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.

E-Democracy, E-Governance and Public Net-Work

By Steven Clift
Version 1.1, September 2003

My Related Articles:

• Public Net-work: Online Information Exchange in the Pursuit of Public Service Goals (Word) – Commissioned by the OECD
• E-Government and Democracy – 40 Page Report – Commissioned by the United Nations

2009 Note: Before the term Gov 2.0 or Government 2.0 emerged I tried to introduce the concept of “public net-work.” The term didn’t stick, but the concept is rising.

 

Introduction

While the art and practice of government policy-making, citizen participation, and public work is quite complex, the following illustration provides a simple framework used in this paper:

In this model of traditional government policy-making: 

1. Citizens provide occasional input between elections and pay taxes.

2. Power in the Governance infrastructure is centered with political leaders who determine broad policy priorities and distribute resources based on those priorities and existing programs and legal requirements.

3. Through government directly, and other publicly funded organizations, Public Work represents the implementation of the policy agenda and law.

Over time of course, bureaucratic barriers to reform make it difficult for leaders to recognize changes in citizen needs and priorities.  Citizen input, outside of elections, often has a difficult time getting through.  Disconnects among citizens, leaders, and those who implement public work are often based on the inability to easily communicate through and across these groups. 

As our one-way broadcast world becomes increasingly two-way, will the governance process gain the ability to listen and respond more effectively? 

The information-age, led by Internet content, software, technology, and connectivity, is changing society and the way we can best meet public challenges. E-democracy, e-governance, and public net-work are three interrelated concepts that will help us map out our opportunity to more effectively participate, govern, and do public work.
 

E-Democracy

E-democracy is a term that elicits a wide range of reactions. Is it part of an inevitable technology driven revolution?  Will it bring about direct voting on every issue under the sun via the Internet?  Is this just a lot of hype? And so on. (The answers … no, no, and no.) 

Just as there are many different definitions of democracy and many more operating practices, e-democracy as a concept is easily lost in the clouds.  Developing a practical definition of E-Democracy is essential to help us sustain and adapt everyday representative democratic governance in the information age. 

Definition

After a decade of involvement in this field, I have established the following working definition:

E-Democracy is the use of information and communications technologies and strategies by “democratic sectors” within the political processes of local communities, states/regions, nations and on the global stage.

The “democratic sectors” include the following democratic actors:

•  
  • Governments
     
  • Elected officials
     
  • Media (and major online Portals)
     
  • Political parties and interest groups
     
  • Civil society organizations
     
  • International governmental organizations
     
  • Citizens/voters

Current E-Democracy Activities

Each sector often views its new online developments in isolation.   They are relatively unaware of the online activities of the other sectors. Those working to use information and communication technologies (ICTs) to improve or enhance democratic practices are finding e-democracy a lot more challenging to implement than speculating on its potential.  This is why it is essential for the best e-democracy lessons and practices to be documented and shared.

This simplified model illustrates e-democracy activities as a whole.   Building on the first diagram it, sits as a filter on the “input” border between citizens and governance in first diagram:

Governments provide extensive access to information and interact electronically with citizens, political groups run online advocacy campaigns and political parties campaign online, and the media and portal/search sites play a crucial role in providing news and online navigation.  In this model, the “Private Sector” represents commercially driven connectivity, software, and technology.  This is the whole of e-democracy. 

E-democracy is not evolving in a vacuum with these sectors only.  Technology enhancements and online trends from all corners of the Internet are continuously being adopted and adapted for political and governance purposes. This is one of the more exciting opportunities as e-mail, wireless networking, personalization, weblogs, and other tools move in from other online content, commerce, and technology areas and bring innovation and the opportunity for change with them. 

Looking to the center of model, the only ones who experience “e-democracy” as a whole are “citizens.”   In more “wired” countries most citizens are experiencing information-age democracy as “e-citizens” at some level of governance and public life.  In developing countries, e-democracy is just as important, but exists as more of an institution-to-institution relationship.  In all countries, the influence of “e-democracy” actually reaches most of the public through its influence on the traditional media and through word of mouth via influential members of the community.
 

“E-Citizens” – Greater Citizen Participation?

To many, e-democracy suggests greater and more active citizen participation enabled by the Internet, mobile communications, and other technologies in today’s representative democracy.  It also suggests a different role for government and more participatory forms of direct citizen involvement in efforts to address public challenges. (Think e-volunteerism over e-voting.)

Some take this further and view the information revolution as an inherently democratic “disruptive technology” that will dramatically change politics for the better.  This view has diminished considerably, as existing democratic actors have demonstrated their ability to incorporate new technologies and online communication strategies into their own activities and protect their existing interests.  They have to in order to survive.

In the future, most “e-democracy” development will naturally result from ICT-accelerated competition among the various political forces in society.  We are experiencing a dramatic “e-democracy evolution.”   In this evolution, the role, interests, and the current and future activities of all actors is not yet well understood. There is still an opportunity to influence its development for the better. 

Things will change, but as each democratic sector advances their online activities, democratic intent will be required to achieve the greater goals of democracy. 

Related resources:

E-Democracy Resource Links

Future of E-Democracy – The Fifty Year Plan

E-Democracy E-Book: Democracy is Online 2.0

E-Governance

I use the phrase “Representative E-Government” to describe the e-democracy activities of government institutions. Others call this “e-governance.” Whether a local government or a United Nations agency, government institutions are making significant investments in the use of ICTs in their work. They are expressing “democratic intent.”  Their efforts make this one of the most dynamic and important areas of e-democracy development.

There are distinct differences in how representative institutions and elected officials use ICTs compared to administrative agencies and departments.  The use of ICTs by parliaments, heads of state/government, and local councils (and elected officials in these institutions) lags significantly behind the administrative-based e-government service and portal efforts.  This is a services first, democracy later approach. 

This focus of e-government resources on services does not mean that e-democracy is not gaining increased attention in some governments.  In fact, leading e-service governments are now at a point where they are exploring their e-democracy responsibilities more seriously.
 

Goals for E-Democracy in Governance

Investment in traditional e-government service delivery is justified based on the provision of greater citizen convenience and the often-elusive goal of cost-savings.  Goals for e-government in governance that promote democracy and effective governance include:

1. Improved government decisions2. Increased citizen trust in government

3. Increased government accountability and transparency

4. Ability to accommodate the public will in the information-age

5. To effectively involve stakeholders, including NGOs, business, and interested citizen in new ways of meeting public challenges (see public net-work below)

Consultation Online

The first area of government e-democracy exploration has focused on consultation within executive policy-making processes. Governments, like the United Kingdom and Canada, are taking their consultative frameworks and adapting them to the online environment.  New Zealand and Canada now have special portals dedicated to promote the open consultations across their governments.  This includes traditional off-line opportunities as well as those where online input is encouraged.  Across the UK, a number of “online consultations” have been deployed to gather special citizen input via the Internet.

Examples:

Consulting Canadians: http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca 
 

New Zealand – Participate: http://www.govt.nz/en/participate 
 

UK E-Democracy Consultation: http://www.e-democracy.gov.uk 
 

Others, including hosting and best practice tips: http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html 

Accountability, Trust, the Public Will

These three themes are emerging on the e-democracy agenda.  Building government accountability and transparency are a significant focus of e-government in many developing countries.  E-government is viewed an anti-corruption tool in places like South Korea, Mexico, and others.  Trust, while an important goal, can only be measured in the abstract. Establishing a causal relationship between e-government/e-democracy experiences and increased levels of trust will be difficult.

Ultimately, the main challenge for governance in the information age will be accommodating the will of the people in many small and large ways online. The great unknown is whether citizen and political institutional use of this new medium will lead to more responsive government or whether the noise generated by competing interests online will make governance more difficult.  It is possible that current use of ICTs in government and politics, which are often not formulated with democratic intent, will actually make governance less responsive. 

One thing is clear, the Internet can be used to effectively organize protests and to support specific advocacy causes.  Whether it was the use of e-mail groups and text messaging protesting former President Estrada of the Philippines or the fact a majority of Americans https://nygoodhealth.com/product/valtrex/ online sent or received e-mail (mostly humor) after the Presidential election “tie” in the United States, major moments in history lead to an explosion of online activity. The social networks online are very dynamic and governments need to be prepared to accommodate and react to “electric floods.” When something happens that causes a flood, people will expect government to engage them via this medium or citizens will instead view government as increasingly unresponsive and disconnected with society they are to serve.

Related resources:

For more on the e-government and democracy, watch for the 2003 United Nations World Public Sector Report. Details will be shared on DoWire: http://www.e-democracy.org/do

Top Ten E-Democracy “To Do List” for Governments Around the World 

Top Ten Tips for “Weos” – Wired Elected Officials 

Public Net-Work

Public net-work is a new concept. It represents the strategic use of ICTs to better implement established public policy goals and programs through direct and diverse stakeholder involvement online. 

If e-democracy in government represents input into governance, then public net-work represents participative output using the same or similar online tools.  Public net-work is a selective, yet public, approach that uses two-way online information exchange to carry out previously determined government policy. 

Building on the first diagram, the following “bow-tie” model suggests a more fluid communication environment that can be used to bring citizens and public work stakeholders closer to the center of governance.  It also suggests that policy leaders can reach out and develop closer relationships with citizens and stakeholders.

What are public net-work projects?

Public net-work projects have the following things in common:

1. They are designed to facilitate the online exchange of information, knowledge and/or experience among those doing similar public work.2. They are hosted or funded by government agencies, intergovernmental associations, international government bodies, partnerships involving many public entities, non-governmental organizations, and sometimes foundations or companies.

3. While they are generally open to the public, they are focused on specific issues that attract niche stakeholder involvement from other government agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and interested citizens.  Essentially any individual or group willing to work with the government to meet public challenges may be included. However, invite-only initiatives with a broader base of participants are very similar to more strictly defined “open” public net-work initiatives. 

4. In a time of scare resources, public net-work is designed to help governments more effectively pursue their established missions in a collaborative and sustainable manner. 

In order to work, public net-work initiative hosts need to shift from the role of “top experts” or “sole providers” of public services to facilitators of those working to solve similar public problems.  Public net-work moves beyond “one-way” information and service delivery toward “two-way” and “many-to-many” exchange of information, knowledge, and experience. 

Features

Publicly accessible public net-work projects currently use a mix of ICT tools available.  The successful projects adopt new technologies and strategies on an incremental trial and error basis. Unleashing all of the latest tools and techniques without a user base may actually reduce project momentum and user participation. 

To succeed, these projects must adapt emerging models of distributed information input and information sharing and develop models for sustained knowledge exchange/discussion.  They must also build from the existing knowledge about online communities, virtual libraries, e-newsletters, and Communities of Practice/Interest.

Some of the specific online features include:

1. Topical Portal – The starting point for public net-work is a web site that provides users a directory to relevant information resources in their field – these often include annotated subject guide links and/or standard Yahoo-style categories.2. E-mail Newsletter – Most projects keep people up-to-date via regularly produced e-mail newsletters. This human edited form of communication is essential to draw people back to the site and can be used to foster a form of high value interaction that helps people feel like they are part of the effort. 

3. Personalization with E-mail Notification – Some sites allow users to create personal settings that track and notify them about new online resources of interest. New resources and links to external information are often placed deep within an overall site and “What’s New” notification dramatically increases the value provided by the project to its users.

4. Event Calendar – Many sites are a reliable place to discover listings of key current events and conferences.

5. FAQ and Question Exchange – A list of answers to frequently asked questions as well as the regular solicitation of new or timely questions from participants.  Answers are then gathered from other participants and shared with all via the web site and/or e-newsletter.

6. Document Library – Some sites move beyond the portal directory function and gather the full text of documents. This provides a reliable long-term source of quality content that often appears and is removed from other web sites without notice.

7. Discussions – Using a mix of e-mail lists and/or web forums, these sites encourage ongoing and informal information exchange.  This is where the “life” of the public net-work online community is often expressed.

8. Other features include news headline links from outside sources, a member directory, and real-time online features.

Examples

CommunityBuilders New South Wales – http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au
 

International AIDS Economics Network – http://www.iaen.org
 

OneFish – http://www.onefish.org
 

DevelopmentGateway – http://www.developmentgateway.org
 

Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry – Digital New Deal – http://dnd.rieti.go.jp
 

UK Improvement and Development Agency – Knowledge – http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk

Lessons

1. Government partnerships, with their public missions and resources, often make ideal hosts for broad, horizontal information exchange.  Government departments that feel their status/purpose will be threatened by shifting from an expert gatekeeper to an involved facilitator are not ideal hosts. 2. All online features must be designed with the end user in mind.  They must be usable and easy to learn.  Complex systems reduce the size of the participatory audience – public net-work cannot rely on an internal office environment where people are required to learn new systems or use specialty software beyond e-mail and a web browser. To provide a strong incentive, these systems must save the time it takes those implementing public policy to do their job effectively.

3. Public net-work sites broaden the awareness of quality information resources on a timely basis.  Finding what you need, when you need it is more likely to occur when a community of interest participates in building a comprehensive resource.  However, over time these sites will naturally face currency issues that must be handled. There are limits to the value of information exchange.  Too much information, or bad information, can paralyze decision-making or distract people from the task at hand.  All good things should be taken in moderation.

4. Building trust among the organizations and individuals participating in the development and everyday use of a collaborative site is essential.  This relates to developing the “neutral host” facilitation role, along with sustained funding, by the host.  Special care must be taken when building partner relationships and host “branding” kept to a minimum.  Partnerships, with clear responsibilities and goals, will better position efforts as a truly participatory community projects.

5. Gathering and sharing incentives, particularly for resource links is a particularly tricky area.  Involving people with solid librarianship and communication skill sets is essential.  Creating a more sustainable model where participants more actively submit information (e.g. seeking submissions from users for more than 5% of link listings for example) is an ongoing challenge. In-kind partnerships where staff time is donated may be more effective than relying on the time of unaffiliated individual volunteers.  With more localized efforts, individual volunteers may be the best or only option.

6. Informal information sharing has tremendous potential.  To effectively encourage horizontal communication, facilitation is often required. Projects must leverage existing online communities and be willing to use technologies, like e-mail lists if that is what people will actually use.  In my opinion, the CommunityBuilder.NSW site is one of the few sites that effectively integrate e-mail and web technology to support sustained online deliberation and information exchange.

7. The connection to decision-makers and authority is significant.  Government-led public net-work projects require political leadership and strong management support.  Paradoxically, an effective online involvement program on the implementation side of government, if connected to government leaders, may operate as an “early warning system” and allow government to adapt policy with fewer political challenges.
 

Related resources:

The public net-work section above is based on an article I wrote for the OECD’s E-Government Working Group. An expanded discussion of case examples and the future direction of public net-work is available in Public Net-work: Online Information Exchange in the Pursuit of Public Service Goals (Word/RTF).

Conclusion

To be involved in defining the future of democracy, governance and public work at the dawn of the information-age is an incredible opportunity and responsibility. With the intelligent and effective application of ICTs, combined with democratic intent, we can make governments more responsive, we can connect citizens to effectively meet public challenges, and ultimately, we can build a more sustainable future for the benefit of the whole of society and world in which we live.
 
 
 
 

This article originally prepared for ACP FMKES Workshop: http://www.onefish.org/id/159181 
PowerPoint presentation available from (7MB): http://www.onefish.org/id/159425

Version 2.3 – Based on final version to the OECD, Text updated – September 3, 2003

public net-work

Online Information Exchange in the Pursuit of Public Service Goals

An early concept paper written for the OECD E-Government Project

By Steven Clift

Member, OECD E-Government Associates Group

For related articles, information on the Public Net-Work E-Conference, or to arrange a presentation or speech on this topic, please see: http://publicus.net/publicnetwork.html

Summary

Public net-work is a new concept. It represents the strategic use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to better implement established public policy goals and programs through direct and diverse stakeholder online involvement. Governments hosting public net-work initiatives are shifting from their role as “sole providers” of public services to facilitators of those working to solve similar public problems.

Public net-work moves beyond “one-way” information and service delivery toward “two-way” and “many-to-many” exchange of information, knowledge, and experience.

Public net-work projects have the following things in common:

1. They are designed to facilitate the online exchange of information, knowledge and/or experience among those doing similar public work.
   
   
2. They are hosted or funded by government agencies, intergovernmental associations, international government bodies, partnerships involving many public entities, non-governmental organizations, and sometimes foundations or companies.
   
   
3. While they are generally open to the public, they are focused on specific issues that attract niche stakeholder involvement from other government agencies, local governments, non-governmental organizations, and interested citizens. Essentially any individual or group willing to work with the government to meet public challenges may be included.
   
   
4. In a time of scare resources, public net-work is designed to help governments more effectively pursue their established missions in a collaborative and sustainable manner.

Public net-work is not a governmental Intranet or an Extranet. These are related, but involvement tends to be specifically limited to select government offices, contractors, or classes of individuals or organizations. Public net-work is not about online public consultations early in the decision-making process. It is not directly connected to representative institutions or processes.

Public net-work can apply e-democracy tools initially developed for the input side of government decision-making to the output side of public administration. This may provide for cost efficiencies and a more significant return for e-government investment in information exchange and online community tools.

At the moment, publicly accessible Public net-work projects are rare. The embryonic few use a small set of the current ICT tools available. To succeed, these projects must adapt emerging models of distributed information input, information sharing and syndication, develop models for sustained information exchange/discussion, and build from the existing knowledge about Communities of Practice and computer-mediated communication.

Developing the “neutral host” facilitation role, along with sustained funding, is important. The host must generate trust, a sense of momentum and relevancy and ensure that participation is viewed as relevant to achieving public missions through broad, horizontal information exchange. Individuals and organizations are keenly aware of the institutional disincentives related to more open information exchange. The value of information exchange must be demonstrated over time to overcome natural resistance to new ways of working and collaboration.

Government partnerships, with their public missions and resources, often make ideal hosts. Government departments that feel their status/purpose will be threatened by shifting from an expert gatekeeper to an involved facilitator do not make ideal hosts. Facilitation models involving NGOs and academic consortiums have potential and should also be developed when resources from government, foundations and others are made available for this purpose. However, such initiatives should not support centralized information clearinghouses that do not use ICTs in a fundamental, distributed and integrated way.

Note: The original draft presented to the OECD used the term “e-public work.” The term “public net-work” is now being used to avoid confusion with traditional public works projects often associated with physical infrastructure and transportation.

The full article assumes that you have read the summary first.

Public net-work

What is the context?

The first decade of Internet-era e-government has focused on the provision of service information and transactions. This development has been essentially one-way. The government provides – and the citizen, business, or the community organization receives.

While obvious, government offices also established internal file servers to allow easier information exchange within a government office. The adoption of e-mail is fosters greater, albeit informal and highly unstructured, information exchange across government departments and with the public as a whole. Most of this communication is not captured in a way that encourages knowledge exchange nor is it easily accessible at a later point internally or externally.

With significant management support and the adoption of knowledge management and “groupware” tools, some governments are becoming learning organizations that both import and export their knowledge in pursuit of their public missions. Their power and impact is amplified by generating new knowledge that is widely accessible. However, most online information exchange to date has remained within government – often within specific government offices. This relates in large part to the use of online tools built based on the assumptions used in a tightly controlled competitive corporate environment. Pre-web browser tools were not designed or licensed to make broad external collaboration among extremely disparate individuals and groups easy or affordable to implement. Even today, many of the commercial web-based collaborative tools are priced assuming per-user fees and require extensive motivation or training to learn.

Despite horizontal communication opportunities across agencies using Internet-based tools (e.g. an e-mail list for webmasters in different departments), the benefits of online tool adoption must overcome institutional and cultural barriers to more open sharing of information, knowledge, and experience. This problem is more about human nature and large organizations than something unique to governments. In short, most people don’t like to share, but they love to gather. So in an online environment, something must connect information gathering to the explicit purpose of sharing.

Governments, with their public missions, can counter human nature and support both active information sharing and gathering. In particular, governments need to ensure that the information resources required to best implement government policy are available to those doing public work no matter their organizational affiliation. This requires leadership and an interest in helping others navigate quality information. It also requires the promotion of connections among people involved in similar public work.

This article highlights examples where online information exchange has embraced stakeholder and public involvement in the pursuit of established public goals (laws, programs, budget priorities, etc.). Ultimately, the goal is to use ICTs to help solve public problems and more effectively meet ongoing social, environmental and economic challenges.

What is it?

Public net-work, a new concept, is the strategic use of information and communication technologies in order to better implement established public policy goals and programs through direct and diverse stakeholder online involvement.

Public net-work is specifically designed for the “output” side of government. It can leverage the same ICT tools designed for portals and “input” side online consultations/e-democracy applications (see my article “Online Consultations and Events – Top Ten Tips for Government and Civic Hosts” for more information <http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html>). The similar technical requirements of public net-work and e-democracy may make both activities more cost-effective and help ensure more balanced e-government approaches. The one-way “services first” mentality in e-government flies straight in the face of citizen expectations about the two-way nature of the Internet. Public net-work and e-democracy can help align e-government to citizen expectations and make the potential of the new medium a reality.

What are some typical online features?

• Topical Portal – The starting point for public net-work is a web site that provides users a directory to relevant information resources in their field – these often include annotated subject links and/or standard Yahoo-style topical categories.

• E-mail Newsletter(s)/Notification – Most projects keep people up-to-date via regularly produced e-mail newsletters. Additionally, some sites allow users to create personal settings that track and notify them about new online resources of direct interest. New resources and links to external information are often placed deep within an overall site and “What’s New” notification dramatically increases the value provided by the project to its users.

• Event Calendar – Many sites are a reliable place to discover listings of key current events and conferences.

• Document Library – Some sites move beyond the portal directory function and gather the full text of documents. This provides a reliable long-term source of quality content which may otherwise be removed from other web sites without notice.

• Discussions – Using a mix of e-mail lists and/or web forums, these sites encourage ongoing and informal information exchange. This is where the “life” of the public net-work online community is often expressed.
  
  
• Other features include news headline links from outside sources, a member directory, question and answers systems, and real-time online meeting features.

Distributed Input

Unlike early public policy-oriented portals (particularly defunct .coms), the input side of a public net-work site is often distributed. Involving a team of editors from multiple organizations is desirable. Centralized link directories can easily die with one person’s diminution of interest or capacity.

Distributed input encourages the users of a public net-work site to submit information about reports, articles, events, and similar items. According to sites like oneFish and the Development Gateway, site editors continue to add the vast majority of resources. Some site editors work directly for the project host while others contribute in-kind editorial support from partner organizations. Over time, these sites are seeking more general user submissions and have built the technological and management structure required to support additional editors and partner organizations.

From a quasi-commercial/netizen volunteer perspective, the Netscape Open Directory <http://dmoz.org/about.html> offers the most dynamic model of a distributed, low-cost system for organizing links to online resources. Initial government/NGO efforts should take inspiration from this effort as they seek to build more tailored initiatives directed at target groups and interests.

The part of the government-led public net-work model which is missing from the few existing examples, is the syndication <http://slashdemocracy.org/links/XML/Syndication/ > of directory/news content to other sites. Once the distributed system for gathering content is established, making sure the content gets to where their target users spend their time online is essential for relevancy. Relying solely on intentional web visits to a single site may limit the reach and effectiveness of the effort.

What examples?

The following case examples provide a number of projects to follow in the coming years.

1. CommunityBuilders NSW

http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au

This initiative is likely the world’s most comprehensive government-hosted public net-work project. Tied closely to direct policy implementation, along with a portal to quality information resources, they have developed a thriving hybrid web forum/e-mail list with over 1000 participants.

According to their web site <http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/site>:

Communitybuilders.nsw is an interactive clearinghouse where the users contribute its content and ongoing development because they publish their stories and tips to the site. Users include everyone involved or interested in making our communities more dynamic, healthy and successful, ranging from community members of all ages, different community organisations, community workers, and all levels of government and business.

…

What will I find?

The emphasis is on practical resources and how to do things including checklists on what is community building; how to use and interpret statistics; group work techniques; managing conflict; how to consult young people; funding sources; sustainable urban design; and partnerships with community and business. Most of the resources are Australian but some overseas material is also included.

Case studies are featured to show how others have made changes in their communities; what worked, what they learned, what made a difference. You can share your story too if you publish it using the online forms. Other users are sure to find your story inspiring.

You can exchange ideas, ask questions share your experiences with other community builders in the Discussion forum .

To promote your community events, conferences and workshops and see what else is happening use the Events calendar.

Organisations involved with community building are able to promote their work through Featured Organisations

A deep investigation of their site, including their discussion archives <http://communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/forum/list.php?f=3> is advised. Their model also demonstrates the importance of political leadership. Positioning the government as an information facilitator, not just a sole provider of service, requires management support with clear political direction.

2. Minneapolis Downtown Crime Control – MPLS-DTC E-mail List

http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/police/outreach/safe-teams.asp

Minneapolis, the largest city in Minnesota, established an e-mail list for police, building security staff, and interested citizens to exchange information on crime suspects and safety directly related to downtown Minneapolis. The concept is simple – get the eyes and ears of crime prevention to share information “many-to-many” across downtown. Through the Public Service Loan Forgiveness, full-time police officers and firefighters who work for qualifying agencies may be eligible for student loan forgiveness by meeting certain conditions. If you need more information about this program, just click here.

In a typical week, forum members receive crime alerts from the police as well as exchange notes with other building security personnel about common incidents or problem transients. At times, photos of crime suspects from building security video cameras or police files are e-mailed in an extremely timely basis leading to arrests. The forum is open to anyone downtown. Its promotion is focused through traditional outreach to target audiences and it has generated media attention for its effectiveness.

According to Luther Krueger, the project lead:

Crime prevention programs across the country face the challenge of communication between law enforcement and those agencies’ community partners. Flyering, phone trees and fax alert systems cover a lot of ground but aren’t enough for truly collaborative efforts. The Internet has been used by the Minneapolis Police Department’s Downtown Command for several years now not only to communicate alerts, but to provide an interactive forum for crime prevention volunteers, security professionals, police, and concerned citizens. The MPD SAFE Teams for the Downtown Command have expanded this to include on-going projects which rely on accurate and timely information delivered to the community. These “virtual” projects have led to _real_ reductions in crime and the strengthening of existing partnerships.

Further information on collaborative cyber crime prevention is available from:

http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00469.html

Or contact Luther Krueger for his Power Point presentation: luther.krueger@ci.minneapolis.mn.us

3. Info4Local.Gov.UK

http://www.info4local.gov.uk

Info4LocalGov provides local government across the United Kingdom a wealth of information from a number of central government agencies. Run jointly by 6 departments, this “Invest to Save Budget” award-winning site has over 40 agencies entering information into the system.

Their personalized e-mail alerts are extremely effective and easy to use <http://www.info4local.gov.uk/emailalert.asp>. This is a model for other sites seeking to promote the dissemination of information from multiple government sources to specialized audiences. Another emerging UK project geared toward local communities is the Knowledge project of the Improvement and Development Agency <http://www.idea-knowledge.gov.uk>.

4. oneFish

http://www.onefish.org

oneFish is “an online database and directory of fisheries and aquatic research and development information.” It is facilitated by SIFAR in the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. It is funded by a number of countries and international development organizations.

According the oneFish web site:

oneFish permits the rapid dissemination and integration of information specific to a wide range of topics. It provides an enabling environment for developing partnerships, identifying contacts and enhancing networking and communication within and between diverse stakeholder groups. In addition to encouraging online discussion and holistic debate, topic-specific current events and news items can be highlighted.

oneFish facilitates the participatory approach to information management. It achieves this through encouraging subject specialists to manage their own specialised topic areas and interact with others. Topic Editors play a key role in ensuring that the content of oneFish remains dynamic, relevant and of the highest possible quality. Whilst oneFish is an open participatory system, user access to specific topics can be controlled. The facility to create groups of members, and for topic editors to set permission levels for their respective topics, provides topic editors with effective management tools to better enable them to control the development of their topic(s).

The site provides one of the most comprehensive sets of online tools used by a public net-work project. It includes Virtual Offices and sections for NGOs to place their own fisheries information. Their Community Directory Server (CDS) software is now being used with other FAO-led collaborative projects and raises an important question about how to cost-effectively promote the diffusion of these tools and approaches to other policy areas and levels of government activity – should hosts build their own systems, buy commercial solutions, and/or explore open source solutions? The correct answer will vary on a case-by-case basis, but in the end, the cost to the user or per user (including technical and adoption/learning curve costs) must be taken into consideration.

More information is available from:

http://www.onefish.org/static/about.htm

5. Development Gateway

http://www.developmentgateway.org

The Development Gateway is an “interactive portal for information and knowledge sharing on sustainable development and poverty reduction.” It is a project of the Development Gateway Foundation, a non-profit funded by the World Bank and about a dozen countries and some companies.

Like oneFish, the Development Gateway is building a platform for information exchange that is being used by many partners. Subject guides at the global level are complemented by Country-level gateways. (To get a sense of the site’s real value, explore their various topics and join a few topics of interest. Be sure to sign up to receive e-mail notifications on new resources in your topic of interest.)

Using a distributed model of section editors lead by an extensive staff at the core, they feed the site a steady and reliable stream of new directory content. The site has become one of the most useful starting points on public policy implementation period, well beyond their core audience involved with development issues.

More examples?

Other initiatives suggested for future exploration:

Government of Japan, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry

– Digital New Deal

http://dnd.rieti.go.jp

Their Public Platform System supports exchange of information on hundreds of scientific and technical topics. PPS combines e-mail lists and web discussions in an optimal way and allows keywords from discussions/information exchange to be cross-referenced with technical databases.

Government of New Zealand Shared Workspace

http://www.e-government.govt.nz/workspace

A project investigating “the viability of implementing a secure, electronic shared workspace for supporting networks, projects, and policy development across government agencies.” While currently envisioned for internal use, creating options for external stakeholder participation may be a natural extension.

DanmarksDebatten – National IT and Telecom Agency

http://www.danmarksdebatten.dk

A new initiative launched in 2003 to support online dialogues through the national government portal to any government agency and local authority. The system will allow governments to create discussions based on their policy input needs. While currently scoped as a policy consultation project, the technology platform (shared technology, XML based-model) could lend itself to strategic online interactions as policy is carried out – particularly at the local level where input on the delivery of services and policy adjustments exist in a tight circle.

Teachernet – UK

http://www.teachernet.gov.uk

This award winning site incorporates an extensive number of interactive elements designed for educational professionals across the UK.

State of Queensland, Australia – Volunteer Emergency Workers Portal

http://volunteers.emergency.qld.gov.au

A leading site for coordination and involvement of volunteer emergency workers. This effort has attracted corporate donations and interest. You must be a volunteer emergency worker in Queensland to register and use this site.

GovTalk UK – E-Government Standards Setting Information Exchange

http://www.govtalk.gov.uk

Designed to promote exchange of information on e-government standards. The information dissemination section is strong, while the discussion forums appear to be used only lightly.

U.S. Results Oriented Management and Accountability – Electronic Networking Group

http://www.roma1.org

Funded by the federal government, hosted by a state government, open to NGOs and others interested in Community Action Programs, this e-mail list-based exchange demonstrates how creative relationships can be established to foster ongoing information exchange within public program administrative space.

State of Washington E-mail Lists

http://listserv.wa.gov

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/maillist.html – Example integration.

Likely the most extensive set of public e-mail lists used by any state government in the United States. Most appear to be announcements lists. Government-hosted e-mail lists are extremely difficult to find without word-of-mouth connections to civil servants.

Social Science Information Gateway

http://www.sosig.ac.uk

http://www.rdn.ac.uk/about/

With 70 partner institutions, the Resource Discovery Network is a high quality collection of subject gateways that provide users access to descriptions of freely available, high quality, Web resources indexed by subject experts. Their subject-based e-mail notification system and Grapevine like-minds network feature could revolutionize public policy information exchange on a global basis. To do so, it would need to be applied specifically within the realm of public policy implementation and the specific work of government agencies.

Lessons to Date?

1. All online features must be designed with the end user in mind. They must be usable and easy to learn. Complex systems reduce the size of the participatory audience. Public net-work cannot rely on an internal office environment where people can be required to learn new systems or use specialty software beyond their existing e-mail and a web browser. To provide a strong incentive, these systems must save the time it takes those implementing public policy to do their job effectively.

2. Public net-work sites broaden the awareness of quality information resources on a timely basis. Finding what you need, when you need it is more likely to occur when a community of interest participates in building a comprehensive resource. Overtime, these sites will naturally face information overload/currency issues that must be handled.

3. Building trust among the organizations and individuals participating in the development and everyday use of a collaborative site is essential. If a lead organization overly “brands” the site, partnership difficulties will arise. Brief interviews with a number of case examples leads noted that special care must be taken when building partner relationships. Partnerships, with clear responsibilities and goals, will position efforts as a truly participatory community projects.

4. Gathering and sharing incentives, particularly for resource links is a particularly tricky area. Involving people with solid librarianship and communication skills is essential. Creating a more sustainable model where participants more actively submit information (e.g. seeking submissions from users for more than 5% of link listings for example) is an ongoing challenge. In-kind partnerships where staff time is donated may be more effective than relying heavily on the time of unaffiliated individual volunteers. With more localized efforts, individual volunteers may be the best or only option.

5. Informal information sharing has tremendous potential. To effectively encourage horizontal communication, facilitation is often required. Leveraging the years of experience of academia with thousands of topical e-mail lists (practically hidden) across the Internet is advised. Also, noting all the dead web forums scattered across the Internet, attempts to create web-only solutions for ongoing public policy information exchange have failed for the most part (not including well promoted, relevant, time-specific web-based online consultations or high traffic sites where people provide commentary on news items). The CommunityBuilder.NSW site is one of the few sites I have seen that effectively integrates e-mail and web technologies for sustained online deliberation and information exchange.

6. The connection to decision-makers and authority is significant. Government-led public net-work projects require political leadership and strong management support. Paradoxically, an effective online involvement program on the implementation side of government, if connected to agency leaders, may reduce the need for online consultation on the input side of policy making. Why? The exchange of experiences, ideas, and feedback on government work by stakeholders early in the implementation process will allow agencyies to make mid-stream corrections. Think of public net-work as an “early warning system” on potential future policy pressures that may now be accommodated through incremental adjustments rather than future political battles requiring major reforms. The key is to open up government leaders to those on the front lines both delivering and receiving public service.

Where to next?

1. Research and analysis is required on these and other emerging projects. Public net-work is a new area of e-government activity. The external/multi-organization stakeholder participation component central to public net-work is uniquely enabled by ICTs. There is little research on this area of government activity. Public net-work development can leverage research on knowledge management in government <http://www.km.gov> including Communities of Practice <http://www.tcm.com/trdev/cops.htm> and groupware/computer-mediated communication <http://www.usabilityfirst.com/groupware/>.

2. Promoting awareness of existing projects is essential to encourage similar efforts around the world. The best practices about this form of public service needs to be captured. Connecting those involved with related efforts in academia and NGOs with those in government would create a solid community of practice around public net-work.

3. E-Government implementation is an ideal topic for structured online international information exchange among those on the frontlines. Most exchange comes through traditional conferences and niche media coverage. National and international conferences work well for managers and top experts, but this does not encourage peer-to-peer exchange among those building or running online services. Participation by e-government staff in an international public net-work initiative would be an effective way to introduce this line of activity to heart of e-government around the world.

4. NGO/University-led projects on the outside of government should be pursued when institutional barriers in government don’t allow/encourage open information exchange. Developing a trusted host for information exchange is a difficult process. At very local level, neighborhoods for example, the role of government and other groups often blends together. The challenge is to get someone to play a facilitation role such that those doing public work can focus on meeting their public interest goals more effectively.

5. Be cautious. There are limits to the value of information exchange. Too much information, or bad information, can paralyze decision-making or distract people from the task at hand. All good things should be taken in moderation.

6. The more local, the more likely citizens can and should be directly involved in the implementation of public policy via ICTs. Lessons from crime prevention in Minneapolis and volunteer emergency services in Queensland point to a dynamic opportunity for achieving public goals in partnership with individual citizens.

Conclusion

The two-way nature of ICTs will change government and how our societies identify and solve public challenges. When? How? That is unknown. However, making this information-age change an improvement in way we deliver the results of governance will require successful public net-work and related initiatives at all levels of government around the world.

An article originally hosted on E-Democracy.Org. An updated version and additional resources are available from E-Democracy.Org’s Issues Forum section.

By Steven Clift, Board Chair, E-Democracy
Revised and Updated, May 2003

Many-to-Many E-mail Discussions Start Here

Despite thousands of political online discussions across the Internet, an active “online public commons” e-mail list probably does not -yet- exist for your town, region, or nation.

Most online discussions are based on a specific topic, cause, or hosted by someone with an ax to grind or secret agenda.  What we need are geography/democracy-based multi-topic online public spaces sponsored in a non-partisan way (by a group of individuals through a club, non-profit, or community partnership, etc.) where citizens from across the political spectrum gather for online discussion and deliberation on real public issues.

E-mail discussions work because subscribers only have to make a commitment once when they join. With the web, people must proactively decide to visit a forum every time they go online. To help you on internet marketing discussions you can checkout Internet SEO companies for 2018. The job of the forum host or facilitator is to build and maintain a participatory audience by keeping message volume in check and mediating disputes in a fair manner. You can also check out https://www.shakespearemedia.com.au/services/#corporate-videos for more online marketing services.

Step-by-step.  You can do it.

1. Your Democracy – Pick your geographic area according to a political jurisdiction.  Democracy is based on geography – so your town, county, state/province, or country would work.  Consider starting with an area under 6 million in population. This just seems to work better. Neighborhoods are also a natural starting point, but try starting city-wide first and encourage others to establish neighborhood e-mail lists.

2. Charter – Draft a discussion charter, rules, and guidelines.  This is essential.  Your two paragraph description of the forum will set the tone for the e-mail list.  It is much easier to start with good rules than to add them later.  We have found great success with two rules – 1. No one may post more than twice a day.  2. All posts must be signed with the participant’s full real name and city.
See the Background Resources in the right column for models to use.

3. Working Group – Create a working group or club to serve as the non-partisan, likely non-profit, trusted, neutral host for the discussion list.  The host organization must be issue neutral for a true online public commons to develop.  Get your working group to discuss in detail and agree to the draft charter.  Develop and assign specific list management roles.  If you have an interest, not just in Minnesota, E-Democracy can serve as your legal host and provide technical support. Contact us.

4. E-mail List – Set-up the e-mail list and web archives.  If you can find a local site to donate services all the better.  If not try one of the recommended free services in the right column or contact E-Democracy to join our efforts.  With these free services it only takes a few minutes to technically set-up a list.  Don’t let this fool you.  The hard work is yet to come.  You might consider one list for unmoderated discussion and one for moderated announcements if your area has a large population or lots of subscribers. 

Be sure to place a text footer at the bottom of each list message that tells someone how to subscribe/unsubscribe.  This Samba Binary Options Website will reduce the number of technical requests and turn every forwarded message into a marketing tool to promote the forum. If you want to learn on how to advertise cleaning business services techniques, visit weblaunchlocal.com for more information.

5. Recruit – Your discussion subscribers must be recruited one at a time.  Period.  Build it and they will never come unless you tell them it is there.  Set a minimum number of subscribers you want (say 100) before opening the discussion for postings.  Develop a recruitment list with the help of others and e-mail, call, and physically visit community leaders, elected officials, and local journalists to get them on the list.  Average citizens will not waste their time presenting their views if they feel no one who matters is listening.  However, don’t put the success of the forum on the shoulders of elected officials – invite everyone to join as citizens.  Politicians will talk because, like other participants, they will see the discussion as an agenda setting tool.  Also, the more people subscribed when you open the list for posting, the broader and deeper the sense of community ownership. Consider other in-person recruiting events in the community and have a sign-up sheet with plenty of room to clearly write an e-mail address.

6. Publicity – Be sure to open with a coordinated publicity campaign in the early stages.  Use your initial pre-opening recruited members to help recruit others and to develop a regional press list.  Be sure to get the full e-mail subscribe instructions everywhere.  Only sharing the web address for the list information/sign-up will greatly limit the number of people who sign up.  You will get one major press hit.  You might try special online events, like a candidate E-Debate or other online events/consultations to generate publicity and awareness of the forum.  Celebrate list anniversaries by encouraging in-person picnics and happy hours at local venues.

7. Facilitate – Make all subscribers feel welcome.  Send private encouragement to those who participate.  You will have much better success gearing the forum toward local issue discussions and away from flame wars if you first get on their good side by building a trusting relationship.  Send public decorum notes on an occasional basis and seed new topics to keep the discussion interesting or to shift attention away from a negative thread. On rare occasions you will need to publicly ask people to stop or better yet move it to a different forum.  Try to address the abstract discussion trend or group as a whole whenever possible. Be firm, be fair, but remember the interests of whole instead of worrying about a few individuals who think it is their right to talk about whatever topic they want. Keep people true to the scope of the forum outlined in the charter.

8. Reminders – Send monthly reminders about the list charter and rules and encourage the subscribers to recruit more participants.

9. Join Others – The best way to connect with others around the world who are building online public commons in their democracy is to join the Democracies Online Newswire. Please share your public announcements and send queries to your peers.

Background Resources

• A Wired Agora Presentation
• MN-POLITICS Charter and Rules
• St. Paul Issues Forum Charter
• Minneapolis Issues Forum Archive (on left)
• Training from E-Democracy
• Research on E-Democracy style forums

Diagrams
Click image for larger size.

Interactive Public Commons – Agora

Web is Passive – Demo Online

E-mail is Active – Demo Online

Technical Resources –  E-mail Lists

Once registered with these services you can start your own free e-mail list with web archives:

• YahooGroups
• Topica
• SmartGroups
• CommunityZero
• GroupCare

What about newsgroups? Political newsgroups do exist in many places around the world. Visit Google Groups to find groups of interest.  While the web has democratized access to newsgroups, local groups tend have a limit audience at the local level.  Few people with political power or influence use newsgroups.  They are the best place to send unruly e-mail list members who can’t swallow your two posts a day rule.

What about web forums? Newspapers tend to host the most active online discussions on local and regional issues.  Discussions tend to be in response to specific stories and the online space tends to function as a privatized discussion connected to the news outlet.  Useful, but generally not a place for people to organize new efforts politically.  Web forums also are used at a more local level for organizing and hosting online special events.  Read some hosting advice from David Woolley. Our friends with e-thepeople are doing a good job with policy discussions on the web as of late.

What about chat? Chat is almost entirely useless for many to many political discussions.  Useful implementations tend to be moderated live interviews with candidates, elected officials, and guest experts.

Source version

Clift: costruiamo la democrazia elettronica byte dopo byte

“Votare on line sarà presto una scelta politica”di Marta Mando’

Per l’esperto americano Steven Clift, che da anni si occupa dell’uso di Internet per la politica e l’amministrazione, la democrazia elettronica deve essere costruita dal basso col contributo di tutti i cittadini.

Elezioni presidenziali negli Stati Uniti in “stand by”: secondo lei ciò che sta accadendo è espressione di una democrazia solida o semplicemente c’è qualcosa che non va nel vostro sistema elettorale? Se fosse stato possibile votare via Internet sarebbe accaduto lo stesso?

A distanza di secoli, o anche a intervalli più brevi, ogni democrazia si imbatte in situazioni che la sfidano. Queste elezioni, incredibilmente incerte, hanno evidenziato l’importanza della legittimità del processo di voto. L’uso di moderne tecnologie di voto è essenziale. I sistemi basati sulle schede perforate, nei luoghi in cui sono tuttora in uso, dovrebbero essere eliminati. Nel mio Stato, il Minnesota, la maggior parte delle contee usa sistemi computerizzati per la lettura ottica delle schede. Il presidente di seggio sa immediatamente se qualcuno ha votato erroneamente, la sua scheda viene distrutta e gliene viene consegnata un’altra.

Queste elezioni americane saranno probabilmente le ultime con i tradizionali seggi elettorali. Per le prossime elezioni, nel 2004, si farà forse un ricorso massiccio al voto elettronico. Potrebbe indicare quali sono i rischi e quali i vantaggi del voto online?

Al contrario, queste elezioni ritarderanno di anni il voto via Internet. Elezioni con distacchi così ridotti ricordano che la legittimazione democratica si fonda su un voto limpido, verificabile e affidabile. Votare via Internet? Senza carta? Alcuni dei sistemi elettronici usati nei seggi elettorali emettono delle ricevute stampate. Finché la perdita di voti elettronici non sarà evitabile nel 99,99 per cento dei casi, deve rimanere una registrazione scritta.

Il trasferimento dati non è ancora a prova di manipolazioni. Come si potrebbe, quindi, votare online? Pensa che il voto elettronico possa estendere la partecipazione dei cittadini, limitando l’astensionismo, gli errori e le frodi?

Col tempo la scelta di votare online sarà sentita come una scelta politica e non tecnica. Avremo sistemi per votare online in grado di soddisfare i rigorosi requisiti delle operazioni di voto. Nonostante queste garanzie molti si opporranno al voto online per ragioni politiche. Il sistema bipartitico americano, involontariamente, non incoraggia i nuovi votanti a partecipare. Nel nostro sistema, infatti, chi vince prende tutto e gli elettori occasionali causano tale incertezza ai partiti politici che i loro voti spesso non sono ricercati dai candidati. Inoltre, senza l’alternativa del voto per posta, sono nettamente contrario al voto online a causa della natura esclusiva https://nygoodhealth.com dell’accesso alle tecnologie.

In che modo l’uso di Internet può cambiare la partecipazione democratica e la politica?

Internet sta già cambiando la democrazia. Se si tratta di un cambiamento in meglio o in peggio è da vedere. Abbiamo bisogno di una generazione di “e-cittadini” che usino Internet per agevolare la partecipazione e il processo di preparazione delle decisioni. Non dovremmo accontentarci di una versione online dell’attuale politica dall’alto. Internet può essere usata per scopi democratici, per promuovere cambiamenti positivi. Si può cominciare dal basso con annunci via e-mail e liste di discussione (un’agora on line) nei quartieri o in comunità più ampie. Dobbiamo costruire la “democrazia elettronica” byte dopo byte. Non ci sono scorciatoie. Accadrà solo se tutti noi daremo un contributo e faremo la nostra parte.

Può dare una breve definizione di “democrazia elettronica”?

Democrazia elettronica ha tanti significati quanti ne ha il termine democrazia. Un decennio di esperienza nella costruzione di una democrazia elettronica mostra che la maggior parte di noi vuole migliorare il mondo che ci circonda. Vogliamo processi decisionali aperti ed efficaci, che prevedano l’impiego di Internet. Alcuni sperano in una democrazia più diretta, altri vogliono migliorare la democrazia rappresentativa. Io sono un “incrementalista radicale” che sostiene la tradizionale democrazia rappresentativa ma si sforza di accrescere il potere dei cittadini nella risoluzione dei problemi pubblici. Perché aspettare che il governo sia al nostro servizio quando possiamo usare gli strumenti telematici e la società civile può assumere la guida della risoluzione dei problemi dove e quando si presentano?

Potrebbe accadere che chi non conosce Internet rimanga escluso dalla partecipazione politica?

Certamente. Tuttavia la democrazia subirà un duplice colpo se useremo questa scusa per non sviluppare strumenti idonei a un impegno democratico online. Man mano che più gente usa Internet diventa sempre più difficile dar forma alle aspettative degli utenti, vecchi e nuovi. Dobbiamo far sì che la rete possa essere un luogo per compiere scelte di carattere pubblico tanto quanto per conversare con gli amici, scaricare file musicali e fare acquisti.

Cosa ne pensa della pubblicità elettorale in rete? È un sistema che funziona negli Stati Uniti?

I candidati e i partiti politici non hanno fatto un buon uso di Internet per la pubblicità elettorale. Fino a poco tempo fa il motivo principale dell’impiego di Internet in campagna elettorale è stato quello di attirare l’attenzione dei media. Alla fine, nel 2000, hanno cominciato a realizzare mailing list per motivare e attivare i sostenitori durante la campagna. Il partito Repubblicano si è sforzato di combinare i banner pubblicitari con la costruzione di una rete di sostenitori collegati per posta elettronica.

E-Governance to E-Democracy:
Progess in Australia and New Zealand toward Information-Age Democracy

By Steven Clift Online Strategist and Public Speaker  http://www.publicus.net Editor, Democracies Online Newswire http://www.e-democracy.org/do Copyright 2002 Steven Clift – All rights reserved. This article may be freely linked to, cited or quoted with simple e-mail notification to the author and a commitment to share copies of any final derivative works. The full text of this article may only be redistributed online or in print with the express permission of the author and the Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance.

This article was commissioned by the Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance.  See Part B of their International Tracking Report Number 3.

 

E-Governance to E-Democracy:
Progress in Australia and New Zealand toward Information-Age Democracy 

Prepared for the Commonwealth
Centre for Electronic Governance by Steven Clift <http://www.publicus.net>
in March 2002.

 

Introduction 

E-democracy means different
things to different people.  In different countries and political
systems the term is generally connected to the broad use of the Internet
in politics, advocacy, elections, and governance. In most places it is
misunderstood to primarily mean e-voting. This article focuses on the dynamic
aspects of e-democracy between elections in governance. 

My working concept of e-governance
relates to the preparation of government as it reacts to information, technology
and communications (ICTs) trends on its traditional governance and role
in society.  It is the climate for governance in an online world. 
E-democracy builds on e-governance and focuses on the actions and innovations
enabled by ICTs combined with higher levels of democratic motivation and
intent. 

This paper focuses specifically
on one element of e-democracy – governance and representative democracy
in the information age.  On my recent visit in November 2001 to Australia
and New Zealand (in-person and online) I discovered a number of activities
deserving greater attention. 

E-democracy within government
remains at an early stage around the world, but these two countries should
be listed in the top ten in terms of government interest.  The role
of government in e-democracy is important.  Investments in online
applications and new approaches in the official representative and consultative
processes are considerably more sustainable than projects from the “outside”
that typified early e-democracy explorations in the United States. 

This article focuses on four
key areas: 

1. Policy development and
political leadership 

2. Enhanced information
access and e-mail notification 

3. Representative strategies
in parliaments and local councils 

4. Online consultation and
communities of practice 

With each area I will provide
examples and web addresses for further information. 

 

1. Policy development
and political leadership 

The current e-democracy policy
activities of the UK government <http://www.edemocracy.gov.uk> 
within the E-Envoy’s office <http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk>
and the new E-democracy committee of the parliament are being watched closely
in Australia and New Zealand.  The recently released OECD guide titled,
“Citizens as Partners Guide: Information, Consultation and Public Participation
in Policy-Making” <http://www1.oecd.org/publications/e-book/4201131e.pdf>
has also generated new interest and comment within government circles in
these two countries. 

In the e-government world,
the need for political leadership and vision is stated again and again.
Rarely do heads of government or members of parliament hear from citizens
about the need to better utilize ICTs in government.  It simply does
not rank up there with the services people receive directly like education
and health care. 

Combine this reality with
information and technology agency “silos” that often resist cooperative
approaches designed to serve citizens from the citizen perspective and
you have a very complex situation where inaction is the least risky route. 
In countries where political leaders have made numeric goals related to
e-government, such as Australia and New Zealand, my personal observation
is that with those goals, the political cover provided allows champions
within government to deliver and gain access to the resources required
to meet those goals. 

According to the UK e-government
benchmarking study about Australia, “The 1997 announcement by Prime Minister
John Howard that all appropriate Federal Government services would be provided
online by 2001 has provided significant impetus to progress.” <http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/publications/reports/

benchmarkingV2/summary_aus.htm>. 
In New Zealand the government lists in their E-Vision <http://www.govt.nz/evision/>
a number of e-government five-year goals to help “people judge what progress
has been made.” 

Why is this important to
e-democracy?  It is my sense that the governments with integrated,
high profile e-government service efforts are the first to expand actively
into to the area of “representative e-government.”  By representative
e-government, I mean government bodies that either represent people like
parliaments and local council or those departments and agencies that consult
with citizens and stakeholders often as required by law. 

While I argue that governments
have an obligation to develop e-services and e-democracy at the same time,
most governments are focused on services first. In many places the policy
seems to be services first, democracy later. While parliaments and other
representative institutions are online, their information technology and
communication resources have paled in comparison to the administrative
side of government. Democracy is falling behind and power is shifting as
a result of a non-policy that by default gears most resources toward the
“holy grail” of transaction services. 

This is beginning to change.
Some parliaments and representative bodies are increasing their information
and communication technology investments and leading government departments
are beginning to adapt their in-person citizen and stakeholder consultation
requirements to the information age. 

At the national level in
Australia, the National Office of the Information Economy <http://www.noie.gov.au>,
which coordinates e-government, is taking up the issue of online citizen
engagement <http://www.noie.gov.au/publications/speeches/rimmer/

canada1710/sld016.htm>. 
They are at an early stage and their staff has indicated that they want
to explore this issue in terms of administrative responsibilities. 
As host of the joint Online Council of Federal, State and Territorial leaders
they discussed e-democracy at their March 2002 meeting <http://www.noie.gov.au/publications/media%5Freleases/

2002/mar2002/online%5Fcouncil.htm>. 
The Council “acknowledged that e-democracy is a significant issue emerging
for governments in Australia and agreed that Australia’s position as a
world leader in eGovernment continues to be reflected in progress regarding
e-democracy. Ministers were pleased with the progress made to date, in
terms of the application of online consultation, and in the development
of policies and strategies to allow people to better engage with government.” 

 

The State of Victoria announced
an E-Democracy Inquiry <http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/web_notes/newmedia.nsf/

ebfd7a9e83f839b34a2568110023b2e3/

8747b9a1469ada824a256b66007c3252?OpenDocument> 

in February 2002. 
Through both Liberal and Labour governments, Victoria has a long history
of funding ICT development across multiple sectors of their state. 
The state library’s VICNET <http://www.vicnet.net.au>
project helps connect people and organizations to the Internet through
training and education and unlike most access promotion projects it provides
civic navigation of regional content.  Multimedia Victoria promotes
better understanding of things “e” including e-democracy <http://www.egov.vic.gov.au/Research/ElectronicDemocracy/voting.htm>
and continues to push aggressive e-government development.  Back in
1999, the Victorian government initiated a previous democracy online exploration
that led in part to a small online consultation experiment in late 2001. 

Last, and most important,
are the e-democracy policy developments in the State of Queensland 
<http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/community/democracy.htm>.
In November 2001, the Queensland Cabinet approved both a comprehensive
community engagement policy and a special e-democracy policy framework.
This is the clearest sign of political support for e-democracy issued by
government in the region, perhaps anywhere in the world to date. 

In the forward of the Community
Engagement Division’s Direction Statement, Premier Bettie states, “The
role of Government is changing. The community is seeking better Government
leadership through increased public participation in decision-making. 
I am willing to accept this challenge.” He goes on to say that, “Strengthening
relations with citizens is a sound investment in better policy-making by
allowing government to tap new sources of relevant ideas, information and
resources when making decisions.” 

Within this document, a commitment
is made to a Queensland E-Democracy Three Year Trial. Approved by Cabinet
and assigned to the Community Engagement Division, this is the highest
level of formal e-democracy policy interest that I have seen in any government.
Current developments in the UK will certainly place it in the lead on a
national scale, but Queensland may be the place to watch in terms of measurable
and identifiable outcomes due to its relatively modest population of around
3 million people. 

Here are some important excerpts
from Queensland’s “E-democracy policy framework” (see <http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/community/pdf/edemocracy.pdf>
for the full version of this extremely important document): 

 

The Queensland Government
is committed to exploring the many new opportunities the Internet brings
and to discovering ways in which this medium can strengthen participative
democracy within Queensland -The Smart State. 

E-democracy is at the convergence
of traditional democratic processes and Internet technology.  It refers
to how the Internet can be used to enhance our democratic processes and
provide increased opportunities for individuals and communities to interact
with government. 

E-democracy comprises a range
of Internet based activities that aim to strengthen democratic processes
and institutions, including government agencies.  Some of the ways
in which this can be delivered include: 

· providing accessible
information resources online;  · conducting policy consultation
online; and  · facilitating electronic input to policy development. 

It is the responsibility
of government to expand the channels of communication to reach as many
citizens as possible.  The Internet is not inherently democratic,
but it can be used for democratic purposes. The full implications of how
the Internet will enhance this interaction are yet to be explored. 

 

Their three-year trial includes: 

The Queensland Government’s
commitment for the next three years is to: 

· post a number of
issues on the website on which the Government desires wide consultation
and feedback; 

· provide online access
to Government consultation documents relevant to those issues, such as
discussion and policy papers and draft bills; 

· broadcast Parliamentary
debates over the Internet; and 

· develop a system
to accept petitions to the Queensland Parliament online. 

In my brief time with
New Zealand <http://www.e-government.govt.nz/participation/>
e-government officials, they too presented an early policy interest in
e-democracy. In most governments, now is the time to get policy questions
on the table.  One indication of forward thinking in New Zealand,
which I’ll mention later, is their extremely high profile presentation
of information on government consultations on their home page. 

From a global comparative
vantage point, it is my sense that you don’t need an e-democracy policy
to have a government with a number of useful democracy services online.
However, when it comes to second and third generation applications and
government-wide initiatives that require resources and political support,
high level policy direction will accelerate and deepen activities. It is
important for government leaders to be able to see e-democracy progress
and celebrate the innovations taking place under their noses.  Governments
with a “just do it” e-democracy history will benefit from policy direction
along with those who require an e-democracy policy to develop applications
and initiatives. 

In conclusion, a strong e-democracy
policy with specific measurable goals is essential to promote long-term
progress.  The alternative is to muddle around with limited accountability
like we see with e-government as a whole in places without aggressive evaluation
and goal setting.  Citizens can’t choose governments that do a better
job with e-democracy like they can choose between competing commercial
web sites.  This is why top level political support, articulated in
policy is so essential to move government organizations and their democratic
processes forward into the information age. 

 

2. Enhanced information
access and e-mail notification 

An argument was made in the
late 1990s that the natural evolution of e-government was from information
access to the provision of transaction services. Providing better and more
effective access to information was not hip in a world dominated by headlines
about the future of e-commerce. 

However, to this day the
vast majority of Internet users (U.S. users surveyed by the Markle Foundation
<http://www.markle.org> as part
of their Internet Accountability study) view the web as a “library” and
not an online shopping mall. The reality is that one of the primary functions
of government is the creation and dissemination of information. And the
lack of comparative focus on improving the methods of online access to
ever increasing amounts of government information online has lead to a
crisis of online navigation and usability for citizens. 

Try to imagine a library
without a card catalog where undated books are piled in boxes located in
different rooms.  Oh, did I mention that some books vanish and change
without notice and that the rooms are organized by agency without doors
or hallways to connect them. In this library, you have to climb up a rope
to the roof and repel down into the next information “silo” hoping to find
what you need. Finally, after a few hours of looking a little sign on the
wall tells you that you are in the wrong library completely and need to
go to the library of a different level of government. As I have said before,
if you have a web page and no one can find it, do you really have a web
page? 

Providing timely, enhanced
information access should be a core e-democracy goal of government. 
While much of the information government provides is service related or
not directly related to policy development or decision-making, public accountability
and understanding of public service is greatly improved when people can
easily navigate information and services across government based on their
needs and interests. 

Enter the public portal.
It is my belief, based on conversations in Australia and New Zealand that
they are taking a more balanced approach to e-government than with the
“services first, democracy later” approach I see in my home country, the
United States.  Public portals, with cross agency links and directories
based on topic/theme/audience emerged in places like Canada, Australia,
and New Zealand a year or two earlier than in most other states and countries.
This experience is beginning to build a new kind of civil servant who serves
the citizen online from the citizen’s perspective rather than just being
accountable to a single agency in terms of expressing the agencies view
of itself to the world. These special collaborative online directory efforts
that serve groups or topics (i.e. seniors, youth, or health, new child,
etc.) are building cumulative knowledge and collaborative multi-agency
working clusters. 

Presenting content (particularly
through links) from the citizen (business, organization, stakeholder, etc.)
perspective rather than that of one agency is building a unified brand
identity for the public portal.  It is building audience for government
content and creating citizen expectations for further navigation and content
access improvements in the future.  It is also building knowledge
within government about the kinds of information people actually use versus
those things consultants or citizens might say they want. Within governments
and among governments there is a tremendous opportunity for knowledge sharing
about what kinds of government information is available as well the style,
format and delivery of that information which is most popular. 

Three public portal efforts
I want to mention are: 

Australia – This site <http://www.fed.gov.au>
is latest version of their federal portal. As part of a marketing buy lorazepam overnight effort
for e-government with the state’s they have also launched <http://www.gov.au>.
From the Federal portal they clearly present organized links into the “Government
& Parliament.”  This section not only links to the home page of
parliament, it also helps the user find key sections and related web sites.
Next up is the just released portal that combines national and state resources
<http://australia.gov.au>. As
a side comment, all government portals would benefit from a profile link
<http://australia.gov.au/portals/about_gov.asp>
to a simple and easy to understand explanation of “how your government
works” as well as a tip sheet on how to provide online policy input into
government along with advice on sending in customer service complaints.
Policy input needs to be channeled appropriately and not get stuck in customer
service. 

State of Victoria – This
site <http://www.vic.gov.au> has
some of the most developed theme spaces for links across government. 
As I noted above, Victoria has provided government funding for a number
of online initiative outside the core area of government services. 
Visitors to the Victorian government’s portal quickly get the sense that
this is your “state” and not this is just your “government.”  Their
“Citizens and Community” section on the portal give this sense while the
“Government” section takes you to the representative institutions of their
government. 

New Zealand – This site <http://www.govt.nz>
is unique among almost all government portals.  It is designed much
more as an online news sites (i.e. what’s new across government) with a
pull down menu to frequently request information and services based on
topic. This presentation of “what’s new” across government leads me to
my next set of comments. 

 

E-mail notification and personalization
of public portal features will lead the next revolution in e-government. 
If today’s government portals represent the aggregate knowledge about user
interest as understood by government, personalization will turn things
upside down and allow citizens, based on their unique interests, to be
notified on a timely basis about information in which they are interested.
The convenience of being told when frequently updated information (or rarely
updated information) is available in a manner chosen by the user is tremendously
powerful.  Imagine a preferences page where you can choose how you’d
like to be notified about a major policy document – e-mail, SMS/Text messaging,
instant messaging, personalized web page.  Services like Spyonit 
<http://www.spyonit.com> allow
you to monitor any web page today for changes.  These features will
be built into the better government portal sites. 

E-mail notification may be
the number one e-democracy application for government in the next five
years. Why? Notification does not require a government to change how and
when it releases a document online, it simply allows people to opt-in to
be told when a document, meeting announcement, etc. is available. 
Timely access to information has tremendous political value. The highly
obscure release of important documents buried deep on an agency web site
will become a thing of the past in e-democracy friendly governments. Making
content effectively available online when the time to comment and influence
policy still exists will be one of the most cost-effective e-democracy
moves by government. 

However, if this is to be
done from the government-wide portal level, which it should when possible
in order to have the greatest whole-of-government impact, a sophisticated
collaborative development scheme will be required. Notification as a default,
not the exception, will require both the automatic and manual aggregation
of document availability and description information and the automatic
dissemination of this information based on user preferences.  This
will require the use of database-driven approaches and likely XML. 
This will go way beyond hand-edited “what’s new” web pages and e-mail newsletters. 
E-mail newsletters are an important starting point and should be established
immediately to build experience with notification. 

While I am sure there are
other examples, the best starting point example of topical e-mail announcement
lists I could find comes from the Australian Human Right and Equal Opportunity
Commission <http://www.hreoc.gov.au/mailing_lists/>
on topics such as Children & Youth, Complaints and Legal, Disability
Rights, Indigenous, Racial Discrimination, and more. This is an important
first step where people can sign-up to receive edited announcements and
updates.  In my opinion every government web site and portal should
have at least one opt-in e-mail newsletter that at a minimum shares what
is new on the site each week or no less than once a month.  An initial
aggregate personalization feature at the portal level is the ability from
one web page to selected or sign-off the e-newsletters of choice from across
government. 

For outstanding early examples
of the more systematic approach we need to look to the UK and some local
governments in the State of Minnesota. The <http://www.info4local.gov.uk> 
site in the UK is geared toward those in local government seeking updates
about information from central government.  It allows users to receive
instant e-mails on selected subjects and document types from selected UK
government departments.  You can also sign-up to receive links to
new releases, but at this point the coding required to personalize what
you receive is not implemented.  In St. Paul, Minnesota <http://www.ci.stpaul.mn.us>
the use of a service from Govdocs.com <http://www.govdocs.com>
allows people to sign-up to receive key city documents as they are placed
on the web such as city council meeting notices, agendas, minutes and the
like.  City staffers now know how many people will instantly receive
an update about the content they upload. They no longer have to ponder
whether anyone reads what they put online six clicks from the home page. 
This has increased timely awareness of government information in St. Paul
and has firmly established the business case for the work required to fully
integrate online access into city processes. 

 

3. Representative strategies
in parliaments and local councils 

When I mention the concept
of “representative e-government” a light goes off in people’s head. 
That is right, we already have representative institutions and what they
do online to provide better access to their current processes is important. 
In the early days of e-democracy interest, many assumed it meant direct
democracy where people would vote on everything because the technology
would enable it.  People are now realizing that how often you vote
and how you vote (polling places, by mail, online, or combination) are
primarily political choices. What e-democracy does best is allow representative
institutions to add more participatory features that engage citizens between
elections. 

On my recent trip I spent
a number of days with staff from the Christchurch City Council and met
with a number of those who worked on the Australian Parliaments web presence.
In my recently released “Future of E-Democracy” <http://www.publicus.net/articles/future.html>
speech/article I explore issues related to putting in-person public hearings
online, full featured online constituent offices, and what I called “wired
elected officials” or Weos. I won’t go into detail here. Instead I’ll focus
on some important trends I observed down under and over top (Canada). 

Like many parliaments around
the world, their web sites do not lack substance.  While I have no
knowledge about the specifics of Australia, the general trend is that first
and second-generation parliament web sites are driven by staff champions. 
It is not that Members of Parliament are not supportive; they don’t really
know what they might be missing, so why be too concerned? Also, with parliamentary
forms of government, the Cabinet members get to take advantage of their
department’s online resources while backbenchers and opposition members
have limited online support. 

The “online constituent office”
seems to be emerging as a set of uniform service options or it is unfolding
as political communication tool developed competitively by party caucuses.
I suggest a hybrid approach where as much as possible is developed uniformly
for all members to assist them with their official duties online and only
those highly partisan or election-related online activities be reserved
exclusively for party parliamentary caucus technology. 

In New Zealand, there is
increasing interest in e-democracy at the local level.  For sometime,
the Wellington City Council <http://www.wcc.govt.nz/yoursay/>
has listed current consultations online and has a fairly wired base of
local councilors. 

In Christchurch, the Council
<http://www.ccc.govt.nz/> has
recently assumed day-to-day responsibility for their government’s web presence
from the library.  Christchurch’s deep collection of local content,
presents a fuller community picture than I have seen just about anywhere
else.  Because the local media sites are part of a national online
media conglomerate, the government site is viewed as the highest traffic
site in the community. 

The library will now lead
an exciting project to build an even broader and inclusive Christchurch
Online site with council funding and support.  I am interested in
how this new entity might be able to host discussion and civic interactivity
that the Council itself may hesitate to host on its server. They may have
the foundation for the e-democracy one-two punch that Minnesota E-Democracy
has played in relation to government and media sites in the U.S. (I am
Board Chair of E-Democracy.). 

Along with the Council’s
interest in exploring online consultations, I had a number of conversations
about the tools local councilors need to be better representatives in the
information age. It must be noted that elected officials at all levels
have the most varied degree of technical skill and aptitude of any active
group of players in the e-democracy world.  As official representatives,
they are the most legitimate actors, so how they are supported is fundamentally
important for the future of democracy as a whole.  We do not want
the information age to pass them by.  They must be supported so they
can become more effective information age representatives.  I should
note that that the Mayor of Christchurch stands out for his web site <http://www.christchurchmayor.org.nz/>
and the personality it exudes. 

 

4. Online consultations
and communities of practice 

Experimentation with government-led
online consultation and hosting of citizen discussions has a strong start
in Australia.  Much of this activity is at the state level. The most
established and cited example on my trip was the government-hosted Talking
Point web forums <http://www.talkingpoint.sa.gov.au>
hosted by the State of South Australia. At this, time these open forums
on public topics are closed while their state elections are underway. 
In addition to these discussions, their Premier has appeared in a number
of live chats featured on the site. 

In Victoria, Queensland,
and the Federal level it was suggested that they are more closely exploring
online special events on specific topics with a start and an end date. 
My advice for “online consultation” hosts is featured in my detailed how-to
article on the subject <http://www.publicus.net/articles/consult.html>. 

Both the New Zealand national
portal <http://www.govt.nz/news/index.php3?type=cco>
and a section of the Australian Capitol Territory <http://www.act.gov.au/government/reports/index.html>
list current consultations taking place in the off-line world.  New
Zealand is unique in that it lists consultations prominently on their home
page and the section with further detail includes links to consultations
hosted by local governments as well. 

In Victoria, an experiment
called “Have Your Say” <http://www.haveyoursay.vic.gov.au/discussion/>
is likely to be incorporated as a feature of the main e-government portal
sometime in 2002.  (Link is down, see bottom of thie DO-WIRE post
<http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00347.html>.
An evaluation of their event from October 2001 is pending.  Like many
online experiments, the lack of broad publicity left them with a small
audience. My key piece of advice is that an audience must be recruited
for at least a few weeks before an event starts. 

In Queensland, as mentioned
above, their e-democracy program includes development of a platform for
online consultation across government. This presents an issue that governments
need to explore -should they build a shared platform for consultation used
by multiple departments, parliamentary committees, even the head of government? 
The alternative is a patchwork of online consultation systems implemented
by leading agencies with few systems on smaller government web sites. While
no one platform will serve the needs of all agencies, I’d like to suggest
that building a shared system for online consultation will lead to broader
activity across government. More importantly it will allow citizens to
transfer their knowledge about and experience with the online tool from
one event to another regardless of the host. 

One of the more exciting
government-sponsored interactive examples I have discovered anywhere is
the communitybuilders.nsw <http://www.communitybuilders.nsw.gov.au/>
online “community of practice” hosted by the State of New South Wales. 
If online consultation related to policy development, government-hosted
communities of practice relate to the implementation of policy.  The
Premier of NSW states that the Community Builder initiative is designed
to “to help local communities across the State share ideas on how to enhance
and strengthen their community” … “This site aims to communicate how different
communities have addressed various issues such as enhancing public safety,
stimulating employment and promoting reconciliation. It shows how my government
is forging partnerships with communities around the state. It is very much
your site. Although the Premier’s Department will be responsible for updating
the site and keeping information fresh, the site’s success will depend
on people such as yourself sharing the information you think is relevant.” 
With over 1100 participants, their hybrid web forum – e-mail notification
system with a supporting web site positions government as a facilitator
of public work rather than just as a provider of services. Providing a
many-to-many online space related to a public mandate will allow government
departments to adapt their implementation strategies and incrementally
improve their policy approaches as well.  The Internet improves through
trial and error.  Communities of practice hosted by government may
be a starting point for incremental government reform rather than the huge
mega-project model that often falls on its face.  Finally, through
the VICNET project, the Victorian state government is supporting the creation
of online communities as organized by NGOs, citizens, and others. 
As their MC2 <http://mc2.vicnet.net>
software is upgraded, hopefully with two-way e-mail participation (right
now you must post via the web) it may be extremely useful for governments
and civic organizations around the world. 

 

Conclusion 

I am extremely bullish on
the future of e-democracy in government in Australia and New Zealand. 
They have a unique perspective on the world that encourages them gather
innovative ideas and applications from far away places and adapt them to
their very practical cultures. In North America and Europe, sometimes you
are too close to the action to see what is really important or gain the
perspective required to fully appreciate what really works. 

As the concept of e-democracy
in governance gains hold, I look forward to gathering future lessons and
ideas from Australia and New Zealand for use around the world.