabulate and assess the responses received from citizens. New ideas require creativity and innovation. The movement towards online consultations within government, with concomitant pressures from an increasingly interactive citizenry, will test the capacity of governments to change.

Providing the short answer to the question of what is the citizen's role in the eGovernance and eDemocracy equation, Stephen Coleman, in his opening address to a recent conference, warned that citizens felt they were "outside the equation". Ironically, it was Coleman who said in an online debate on new methods for democratic decision-making called, Boosting the Net Economy 2000: "All of this must be conducted by trusted bodies. Neither government nor commercial firms are sufficiently free of interests to enable them to build such trusted structures."

Yet in actual practice, based on the re-characterization of eGovernance as an elusive concept, and the exclusion of that broad public voice of different viewpoints, beliefs and backgrounds, from a seminal conference on the future of eDemocracy in this country, that dialogue is in danger of taking place among the elites. Again, this is a fundamental issue, which has to be addressed by politicians and public administrators alike if eDemocracy is to evolve and encompass the majority of our citizens.

If citizens are to be engaged online, the tools need to be provided, the issues broadcast widely, the facts made clear and stated in a palatable, understandable form, access to the means for input given to those who will be directly affected by the issues, a safe public space provided for an informed debate, and rational incentives for the ordinary citizen to enter into them. There is some evidence in several countries around the world, as shown in the examples above, that if the leaders and politicians make the effort, people will respond.

eDemocracy is in its nascent state and while we cannot accurately predict what shape it will take in generations to come, we do know that there will be changes. The key to the success of eDemocracy will be the participation and partnership of all the stakeholders in government and the citizenry alike.

Note
Stephen Rosell, Changing Frames: Leadership and Governance in the Information Age, Gilmore Printing, Ottawa, 2000. Pg. 27

The full report of eGovernance to eDemocracy: Examining the Evolution and other reports in this series are available from the Commonwealth Centre for e-Governance.

The current report was prepared under the auspices of the CCeG and the sponsorship of Telecommunications and Informatics Services of Public Works and Government services Canada. Cathia Gilbert, Research Fellow of CCEG, is thanked for her major contributions to the preparation and writing of this report.

Other articles by Thomas Riley:
- Security Laws and Privacy: Striking the Balance [Part 2]
- Security Laws and Privacy: Striking the Balance [Part 1]
- An Overview of the Knowledge Economy
- eDemocracy: An Evolution in Progress
- Definining E-Government and E-Governance: Staying the Course
- 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