EDemocracy and Government
Dismissed by some as a dangerous dislocater of communities and a tool for distributing misinformation, ICT is prized by others as a support for conventional political structures and a platform for promoting democratic renewal.
The meeting of people, technology and politics can be referred to as ‘eDemocracy’. The development of eDemocracy as a practice and a field of study have taken on greater urgency in recent years to help counteract the current period of falling engagement in UK politics. The Digital Dialogues initiative took eDemocracy into account broadly, but the initiative was purposely set up to focus on participation and the interactions taking place between government and the public online.
The absence of longitudinal studies has made it difficult to determine what long term impact ICT is having on the UK’s policy process and public engagement. Nevertheless, when the anecdotal evidence is placed against the adoption and adaptation by other businesses and organisations in the UK, it is clear that central government has not kept pace with developments in ICT and failed to take full advantage of new interactions that are emerging. Government must look at use of ICT elsewhere in society and consider whether it is something that it will embrace or something it will resist.
An interesting comparison is found in the mainstream media’s response to the dawning of the ‘digital communications age’. Over the course of the 20th Century a relationship established itself between the media and the public based on the media as the ‘editor’ and ‘sender’ of information and the public as the ‘receiver’ and ‘consumer’. The emergence of new, principally web-based media is changing this relationship. ‘Social software’ or ‘participative media’– of which blogs, forums and webchats are examples – support user-generated content and are inherently network-orientated. They are forcing a rethink of the user as an ‘active participant’, and even a ‘producer’ who uploads as well as downloads.
This concept (and practice) has growing support amongst a British public that is better educated, more affluent and less deferential than in previous generations. At the beginning of the 21st Century British citizens expect choice in and to contribute to the design of the products and services they use, rather than simply having these bestowed upon them. These are formative stages for new digital communications spaces. In some ways there is a ‘land-grab’ under way; however, the contest is not for space and resources but for position and influence. The government and the media are equally susceptible to having their influence reduced in this process. To date, it is the media which has been the quicker of the two to adopt new media techniques in reaction to changing patterns of consumption.
It would be inaccurate and unfair to say that government has been static in response to the development of the digital communications. In 2002, the government published the ‘In the Service of Democracy’ consultation paper inviting input on a government eDemocracy framework. This was an important policy document that took steps toward formulating a strategy for applying ICT to engagement:
”[An] e-Democracy policy should be viewed in a context of those political and constitutional reforms, which seek to devolve power, extend citizens’ rights and improve the transparency and accountability of government and politics”
[In the service of democracy, Cabinet Office 2002]
The paper’s articulation of an eDemocracy strategy is still relevant today. Yet the paper and the cross-government framework it attempted to generate lost momentum after publication. Changes in the Cabinet Office priorities meant there was little cross-departmental coordination. Though the paper grouped eGovernment, eParticipation and eVoting together under the umbrella-term of ‘eDemocracy’, in practice these complementary areas have come to be managed separately, with eGovernment taking precedence. The few ICT-led participation exercises that were sparked by ‘In the Service of Democracy’ suffered from too great an emphasis on their marketing value at the expense of structured attempts to establish a viable channel for two-way communication with the public. As a result they were not long-lived.
Today, every government department has at least a corporate website, eGovernment is a priority policy area and the DirectGov web portal has been designed to provide a one-stop store-front for citizens to access government services. Government can also legitimately claim a credit for driving up broadband access and coverage, promoting technical literacy and skills, and even of encouraging eParticipation at a local government level. However, in its attempts to promote democratic engagement at a national level, government has failed to capitalise on the opportunities presented by ICT. It has been content to try the basics but has faltered when presented with opportunities to sustain and develop the depth of its practice.
In the context of UK politics, where citizens have been variously described as ‘spectators’, ‘strangers’ or ‘disengaged’, the fact that new media demonstrates disruptive, distributive and democratising potential is of no small significance. The conditions are right for an institutionalisation of eParticipation in central government. Government in all its forms must accept that greater commitment and investment in public engagement – not just that which is online – is an enabler of better, more transparent policy-making. It is an opportunity to improve communications and strengthen transactions between the government and the public – whether in its capacity as citizens, customers or voters.
