Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-wg55d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-20T18:41:03.727Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

e-democracy: on-line civic space and the renewal of democracy?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 July 2015

John Morison
Get access

Extract

e-government is a fast-developing phenomenon in many countries world-wide. Information and communication technology (ICT) has the potential to transform government generally and re-invigorate democracy in particular. This article considers the role of ICT in increasing democratic engagement both in relation to traditional aggregative forms of democracy and as regards more radical, participatory democracy. Within traditional democracy the potential of ICT moves beyond simply e-voting and has particular application in the various consultations processes that are increasingly of significance within ideas of "modernised government". The particular value that ICT can bring is of importance for more participatory versions of democracy too.; A model of consultation, drawn from mediation, is outlined and the application of ICT to such methods of decision-making is considered. Finally a range of best practice examples is given to illustrate how a technology of democracy requires putting information technology in service of democracy rather than the other way around.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Law & Jurisprudence , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , January 2004 , pp. 129 - 142
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

The author wishes to express thanks to Dr. David Newman whose ideas produced in earlier work with the author form part of the argument here and the members of the e-Consultation Study Group () who have provided useful practical experience of trying to develop good practice in this field.

1. See in particular “Modernising Government and the e-government revolution: technologies of government and technologies of democracy” in Leyland, P. & Bamforth, N., eds., Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2003) 131 Google Scholar; Morison, J., “On-line Government and e-constitutionalism” (Spring 2003) Pub. L. 14 Google Scholar.

2. There is a webpage at http://www.gksoft.com/govt/en/ linking governments across the world who are on the world wide web. There are a number of surveys and evaluations of government websites. The Cyberspace Policy Research Group (CyPRG) has tracked the spread and deployment of the web in 192 governments around the world since 1996 and established a comprehensive database of national public agency websites which can be accessed online. See further http://www.cyprg.arizona.edu.

3. See Oliver, D., Constitutional Reform in the UK (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)Google Scholar. For the phenomenon of modernisation world-wide see OECD Policy Brief Public Sector Modernisation (2003) at http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/63/23/15688578.pdf.

4. The White Paper Modernising Government (http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/doc-ument/cm43/4310/4310-00.htm 1999) put a particular emphasis on “Information Age Government” and how it is important to “modernise the business of government itself achieving joined up working between different parts of government and providing new, efficient and convenient ways for citizens and businesses to communicate with government and receive services.” at ch. 5, para. 5. The second phase of modernisation, introduced by Reforming our Public Services: Principles into Practice (http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/Principles.pdf 2002), refers at page 16 to the “huge opportunity to harness new technologies to raise standards in public services” and it has endorsed the target of 100% of key services available online by 2005 set in the original Modernising Government paper. The role of the E-envoy within the Cabinet Office in promoting e-government and moving government towards its target is also significant. See further http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk.

5. CM 5237 2001. Strong Local Leadership-Quality Public Services, [CM 5237] 2001, online: http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_control/documents/contentservertemplate/odpm_index.hcst?n=1946&l=3.

6. On Section 75 see further the work of the Equality Coalition in Northern Ireland at http://www.nicva.org/pdfs/section7521012003.pdf and the Committee on the Administration of Justice at http://www.caj.org.uk/default.htm.

7. COM (2001) 428, Brussels, 25.7.2001 at p. 11.

8. Of course there are other critics who see a new digital divide appearing where those who are technologically impoverished are locked out of government and where models of citizenship are replaced by those of the consumer.

9. There is evidence that despite the fact that the internet is being used for shopping by a range of consumers the take-up of online services by citizens is not growing as expected and in some areas has actually fallen (See The Economist (4 January 2003) and, more general studies such as Margetts, H. & Dunleavy, P. Cultural Barriers to e-government (London: Audit Office, 2002).Google Scholar

10. See further the Hansard Society publication reporting on use of internet technology the UK’s general election in 2001. See further Coleman, S., ed., 2001: Cyber Space Odyssey: The Internet in the UK Election (London: Hansard Society, 2001).Google Scholar

11. Giddens, A., The Third Way: The Renewal of Social Democracy (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1998) 70 Google Scholar.

12. See Dorf, M. & Sable, C., “A Constitution of Democratic Experimentalism” (1998) 98 Colum. L. Rev. 267 Google Scholar and William Scheuerman, “Democratic Experimentalism or Capitalist Synchronization? Reflections on Directly-Deliberative Polyarchy” in this volume.

13. For example, in the last general election in the UK in 2001, one in four eligible citizens did not exercise the right to vote and 62% of first time voters and 55% of under 35 year olds did not vote.

14. B.N., Hague & B.D., Loader, “Introduction” in B.N., Hague and B.D., Loader, eds., Digital Democracy: Discourse and Decision-Making in the Information Age (Cambridge, UK: Routledge, 1999) at 13 Google Scholar.

15. See S. Skzeszewski, “E-Republics—A Model of Global, Open-System Governance” available at http://www.electronicgov.net/pubs/research_papers/guest/E-Republics-Stanfinal.doc.

16. Kariyawasam, R., “Interconnection, Access and Peering: Law and Precedent” in Walden, I. & Angel, J., eds., Telecommunications Law (London: Blackstone, 2001) 136 Google Scholar.

17. Castells, M., The Rise of the Network Society (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996)Google Scholar.

18. Coleman, J., Foundations of Social Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990) at 302 Google Scholar.

19. Barber, Benjamin R., “Which Technology for Which Democracy? Which Democracy for Which Technology?” (2000-01) 6 Int’l J. Communications L. & Policy at 1–8 Google Scholar. http://www.digital-law.net/IJCLP/index.html.

20. See Sunstein, Cass, Republic.com (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

21. Quoted in 2001: Cyber Space Odyssey: The Internet in the UK Election, Coleman, S., ed., (London: Hansard Society, 2002) at 4 Google Scholar.

22. See Blumler, Jay G. & Coleman, Stephen, Realising Democracy Online: A Civic Commons in Cyberspace (IPPR/Citizens Online Publication, 2001)Google Scholar. See http://www.ippr.org.uk/publications/index.php?current=17&book=253.

23. See further the work of the Hansard Society on the use of internet technology the UK’s general election in 2001 in Coleman, supra note 21 and the Electoral Commission, Modernising elections: a strategic evaluation of the 2002 electoral pilot schemes (2002) Electoral Commission at http://www.electoralcommission.gov.uk.

24. See further In the Service of Democracy: Your Response (2003) available at http;//www.edemoc-racy.gov/downloads/your_response_report.pdf.

25. See Hansard Society Summary of the “In Service of Democracy” online consultation available via at. http://www.edemocracy.gov.uk/proposals/policy.php.

26. For example, the Consultation Institute has produced a Consultation Charter which offers seven best practice principles relating to integrity, visibility, accessibility, confidentiality, disclosure, fair interpretation and publication. See further www.consultationinstitute.org.

27. This figure is taken from a classic article by Arnstein, S., “A Ladder of Citizen Participation” (1969) J. Am. Institute Planners 216 at 217 Google Scholar.

28. This part of the account draws significantly from Morison, J. & Newman, D., “On-line Citizenship: Consultation and Participation in New Labour’s Britain and beyond” (2001) Int’l Rev. Law, Computers and Technology 171 Google Scholar.

29. Blaug, R., “Engineering Democracy” (2002) 50 Pol. Stud. 102 Google Scholar.

30. See, further, for example: Stephen Clift’s e-government Briefing Book with its top ten tips (see http://www.netcaucus.org/books/egov2001/pdf/topten.pdf); the Institute of Public Policy’s Good Practice Guidelines (See e-participation in local government (2002) at 19; the IDeA Knowledge toolkit (available at http://www.idea.int/publications/democracy_at_local_level/democracy_at_ the_local_level.pdf); the Consultation Charter provided by the Consultation Institute (at http://www.213.245.180.233/charter.pdf); the checklist provided by Full Circle Associates (at http://www.fullcirc.com/comunit/desingingonlineevents.htm).