E-Democracy,
E-Governance and Public Net-Work
By Steven Clift
http://www.publicus.net/
Copyright 2003 - Permission required for
print or electronic redistribution.
Version 1.1, September 2003
Related article to OECD: Public
Net-work: Online Information Exchange in the Pursuit of Public Service
Goals (Word)
Introduction
While the art and practice of government
policy-making, citizen participation, and public work is quite complex,
the following illustration provides a simple framework used in this
paper:
In this model of traditional government
policy-making:
1. Citizens provide occasional
input between elections and pay taxes.
2. Power in the Governance
infrastructure is centered with political leaders who determine broad
policy priorities and distribute resources based on those priorities
and existing programs and legal requirements.
3. Through government directly, and
other publicly funded organizations, Public Work represents the
implementation of the policy agenda and law.
Over time of course, bureaucratic
barriers to reform make it difficult for leaders to recognize changes in
citizen needs and priorities. Citizen input, outside of elections,
often has a difficult time getting through. Disconnects among
citizens, leaders, and those who implement public work are often based
on the inability to easily communicate through and across these
groups.
As our one-way broadcast world becomes
increasingly two-way, will the governance process gain the ability to
listen and respond more effectively?
The information-age, led by Internet
content, software, technology, and connectivity, is changing society and
the way we can best meet public challenges. E-democracy, e-governance,
and public net-work are three interrelated concepts that will help us
map out our opportunity to more effectively participate, govern, and do
public work.
E-Democracy
E-democracy is a term that elicits a wide
range of reactions. Is it part of an inevitable technology driven
revolution? Will it bring about direct voting on every issue under
the sun via the Internet? Is this just a lot of hype? And so on.
(The answers … no, no, and no.)
Just as there are many different
definitions of democracy and many more operating practices, e-democracy
as a concept is easily lost in the clouds. Developing a practical
definition of E-Democracy is essential to help us sustain and adapt
everyday representative democratic governance in the information
age.
Definition
After a decade of involvement in this
field, I have established the following working definition:
E-Democracy is the use of information and
communications technologies and strategies by “democratic sectors”
within the political processes of local communities, states/regions,
nations and on the global stage.
The “democratic sectors” include the
following democratic actors:
- Governments
- Elected officials
- Media (and major online
Portals)
- Political parties and interest
groups
- Civil society organizations
- International governmental
organizations
- Citizens/voters
Current E-Democracy
Activities
Each sector often views its new online
developments in isolation. They are relatively unaware of
the online activities of the other sectors. Those working to use
information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve or enhance
democratic practices are finding e-democracy a lot more challenging to
implement than speculating on its potential. This is why it is
essential for the best e-democracy lessons and practices to be
documented and shared.
This simplified model illustrates
e-democracy activities as a whole. Building on the first
diagram it, sits as a filter on the “input” border between citizens and
governance in first diagram:
Governments provide extensive access to
information and interact electronically with citizens, political groups
run online advocacy campaigns and political parties campaign online, and
the media and portal/search sites play a crucial role in providing news
and online navigation. In this model, the “Private Sector”
represents commercially driven connectivity, software, and
technology. This is the whole of e-democracy.
E-democracy is not evolving in a vacuum
with these sectors only. Technology enhancements and online trends
from all corners of the Internet are continuously being adopted and
adapted for political and governance purposes. This is one of the more
exciting opportunities as e-mail, wireless networking, personalization,
weblogs, and other tools move in from other online content, commerce,
and technology areas and bring innovation and the opportunity for change
with them.
Looking to the center of model, the only
ones who experience “e-democracy” as a whole are “citizens.”
In more “wired” countries most citizens are experiencing information-age
democracy as “e-citizens” at some level of governance and public
life. In developing countries, e-democracy is just as important,
but exists as more of an institution-to-institution relationship.
In all countries, the influence of “e-democracy” actually reaches most
of the public through its influence on the traditional media and through
word of mouth via influential members of the community.
“E-Citizens” - Greater Citizen
Participation?
To many, e-democracy suggests greater and
more active citizen participation enabled by the Internet, mobile
communications, and other technologies in today’s representative
democracy. It also suggests a different role for government and
more participatory forms of direct citizen involvement in efforts to
address public challenges. (Think e-volunteerism over e-voting.)
Some take this further and view the
information revolution as an inherently democratic “disruptive
technology” that will dramatically change politics for the better.
This view has diminished considerably, as existing democratic actors
have demonstrated their ability to incorporate new technologies and
online communication strategies into their own activities and protect
their existing interests. They have to in order to survive.
In the future, most “e-democracy”
development will naturally result from ICT-accelerated competition among
the various political forces in society. We are experiencing a
dramatic “e-democracy evolution.” In this evolution, the
role, interests, and the current and future activities of all actors is
not yet well understood. There is still an opportunity to influence its
development for the better.
Things will change, but as each democratic
sector advances their online activities, democratic intent will be
required to achieve the greater goals of democracy.
Related resources:
E-Democracy
Resource Links
Future of
E-Democracy - The Fifty Year Plan
E-Democracy E-Book: Democracy is
Online 2.0
E-Governance
I use the phrase “Representative
E-Government” to describe the e-democracy activities of government
institutions. Others call this “e-governance.” Whether a local
government or a United Nations agency, government institutions are
making significant investments in the use of ICTs in their work. They
are expressing “democratic intent.” Their efforts make this one of
the most dynamic and important areas of e-democracy development.
There are distinct differences in how
representative institutions and elected officials use ICTs compared to
administrative agencies and departments. The use of ICTs by
parliaments, heads of state/government, and local councils (and elected
officials in these institutions) lags significantly behind the
administrative-based e-government service and portal efforts. This
is a services first, democracy later approach.
This focus of e-government resources on
services does not mean that e-democracy is not gaining increased
attention in some governments. In fact, leading e-service
governments are now at a point where they are exploring their
e-democracy responsibilities more seriously.
Goals for E-Democracy in
Governance
Investment in traditional e-government
service delivery is justified based on the provision of greater citizen
convenience and the often-elusive goal of cost-savings. Goals for
e-government in governance that promote democracy and effective
governance include:
1. Improved government
decisions
2. Increased citizen trust in
government
3. Increased government accountability
and transparency
4. Ability to accommodate the public
will in the information-age
5. To effectively involve stakeholders,
including NGOs, business, and interested citizen in new ways of
meeting public challenges (see public net-work
below)
Consultation
Online
The first area of government e-democracy
exploration has focused on consultation within executive policy-making
processes. Governments, like the United Kingdom and Canada, are taking
their consultative frameworks and adapting them to the online
environment. New Zealand and Canada now have special portals
dedicated to promote the open consultations across their
governments. This includes traditional off-line opportunities as
well as those where online input is encouraged. Across the UK, a
number of “online consultations” have been deployed to gather special
citizen input via the Internet.
Examples:
Consulting Canadians: http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca/
New Zealand – Participate: http://www.govt.nz/en/participate
UK E-Democracy Consultation: http://www.e-democracy.gov.uk/
Others, including hosting and best
practice tips: http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html
Accountability, Trust, the Public
Will
These three themes are emerging on the
e-democracy agenda. Building government accountability and
transparency are a significant focus of e-government in many developing
countries. E-government is viewed an anti-corruption tool in
places like South Korea, Mexico, and others. Trust, while an
important goal, can only be measured in the abstract. Establishing a
causal relationship between e-government/e-democracy experiences and
increased levels of trust will be difficult.
Ultimately, the main challenge for
governance in the information age will be accommodating the will of the
people in many small and large ways online. The great unknown is whether
citizen and political institutional use of this new medium will lead to
more responsive government or whether the noise generated by competing
interests online will make governance more difficult. It is
possible that current use of ICTs in government and politics, which are
often not formulated with democratic intent, will actually make
governance less responsive.
One thing is clear, the Internet can be
used to effectively organize protests and to support specific advocacy
causes. Whether it was the use of e-mail groups and
text messaging protesting former President Estrada of the Philippines
or the fact a majority of Americans online sent or received e-mail
(mostly humor) after the Presidential election “tie” in the United
States, major moments in history lead to an explosion of online
activity. The social networks online are very dynamic and governments
need to be prepared to accommodate and react to “electric floods.” When
something happens that causes a flood, people will expect government to
engage them via this medium or citizens will instead view government as
increasingly unresponsive and disconnected with society they are to
serve.
Related resources:
For more on the e-government and
democracy, watch for the 2003 United
Nations World Public Sector Report. Details will be shared on
DoWire: http://www.e-democracy.org/do
Top Ten
E-Democracy "To Do List" for Governments Around the
World
Top Ten Tips for
"Weos" - Wired Elected Officials
Public Net-Work
Public net-work is a new concept. It
represents the strategic use of ICTs to better implement established
public policy goals and programs through direct and diverse stakeholder
involvement online.
If e-democracy in government represents
input into governance, then public net-work represents participative
output using the same or similar online tools. Public net-work is
a selective, yet public, approach that uses two-way online information
exchange to carry out previously determined government
policy.
Building on the first diagram, the
following “bow-tie” model suggests a more fluid communication
environment that can be used to bring citizens and public work
stakeholders closer to the center of governance. It also suggests
that policy leaders can reach out and develop closer relationships with
citizens and stakeholders.
What are public net-work
projects?
Public net-work projects have the
following things in common:
1. They are designed to
facilitate the online exchange of information, knowledge and/or
experience among those doing similar public work.
2. They are hosted or funded by
government agencies, intergovernmental associations, international
government bodies, partnerships involving many public entities,
non-governmental organizations, and sometimes foundations or
companies.
3. While they are generally open to the
public, they are focused on specific issues that attract niche
stakeholder involvement from other government agencies, local
governments, non-governmental organizations, and interested
citizens. Essentially any individual or group willing to work
with the government to meet public challenges may be included.
However, invite-only initiatives with a broader base of participants
are very similar to more strictly defined “open” public net-work
initiatives.
4. In a time of scare resources, public
net-work is designed to help governments more effectively pursue their
established missions in a collaborative and sustainable
manner.
In order to work, public net-work
initiative hosts need to shift from the role of “top experts” or “sole
providers” of public services to facilitators of those working to solve
similar public problems. Public net-work moves beyond “one-way”
information and service delivery toward “two-way” and “many-to-many”
exchange of information, knowledge, and experience.
Features
Publicly accessible public net-work
projects currently use a mix of ICT tools available. The
successful projects adopt new technologies and strategies on an
incremental trial and error basis. Unleashing all of the latest tools
and techniques without a user base may actually reduce project momentum
and user participation.
To succeed, these projects must adapt
emerging models of distributed information input and information sharing
and develop models for sustained knowledge exchange/discussion.
They must also build from the existing knowledge about online
communities, virtual libraries, e-newsletters, and Communities of
Practice/Interest.
Some of the specific online features
include:
1. Topical Portal - The
starting point for public net-work is a web site that provides users a
directory to relevant information resources in their field - these
often include annotated subject guide links and/or standard
Yahoo-style categories.
2. E-mail Newsletter - Most projects
keep people up-to-date via regularly produced e-mail newsletters. This
human edited form of communication is essential to draw people back to
the site and can be used to foster a form of high value interaction
that helps people feel like they are part of the effort.
3. Personalization with E-mail
Notification - Some sites allow users to create personal settings that
track and notify them about new online resources of interest. New
resources and links to external information are often placed deep
within an overall site and "What's New" notification dramatically
increases the value provided by the project to its users.
4. Event Calendar - Many sites are a
reliable place to discover listings of key current events and
conferences.
5. FAQ and Question Exchange - A list of
answers to frequently asked questions as well as the regular
solicitation of new or timely questions from participants.
Answers are then gathered from other participants and shared with all
via the web site and/or e-newsletter.
6. Document Library - Some sites move
beyond the portal directory function and gather the full text of
documents. This provides a reliable long-term source of quality
content that often appears and is removed from other web sites without
notice.
7. Discussions - Using a mix of e-mail
lists and/or web forums, these sites encourage ongoing and informal
information exchange. This is where the "life" of the public
net-work online community is often expressed.
8. Other features include news headline
links from outside sources, a member directory, and real-time online
features.
Examples
CommunityBuilders New South Wales –
http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/
International AIDS Economics Network
– http://www.iaen.org/
OneFish – http://www.onefish.org/
DevelopmentGateway – http://www.developmentgateway.org/
Research Institute of Economy, Trade
and Industry - Digital New Deal - http://dnd.rieti.go.jp/
UK Improvement and Development Agency
– Knowledge – http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk/
Lessons
1. Government partnerships,
with their public missions and resources, often make ideal hosts for
broad, horizontal information exchange. Government departments
that feel their status/purpose will be threatened by shifting from an
expert gatekeeper to an involved facilitator are not ideal
hosts.
2. All online features must be designed
with the end user in mind. They must be usable and easy to
learn. Complex systems reduce the size of the participatory
audience – public net-work cannot rely on an internal office
environment where people are required to learn new systems or use
specialty software beyond e-mail and a web browser. To provide a
strong incentive, these systems must save the time it takes those
implementing public policy to do their job effectively.
3. Public net-work sites broaden the
awareness of quality information resources on a timely basis.
Finding what you need, when you need it is more likely to occur when a
community of interest participates in building a comprehensive
resource. However, over time these sites will naturally face
currency issues that must be handled. There are limits to the value of
information exchange. Too much information, or bad information,
can paralyze decision-making or distract people from the task at
hand. All good things should be taken in moderation.
4. Building trust among the
organizations and individuals participating in the development and
everyday use of a collaborative site is essential. This relates
to developing the “neutral host” facilitation role, along with
sustained funding, by the host. Special care must be taken when
building partner relationships and host “branding” kept to a
minimum. Partnerships, with clear responsibilities and goals,
will better position efforts as a truly participatory community
projects.
5. Gathering and sharing incentives,
particularly for resource links is a particularly tricky area.
Involving people with solid librarianship and communication skill sets
is essential. Creating a more sustainable model where
participants more actively submit information (e.g. seeking
submissions from users for more than 5% of link listings for example)
is an ongoing challenge. In-kind partnerships where staff time is
donated may be more effective than relying on the time of unaffiliated
individual volunteers. With more localized efforts, individual
volunteers may be the best or only option.
6. Informal information sharing has
tremendous potential. To effectively encourage horizontal
communication, facilitation is often required. Projects must leverage
existing online communities and be willing to use technologies, like
e-mail lists if that is what people will actually use. In my
opinion, the CommunityBuilder.NSW site is one of the few sites that
effectively integrate e-mail and web technology to support sustained
online deliberation and information exchange.
7. The connection to decision-makers and
authority is significant. Government-led public net-work
projects require political leadership and strong management
support. Paradoxically, an effective online involvement program
on the implementation side of government, if connected to government
leaders, may operate as an “early warning system” and allow government
to adapt policy with fewer political challenges.
Related
resources:
The public net-work section
above is based on an article I wrote for the OECD's E-Government
Working Group. An expanded discussion of case examples and the future
direction of public net-work is available in Public
Net-work: Online Information Exchange in the Pursuit of Public Service
Goals (Word/RTF).
Conclusion
To be involved in defining the future of
democracy, governance and public work at the dawn of the information-age
is an incredible opportunity and responsibility. With the intelligent
and effective application of ICTs, combined with democratic intent, we
can make governments more responsive, we can connect citizens to
effectively meet public challenges, and ultimately, we can build a more
sustainable future for the benefit of the whole of society and world in
which we live.
This article originally prepared for ACP
FMKES Workshop: http://www.onefish.org/id/159181
PowerPoint presentation available from
(7MB): http://www.onefish.org/id/159425
To arrange a presentation or speech on
“public net-work” please contact Steven Clift and visit this web page
for more information: http://www.publicus.net/speaker.html
For more information about an online
exchange among leading public net-work practitioners, see: http://www.publicus.net/publicnetwork.html