The official version is available in PDF format from IFES. Recommended for readability.

 

Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration:

Election Management Bodies and Use of the Internet*

Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration

Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration:

Election Management Bodies and Use of the Internet*

Steven Clift

*Chapter published in Challenging the Norms and Standards of Election Administration (IFES, 2007), p. 21-33.

I. Introduction
The goal of this paper is to establish new proposals for international electoral standards1
for the use of the Internet during election campaigns (outside of voting).
Election administrators and governments need to decide how they will use the Internet
to improve election processes and better inform voters in the near term regardless of
the complexity and controversy surrounding Internet voting. As has been seen in
elections around the world, the influence of the Internet is growing.

The recommendations2 proposed in this paper attempt to answer the following
questions:

1. How should the Internet be used to support better election processes and
informed voting?

2. What content and services must be online to ensure free and fair elections?

The emerging role of the Internet surrounding elections deserves close attention. It may
be that changes in campaigning and citizen action online, rather than e-voting, present
the real opportunities for—or challenges to—democratic transformation.
Once documented and shared, best practices can bring existing democratic freedoms
and electoral standards to life where applied. However, while most election-related
benefits from online activities will be gained through best practices, a standards established
model for “must-have” and “should-have” online elements is proposed. As
more citizens come online, electoral management bodies (EMBs) will see their online
responsibilities increase. Clearly, these responsibilities will arrive sooner in “wired”
countries with active online populations, but they will eventually arrive everywhere.
Creating a shared body of best practices now can benefit all democracies over time.
1 Key documents establishing “electoral standards” include International IDEA’s “International Electoral
Standards: Guidelines for reviewing the legal framework of elections”
(http://www.idea.int/publications/electoral_guidelines.pdf) and the OSCE’s “Existing Commitments for
Democratic Elections in OSCE Participating States” (
http://www.osce.org/odihr/?page=publications&div=topics&topic=elections). These documents extensively
reference the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://www.unhchr.ch/udhr/index.htm), International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and related treaties (http://www.unhchr.ch/html/intlinst.htm), and the
Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/wssd/agreements).
2 As intended, the recommendations in this paper are pr oposed exclusively by the author, Steven Clift. This
paper contains updates from January 2007.
Election Management Bodies and the Use of the Internet
Steve Clift
22
II. Two Proposed Internet-Era Electoral Standards
Two key proposals for information-age electoral standards deserve special attention and
debate. They inform all of the recommendations below:
1. All information produced, compiled, disseminated, or disclosed to hold a
democratic election as established by national laws and international electoral
standards must be publicly accessible on the Internet in a standard,
authoritative format.
2. Voter privacy must be established to cover all voter actions online (seeking
information about political candidates and issues; communicating with family,
friends, and members of private associations about elections or governance; and
voting).
The need for the first standard is intuitive. In order to build trust in the electoral
process, promote voter participation, encourage informed voting, and ensure legal
compliance, EMBs must make public all information about election standards, laws,
regulations, and voter education programs. In addition, existing electoral standards
require broad and timely access to this information. It is almost impossible to conceive
of any democratic purpose served by keeping such information offline.
The second proposed standard opens an area of great debate. The Internet era provides
many ways to track individual behavior; however, to ensure continued participation in
the electoral system, voters must feel they can freely explore the raw materials of
political thought without fearing public exposure by those with state, media, or economic
power.
III. Analysis and Recommendations
Based on a review of the Web sites of EMBs and other sites with election and campaign
information, the following section outlines policy recommendations in regard to::
• Providing information online
• Establishing an online legal environment
• Monitoring the Internet media
• Ensuring technological access
1. Providing Information Online
A typical EMB Web site should provide extensive access to official government electionrelated
content. The “any time, anywhere” Internet makes election information more
accessible now than at any time in history, and is therefore a force for democratization.
a. Make content available online
Ideally, all public election material—text, images, audio/video, voting information, and
educational content—produced by EMBs should be available online.3 However, given
3 Items not available online should be described there and directions given for how to access them offline.
Challenging the Norms and Standards
of Election Administration
23
the variation in EMBs’ resources and in online populations across countries, a
progression of Internet use for EMBs should be defined and benchmarked.
Must-have elements
For all countries, the items below represent basic items that create democratic
legitimacy, regardless of the number of citizens who use the Internet.
• Content demonstrating electoral standards are in action
Any public information mentioned in existing electoral standards must be made
available (and easy to locate) online in a timely manner.
• Accurate and authoritative content
Even in the most wired countries, governments often place disclaimers on their
Web sites suggesting that they are not responsible for the accuracy of the
information there. Such disclaimers undermine legitimacy and trust in the electoral
process. EMBs must guarantee that their Web sites provide legally accurate and
authoritative information.
• Multilingual content
As required by local law, all content on an EMB’s Web site must be available in all
official languages. Other relevant languages should be used when possible.
Should-have elements
If “must-have” content establishes legitimacy, trust, and free and fair elections,
“should-have” content and services promote voter participation, service transaction
convenience for regulated political groups and voters, and other benefits. As more
people in a given country go online, the benefit as well as the justification for
investment increases. Countries with fewer than 20 percent of the population online
may decide to invest gradually in this second tier of online services. On the other
hand, in countries where more than 50 percent of the population is online, it is
proposed that “should-have” items become “must-have” items.
• Candidate and party lists/links
EMBs should provide voters with complete and up-to-date access to “who is on my
ballot” and “where do I vote?” online look-up tools. Providing such data at low or
no cost for use by others, including major media Web sites, will make this high
demand information accessible when voters seek it. Further, EMBs should maintain
an official registry of candidate and party Web sites and e-mail addresses. Such a
registry allows citizens to locate official (not spoofed) political Web sites and to
reliably gather information from multiple sources online. Laws or regulations that
require candidates or parties to link their Web sites (and their campaign finance or
ethics filings) to the official registry should be considered.
• Voter registration
If EMBs can meet the challenge of electronically verifying identities, they can allow
voter registration online, or at least registration address changes. If they do not
have the capability to verify identities, they could allow online transactions by
verifying e-mail addresses following a transaction and providing clear warnings of
the penalties for fraud. As is done in New Zealand, governments should allow
voters to verify online their information as it appears in the electoral rolls.
Alternatively, first-time electronic registration or name changes could be conducted
by organizations that meet certain standards. In the future, regulated political
Election Management Bodies and the Use of the Internet
Steve Clift
24
entities and civil society groups may use Tablet PCs or handheld devices that have
the ability to collect electronic written signatures. This process would require
security procedures, privacy guarantees, and penalties that ensure the signatures
collected are not used for other purposes.
• Campaign finance reporting and disclosure system
EMBs should provide full online access to all legally public campaign finance data
collected online. This public data should be searchable and downloadable for
analysis with third-party tools. The data fields to be released electronically, like
postal addresses of campaign donors, may be limited by privacy laws. EMBs could
further expand into real-time reporting and disclosure of certain
expenditures/donations over a certain amount. They could also create an online
register of political campaign advertising in both the mass and online media
(including paid “advertorials” on blogs, forums, etc., which should but often do not
have required “paid and prepared for” statements). The full potential of the
disclosure approach to regulating or limiting undesirable election behavior through
public awareness will only be realized through online access.4
• Voter outreach and education programs5
Judging by the information available, EMBs’ online content appears to be used
primarily by election officials, candidates/parties, the media, and regulated political
entities. As EMBs make more information available, they should reach out to
targeted groups to increase voter use of their materials. South Korea provides the
most extensive example of such activity to date. An international exchange could
help EMBs, media organizations (particularly public broadcasters), and nonpartisan
organizations that educate voters to document the outreach practices that best
achieve the most democratic results.
Given its highly interactive nature, the Internet also provides a rich opportunity to
increase the political participation of young people. However, a CIRCLE survey6 in
the United States suggests that the Internet should complement rather than
replace offline efforts. The web is a “pull” medium, where users decide what
content to view. While you can entice people to visit Cairns SEO through online
advertising or “tell a friend” viral online marketing, disengaged youth are less likely
to choose to view online political content. Active research that fully documents best
practices, and EMB, NGO and media projects that build on those best practices
would greatly benefit strategic investments in targeted voter outreach and
education online. The most obvious step after starting a business is to streamline all marketing and sales activities to drive its expansion to negative seo. For a truly personal online marketing recruitment service contact Intelligent People. To bring an order and a sense of management within the workflows, someone introduced a software that could take organised everything. We are now looking for the Alternative to Hubspot.
EMBs should develop an index of online information products used for voter
education, particularly those covered by existing electoral standards. EMBs can
also prioritize content development by using specific case studies. In addition, they
should map out and analyze the associated costs and benefits with checklists to
guide development. However, providing online access does not absolve an EMB of
the responsibility to disseminate information via traditional methods.
4 For a related discussion, see the final section of this report for Dr. Marcin Walecki’s discussion of Political
Finance, p.75 -93.
5 The ACE Project Web site, an information resource on election administration, details voter education options
and provides sample content at http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/ve. I will not repeat its important work
and detailed advice.
6 See CIRCLE, “National Youth Survey 2004” (January 15, 2004). Information about the survey is available at
http://www.civicyouth.org/research/products/national_youth_survey2004.htm.
Challenging the Norms and Standards
of Election Administration
25
• Services and searches
Citizens prefer voting information that is tailored to their geographical location or
political interests, and EMBs can easily provide services based on geography, such
as locating candidates or elected officials by area. (Media and NGO voter education
sites will more likely take the lead with political issues.)
• Campaign regulation information and notifications
EMBs have a special opportunity to provide tailored services to regulated political
organizations, including full and reliable disclosure of all election laws, regulations,
and policies. Online education and personalized notification services (such as email
alerts on deadlines or regulation tracking) will contribute to improved
compliance and convenience.
b. Make content accessible online
Accessibility is a cornerstone issue and opportunity for EMBs. Specifically, access
should be guaranteed for:
• People with disabilities
EMBs have a democratic obligation to become a model of compliance with egovernment
accessibility policies. They must make rigorous use of standard HTML
and other technologies that ensure greater access for sight-impaired people. In
addition, they should use closed captioning of audio/video content for those who
are hearing impaired.
• Speakers of minority languages
EMBs should consider providing essential voter information in all local languages. A
great advantage of the Web is its ability to provide access to alternative language
content in areas of a country where an EMB may not target print distribution.
• Users of different Internet interfaces
In order to reach the greatest number of citizens, EMBs should organize their
content for users of different Internet interfaces. The use of database-driven
content management systems and standard content formatting (such as HTML,
XML, CSS, RSS, etc.) make this task significantly easier, as does the ability to
produce low- and high-bandwidth versions of pages. An emerging area is mobile
access (often called WAP), which allows users to view the Web via their mobile
phones.
• Users without computer access
EMBs may actually achieve better voter outreach by using offline as well as online
resources. This is particularly true in countries with limited home Internet access or
displaced people. As more and more institutions (from NGOs to political parties to
schools) become connected, the Internet can be used as a remote document
storage system. This will be particularly useful for achieving the timely distribution
of information flyers and small format posters in places where postal service is
unreliable. The Internet could also be used to distribute radio programs in MP3
format for use by local radio stations. (See the section on Ensuring
Technological Access below for further discussion of increasing access to voter
information in the most remote places.)
Election Management Bodies and the Use of the Internet
Steve Clift
26
2. Establishing an Online Legal Environment
The regulation of online campaign activity is one of the most complicated areas of online
election administration.7 Moving from analysis and proposals to the approval of new laws
or rules on this issue has proved exceedingly difficult. However, this may be a good
thing. EMBs need experience with the Internet to determine which aspects of campaign
regulations are either threatened or enhanced by its use.
However, some individuals and informal groups may use the Internet to exercise
influence on par with regulated political groups. The reaction to this event will range
from government attempts to regulate individual behavior to calls by regulated groups
for Internet campaigning exemptions. A proposed amendment to legislation on Internet
taxes in the U.S. House of Representatives that would have exempted Internet
campaigning from election regulations failed. Parliaments around the world will need to
carefully consider future regulation of online campaigning.
a. Identify applicable laws
In light of today’s Internet-driven realities, EMBs must review existing campaign
regulatory laws and issue clear guidance. When possible, they should apply to Internet
content those laws that currently regulate offline media. However in many areas, EMBs
should fundamentally re-evaluate laws and regulations and develop proposals that
allow the Internet to contribute positively to democracy. Achieving the original goals of
electoral regulations may require that those regulations be repealed in the face of the
opportunity afforded by the Internet. There will be instances in which the application of
existing “offline” laws may lead to civil or criminal charges for what is considered
“normal” online campaign or political activity. Further, when it comes to the activities
of individual citizens, these may require exemptions for specific activities online and
offline in order to make enforcement practical.
b. Establish privacy policies, review proposal for “voter privacy” standard
The proposed “voter privacy” election standard extends the concept of voter privacy
while voting to include political privacy while gathering information to make a
considered vote. This proposal requires extensive review in all countries. Initial
recommendations include the requirement that all regulated political entities should be
required to develop, display, and adhere to privacy policies. EMBs should develop a
standard template for display on election-related Web sites, providing a checklist of
what may and what will not be done with the information generated by an individual’s
use of the site. The establishment of such a policy will be highly controversial as
political organizations’ use of data on supporters is typically not made public. Any
registered political entity that violates its own privacy policy should be subject to
severe legal penalties, and all changes in organizations’ buy brand name ativan privacy policies should be
registered with the EMB. In addition, all individuals currently in that organization’s
database should be notified of the changes and given the opportunity to opt out.
Alternatively, or in addition, a country’s law could specify allowable privacy and datasharing
practices.
7 The U.K.’s Electoral Commission has produced both discussion papers and recommendations on the topic of
election campaigning and the Internet, which are available from this page (scroll down to find relevant section)
http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/policyreviews.cfm. The U.S. Federal Election Commission has
also explored this issue, creating several regulations related to use of the Internet in 2006 (see
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/internetcomm.shtml. California’s Fair Political Practices Commission has
also addressed the issue (see http://www.fppc.ca.gov/index.html?id=362).
Challenging the Norms and Standards
of Election Administration
27
c. Provide defamation and libel guidelines
As laws related to online libel and defamation differ from country to country, EMBs
should compile all relevant local laws and provide citizens, candidates, and parties with
guidance on how to avoid associated legal penalties. The 1999 United Nations Report
of the Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of the Right to Freedom of
Opinion and Expression8 illustrates how easily citizens could be charged with criminal
libel in democratic countries that view informal online remarks to friends on par with
statements on television or in the newspaper.
d. Protect the right to freedom of expression, assembly online, and the use of
information
Through the Internet, the power of national and international freedom of expression
guarantees are gaining their full effect. In short, all human and democratic rights
apply online as they do in person or in traditional media. It is essential that those
promoting free and fair elections advocate for the ability of citizens to exercise their
established rights online, including the right to online public/private communication,
association, and assembly in the election process. The legal private communication
among people must not be monitored for the sake of “free and fair” elections. Finally,
as governments, political parties, and candidates make information about elections
available online, voters should have a clearly articulated right to use, share, and
comment on such information.
e. Guarantee the right of reply online
In some countries, newspapers and broadcast media are obliged to provide equal time
for all candidates; more specifically, they must do so for a candidate who has been the
focus of criticism. Similar policies could also be implemented on the Internet, where
Web site owners might be required to carry a response from someone who is the
subject of comments on the site. Such policies have been discussed little in the United
States; however, the Council of Europe has explored the application of the right of
reply in online media.9
Whether voluntary or mandatory, guaranteeing the right of reply might provide a less
litigious mechanism to correct the record. Most Web forums allow people to reply to
other comments, and some news sites allow people to annotate a story by attaching
their comments to it. However, the abuse of government-sanctioned reporting
mechanisms must be monitored, because the legal and personal costs related to
frivolous complaints might have a chilling effect on the exercise of free expression
during elections.
3. Monitoring Internet Media
Because the Internet is an increasingly agenda-setting medium, it will become important
to independently monitor media and other significant Web sites during elections in order
to ensure fair and balanced coverage.10 While the Internet does not yet reach as many
8 Available from http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/7/b/mfro.htm.
9 See http://www.humanrights.coe.int/media/events/2003/Hearing.htm.
10 The National Democratic Institute mentions the Internet briefly in its media monitoring guide: NDI, “Media
Monitoring to Promote Democratic Elections,” (NDI, 2002). Available at
http://www.accessdemocracy.org/library/1420_elect_media_02.pdf.
Election Management Bodies and the Use of the Internet
Steve Clift
28
citizens as television, its reach will only grow. Therefore, select parts of the Internet,
particularly major media sites, should be integrated into any media monitoring effort.
a. Build from academic online content analysis techniques
While the democratic purposes of online monitoring emanate from traditional media
monitoring, current online analysis expertise comes from the world of academic
Internet research. According to Dr. Kirsten Foot at the University of Washington, she
advises the following:
• Build from online content analysis;
• Define clearly what is being monitored (a Web site, site section, article, a page,
forum, e-mail newsletter, etc.);
• Use a tool like “Teleport Pro” to harvest information from sites (perhaps selecting
specific times of each hour or each day to check selected pages);
• Create a standard questionnaire for use by monitors; and
• Use a web-based reporting tool with a database backend (like Webarchivist
Coder), because it may work better than an Excel spreadsheet for coding.11
As reporting systems on election-related media monitoring are often designed with
weekly reporting in mind, fair and balanced reporting should be promoted by
streamlining analysis and measuring essential content.
b. Monitor the top 100 Web sites
Independently monitor and report on the “surface” pages of the top 100 Web sites
carrying news or political content in a given country. Such monitoring will involve a
mix of traffic comparison, objective metrics, and commons sense evaluation. This
reporting should also cover major portals even if they have limited political content.
It is recommended that an independent designee or research institution monitor the
stories or content linked from a site’s home page, the top sections (e.g. news,
business, etc.), and any special election or political sections. The key is to focus on the
parts of the top 100 sites that could influence a general reader (e.g., CNN’s home page
or MSN Messenger’s welcome page). While some automatic content analysis tools
might be used to complement staff or volunteer analysis, online media monitoring will
remain labor intensive.
c. Research political Web trends
Monitoring and analysis of opinion leader sites, forums, and e-mail lists are also
recommended. Such monitoring will help establish how information travels online or
how online rumors are picked up by the mass media. Based on its experience in this
area, an EMB or other nonpartisan organizations could offer regular reports on its
media monitoring as well as resources to correct the factual record online. The goal
would be to highlight the diverse sources of information available online and to
demonstrate alternative, non-regulatory mechanisms for creating accountability.
Presenting a slightly different model, the U.S.-based FactCheck.Org corrects
11 For details on “web research methods” see:
http://www.com.washington.edu/Program/Faculty/Faculty/foot.html Information on Teleport Pro is available
from: http://www.tenmax.com.
Challenging the Norms and Standards
of Election Administration
29
politicians’ statements in a model that could grow into a project that could post
corrections to forums or weblogs on agenda-setting political sites.
d. Monitor government Web sites
EMBs should monitor all top-level government Web sites, such as the government’s
home page, the parliament’s home page, and authorized sites of officials running for
re-election.12 In addition, EMBs should look for inappropriate redirection or links to
campaign Web sites, which would likely violate election laws. EMBs (or perhaps
national libraries) are the government agencies that should link to political party and
candidate Web sites, and they must do so in a balanced, uniform way. During
elections, all e-government Web sites should link the EMB site in order to alert citizens
online that elections are coming.
e. Encourage watchdog groups to aid policy development
While the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (www.gilc.org) and Internews
(www.internews.org) both promote global freedom of expression via the Internet, it is
important that EMBs encourage the establishment of national groups that can report
on the situations in their own countries. Watchdog groups like Reporters without
Borders cover issues of Internet freedom13 from the perspective of the media, but few
groups examine the situation from the perspective of clean campaigning. EMBs and
parliaments need information about the obstacles and successes people encounter on
the Internet in order to develop good Internet policy.
4. Ensuring Technological Access
Because most developing democracies are also developing countries with limited
telecommunications infrastructure, it is easy to dismiss the role of the Internet in such
countries. However, it is in these countries that the strategic use of the Internet may
actually provide the greatest efficiencies and benefits. A key to lower costs is the ability
to avoid expensive satellite Internet connections. It is essential to find ways to share
costs and connections when satellite or expensive direct connections are the only
options available.
Many EMBs around the world are nearing the final stages of integrating technologically
advanced Web sites and online services into election administration. The more
interactive an electoral administration is within its own offices, the better prepared it will
be to deal with the public and online policy issues. In the poorest countries, funding
support for an EMB’s strategic online infrastructure is recommended.
a. E-mail
All employees of an EMB should have an e-mail account and e-mail access via a Web
browser. They should be able to access their accounts outside their office and in
remote locations. In many developing countries, staff share computer workstations. It
is also important to note in many instances, e-mail is easier to access in remote
regions than telephones or postal services. Using the Internet to send short text
12 Such government-funded sites should be required to link to EMB-produced voting information and should be
encouraged to link to other nonpartisan election resources.
13 See, for example, their section on governments’ use of the Internet and treatment of journalists who write
online: http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=273.
Election Management Bodies and the Use of the Internet
Steve Clift
30
messages (SMS) is a bridging technology where mobile phones are often more
accessible than landlines.
b. Wireless Internet options
The following technologies should be reviewed for their potential to provide email/
Internet access to election officials and other democratic actors (such as
candidates, political parties, NGOs, community radio stations, etc.):
• E-mail via radio
There are places around the world that send and receive e-mail via HF
Radio/Shortwave E-mail, which allows them to communicate at a lower cost than
when using a satellite. While there are initial equipment costs and the data transfer
rate is very slow, such connections provide e-mail access in some of the remotest
areas of Africa and other developing countries.14
• Low-earth satellites, satellite connections
These low-earth satellites rotate around the earth providing an opportunity for
daily e-mail exchange. Additional research is required to determine where this
technology is being used. While expensive, the fixed and mobile satellite
connection options increase and costs decrease each year.15
• Wi-Fi (802.11b/g) and other line-of-sight wireless technologies like
WiMax
These wireless technologies are being used in creative ways around the world. A
satellite link to a community access “telecenter” might be shared in a village via
Wi-Fi. In Cambodia, Wi-Fi is placed on motorcycles, which enables the delivery and
uploading of e-mail from schools, clinics, and other locations as they drive past.
Upon returning to their base office, which has a satellite Internet connection, the
devices on the motorcycles pass outgoing messages on to the Internet.
c. Localized content access
Prior to an election, essential voting information, election law guides, and voter
participation posters should be compiled and distributed to EMB staff, the media,
political parties/candidates, election observers, NGOs, and others electronically. This
content can be made available via CD-ROM or one-way satellite radio with data
interfaces16 to NGOs (and other organizations serving displaced persons), who can
mirror the content on local computers for local access and printing on demand.
d. Pilot open source tools for election administration and voter guides
If EMBs and the democratic development community focus sufficient political will and
resources, the Internet can be used aggressively in even the least wired countries to
promote free and fair elections. Two or three countries should be selected for in-depth
pilot efforts using sharable open source software. The creation of tools, like a platform
14 For a good video on radio e-mail, see the site of Radio E-Mail Connections Unlimited at
http://www.radiomail1.net. Another example is found at http://www.bushmail.net.
15 For details on satellite Internet options in developing countries see HumaniNet’s site on satellite
communications, available at http://www.humaninet.org/wis/satcom/index.shtm.
16 One-way satellite content distribution is an option that has been used to deliver community radio content in
Asia and Africa. See First Voice International’s site for more information:
http://www.firstvoiceint.org/How/Satellite.html.
Challenging the Norms and Standards
of Election Administration
31
for generating non-partisan voter guides by EMBs, civil society, or media (depending
upon local roles) could be used in scores of jurisdictions and languages quickly.
Overall, leveraging existing open source tools with election administration-related
“code” or modules will generate the most cost-effective value. This requires support
for the idea that shared tools should serve the needs of more than one EMB and
acceptance that they may replace or complement existing administrative technology
systems.
V. Conclusion
The legitimacy of modern governance is based on free and fair elections. The new
capacities of information and communication technologies, including the Internet,
require election laws, rules and practices be updated to ensure that democratic electoral
goals are met in the information age. This will be a difficult process due to the speed at
which innovations—both good and bad—emerge in the networked world. Let all of us
seize this challenge with democratic intent now, so that in a decade, we will not regret a
missed opportunity to shape the information age for democratic good.
By gaining practical Internet experience, EMBs can take advantage of the democratic
potential of the information age. By focusing on electoral standards and democratic
principles, EMBs can leverage the strengths of the information age, counter its negative
aspects, and protect and strengthen democracy for generations to come.
Election Management Bodies and the Use of the Internet
Steve Clift
32
Further Readings and Select Bibliography
In addition to the electoral standards documents referenced in my report, the following
articles were reviewed (links active as of January 2007):
Bailur, Savita. “Modernizing Participative Democracy through ICTs in the
Commonwealth: A report for the inception phase.” London: Commonwealth Policy
Studies Unit, 2003. Available at
http://www.cpsu.org.uk/downloads/MPD%20Final%20Report.pdf.
Barratt, Jim. “ASA and CAP Response to EU – Online Campaigns.” 28 October 2002.
Available at http://www.asa.org.uk/publicaffairs/pdfs/response_4.pdf.
California Voter Foundation. “How to Make an Online Voter Guide.” August 2002.
Available at.http://www.calvoter.org/issues/votered/pub/quicktips.html.
California Voter Foundation. “Voter Privacy in the Digital Age.” May 2004. Available
at.http://www.calvoter.org/issues/votprivacy/.
Cornfield, Michael, Lee Rainie, and John Horrigan. “Untuned Keyboards: Online
Campaigners, Citizens, and Portals in the 2002 Elections.e,ee Available at
http://www.pewinternet.org/pdfs/PIP_IPDI_Politics_Report.pdf.
Elections Canada. “On-line Voter Registration Feasibility Study: Executive Summary.”
March 20, 2003. Available
at.http://www.elections.ca/content.asp?section=loi&document=index&dir=fea.
Electoral Commission (U.K.). “Electoral Registers: Access, Supply and Sale: Response of
the Electoral Commission.” Last updated November 2002. Available
at.http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/6645.
Electoral Commission (U.K.). “The implications of online campaigns.” Last updated
October 2002. Available
at.http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/6208.
Electoral Commission (U.K.). “Online campaigns discussion paper.” Last updated
November 2002. Available
at.http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/6551.
Electoral Commission (U.K.). “Online election campaigns: Report and
recommendations.” Last updated April 2003. Available
at.http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/templates/search/document.cfm/7286.
Federal Election Commission. “Internet and Federal Elections; Candidate-Related
Materials on Web Sites of Individuals, Corporations and Labor Organizations.” 66 FR
50358 (2001). Available at
http://www.fec.gov/pdf/nprm/use_of_internet/FR66n192p50358.pdf.
Hunter, Christopher D. “Political Privacy and Online Politics: How E-Campaigning
Threatens Voter Privacy.” First Monday 7:2 (February 2002). Available
at.http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue7_2/hunter/index.html.
Challenging the Norms and Standards
of Election Administration
33
Hussein, Abid. “Report of the Special Rapporteur on the protection and promotion of the
right to freedom of opinion and expression.” UNHCHR E/CN.4/1999/64 (29 January
1999). Available at
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/E.CN.4.1999.64.En.
Im, Joa Soon. “Political Participation in Republic of Korea.” Paper delivered at the 7th
Meeting of Electoral Management Bodies in New Delhi, India (5-7 March 2003).
Available at.http://www.idea.int/elections/upload/soon_paper.pdf.
International IDEA, “Guidelines for Procurement of Technology for Elections.” Accessed 9
June 2004, but no longer online.
Laanela, Therese. “Election and Technology.” Presented at the Regional Workshop on
Capacity Building in Electoral Administration in Africa. Tangier, Morocco: CAFRAD,
2001. Available at
http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/cafrad/unpan005406.pdf.
Mulligan, Deirdre and James X. Dempsey. “Square Pegs & Round Holes: Applying
Campaign Finance Law to the Internet—risks to free expression and democratic
values.” Proceedings of the tenth conference on computers, freedom and privacy:
challenging the assumptions. Toronto, Ontario: 2000. Available
at.http://www.cdt.org/speech/political/Campaignfinance.pdf.
Potter, Trevor. “The Internet and Federal Election Law.” Hoover Institution’s Campaign
Finance Site, 2005. Available at
http://www.campaignfinancesite.org/structure/opinions4.html.
Potter, Trevor and Kirk L. Jowers. “Election Law and the Internet.” Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution, November 2001. Available
at.http://www.brookings.edu/gs/cf/sourcebk01/InternetChap9.pdf.
“Report of the Bipartisan California Commission on Internet Political Practices.”
December 2003. Available at http://www.fppc.ca.gov/InternetCom/FinalRept01-
04.pdf.
Schneider, Steven M. and Kirsten A. Foot. “Online Structure for Political Action:
Exploring Presidential Campaign Web Sites From the 2000 American Election.” 2002.
Available at.http://www.sunyit.edu/~steve/schneider-foot-online-structurejavnost.
pdf
United Nations. “Consultation on the use of the Internet for the purpose of incitement to
racial hatred, racial propaganda and xenophobia.” A/CONF.189/PC.1/5 (April 2000).
Available
at.http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.CONF.189.PC.1.5.En.
34

Networking neighbors online

A New Take on NNO: Building from National Night Out by Networking Neighbors Online
2006 Update: E-Democracy.Org is planning pilot neighborhood forums in Minneapolis, then beyond.
By Steven Clift

Every year on the first Tuesday in August, streets across the United States buzz as part of National Night Out. Human connections are built, block by block, with potlucks and conversations. The better we know our immediate neighbors, the stronger and safer our communities become.

As the evening winds down, folks will inevitably say, “We should do this more often. Let’s not wait again until next year.” However, as the road blocks are removed, the special public space we created for one evening is no more and our regular greetings shrink back to the few houses that surround us, except perhaps for the occasional long distance wave.

This year can be different.

In fact, on many blocks, our once a year “public spaces” are becoming year round online public spaces with the discovery of electronic block clubs. Instead of just going to the world online, we can also come home … online.

Here are some tips on how to connect with your neighbors online so you can build connections throughout the year.

1. Share E-mail Addresses – At National Night Out pass around a sign up sheet (PDF) (also in Word) that includes space for every household’s telephone and at least one address. One person should volunteer to type up and e-mail the results to everyone on the block. Make a print copy for those not online. If you didn’t have a NNO party, go door to door and gather the information. Be clear about what will happen to the information people share.

2. Create an E-mail Announcement Group – Create a simple e-mail group in your e-mail program(either a bcc: or even simply cc: the group if under ten addresses. Assume that everyone who signed up on the sheet has opted-in. Every so often remind people they can both “opt-out” or tell others how to get on the list. If your group is more than 20 e-mail addresses you might want to consider using more automated service like YahooGroups or Google Groups. Are you not sure how to create an e-mail group? Here is some advice for Outlook Express and Hotmail.

3. Be an Information Hub – Your “e-block” needs someone willing to monitor various e-mail newsletters, web sites, and blogs for information of very local interest. You can be that person! Pass along important items like local crime alerts, community event announcements, or updates from your city council member with items directly relevant to your area. Do not send your neighbors activist “you should know about this” messages about national politics. If you or others do, many will opt-out and your online public space will die.

4. Use Online to Be Off-line Together – Think of the Internet as the ultimate icebreaker to help new and long-time residents get to know each other a little better. If a giant snowstorm blankets your area, use the online to gather volunteers offline to dig out an elderly neighbor. If someone, perhaps on the next block, falls ill or someone dies, use the e-mail list to put out a call for frozen meals to share with the family. Enjoying a beautiful evening, why not create a spontaneous BBQ by inviting your neighbors to join you and as it gets dark entertain neighbor kids by playing video games using overwatch boosting online, a movie on the side of your house (liberate your computer projector from work). In short, bring back “just-in-time” community that air conditioning, television, and the loss of the front porch have taken away.
5. Exchange Online – If the residents covered by your online network number in the hundreds or if you want to cover a larger area, you might want to explore the following ideas:

• E-mail discussion list – Encourage people to exchange information and discuss local happenings. This is great way to share tips on a good plumber or arrange a plant exchange. Think about creating a neighborhood-wide online discussion group that leverages dozens of e-blocks. Cleveland Park neighborhood in Washington DC has over 3000 members in a neighborhood-wide exchange.
• Neighborhood weblog – This “citizen media” approach works best with lots of photos and someone who has time to feed in local content and goad others to contribute.
• Neighborhood “Tags” – No, not tagging as in graffiti, but “tags” as in keywords used in social software. In simple English, if you use a photo site like Flickr, tag your photos “EricssonMpls” for the Ericsson neighborhood in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Yes, this is geeky, but in a few years every place will have a “tag(s)” just like websites have domain names instead of numbers. Another tag idea is to combine all kinds of National Night Out photos with the nno tag.

These are a just a few quick online ideas for how to build a neighborhood of neighbors not just houses, cars, and individuals; however if what you want is cars, this guy on the internet has something to say, his explanation will shock you. To help make this real, please add to our list of networking neighors online examples.

These handy “briefs” provide concise overview of key tools or strategies that can be used by governments and others without delay. Rather than wait for a separately budgeted e-democracy or Government 2.0 project, most of these ideas can be integrated into existing online effort.

The were commissioned by UK Local E-Democracy National Project and released in 2005 with a set of complementary case studies.

Each brief follows (most are written by Peter safe place to buy ambien online Davison and myself) the following outline:

• Definition:
• Summary:
• Rationale and Objectives:
  • What can you use this feature for?
  • Why use it? (Compared to other options)
• Benefits – To Various Groups
• Limitations and Cautions
• Successes – Successful Implementations
• Further Information
• Top Related “How-to” Online Resources

Briefs – on online features with examples (from Archive.org)

• Advanced Web Comment Forms
• Budget Proposals Online
• Content Syndication
• Community Portals
• Democracy Portal
• Democratized Navigation
• Elected Official Videos
• E-mail Response Policy
• E-Newsletters
• E-Notification
• Geographic Personalisation
• M-Democracy – Mobile Content
• SMS Citizen Input
• Voter Education Online
• Wireless Internet

Below are a number of case studies that I edited as part of the global e-democracy case study effort commissioned by the UK Local E-Democracy National Project in 2005.

They reside on the Democracies Online wiki copy at Archive.org. I am not the author of these reports.

See the UK final case studies summary for a short overview with summaries. And links to the case studies.

• Canadian International Policy eDiscussions
  • Play video (Quicktime)
• Community Blogging – Northfield, Minnesota
  • Play video (Windows Media)
  • Play web movie (Windows Media)
• Community Forums and News in Subang Jaya – Malaysia
• Listening to the City – New York City
• Madrid Participa
• NordPol – Northern Denmark
• Queensland’s E-democracy Leadership
• Seoul’s Online Policy Forum
  • Play audio clip
• Seattle’s Online Civic Engagement Initiative
  • See end of article for video information

 

Online Consultations and Events – Top Ten Tips for Government and Civic Hosts V1.1

2004 Update – While the example links below need to be updated, the lessons and strategies below are still fresh. Also, my Online Consultation slides are now freely available from my speakers page.

As the concept of “e-democracy” builds momentum, interest in the use of online consultation in government and civil society circles is growing significantly. Online consultations, e-consultations, online public hearings, or online civic events can all be defined as the structured, often time-limited, use of online tools to inform public policy processes and encourage civic participation. By time-limited, I mean an online event with beginning and an end.

This article provides online consultation tips geared toward prospective online consultation organizers.  Most of the tips assume an asynchronous event (not real-time or live). Most lessons can be generalized to different models and elements I share below.  At the very end of this article I share key links to resources related to online consultation.  Let’s get started.

Online Consultation Top Ten Tips 

In summary …

1. Political Support Required. 
2. State Purpose, Share Context. 
3. Build an Audience.
4. Choose Your Model and Elements Carefully. 
5. Create Structure.
6. Provide Facilitation and Guidelines. 
7. Disseminate Content and Results. 
8. Access to Decision-Makers and Staff Required. 
9. Promote Civic Education. 
10. Not About Technology. 

In full details …

1. Political Support Required. 

Online consultations with strong and sincere political support are the only ones worth hosting.  There must be a political desire for input and a willingness to consider that input in the decision-making process. Expecting that an online consultation will dramatically change the outcome of decision-making process is not generally a requirement.  Political listening is a first and reasonable step.  We are talking about evolution, not revolution.
 

2. State Purpose, Share Context. 

Citizens want to know the purpose of an online event. They will be skeptical. Share concise and readable information that shares the context of the event.  Where in the policy process is this event being the staged?  The beginning?  The end? Let people know in order to establish reasonable citizen expectations.  If it is an experiment or “public awareness” exercise that you know will have limited impact, simply be upfront and say so.  You have to start somewhere.
 

3. Build an Audience. 

Recruit your participatory audience before the online event starts. Most online consultations fail due to the lack of citizen participation.  Why? The public relations engines are not revved up until the event starts – bad move. The pragmatic approach is to recruit participants one at a time. Don’t be fooled by the Internet myth that if you build it they will come – they won’t.  Create specific audience goals from 50 to 1000 people or more. Encourage all prospective participants to join an e-mail announcement list for the event and future events.  Carry your audience from one event to the next whenever possible or appropriate. Recruit participants at in-person events and through the traditional and online media for at least two to three weeks before an online consultation starts. 

Even with an audience, many discussion-oriented events fail in the first three days because those attracted to the online event are thinking the same thing – “No one has posted yet, this event must not matter.”  Seeding the early hours of an event with “authentic” posts encouraged behind the scenes combined with e-mail highlights and encouragement to participants will make it a “happening” event. 

4. Choose Your Model and Elements Carefully. 

Figure out what kind of online consultation you want to hold.  Here are different kinds of online elements to consider, combine, and innovate from:

A. Q and A – A simple public web page containing questions from citizens (often selectively chosen from those received by e-mail) with responses signed by decision-makers in the organization.  Many media sites also use this model in reverse by posing a question with short responses from citizens. 

Examples:
Kids Questions to Florida Governor – http://www.myflorida.com/eog/kidspage/Questions.htm
Need more examples …
BBC Talking Point – http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_pointthose

B. Document/Policy Comments – The ability for people to share public comments or add their comments or questions at the end an article or document.  Sometimes this evolves into a discussion among readers of a document.  I envision this kind of “annotation” on reports and draft proposals in the near term and in the future we may see this with proposed ordinances and legislation. Encouraging people who are browsing similar policy documents and proposals on government sites to communicate horizontally would allow people to generate public opinion and place the agency in a facilitation role. One of most advanced forms of document comments will take place with formal electronic rulemaking procedures.

Examples:
US Federal Trade Commission: http://www.ftc.gov/privacy/comments
ZDNet AnchorDesk TalkBack: http://www.zdnet.com/anchordesk
US Electronic Rulemaking Examples: http://www.statelocal.gov/rulemake.html
Transit Planning in Finland using IdeaFactory: http://www.joukkoliikennekeskustelu.net

C. Online Guests/Panel – Decision-maker(s) or expert(s) on a virtual stage answering questions often on a pre-chosen topic for a specific time-frame.  This can be done interview style with a facilitator fielding citizen questions or panelist style with interaction among the decision-makers and experts.  Some events start with a panel discussion and then open the dialogue up to the public, while others keep the virtual stage tightly controlled. Starting with a panel discussion can get the main issues on the floor and provide a context for more substantial open discussion. 

Examples:
Twin Cities Metropolitan Council State of the Region – http://www.metrocouncil.org/planning/SOR2001/SOR2001.htm
Web White & Blue Online Presidential Debate – http://www.webwhiteblue.org/rcd/
Northfield City Hall Q & A: http://www.northfield.org:81/cgi-bin/WebX?13@@.ee8ab5f

D. Online Conference – When I think of online consultation, a full featured online conference comes to mind. This is pretty much a physical conference or even a public hearing reflected online.  Most online conferences take place over one to three weeks and include many of the elements listed here as a well as tools like participant directories and often the capacity for small groups to communicate in break out sessions or simulated coffee breaks.  See number five below for related comments.

Examples:
Scottish Youth Summit – http://www.youthsummit.org.uk
World Bank International AIDS Economics Network – http://www.iaen.org/conferences
ETFRN Biodivesity Workshop – http://www.etfrn.org/etfrn/workshop/biodiversity
World Bank Development Forum – http://www.worldbank.org/devforum/ongoing.html (Multi-month facilitated e-mail list exchanges.)
Politalk – Public Financing of Stadiums – http://www.politalk.com/topics/stadium

E. Communities of Practice/Interest – The use of online tools, particularly e-mail group lists (i.e. listservs, mailing lists), will have a direct impact on the implementation of public policy and provide a more informal mechanism for government agencies to communicate with stakeholders on an ongoing basis.  This form of informal consultation may allow for more organic influence on the policy process and help government become more attuned to those who they are working with to solve public problems and deliver services.  Developing an information exchange grid that connects directly to government implementation may one be of the most cost-effective forms of online consultation.  Unlike events with a start and an ending, these exchanges are narrowly focused and are used on an ongoing basis primarily for open group communication.

Examples:
NSW Community Builder – http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au
Washington State – http://listserv.wa.gov
Eastern Treatment Plant Advisory Panel – http://www.epa.vic.gov.au/ETP/forum.asp

F. Live Chat Events – Live chat need not be an unwieldy, unmoderated gabfest.  Advanced tools exist that allow you to interact in real-time even if the depth of the dialogue is limited.  Most chat events feature Q and A with politicians or candidates.  The trick is to attract a large enough audience at a specific time.  Chat elements can be used to complement asynchronous forums. The use of chat with younger audiences and in educational setting may have special appeal.

Examples:
EU Commission Europa Chats – http://europa.eu.int/comm/chat
Moreland, Australia Chat to the Mayor – http://www.moreland.vic.gov.au/chat.htm
Washington Post Live Online: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/liveonline/politics.htm
(Simple “refreshing” HTML-based event)

G. Live Multimedia Events – Imagine a lunch speaker or even a press conference where those watching remotely via the Internet or interactive television can submit questions, answer poll questions posed by the speaker, and have access to supplemental content and some day real-time access to digital copies of handouts and testimony text.

Examples: 
McCain Speech to Minnesota Meeting – http://www.netbriefings.com/corporate/press/pr-20011207.html
Wisconsin Interactive TV Project – http://itv.wpt.org/examples
NASA Mars Virtual Teacher Training Conference – http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/marsconf

H. More Interactive Elements in Brief –

Online Polls and Surveys – Quick and easy online polls, normally unscientific, are most common introduction citizens have with political interaction online.  Try crafting useful poll questions (avoid politically divisive questions if you want to set a more deliberative tone) that ease people into expressing their opinions.  This is no small task.  After someone completes the poll, provide them links to more information on the subject and invite them into your online discussions where they can share why they answered what they did more publicly.

Examples:
Issy, France Citizen’s Panel – Results weighted based on community demographics –
http://www.issy.com/SousRub.cfm?Esp=1&rub=8&Srub=46&dossier=12

Comment Forms – Make your comment form intelligent, useful.  Ask a set of multiple choice and check list questions along side the usual open-ended comment space. Create a shared information flow where policy related comments are forwarded directly to those who can give a meaningful response. By including top management in the flow of front-line queries you can build their awareness of the type of queries coming into the agency. If most online comments (or comment summaries) directed to a decision-maker are rarely seen by that person, don’t give the impression that they are.  While comment forms are a form of more “private” citizen to government communication, if your organization can’t design comment forms with meaning, then your organization will have an even more difficult time incorporating more public forms of online consultation into your mission and programs.

Online Petitions – In many places, people have a legal right to petition their government.  While the Internet is full of sites that allow citizens to organize their own petitions, some governments like Scotland and Queensland, Australia are exploring ways to adapt the legal right to petition the government to the online world.  Authentication is a serious concern for official petition processes tied to government and parliamentary processes. Instead of authenticating the identity of each person as they sign online, I suggest authenticating the online petition as a whole by verifying the existence of the number of people required to make a petition valid. (I’d compare the telephone and addresses of the people on the petition with various databases and determine whether enough signatures come from known people.  A further level of verification could involve contacting a representative sample to unearth fraudulent efforts. Assuming some sort of minimum number of signatures is required for an actionable petition, those well over the number with a verified sample should proceed, those on the margins could be investigated person by person.)

Online Testimony – If an online public hearing represents the transfer of the full in-person public hearing experience to an online setting, accepting online testimony is the first step toward integrating online interactivity into the traditional hearing process. This could work two ways – people from remote locations could submit materials before, during, or after a hearing for inclusion in the hearing record and in reverse, people at the hearings could distribute electronic copies of their presentations and statements for real-time online release. (I should note that governmental and parliamentary processes vary tremendously from place to place.  In Minnesota, legislative committee hearings are the crucial very public part of our decision-making process where experts and citizens can testify, while in many parliamentary forms of government, hearings are rarely held in public.) 

Online Focus Groups – Online consultation need not be highly public to be effective or useful. There is a significant opportunity for the use of representative groups assembled online by the government and civic groups directly or through third party services. A more advanced version of online focus groups might entail the creation of online “citizen juries” or online components of existing in-person citizen jury efforts.

Web Forums and E-Mail Lists – What do you do with your audience when your online event is over?  How can you build the online discussion skills of citizens?  Consider hosting ongoing discussions or provide links to relevant external online discussion spaces where people can keep talking.  Organizing the “online commons” is one of my main passions and is addressed in detail on my other writings http://www.publicus.net.

Now that we have covered the many models and elements, let’s get back to the tips …
 

5. Create Structure.

Establish a beginning and an end. Like in-person conferences and events, pay close attention to the use of time and themes.  Most online consultations are asynchronous, but the time required for participation is still a key factor.  Most people use the Internet as a convenience tool, so don’t expect most people to read a 40 page paper online, much less print it out at their own expense.  Consider creating the equivalent of a keynote speech, a question and answer session with a decision-maker, small group break out sessions, and/or panel presentations.  Create word limits for keynote speeches and profile essays that you commission – I like buy wyeth ativan 400-600 word pieces myself.  Effective online consultations are sometimes designed as pre-conference or post-conference exercises tied to in-person events.  What about remote participation during a conference (something beyond a simple video/audio feed and the ability to send in audience questions)? The notion that people not able to attend an in-person event will have a confernce-like online experience during the in-person event and gain a sense of meaningful participation is not very realistic. Virtual-only participants will rightfully feel like they are second-class citizens denied the fundamental right to socializing over coffee. Don’t promote such options just so you can say at the in-person conference, “This event is available to millions of people on the Internet right now and they are interacting as we speak.”  Ten people on a live video feed with three posts on a complex web board is not a meaningful innovation. 
 

6. Provide Facilitation and Guidelines. 

Discussion oriented online consultations work best with a welcoming, trusted and often more “neutral” host.  This online facilitator, be they an in-house or contracted individual (or a team), will help set the tone and keep the event flowing and on task.  They will have the authority to remind organizational decision-makers of their commitment to participate, and deal with problems behind the scenes as required. Someone has to ensure that this “on your own time event” does not mean a contribution by a key decision-maker at the beginning and nothing until the end except an apology for being too busy to participate.

Issues surrounding guidelines, terms of participation, moderation/approval of submissions, removal of content will consume much of your planning time.  In governments, expect a review of your guidelines by legal counsel.  With good facilitation, you will avoid many of the problems effective guidelines hope to prevent. You cannot control for every political or legal liability, but you can have the event policies in place so you can quickly respond in an even-handed way.  You don’t want accusations of censorship to be the only media coverage you receive.  Creating the “Other” category for the “junk” to go or profile links to relevant external interactive forums (like newsgroups, web boards, and e-mail lists) can help you maintain the value of your structured topical dialogues while promoting a sense of free exchange. You can essentially say, “If you don’t like what we have put together here, here is where you can go to hold us accountable or cause trouble on someone else’s dime.”  Again, you can’t control everything that comes into a consultation, but you can control how prepared you are to respond and deal with opportunities and problems as they arise. 
 

7. Disseminate Content and Results. 

What outcomes or results will make consultation participants feel like they were part of something important?  Make a list and design information products (a tangible result in my opinion) from the start including daily or frequent e-mail updates. In your updates, include diverse and representative quotes from participants and special “guests” in order to share the value of the event.  Make the event seem real and something important, just like media coverage does for public meetings and rallies. Prepare event summaries in print, yes print, for distribution to key decision-makers.  You need to create incentives for mainstream participation or you will only get opinions from unaffiliated, often agitated individuals.  For higher profile online consultations, you want to attract interest group participation and channel (or label) it in a public way.  If those with a real political stake in an issue don’t make submissions, your event is too obscure, unless of course your goal is to create a civic exchange free of interest-group influence.  Such political cleanliness is your choice, but don’t assume that this format will bring out the voice of the “average citizen” better than other forms of participation. In my opinion, the best it can do is complement and strengthen, but not replace traditional forms of civic participation and consultation.

Making “objective” dissemination of the consultation results part of the package is a strategic choice.  Consider incorporating in-person events, broadcast media features, and special newspaper coverage and analysis through partner relationships.  For example, you could nominate active participants to be guests on a radio interview show hosted by a consultation partner or use a government or community television show to carry the deliberations to a broader portion of the community. 
 

8. Access to Decision-Makers and Staff Required. 

This is a key lesson that has been learned the hard way by a number of governments. Before an online consultation starts, establish a system for responding to questions and statements of participants in a rapid, timely, and comprehensive way.  During the event (online conference style events in particular) the following types of responses may be required:

A. Informational Question Responses 
B. Context Provision and Informational Corrections 
C. General Policy Query Response 
D. High-Level Policy Challenge Response 
E. Politically Controversial Query Response 

Civil servants must have prior approval to quickly respond to informational questions as well as the latitude to provide additional context including links to or excerpts of content from legally public reference documents. These responses should come within an hour or two during business hours.

In all areas, arabic translation services notifying all participants that a full response is much better than no reaction for a few days.  Buy yourself the time required to respond in full.  With moderated events, don’t hold legitimate queries from public view until your response is ready.

General policy queries are often best responded to by the line manager in charge of that policy.  Providing an authoritative response will demonstrate that your online consultation is being taken seriously within the organization.  These responses should come within the same day (or the next morning if received late in the day) a query is submitted or posted.

High-level policy queries and politically controversial statements require special care. As an organization, you want to make sure future online consultations are not jeopardized by a sense among top decision-makers or their staff that this new medium completely overrides their traditional and legitimate power (you need to show some light at the end of the online consultation tunnel). More importantly, you want to ensure that participants see responses within 24 to 48 hours when controversial issues are discussed.  You want top decision-makers to be engaged, so consider a bit of controversy a welcome challenge.  One trick, collect a series of more controversial questions and address them as a group to avoid getting into a tit-for-tat argument with one participant.

In order to ensure top-level responses, you need top decision-makers to sign off on a clear chain of command for response generation.  At the top level you need to have direct access to a key assistant who will craft a response or simply transcribe a quick response outlined orally by the busy decision-maker.  Incorporate mobile phone/SMS/pager access to ensure access to the top for the duration of the consultation.  Don’t expect to rely completely on the decision-makers ability to type their own responses nor should you rely solely on their ability to directly use your online system at all times.  Ideally they will participate directly in the same way as other participants, but unlike the citizens who are most likely to show up, managers and political leaders have a vast range of technical aptitude and differing comfort levels with the Internet. Ask them well in advance to block off an hour every day or two during a two week event – verify that their time is still on their calendar as you launch. You are teaching decision-makers new behavior. If the time to participate is not scheduled, you will likely be holding an online event without anyone with power and influence present. Don’t do that.

Finally, in no case should a participant who works for the host organization be required to claim that they do not officially represent the host agency (unless of course they are from another agency or unrelated division).  Such disclaimers may be appropriate on third party forums, but with online events sponsored by your organization, such full disclaimers will damage your credibility. If disclaimers are required, put them on the site as a whole not with each post.
 

9. Promote Civic Education. 

While online consultations are often designed to solicit input from the public, a strong benefit may reside in their civic education potential.  Unlike in-person hearings that often attract the outraged and disgruntled looking to vent, a properly promoted online event will attract many citizens not familiar or active with traditional forms of participation.  This may be their first experience with the notion that as a citizen they have the ability to engage and influence public decision-making between elections.  Promote the fact that the citizen experience of the consultation is one of the outcomes (deliverables) and look for ways through educational institutions and others to promote use and reuse of the content.  Consider ways to turn online consultations into off-line events with greater substance and use online consultation to bring new people into traditional forms of public participation. Think of the Internet as the ultimate civic “icebreaker” that introduces them to democracy between elections and gets them out of the house in the future.
 

10. Not About Technology. 

Online consultations are not about technology. The best technological platform will never make an online consultation “naturally” successful.  Consultations are about people, not automation. You may need to educate those with a background in more technical e-government services about the principles of consultation and democracy.  You will find common ground by focusing on building an effective and responsive government when consultation and democracy seems inefficient in an efficiency technical culture.

You need solid technical support because a poorly considered and implemented technical infrastructure can spoil even the best structured, promoted, and facilitate online consultation. Registration processes should be simple.  At a minimum you need most participants to opt-in to receive e-mail notices before, during, and at the conclusion of an event. You can use your e-mail notice permissions to educate people on their technical options and bring people back if technology problems drive them away. Complex systems that require extensive participant learning should be avoided. Watch your server logs closely to determine where people are giving up on your technology. Try and find out if they gave up before giving the content of the consultation a chance.

I suppose you really want to know which tools meet your needs?  I have no idea, but you can start your search here http://www.thinkofit.com/webconf. In making your decision, I would ask yourself, which tools use approaches familiar to your likely participants? Consider using what other major web sites in your area use to lower the learning curve. For ongoing information exchange with participants over 25 years of age, I am a big skeptic of web-only systems.  However, with time-limited events the web allows you to create more structured events than e-mail lists.  However, without e-mail participation options (delivery of content via e-mail digests), you will lose much of your audience.  Find the right combination of tools and assume that most participants will not return to your online consultations unless you remind them that it is there.  I am still looking for the tool that allows full participation (posting via both methods) on an equal or balanced basis between web and e-mail users. If it existed I would recommend it.

Finally, let me conclude by encouraging you to share your further questions and experiences with the Democracies Online – Online Consultation and Civic Events e-mail forum http://groups.yahoo.com/group/do-consult.  Our goal is to build democracies that thrive, not just survive in the information age.  You are at the forefront of an era where lessons are being learned and innovations outpace our ability to know what really works.  Like the Internet, civic online consultation will only improve and become successful through trial and error.  So let’s get busy.
 

Network Online Consultation Hosts

Join the Democracies Online – Online Consultation and Civic Events e-mail list by sending an e-mail to <do-consult-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>.

Further Reading

Key Online Consultation Reports Previously Featured on DO-WIRE

Bowling Together: Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation
     http://bowlingtogether.net

OECD Citizens as Partners Guide: Information, Consultation and Public Participation in Policy-Making  (268 pages)
     http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201131e.pdf

Engaging Citizens in Policy-making: Information, Consultation and Public Participation. OECD Public Management Policy Brief No. 10
     http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00007000/M00007815.pdf

Building Digital Bridges – Creating Inclusive Online Parliamentary Consultations
     http://www.hansard-society.org.uk/DigitalBridges.pdf

Electronic Democracy and Educating Young People
     http://www.teledemocracy.org/documents/html/sweden/youth_sweden.htm

New Media and Social Exclusion (report excerpt from Hansard Society)
     http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00279.html

On-line Engagement – New Models and Implications for Government Departments and Officials
     http://www.cprn.ca/docs/corporate/ole_e.pdf

Lessons from the Network Model for Online Engagement of Citizens
     http://www.cprn.ca/docs/corporate/lfn_e.pdf

Electronic Civic Consultation: A guide to the use of the Internet in interactive policy making (Key Dutch report from 1997, found it below)
    http://www.democracy.org.uk/centre/articles/elcivco.pdf

UK Best Practices and Guides (lesson to be transferred to online):
    http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/servicefirst/index/consultation.htm
    http://www.idea.gov.uk/bestvalue/consult/methods.htm

Policity Citizen Participation Centre (Canada)
    http://www.policity.com/cp/index.html

Saving Democracy from the Information Age

Saving Democracy from the Information Age
Steven Clift, for CIO Government Magazine, Australia

April 2004

For the past 10 years, governments have had unprecedented opportunities to use technology to connect directly with citizens. So why haven’t they? 

“Is this the end of politics as we know it?” 

In the United States, journalists around the country were recently falling over each other to write their local article on the Internet and the presidential election. People are using the Internet to “MeetUp.com” and get involved in the presidential campaign of their choice. It is a real story. 

I was actually asked the “end of politics” question by a reporter back in 1994 when E-Democracy.Org created the world’s first election-oriented Web site. Since then I have seen waves of excess hype and scepticism about the role of new media in elections, governance and community. 

As far as I can tell, the outcomes of elections, despite the Internet, are pretty much the same — someone wins and someone loses. Most citizens remain cynical about politics and government. Beyond sorting through their e-mail and putting their biography online, politicians seem content to ignore online opportunities in governance until the next election cycle. 

Something has changed. 

For the past 10 years, governments have had the opportunity to use information and communication technologies through e-government to connect directly with citizens. Government has had the opportunity to become more accountable and transparent, and to build the trust of citizens. Instead, most governments have taken the path of services first and democracy later. Access to information has become easier and many representative processes are more open than before the Internet, but for the most part, what citizens experience has changed little. 

Taking a path is different from choosing a path. The vast majority of government “customers” want convenience and efficient service delivery; however, in democracies we are also “citizens”. We are the owners of government. Government has focused on the one-way uses of the Internet and service transactions because few citizens have asked for anything different. Democracy in the information age is not a choice that will exist based on citizen demand. 

What has changed is that “politics as usual” has figured out how to use the Internet to further their narrow interests. Online advocacy, while democratizing in many ways, is primarily used to generate noise geared towards our representatives and public processes. 

Governments in wired countries now face a fundamental challenge. Political interests are raising their voices online, but governments, including our elected officials and representative institutions, are largely unable to “listen” online. When speaking in Eastern Europe, it really hit me: as designed, e-government is not able to accommodate the will of the people. The lack of investment in the online needs of representative democracy, compared to large investments in administrative services, is changing the balance of power in our democracies. 

Despite significant policy explorations by governments in the United Kingdom, Sweden and the Victorian parliament, for example, it is amazing that the only state or nation to adopt a formal e-democracy policy is Queensland. (Also note the CitizenScape project in Western Australia.) Not that you need a policy to have significant government-based e-democracy activity, but it helps to move beyond rhetoric and experiments to real investments that save democracy from the negative aspects of the information age. 

What Should Be Done? 

At a World Summit on the Information Society session in Geneva, I promoted “democratic evolution” over the path of partisan “virtual civil war”. (Check back with me after the 2004 US election. I predict online campaigning by “politics as usual” will poison many a citizen’s view of the medium in politics and governance.) Governments, as democracies, must act now in specific ways to ensure their ability to e-listen to citizens, to make better public decisions and to more effectively engage the public, civic organizations and business as they implement public policy. 

In my Geneva speech, I suggested that the following best e-democracy practices be made universal thorough the rule of law: 

1. All public meeting notices with agendas and all public documents to be distributed at that meeting must now also be posted online. 

2. All representative and regulatory bodies must make all proposed legislation and amendments available online the minute they are distributed as a public document to anyone. 

3. Every citizen must have the ability to access up-to-date listings of all those who represent them at every level of government. Technology and practices must be implemented to allow citizens and, very importantly, elected and appointed officials to communicate effectively online with one another. 

4. Funding must be provided and technology implemented to ensure citizens the right to be notified via e-mail about new government decisions and information based on their interests and where they live. 

Overall, when it comes to e-government funding, I suggest that no less than 10 percent be set aside for citizen input and democracy. Citizen input embraces “two-way” communication including usability testing, user focus groups, site feedback systems and surveys, and special applications designed for representative institutions and elected officials. 

After speaking hundreds of times across 24 countries, mostly to e-democracy interested governments, it is clear to me that what is possible is not probable. The best practices and e-democracy technologies are not being effectively shared. If we want the demonstrated potential of the new medium to spread, democratic intent will be required. The default path I see, without a political and resource commitment, is democratic decline. As we enter the second decade of e-democracy activity, now is the time to use the amazing online tools before us and build information-age democracy for our own and future generations. 
 

Steven Clift is an international e-democracy expert and board chair of E-Democracy.Org. His article for the United Nations on e-government and democracy is available from: http://publicus.net/e-government/

Il Riformista – New Politics, Monday 1 March 2004

Salvare la democrazia dall’età dell’informazione

Oggi c’è bisogno di un e-government equilibrato

“È la fine della politica così come la abbiamo conosciuta?”

Negli Stati Uniti, giornalisti di tutto il paese si sono ricorsi per scrivere il loro pezzo su Internet e le presidenziali. I cittadini stanno usando Internet per connettersi (con MeetUp.com per esempio) e partecipare alla campagna di loro scelta.

Personalmente mi hanno fatto per la prima volta la domande della “fine della politica” nel 1994 quando E-Democracy.Org lanciò il primo sito web al mondo con contenuti elettorali. Da allora ho visto ondate di eccesso di entusiasmo e scetticismo circa il ruolo dei nuovi media nelle elezioni, nel governo e nella comunità locale.

Per quanto mi riguarda, il risultato delle elezioni, a parte Internet, rimane praticamente lo stesso – qualcuno vince e qualcuno perde. La maggior parte dei cittadini mantiene un atteggiamento di cinismo riguardo la politica e il governo. A parte rispondere a qualche e-mail e pubblicare on line la loro biografia, i politici sembrano felici di ignorare le opportunità offerte dai media on line per il governo finché non si presenta un nuovo appuntamento elettorale.

Qualcosa è cambiato.

Negli ultimi dieci anni le i governi hanno avuto la possibilità di usare le nuove tecnologie attraverso l’e-government per dialogare direttamente con i cittadini. La pubblica amministrazione ha avuto la possibilità di diventare più trasparente, accessibile e rafforzare la fiducia dei cittadini. Invece, la maggior parte delle amministrazione ha imboccato la strada dei servizi prima e la democrazia dopo. L’accesso all’informazione è diventato più agevole e molti processi rappresentativi sono più aperti che prima dell’avvento di Internet, ma per la maggior parte dei cittadini le cose sono cambiate poco.

Imboccare una strada è differente che sceglierne una. La stragrande maggioranza degli “utenti” della pubblica amministrazione cerca convenienza ed efficienza nei servizi; tuttavia, in democrazia, noi tutti siamo anche “cittadini”. Siamo i titolari dello Stato. I governi si sono concentrati sull’uso unidirezionale di Internet e sulle transazioni elettroniche perché pochi cittadini hanno chiesto qualcosa di diverso. La democrazia nell’età dell’informazione non è una scelta che esisterà sulla base della domanda dei cittadini.

Quello che è cambiato è che la politica ordinaria (politics as usual) ha trovato il modo di usare Internet per perseguire i suoi specifici interessi. La promozione di temi on line, sebbene per molti versi abbia un effetto di democratizzazione, è usata principalmente per generare rumore rivolto ai nostri rappresentanti eletti.

I governi in paesi connessi in rete affrontano oggi una sfida basilare. Gli interessi politici stanno iniziando a far sentire la propria voce on line, ma i governo, compresi i nostri politici eletti e istituzioni rappresentative, sono largamente incapaci di “ascoltare” on line.

Quando ho avuto occasione di parlare in Europa dell’Est, quello che davvero mi ha colpito è che l’e-government, così concepito, non è in grado di incontrare la volontà delle persone. La scarsezza di investimenti per i nostri bisogni on line di democrazia rappresentativa, comparata alle ingenti somme destinate ai servizi amministrativi, sta cambiando i rapporti di forza nelle nostre democrazie.

Nonostante molte ricerche significative e progetti pilota nel Regno Unito, Svezia, e Australia per esempio, è incredibile come la sola nazione o paese ad aver adottato una politica formale di democrazia elettronica sia stato lo stato australiano del Queensland. Non che ci sia bisogno di una politica speciale per mettere in piedi delle attività significative di democrazia elettronica, ma si tratta di qualcosa che aiuterebbe a smuovere i governi al di là della retorica e degli esperimenti per salvare davvero la democrazia dagli aspetti negativi dell’età dell’informazione.

Cosa bisognerebbe fare?

Al Summit Mondiale per la Società dell’Informazione a Ginevra, ho promosso il concetto di “evoluzione democratica” piuttosto che la strada della “guerra civile virtuale” (risentiamoci dopo le elezioni americane del 2004. Prevedo che l’uso degli strumenti di campagna on line da parte dei soliti politicanti avvelenerà l’immagine che i cittadini hanno del mezzo in politica e governo). Le amministrazione, come le democrazie, devono agire subito in modi specifici per assicurare la loro capacità di ascoltare i cittadini, realizzare migliori decisioni pubbliche, e coinvolgere più efficacemente il pubblico, la società civile, il mondo delle imprese nell’implementazione delle politiche pubbliche.

Nel mio intervento a Ginevra, ho suggerito che le seguenti buone pratiche di e-democracy dovrebbero essere rese universali attraverso apposite leggi:

1) Tutti gli avvisi di incontri pubblici insieme agli ordini del giorno e ai documenti che sono distribuiti agli incontro devono anche essere pubblicati on line

2) Tutti gli organi rappresentativi o preposti ad approvare regolamenti dovrebbero rendere disponibile on line tutte le proposte di legge e gli emendamenti non appena una qualunque versione sia distribuita al pubblico con valore di legge

3) Ogni cittadino deve essere messo nelle condizioni di accedere ad elenchi aggiornati di tutti coloro che lo rappresentano a ogni livello di governo. Inoltre, devono essere messe in opera le dovute pratiche e tecnologie per permettere di comunicare gli uni con gli altri ai cittadini e, molto importante, agli amministratori pubblici eletti o nominati

Complessivamente, quando si tratta di parlare di fondi per l’e-government, suggerisco che non meno che il 10 percento sia messo da parte per azioni volte a promuovere la partecipazione dei cittadini e la democrazia. La partecipazione dei cittadini comprende forme a due vie di comunicazione, come anche i test di usabilità, i focus group con gli utenti, i sistemi di feedback e i sondaggi, e applicazioni speciali concepite per le istituzioni rappresentative e per gli amministratori eletti.

Dopo aver parlato centinaia di volte per 24 paesi, per lo più ad amministrazioni interessate all’e-democracy, mi è diventato chiaro che quello che è possibile non è probabile. Le migliori pratiche e le tecnologie per l’e-democracy non sono condivide efficacemente. Se vogliamo che il potenziale dimostrato del nuovo messo si dispieghi, c’è bisogno di un intento democratico. Entrando la seconda decade di attività legate all’e-democracy, ora è tempo di usare gli strumenti straordinari che abbiamo di fronte and costruire una democrazia della società dell’informazione per noi e le generazioni future.

Steven Clift è un esperto di e-democray riconosciuto a livello internazione e Presidente di E-Democracy.Org. I suoi articoli sono disponibili su http://publicus.net.  Traduzione di Mattia Miani.

This 41 page report is also available in PDF format.

E-Government and Democracy

Representation and citizen engagement in the information age

By Steven L. Clift

This article is based on research provided to the United Nations – UNPAN/DESA for the 2003 World Public Sector Report: http://unpan.org/dpepa_worldpareport.asp

Public Version 1.0, Released February 2004

Table of Contents

• Summary
• Introduction
• Initial Conclusions
• Research Trends
• Democratic Outcomes
• Trust and Accountability
• Legitimacy and Understanding
• Citizen Satisfaction and Service
• Reach and Equitable Access
• Effective Representation and Decision-Making
• Participation through Input and Consultation
• Engagement and Deliberation
• Conclusion

E-government and Democracy

Representation and citizen engagement
in the information-age

Summary

Leading governments, with democratic intent, are incorporating information and communication technologies into their e-government activities. This trend necessitates the establishment of outcomes and goals to guide such efforts. By utilizing the best practices, technologies, and strategies we will deepen democracy and ensure representation and citizen engagement in the information age. It is upon this foundation that opportunities for greater online engagement and deliberation among citizens and their governments will demonstrate the value of information and communication technologies in effective and responsive participatory democracy.

Introduction

E-government and democracy, fused together, are one piece of the e-democracy puzzle. Whether it is online campaigning, lobbying, activism, political news, or citizen discussions, the politics and governance of today are going online around the world. What is unknown, is whether politics and governance “as we know it” is actually changing as it goes online.

From the perspective of each government, civil society, or business organization, it is relatively easy to explore our institutional role in building participatory democracy online. Taking the whole situation into account is the difficult challenge. We are not building in a vacuum, nor are we developing our efforts in a constant environment. In the end, the only people who are experiencing the totality of the emerging democratic information-age are citizens or e-citizens.

This research takes a comprehensive look at the democratic outcomes that can be sought by government, civil society, and others in order to deepen and enhance participatory democracy online. With a particular focus on e-government and democracy, the vision for online-enhanced participatory democracy, or “e-democracy,” relies on an incremental model of development that involves the many democratic sectors and their institutions across society.

The democratic institutions of government (including representative bodies and elected officials), the media, political parties and interest groups, as well as citizens themselves, are going online across the world. The question is not – will we have e-democracy? It exists today based on the positive and negative uses of this medium by democratic institutions, non-democratic actors, and citizens. The real question is – knowing where we are and what is possible, what kind of e-democracy can or, better yet, should we build?

Governments, as a public institutions and guardians of democracy, need to play a proactive role in the online world. First, they need to maintain existing democratic practices despite pressures coming from the information-age. Second, they need to incorporate and adapt online strategies and technologies to lead efforts that expand and enhance participatory democracy. Deepening citizen participation in democracy is vital to ensuring that governments at all levels and in all countries, can both accommodate the will of their people and more effectively meet public challenges in the information-age.

The path toward information-age democracy is a deliberate one. Political and social expectations and behavior change too slowly to expect information and communication technologies (ICTs) to give us a direct, uncomplicated path to greater participatory democracy. The is no “leap frog” path that easily leads to responsive governance that supports human and economic development. The e-democracy path needs to be mapped out, so it can be traveled with confident and assured steps.

This article explores the following ICT-enabled path with the governmental perspective in mind:

1. Understanding “as is” political and governance online activity by establishing baseline measurements, including current citizen experiences.
2. Documenting government best practice examples and the sharing of results.
3. Building citizen demand and civil society activity.
4. Spreading practice and creating more deliberative options and tools.

Analysis focuses on the second path, comments on the third, and based on that analysis, explores the fourth. This pragmatic approach is essential to developing sustained activity across our many and diverse democracies. Today, it is very easy to dismiss the democratic potential of the Internet because it did not deliver the revolution hyped in early media coverage. This paper looks beyond the hype.

Even in the most democracy-friendly places, steps one and two are stumbling blocks. Tools being developed for step four are for the most part outside of government. Overall, the foundation of understanding, government practice, and citizen experience has not been fully explored or developed. Efforts to build ICT-enhanced participatory democracy may be delayed by those in power, if change promoted from the “outside” is highly politicized. Slow uptake is also possible if the use of ICTs for meaningful democratic participation is not seen as inevitable, even if a government agrees in principle that new forms of participation are desirable.

Only by demonstrating that participatory governance leads to better democratic outcomes – helping society develop and meet its political, social, economic and cultural goals – will ICTs in political participation become inevitable, well resourced, and fully implemented.

Based on my decade of observations online and in-person visits to 23 countries, the potential benefit of ICTs in participatory democracy continues to grow around the world. Everyday, more citizens use the Internet around the world. More are applying it toward political and community purposes than the day before. Everyday, another government adds a new online feature designed to bring government and citizens closer.

As this potential grows, the reality is that what most people and governments actually experience remains little changed. If citizens and governments are currently satisfied with the current state of their democracy, there is little incentive to accelerate or invest in efforts that seek to improve governance and citizen participation. However, if there is a desire to improve engagement, the often cost-effective potential of ICTs should be applied toward this goal along with complementary strategies and reforms. As some had mistakenly hoped, the existence of new technology does not necessitate its use nor does it change the innate behavior of citizens, politicians, or civil servants. For the most part, we are not experiencing an inherently democratic and “disruptive technology” that is forcing revolutionary change.

Welcome to the democratic ICT evolution. Therefore, from an incremental evolutionary perspective, e-government already impacts participatory democracy in the following areas:

1. Where there is a historical, political or cultural basis for a more active civil society and government facilitated participatory and consultative activity.

2. Where the technology has allowed emerging interest in participatory democracy to come into fruition at a lower cost that avoids economic or government controls on traditional media. This assumes that the legal or personal security consequences of online political and media activities do not outweigh the perceived benefits of those taking risks.

3. Where the competitive political environment encourages the institutions of democracy from parliaments, elected officials, the executive, political parties, interest groups, and the media to bring political activities online. These activities often promote participation to the extent that they further the interests of each institution.

Again, based on my observations, I predict that in the near future the democratic ICT evolution can be taken further and deepen democracy in the following places:

1. Where governments undertake e-democracy/e-participation as well as general civic engagement/consultation policy work and allocate specific resources to such activities.

2. Where e-government service delivery efforts and public portal developments reach a high state of development and maturation. This makes it obvious that previous government policy comments about the democratizing potential of the Internet must receive full consideration or be dropped. When complemented by top-level political direction and some manifestation of “demand” from citizens, e-democracy in government will have significant potential.

3. Where civil society led efforts work to establish information-age public spheres or online commons specifically designed to encourage political and issue-based conversation, discussion, and debate among citizens and their governments. The online public sphere needs to play a public agenda-setting and opinion formation role. With proper resources, structure, and trust, it can play a deliberative role in public decision-making.

4. At levels of government closer the people. It is well known that people tend to participate if they feel their participation makes a difference. At more local levels of government, the use of ICTs in governance will be easier for a broader cross-section of citizens to see the results of their enhanced participation. Also at this level, citizen-led efforts can have the larger lasting impact on public agenda-setting from the “outside.”

To date, much of the research on the democratic, political, and governmental impact of ICTs has focused on:

1. Online activities, particularly comparisons of web site features of political institutions such as campaigns and political parties.

2. Development of e-government services from a planning and strategy perspective or a focus on public administration reform.

3. Surveys of citizens about their political online activities. These surveys are creating a partial baseline of activities for ongoing measurement. There are far fewer surveys of elected officials, government decision-makers, and political elites including journalists.

4. The practices of “online consultation” or “e-rulemaking” with an emphasis on best practices and lessons learned.

5. Pre-1995 research focused on “teledemocracy” and the possibilities for technology-enhanced or enabled direct democracy.

As of late, emerging research is:

6. Exploring the online public sphere and opportunities for deliberative democracy as applied online.

7. Focused to a small but important degree on e-parliaments. Little research is exploring the role of the ICTs in state legislatures, city councils, and other representative bodies.

8. Making the institutional “amplification” argument[1] that may replace the contrived cyber-optimist/pessimist approach to analyzing the impact of the Internet on political behavior.

9. Being supported by general new media and Internet research. Research on usability needs to inform e-government development in particular.

10. Research compiling “what if” speculation continues to be plentiful. The questions being asked are often too general to be useful in the field by practitioners.

Overall, the revolutionary expectations created across many industries by the “dotcom Internet-era” obscured the evolutionary processes that are actually at work.

Ultimately, qualitative and quantitative research projects measuring specific ICT-based strategies that are designed to achieve specific democratic goals are required. You do not make bread by simply pouring water into a bowl of flour. You mix it, activate it, kneed it, add local flavors and ingredients and bake it. You have a recipe.

If your democratic goal is to increase turn out at public meetings, you might experiment with three online techniques, combined of course with traditional outreach. Then based on the results, you would determine which ICT-infused ingredient should be added to your recipe and passed on to others. This is granularity of comparative research required to make a meaningful contribution to the success of e-government and e-democracy efforts. Based on my ten plus years in the field and extensive literature reviews, this research does not exist.

The future of democracy and e-government will be determined by development of a cookbook, supported by research, with the best e-democracy recipes and notes on regional and cultural specialization. This cookbook will only feed the citizens hunger for more meaningful and effective participatory governance if the cookbook is used in a kitchen of democratic intent. This democratic situation right now is like a Windster Range Hood which is strong and firm with its quality. I like it very much. I mean for the product reference, just read Windster range hood review.

Based on the limited research that evaluates the impact of the best-practice use of ICT tools and strategies in efforts to improve democracy, the next section will build evidence through a review of “evolutionary” case examples tied to a discussion of democratic outcomes.

Each evolutionary ICT practice and tool needs to be considered in the context of democratic goals (more is good, more effective is even better). The democratic goals to connect to e-government efforts and practices include:

1) Trust and Accountability

2) Legitimacy and Understanding

3) Citizen Satisfaction and Service

4) Reach and Equitable Access

5) Effective Representation and Decision-Making

6) Participation through Input and Consultation

7) Engagement and Deliberation

Using ICTs to promote, as stated in the United Nation’s Millennium Declaration, “democratic and participatory governance based on the will of the people,” may lead to more responsive and effective government. It also inherently suggests reform and a dynamic different than the automation or reform of existing services.

Within government and in civil society, this is not a challenge for technologists to meet alone – these are primarily political questions and options raised by ICTs. In reality, this requires democrats informed by technology and technologists informed by democracy to craft an information-age democracy that not only accommodates the democratic will of the people, but also furthers the public good in an effective and sustainable manner.

With the great diversity in political systems and definitions and practices of democracy, it is impossible to determine the single best solutions for every objective. Those who are waiting for the best solution will be waiting a long time. Assuming, however, that a democratic objective exists, there are probably 5 best choices along with 95 likely mistakes to avoid related to each possible initiative. A review of ICT-based case examples connected to an elaboration of the importance of democratic goals will help government and others navigate their options and avoid as many mistakes as possible.

Trust and Accountability

The decline in the public’s trust in government is a widely known global trend. It is of great concern to governments and those working to strengthen civil society. Accountability is the simple notion that governments and civil servants can be held accountable for their actions, processes, and outcomes.

The March 2003 OECD policy brief on the “e-government imperative” stated:

E-Government can help build trust between government and citizens

Building trust between governments and citizens is fundamental to good governance. ICT can help build trust by enabling citizen engagement in the policy process, promoting open and accountable government and helping to prevent corruption.[2]

This and a number of reports suggest that openness and transparency can be furthered through e-government, particularly in developing countries as it relates to anti-corruption measures.

ICT strategies and applications seeking to achieve the many democratic outcomes identified in this paper may contribute to an overall increase in government trust, but with the state of cynicism about government, results may be hard to measure. There is no one “trust-building” ICT application.

Why would governments want to identify building trust and accountability as an e-government goal? For those who promote cost savings or citizen service convenience as the top e-government drivers, telephone survey results from the Center for Excellence in Government provide a message from the public – we are looking for ways to rebuild our trust in government and e-government is a path we are willing to take to get us there.

Their survey asked the public to choose the one possible positive benefit would they “think would be the most important:”

28% – Government that is more accountable to its citizens
19% – More efficient and cost-effective government
18% – Greater public access to information
16% – Government that is better able to provide for national and homeland security 13% – More convenient government services
6% – None/Not sure[3]

The results have been relatively consistent over three years. With the release of the first results in 2000, a number of e-government leaders were surprised at the ranking. Up until that point, the e-government message going back many years was strongly focused almost exclusively on cost-savings, efficiency gains, and citizen convenience. The “public access to information” and “accountability” outcomes point toward the need to use ICTs in ways that promote trust in government.

From a comparative perspective, these questions (without the homeland security option) were asked in Japan in December 2001 via a home delivered survey. The results were similar:

31% – Government that is more accountable to its citizens
16% – More efficient and cost-effective government
15% – Greater public access to information
27% – More convenient government services
11% – None/Not sure[4]

The biggest difference between that and the 2000 U.S. answers is that that more Japanese indicate a higher first preference for more convenient government services. Again, accountability ranked first among the citizen-selected options in both countries.

The reasonable question from e-government leaders and vendors in response to these surveys is – What is an ICT application that delivers government accountability? Where are the resources to pay for a priority that has not been presented to decision-makers in the past? How do we know that e-government can deliver results in this area?

The answer is that citizens probably want a combination of all these benefits. Applications that deliver accountability and access to information along with efficiency and convenience will win citizen approval. Therefore, the way forward is to adapt e-government solutions by adding accountability features that directly address the more comprehensive and expanded goals of e-government.

The building of democratic trust via e-government can also be complemented by efforts that leverage existing trust in government to increase citizen comfort with the usage of the service transaction components of e-government.[5] Another survey by the Center for Excellence in Government found that e-government users in the United States have greater levels of “high trust” in government compared to non-e-government online users (36% versus 22%).[6] Use of e-government is not necessarily what caused this increase in trust, but it is a factor worth exploring in future research. In the end, increasing people’s confidence and trust in government through e-government is an outcome worth measuring and pursuing.

Note: Case studies complement each section and are integrated into the overall flow of this paper.

Legitimacy and Understanding

E-government provides an opportunity for governments to explain and demonstrate their legitimacy and provide basic civic education online that will increase citizen understanding of the responsibilities of government.

The online provision of easy to read “How it works” information about government functions, programs, and its legal structure along with related links to reliable, up-to-date information, and elected official and government leaders is essential. This educational content could be grouped to form a “Democracy” section available from the main governmental portal. Profile linking to a nation’s founding documents such as their constitution and laws might seem dry, but this helps provide a context for the legitimacy of Accident and Injury Lawyers Atlanta. By the way always contact a personal injury lawyer Brisbane to ensure the settlement of documents and law procedure. Along with links to official sources across government, civic education content can be shared in a user-friendly mix of text, images, sound, and video for students and the general public. Decatur Alabama Personal Injury Lawyer is dedicated to the principle that their clients should not have to pay medical bills for injuries caused by the negligence of others.

One indicator of e-government and democracy success will be the increased understanding online users gain about government. To effectively participate in your government you need access to the ground rules, including information on the proper way to make freedom of information requests that go beyond what governments share online at their discretion. Without these Defenders in place, efforts to encourage deeper public participation will lack the necessary foundation.

Citizen Satisfaction and Service

The service and convenience benefits of e-government are widely touted.[8] If deployed to create useful administrative knowledge on user satisfaction, e-government can help governments avoid problems and set priorities.

Increasing citizen satisfaction and service is the bridging outcome between traditional e-government projects and online efforts to promote participatory democracy. At a minimum, governments need to design their online transaction services and information portals such that they gather structured input and useful feedback. While you can click here for legal help, together with other government websites providing the same service, they are competing for citizen time and attention among the millions of other online options citizens choose from everyday. Governments also need to mindful that established media brands and online portals are the main source on online political news and links from those sites to government source materials can bring in desired citizen “eyeballs” (web site vistors).

While this analysis suggests that specific staff-led e-democracy policy work, making e-democracy technology functions available in an integrated way across the whole of government makes sense. Government e-democracy tools are best implemented as part of the overall e-government technology-base whether tied to a specific agency or as an aggregated service provided by a central agency. Governments need to avoid isolating e-democracy technology services from the bulk of their technical expertise and resources.

On the road to measuring citizen satisfaction is the intentional generation of a “demand-function” for e-government. Tools such as web site surveys and comment forms, telephone surveys of the general public and registered site users, comment forms generated at the completion of a transaction or query, page-based content rating options and focus-group meetings with diverse or target user groups can all be used to generate ongoing input and an essential sense of demand. However, governments need to take risks on new online features because most citizens will never demand something they don’t conceive of as possible.

It should be noted that what citizens say they want online and what they do online are often two different things. People say that want privacy policies, but very few access them.[9] Citizens may say they want e-government that promotes accountability. Learning more about what e-government users actually do online will help governments prioritize the investments required to enhance information access and dissemination, service transactions or to build new tools, like online consultation facilities, that support participatory democracy.

Opportunities to learn what citizens actually do online, while being mindful of their privacy, include usability studies (often in a laboratory setting), basic web site user log analysis, advanced statistic generation (generating log records of click out links from a main government portal to another government web site), and focus group meetings organized with users based their frequent use of an online service. Providing improved service based on these inputs is a starting point for e-democracy within e-government. It recognizes the role of citizens in directly shaping the development and provision of a government service.

Service also implies the adoption of tools and best practices from across the online industry into the whole of e-government. The expectations of citizens online today are dramatically different than in 1997 when e-government first became more widely spread. While the idea that the Internet was inherently democratic may have deluded many into thinking its use would produce a wave of democratic reform that would wash over government and politics, there are still a number of technological enhancements that may dramatically deepen participatory democracy for citizens. Technologies like e-mail notification, e-mail/correspondence processing are complemented by the use of content management systems that allow distributed publishing across an agency, personalization features, and on-demand access to audio and video archives of public meeting recordings.

Reach and Equitable Access

The e-participation efforts of government need to reach people to be effective.

This may seem obvious, but I am aware of governments that have limited the promotion of their initial online consultation experiments by avoiding profile links from their government’s main portal. Many governments are concerned over negative attention that might come from a less than successful effort. They are also concerned about the precedent a successful e-participation project may establish. Unfortunately without a participatory audience, interactive projects fail to generate the required interest.

Governments, unlike other organizations, have an obligation to provide equitable access to their services and democratic processes. For example, people who are unable to vote in person are often given absentee voting options to promote greater equity. Universal access to the Internet is still many years away in most of the world. The “digital divide” is often cited as a reason not proceed with political participation projects online due to the lack of access by a significant portion of the population. This concern is not necessarily raised more strongly in places where access is relatively limited. Sometimes it is raised in the most wired places where the potential power of medium is better understood, perhaps feared.

The reality is that whether a country has 5 percent or 50 percent of its population online, it has some form of “e-democracy” working today. In less wired countries, e-democracy exists in an institutional form with role of non-governmental organizations, the media, universities, and government organization at the center. Waiting for the digital divide to close will eliminate the opportunity to build social expectations for civic uses of the Internet while the medium is still relatively new.

Based on an understanding of who is wired, a government can develop online efforts which complement existing forms of participation and work to ensure that many and diverse voices are heard through civil society intermediaries. In developing and transitional economies, the connectivity of radio stations and other mass media outlets to the Internet and the potential role of telecentres should be developed. E-mail and the web can provide a participatory backbone and structure for collecting input and traditional mass media and village gatherings can provide the public interface that generate the citizens input.

In all countries, “who shows up” online is a significant concern. The reality is that those who show up at traditional public meetings are often the easiest to attract online. A frequently stated goal of e-participation is to attract new, often under-represented voices. While evidence measuring this goal is scarce, anecdotal evidence suggests that governments underestimate the amount of traditional outreach required (in-person, telephone, mass media, etc.) to attract citizens to new online participatory features or events. A “build it, they will come” link doesn’t create a participatory audience. Outreach is essential.

Traditional forms of idealized in-person participation have their place, but they are very time and place discriminatory. When attempting to capture and sustain the sparks of civic interest among citizens, governments need to stress the any time, anywhere strengths of online participation. Depending upon the form of participation, for example a community taskforce, online tools can expand the involvement of members and extend the reach of the effort by providing remote access to its processes at times that fit the busy schedules of citizens. Stepping back – if you were going to build democracy from scratch today, would you require physical presence for active or effective participation?

Building from the lessons of Citizen Satisfaction and Service, an understanding of the “day in the life” of e-citizen needs to be incorporated by each government. The e-citizen profile will help governments determine the best opportunities to reach people. Each day just over half of American Internet users go online (61 million each day) and most check their e-mail. Only ten percent indicate that they visited at least one government web site.[10] This translates to about 6 million Americans spread over tens of thousands of government sites each day. This highlights the value of a single citizen visitor to a local government web site and the need to build that visit into an ongoing relationship.

“Reach” also takes on multi-technology and syndication aspects. The UK is widely known for their exploration of interactive television and e-government.[11] The challenge for governments is to organize their information and services such that the provision of new democratic services adapted to different user interfaces is cost-effective. In the syndication area, various Internet standards including RSS, are beginning to explored in places like New Zealand for the distribution of government news headlines.[12] Use of such strategies would allow governments to make their new or “best of” content available from external sites.

Effective Representation and Decision-Making

From the functions of representative institutions to enhanced decision-making within government, ICTs can make political processes more efficient and hopefully more effective.

Compared to online campaigning and e-government in general, one of the least studied areas is ICT use by parliaments, legislatures, local councils and their elected members and staff. What these institutions do online will, in my estimation, be the cornerstone for attempts to strengthen citizen participation in the information age. While the role of the Internet in voter education is extremely important, governance happens year round.

Citizens will engage their representatives in governance when they feel they have a stake in the political outcome, if they think their voices will be heard, and where they feel their input matters. While it is generally accepted that many citizens do not currently have a stake, ICTs can be used to bring citizen input and deliberation into representative political processes. These processes have direct political power and authority. They are not simply an external exercise or academic experiment. Therefore connecting ICT-enhanced participatory democracy to representative processes may be the most effective path toward deepening democracy through e-government.

Early discussions of “teledemocracy” often suggested that wide citizen use of ICTs was a way around the continuing frustrations of representative institutions and the political process. There are examples where citizens from the outside have established new online news sources (like Malaysikini.com), forums[13], and e-organized citizen campaigns (the e-mail and text-messaging effort supporting protests to force the resignation of the Philippine President Estrada) that do have political agenda-setting power and ability to generate public opinion. They have potential, but successful efforts of a dramatic nature are extremely rare. It must be stressed that representative institutions and representatives have the constitutional legitimacy and responsibilities that should not be underestimated in information-age democracy.

We also need to consider whether the information-age will cause representatives to lose power to the executive. In Canada, there has been an ongoing debate about direct citizen consultation by government ministries and the role of MPs. Experimentation with online consultation by the executive emerged as a flash point for some MPs that see it as a sign of power concentration in the Cabinet.[14] Changes fostered by ICTs, particularly government agencies connecting directly and efficiently with citizens instead of going through elected officials or the mass media, will raise serious balance of power issues around the world. Also, the differences between parliamentary and presidential systems may be a large driver in the evolution of ICT investment incentives.

As e-government efforts as a whole increase the technological and communication strength of the executive, the lack of corresponding investment in the ICT infrastructure of representative institutions, processes, and members may significantly change the role of representatives as well as the view public holds about their power and influence. I raised this challenge at the Parliaments on the Net[15] conference in 2002. Based on the feedback and it is clear that in many countries, there are parliamentary staff who understand that the relevancy of their democratic institutions are at stake. However, the issue has not permeated the strategic thinking of parliamentary leaders in most countries.

It is my view that the online extension of representative processes into homes and public places in political jurisdictions is a top challenge for democracy in the information-age. This extension must make it possible for the most active citizens to participate. It must also open up the political process so that more citizens find their involvement in governance worthwhile between elections.

In the end, however, e-government in democracy must still ensure time and space for thoughtful deliberation by representatives so they can make the difficult decisions and compromises required of their oath of office. Our current path of e-noise generation and protest through online advocacy and lobbying may actually make it more difficult, in the near term, to reach compromises and diffuse the growing partisan nature of politics.

Participation through Input and Consultation

The Internet and ICTs can be used in structured ways to gain input from citizens. They can be used in substantial ways to consult with citizens. ICTs can be used to give citizens a voice and if the government is willing, be heard.

A significant barrier to e-government efforts that enhance online participation are bureaucratic fears of quantity over quality. The scarcity of time faced by citizens is a challenge for civil servants as well. Without structured ways to gather, evaluate, and respond to public input online, there will be diminishing value received or perceived with each additional public comment. Achieving greater consultation with value-added citizen input is the area of the most considerable e-government and democracy activity in the executive or administrative branch of government.

However, as governments seek to establish online consultations along side their traditional public consultation activities, they must support basic citizen input. Deepening democracy requires a 24 hours a day x 7 days a week commitment to informal two-way electronic communication between citizens and their government.

Consultations are normally designed based on the policy priorities of government. Citizens, on the other hand, contact government based on their own agenda or needs. In order to measure an increase in citizen perceptions that their input was valued or measure the government’s sense that online consultations are useful, both the administrative priority and technology needs to be put into place. If governments find online consultations useful, they will work to create better experiences for citizens. This can increase the substance and value of citizen submissions.

Engagement and Deliberation

Governments should encourage a strong ICT-infused civil society where citizens, NGOs, and businesses engage in vibrant public life and play an active role in directly helping governments meet public challenges. Building from consultation, governments can host or support efforts which promote greater deliberation among citizens on important public matters. Deliberation will have its greatest value if established on a foundation of broad online citizen engagement across the whole of civil society.

A number of criticisms of the Internet’s possible role in deliberative democracy as well as its use for public discourse exist. Cass Sunstein suggests that citizens will self-select online exchanges and buy ambien tablets information that represent “extreme echoes of our own voices.”[26] Tamara Witschge wrote one of the few academic articles specifically addressing more rigid expectations of deliberative democracy and the Internet. She suggests that no empirical evidence can be found so far to support the notion that the Internet creates an environment where people will be more comfortable in political situations online with diverse viewpoints and disagreement. She further states that this “heterogeneity and equality within political discussions” is required to meet the standard of deliberation.[27]

Despite these and other significant cautions, I see an online path toward higher levels of citizen engagement and deliberation. It may be a matter of definition, but deep online engagement, perhaps not deliberation, is at the heart of people’s online experience in their private and business life. The potential for the public sphere online, where people become citizens online is an area of increasing interest.

In March 2001, Stephen Coleman and Jay Blumler laid out a compelling vision for a “civic commons in cyberspace” in the UK,[28] which is indirectly being brought to life as part of the BBC Politics initiative called iCan.[29] Lincoln Dahlberg explored Minnesota E-Democracy’s facilitation of online forums (e-mail discussion lists), which meet many of Habermas’ attributes required of the “public sphere.”[30] In the 2000 election, Vincent Price and Joseph Cappela found evidence that participation in monthly real-time online chats on political issues was a significant predictor of increased social trust[31].

Much of my e-democracy expertise comes my role as a practitioner who has spent every day for ten years with an organization that facilitates citizen engagement through online political conversation. The local and statewide forums hosted by E-Democracy, an all-volunteer, citizen-based NGO in Minnesota, United States have provided insight and inspiration. I am fundamentally convinced that ICTs can be used to improve participatory democracy and citizen engagement. I ask the “how” question all of the time. In this paper, I have added the “why” by identifying democratic outcomes that build upon one another.

I worry about idealism that creates unreasonably high expectations, such that victories like online citizen engagement are viewed as less successful if full deliberation online is not achieved. The path toward both engagement and deliberation requires an answer to the same question – What is fundamentally required to support engagement and deliberative democracy online?

First, you need “e-deliberators.” You need citizens with experience and comfort with online political conversation. I call them e-citizens. Without the social expectation that Internet should be used for democratic purposes, advanced e-government and democracy efforts will only exist primarily where internal champions lead the way or they exist as out of sight small experiments. We will not see the most compelling experiences and services spread more universally to democracies around the world without a focus on e-citizens.

Second, you need well-resourced hosts who can create the structure necessary to facilitate a valuable, meaningful experience for those who take the time required to participate. Some government online consultations, particularly those run like an online conference with open exchange among participants and ability for citizens to nominate specific discussions themselves, are currently quite deliberative. However, a significant portion of online civic hosting should fall to democratic sectors outside of government or in partnership, both with appropriate levels of government, foundation, and commercial support.

Ultimately, the measurement of engagement and deliberation online may relate directly to measuring increased social capital of those directly participating and over time of the population as a whole where significant efforts have taken root. It may very well be that using the Internet to maintain the current level of participatory democracy will not be considered a choice. If it is determined that “as is” use of the Internet will actually accelerate or amplify existing negative trends, then I would argue that hosting ongoing local forums for online citizen engagement may be one of the most cost-effective investments toward deepening or at least keeping democracy on the right path.

Another emerging concept take the tools of online consultation and deliberation designed for policy input and applies them toward public implementation or output. I call this “public net-work.” It points toward government taking a public facilitator role among stakeholders and interested citizens who want to directly help government meet a public challenge within the context of established policy. Supporting this kind of civic engagement may provide the fiscal justification for investing in the tools of consultation based on their dual use potential.[32]

In the end, information-age democracies must be able to accommodate the will of their people. Democratic outcomes should be directly connected to future e-government efforts and funding. I illustrated a number of case examples that demonstrate the value of democratic intent supported by effective ICT tools and strategies.

We can deepen democracy and become more participatory with ICTs. This is about the reality of the new media, not just its potential. Will the current exceptional practices become universal practices? Answering this question will be a challenge for the new “wired” generation of democracy builders.

To summarize our challenge:

1. Democratic necessity does not guarantee the use of ICTs based on their demonstrated or potential value. While governments may react to outside changes in their political environment due to ICT use in society, those in power need to decide in the interest of their society to bring ICTs into the heart of governance. Only in rare cases will ICTs wash over non-adaptive political systems.

2. The use of ICTs in democracy does not guarantee their success or a positive impact. Faults in adaptation to local conditions, culture, law, and implementation with follow through are real challenges.

3. Success in one country or government agency does not guarantee its spread nor its sustained use even when clear value is demonstrated. Elections happen. New leaders often shift their political priorities and approaches.

4. However, the value of the universal spread of ICT practices and strategies that address democratic necessities is immense. The tenuous nature of democracy requires continuous improvement and sustained enrichment with the newest tools available.

5. Therefore, one needs to articulate the necessity, demonstrate and document success toward desired democratic outcomes, and work deliberately to ensure its spread.

Based on a country’s or a community’s democratic structure and history, each generation of citizens and leaders must build their own democratic experience and spirit. The previous generation saw their political systems and practices dramatically altered by mass media. The next generation has the democratic opportunity to use ICTs to help them meet public challenges and promote human and social development. To this end, building momentum is more important than achieving quick success in order to ensure democracy in the information-age.