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. 

The Future of E-Democracy – The 50 Year Plan

Release Note: Published online January 2002 – This extended and edited transcript is based on a speech given to the international World Futurist Society <http://www.wfs.org> conference held in Minneapolis, Minnesota on July 31, 2001. This speech is only the start of a “plan.” I try to share a pragmatic, yet futuristic vision of governance when e-democracy exists as an integrated part of “real” everyday representative democracy. I look forward to the time when e-democracy is simply called democracy. Also, the timeline I use in the speech is quite arbitrary and i offer additional reading. While the spread of e-democracy strategies will move slowly in the near term, I foresee dramatic leaps in practice brought on by external social forces. E-democracy will become a democratic necessity and not simply an option for most governments. As you read and reflect on what I have to say, please share your comments, ideas and suggestions with me <http://www.publicus.net/e-mail.html> or post them publicly on the web.

Future of E-Democracy Speech Outline

Introduction
Defining E-democracy
E-Governance – Exceptional Practice Makes Perfect
— E-mail Notice
— In-person Public Hearing Recordings and Materials
— Online Public Hearings and Consultations
— Wired Politicians Reach Out and Serve, or Perish
— Local Civic Deliberations and Global Networking
Trending Toward the Future – Why not look through 2040?
— Family and Social Networking
— E-Government – The E-Business Model that Works?
— New Breed of Politician After 2015
— E-Citizens the Ultimate Challenge
Conclusion

Introduction

I am told that I think out-of-the-box. I don’t think of myself as a “futurist,” perhaps I am a “here and nowist” who operates in a big box. I often find myself throwing things (e-mail that is) into other people’s boxes via my 2,200 member Democracies Online Newswire e-mail list <http://www.e-democracy.org/do>. Networking people and sharing information and knowledge within my networked box is what I do best. Preparing this futurist speech forced me to poke some major holes in that box. As I walked around Lake Calhoun here in Minneapolis and first pondered this task, I wondered if I would see lightness or darkness on the other side? Let me tell you, the process of poking holes is a lot more painful and absorbing than one might expect.

Back in 1994 I helped launch Minnesota E-Democracy <http://www.e-democracy.org>, a non-partisan, non-profit that created the world’s first election-oriented web site. I remember the media excitement. They asked if this was the end of democracy as we know it. They asked if politics would ever be the same. Back then, I am quoted as saying this was simply an “experiment.” To this day I try to reduce expectations and promote a more pragmatic action-oriented vision that says – “Yes, the Internet can improve democracy. Let’s get to work.” The truth is, without significant democracy online efforts, the Internet could instead help accelerate the decline of democracy we hear so much about.

In this speech, I give my working definition of e-democracy, share predictions on the e-governance applications I expect to see on a universal basis in developed democracies about 10 to 15 years from now, and conclude with deeper analysis on four major trends looking out forty years. I picked forty years because a few months ago I told someone that I was ten years into my fifty-year plan. I realized that a 40 year “walk-about” the land of democracy and the Internet wasn’t exactly a plan, so this speech represents my first attempt to create a long-term picture of e-democracy. From this partial picture, we can not only debate what should be done, but also plan and implement measures that can be evaluated in light of well thought out democratic goals and objectives.

Why e-democracy? I want to help people build democracies where every citizen who wants to improve the world around them and be heard on important public issues can participate in public life with freedom and the right to act on their sense of public responsibility. I see a vast democratic divide, much larger than the digital divide, where the scarcity of time and attention is eroding the fabric of civil society and undermining the legitimacy of government. It is essential that we create new channels of representative democracy, enabled by information and communication technologies, that encourage effective “on your own time” participation as legitimate complement to in-person, often time discriminatory forms of political participation.

Commenting directly to the Minnesotans in this audience – through Minnesota E-Democracy and my personal political activities, I seek to shake democratic complacency and excessive partisanship out of our system. I am working hard to bring information and communications technology into the heart of real communities and public policy processes across our state. It is time to shine virtual light on our public decision-making processes and create meaningful avenues for citizen participation in government from anywhere at anytime across our entire state. We can bring the state capitol and city halls and their representative processes into every home, school, library and place of work. With the right information infrastructure combined with essential in-person involvement, we can help solve public problems and not be left on the sidelines only able to protest government action (or inaction). Let’s join other leading efforts around the world and make Minnesota a key global test-bed for the future of democracy. May our lessons of today be understood enough now, so that we may build upon them with gusto. I do not want us to be viewed years from now as a famous spark that failed to light a sustained flame required to help secure the future of democracy in the information age. Let us connect with efforts around the world and build a future for and not against democracy in the information age.

Defining E-democracy

After ten years of direct involvement in this arena, I still think there are more people studying civic-oriented e-democracy efforts (like Minnesota E-Democracy) than actually doing something about it in their own communities and countries. There are and will remain many more people involved in “as is” political and media use of the Internet. In reality, the future of e-democracy rests primarily with the use information and communication technologies by existing sectors of democracy based on their existing missions. Despite the .com meltdown, the good news is that more and more people are using the Internet in politics, governance, and community participation everyday.

In its totality, the concept of “e-democracy” represents the cumulative work of many democratic sectors and actors. In my “E-Democracy E-Book” <http://www.publicus.net/ebook>I share sector-by-sector analysis of current trends in the following areas:

1. Online Campaigning and Political Parties
2. Online Advocacy/Lobbying
3. E-Government, particularly those parts developed by representative institutions
4. Media and portal web sites
5. Private sector, technical standards, and tools provided by the Internet industry and technical communities
6. Civil society efforts (like Minnesota E-Democracy) that leverage the work of the other sectors and build a place for the …
7. E-Citizens

Much of this speech is limited to number 3, the area of “e-government.” I’ll have to spend time knocking more holes in my box and reflect on the other democratic sectors down the road.

Democracy means a million different things to a million different people, so does e-democracy, e-governance, etc… In my opinion e-democracy is not a “thing” or a magical instant replacement for traditional democracy. When the different sectors of democracy in vastly different democracies come see that they are part of an e-democracy puzzle they are much more likely to take action within their area of responsibility and not wait for the big plan or a mega-project that does it all. To build a comprehensive vision, we need to follow the work of our peers <http://www.e-democracy.org/do> and support each other as we enhance and improve democracy in this time of deep information and communications technology infusion into democracy.

E-Governance – Exceptional Practice Makes Perfect

Today I want start with a focus on “e-governance.” To me, e-governance is the connection among citizens and their Internet-enabled representative government institutions. Why government? Government is something we all own. It is something we have a right to jointly change. At a minimum, an Internet-enabled representative democracy will give us better access to and more openness in existing processes. (I know that democracies vary considerably. I encourage you to adapt my comments to your political system and set aside values that come from my civic Midwestern experience.)

Compare this to the other sectors of democracy such as campaigning and advocacy, they will adapt online tools to “win” power and influence. They must to survive. Changing government, our formal legal and legitimate representative democracies, to take advantage of the information age is the starting point for lasting change. I have a great fear that “as is” politics is advancing to the point online that the lack of innovative civic and democratically motivated e-government activity will cement in the minds of citizens the negative aspects of online politics. Will we leave online public spaces to shrill, sometimes delusional voices often dominated by personal and ideological argument where the extremes raise their voice yet the “middle” is nowhere to be found? We must not be complacent. It is time to get inside and help governments initiate online efforts that work to use this medium to achieve better public outcomes.

With my “futurist” hat on, I predict that the following leading practices will be implemented across the board in the vast majority of jurisdictions in economically advanced democracies by 2015. With thousands of political jurisdictions around the world, the diffusion of innovations, strategies, technologies as well as the required public investment will take considerable effort, time, and political initiative. I expect that more universal adaptation of democracy-oriented information strategies and tools will take a couple decades compared to early adopter governments.

The real challenge is to spread innovation from governments with champion-led activities (often with top political and resource support) to those with less initiative, capacity, and political leadership. There will be great differences as well as amazing exceptions among advanced economies and developing democracies. Many less “wired” countries may experience lower levels of grass roots impact, yet overall, many will experience a more dramatic change in their democratic systems than well-rooted democracies. Let us not be satisfied with exceptional implementation in .05 percent of governments. Instead, let us identify emerging applications and accelerate diffusion and investment.

The leading e-democracy practices:

E-mail Notice

If someone wants a business license or permit where you live or if the government plans to take action on an issue you have indicated an interest in, you will be actively notified via e-mail based on your preferences. Personalization with notification will be the measure of a truly wired democracy. Providing passive information access alone without effective, user specified information dissemination options will be viewed as an anti-democratic needle in the information haystack.

Today a regional government in Jutland, Denmark is building such a system <http://www.betasite.dk/vores-kommuneuk/Default.asp?SideID=3&ID2=3>. Across the Mississippi River from here in the great city of St. Paul you can automatically subscribe to receive city council minutes and agendas in your e-mail instead of having to dig through a passive web site <http://www.govdocs.com/servlet/GovDocs/go?code=STPAUL_CityCouncil>. An open questions remains – will governments make it easy for people interested in the same information or issues to opt-into public group communication online or will all communication related to online content be channeled privately from citizens or interest groups to elected officials?

In-person Public Hearing Recordings and Materials

Miss a public hearing? All public government meetings, at every level, will be announced online and recorded digitally and made available both live and in archived format over the Internet. In-person hearings will also allow remote testimony via Internet-based video conferencing and provide instant digital access to all materials and handouts distributed in the meeting to those watching remotely.

You can currently receive all meetings video taped for television broadcast from the Minnesota legislature (rated in 2001 as the best state legislative web site in the U.S. < http://www.csg.org/eagle/2001/2001winners.htm>) via the Internet. Nothing special here, except they also make notations of key events so you can tune into specific sections of the online archives <http://ww3.house.leg.state.mn.us/htv/archivesHTV.asp>. Next session, the House is considering audio feeds, perhaps with a wide-angle stationary video camera maybe I have to invest in a 4k camera for it, from all ten House committee rooms simultaneously. My idea for small local governments and various low-budget government advisory committees – use speaker phones to deliver a basic audio feed to an Internet broadcast and archive facility. There are companies <http://www.dotell.com> that do this today.

Online Public Hearings and Consultations

To counter the extreme political voices heard across the Internet and in the e-mail inbox floods experienced by many elected officials, representative bodies will create special “on your own time” online consultations to gather useful information and citizen experiences for the policy development process. These highly organized and structured online events will have the decorum expected in existing parliamentary and legislative processes. No free-for-all debate here – for that is the role of other parts of the Internet <http://groups.google.com>.

Online consultations are taking off across Europe and Australia with the U.S. trailing far behind. Governments in the U.S. are running into the first amendment and the limitations it puts on moderation or removal of citizen comments by government. U.S. governments will discover that structured online events with decorum do not require content-based censorship rights to work in our system – they will create online spaces where they can move off-topic posts to the appropriate online section. Leading governments will also learn that with anything beyond light facilitation or removing submissions/posts based on content (not including posting style or personal attacks) will lead to citizen complaints and bad publicity.

Perhaps the best online consultation example thus far was the 1999 consultation with survivors of domestic violence and members of the United Kingdom Parliament hosted by the Hansard Society for Parliamentary Government <http://www.hansard-society.org.uk/edemocracy1.htm>. It brought out real stories and allowed anonymous interaction among the survivors to help educate the MPs.

• Related Resource – DO-CONSULT – The Democracies Online Consultations e-mail list is designed for practitioners designing such online events <http://www.e-democracy.org/do>. You will find additional links to online consultations in the DO-WIRE archive from the same web address.

Wired Politicians Reach Out and Serve, or Perish

After a number of cyber-organized people-power ousters (like the removal of President Estrada in the Philippines < http://www.itworld.com/Tech/2987/CW_1-31-01_it/> but at all levels) send shockwaves through political establishments around the world, political institutions will aggressively use the Internet to present useful, easy to understand, and less intimidating responsive access to elected officials. Political parties will also get into the act. The Online Constituent Office will be built to fully represent all current functions in a Congressional or other representative’s office including access to public schedules, voting records, new releases and even an “always on” video conferencing wall to connect remote offices to allow the elected official to meet with the public and their staff back in the district. Elected officials without offices or staff will find the Internet the preferred information infrastructure for all their administrative needs. The first tool to reach critical acclaim will restore e-mail as a viable tool for citizen to elected official communication by building filtering and response assistance tools that help politicians deal with communications overload. However, the political imbalance created by direct e-mail communication from interest groups to staff and private e-mail accounts of public officials will not be fully addressed. In fact, behind the scenes, ongoing e-mail communication will grow as an effective way to influence decision-makers as well as advocates for a political cause.

How the wired politician uses the Internet to seek information and input will have tremendous agenda-setting potential. Today one of the world’s leading “Weos” or Wired Elected Officials is Jan Hamming, a local councilor in Tilberg, The Netherlands <http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00274.html>. His frequent e-mail newsletter and live online chats allow him to connect with more immigrants, youth and low-income constituents than before. That is what crossing the democratic divide is all about. His activities help make the point that we must not wait for the digital divide to close before we launch e-democracy activities designed to raise the voices of less represented groups. Using the exclusivity of Internet access as a reason to delay e-democracy activities may further disenfranchise the voiceless and allow those with power to consolidate their information age control on society before all those who want to be online can do so.

I should mention the amazing 2 million subscribers on the new Prime Minister of Japan’s e-mail list <http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00266.html>. His e-mail newsletter list probably has more subscribers then the national U.S. Republican and Democratic parties combined. E-mail is king. Watch out as high pitched, polarizing e-mail advocacy lists buy ambien 12.5 mg duel in efforts to generate counter outrage by constant spinning directly to their core supporters. This is the case today with both mainstream (i.e. U.S. Democratic and Republican party e-mail newsletters) and fringe political groups. A decade of this activity will lead most people to believe the Internet is better at dividing people through propaganda and sharing political jokes. If we are not vigilant, citizens will not see the Internet as a useful tool for community involvement.

Local Civic Deliberations and Global Networking

This trend will have a tremendous impact on governance generally, but depending on the political system and the role of the voluntary and non-profit sector – it will find its home in different places. Lessons from the use of ICT in political organizing among anti-globalization forces (intersestingly enough, the most global in their use of ICT for advocacy) will find their way into mainstream global political systems as well as local communities.

Global networking among those interested in specialized topics will be eclipsed by the formation of local online discussion spaces on public issues. As local discussion forums absorb those “who show up” in local democracy, the creation of public problem-solving sub-groups on specific community activities will complement a new global trend toward peer-to-peer exchange among community leaders working on similar local issues. The flow of information from local levels to international networks and vice versa will finally come into its own in 2015 with intentional design efforts and advanced tools that help people locate <http://www.opengroups.org> online communities of interest.

Minnesota E-Democracy’s activities in places like Winona, Minnesota <http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org> as well as other efforts <http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00248.html> point in this direction. We built the “online commons” <http://www.e-democracy.org/do/commons.html> the place for serious yet informal public discourse … now “let’s do something,” will become our mantra.

Your comments. What e-democracy practices do think governments and others will take up over the next decade? Share your comments with the author <http://www.publicus.net/e-mail.html> or post them publicly on the web.

Trending Toward the Future – Why not look through 2040?

In my comments thus far, I have suggested a framework for understanding e-democracy and highlighted exceptional practices that will become more universal by 2015. That only takes me half-way into my 50 year “walk-about” plan. Now I have to make the rest up in the next few minutes. I’ll take my first stab at this by focusing on some key trends and related scenarios I see framing the environment within which e-democracy will evolve now through the year 2040. (These trends are emerging now and will of course have an impact before 2015.)

So what happens when everything exceptional becomes usual? What will the sectors of democracy online do after 2015? What movements will sweep up e-citizens? What Internet trends will change the rules? In this speech I have not addressed key issues of privacy, surveillance, government regulation and other politics of technology issues. I try to stay focused on politics completely infused with technology and communications – government and democratic institutions as users of technology and not their role as a regulator. Other experts <http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people> are far more qualified to comment on technology policy trends. In future writings I hope to address online democratic rights of individuals and groups and share my concerns about the use of technology by government to control people and politics.

Family and Social Networking

I am interested in what people actually do most of the time they are online versus what they say they do or want to do. While the July 2001 Markle Foundation Internet Accountability Survey <http://www.markle.org/news/_news_pressreport_index.stm> found that most people think of the web as a big library for information and not a shopping mall or town square, I might add that they also confirmed that e-mail is the communication tool of choice online. It is my own estimation that the average Internet user spends more time viewing their e-mail box than anything else while online. It is the one part of the Internet that a citizen controls. You are a visitor on someone else web site and you tend to feel like a visitor on a government site. Just as you own your own vote, you own your e-mail.

What is the most natural thing that people do via e-mail? They communicate with friends and family and their co-workers if they have e-mail at work. These family and social networks, be they a collection of e-mail addresses or an e-mail list hosted at a site like Yahoogroups <http://groups.yahoo.com>, are strengthening existing relationships and creating information sharing tribes. What shape will extended families take after two or three generations of online networking? How will online social networks, of college friends or local sport clubs (i.e. softball, cricket), institutionalize themselves over a lifetime, will they grow, be passed on, or die out when their original purpose no longer exists?

The post-2000 U.S. election “tie” ushered in the political humor e-mail circuit according to a survey by the Democracy Online Project <http://democracyonline.org/databank/dec2000survey.shtml>. An amazing 54 percent of Internet users sent or received e-mail jokes about the candidates and 39 percent sent or received e-mail about the election with friends or family. Only 1 percent donated to a candidate online.

In 1998 I wrote in my Democracy is Online article <http://www.e-democracy.org/do/article.html>, “Perhaps the most democratizing aspect of the Internet is the ability for people to organize and communicate in groups. It is within the context of electronic free assembly and association that citizens will gain new opportunities for participation and a voice in politics, governance, and society.”

While many online political group discussions will be created intentionally, I think the occasional politicization of “natural” online groups may have the greatest e-democracy impact – particularly during amazing “Internet moments” such as ties for U.S. president, impeachments, and wars. (I presented this speech this in July 2001, see my September 13, 2001 article “The NetResponse” <http://www.publicus.net/netresponse/> for my comments on using the Internet to respond to the attacks on September 11.) I also wonder what will happen when some social networks evolve into political movements and what will happen when these online tribes come in conflict with each other. We got a glimpse of this when attacks by Chinese hackers fostered some of the first patriotic assaults by hackers based in the U.S. on servers in China.

E-Government – The E-Business Model that Works?

Is most of the Internet fundamentally non-profit? We have to ask that now that Internet philanthropists, I mean venture capitalists have pulled back. If people will pay for the connection, and advertising and commerce support only a limited part of the Internet, where will the profits come from to expand and grow the Internet?

What if serving public needs is our goal and we can drop the requirement for profit? Isn’t that exactly what governments are supposed to do? E-government may be the foundation of what I call the “Public Internet.” The Public Internet <http://www.publicus.net/pi/> will emerge “of” the Internet to support the fundamentally non-profit aspects of the Internet, particularly with public service content and local online communities. The Public Internet is not about transferring existing public goods and media, like public broadcasting or offline social problems to the Internet. It is not just about making online donations to existing charities. The Public Internet will become the foundation for cooperative efforts of government, non-profits, and the private sector that we need to bring the Internet into full and effective public and community service. A quick example – missing children alerts will be placed into a syndication network by the police, broadcast over digital TV and “linked” to by television newscasts <http://www.publicus.net/cis/> so you can take a long as you like to view the child’s image or the sketch of a kidnapping suspect on your television.

Shifting gears, with e-government we will also see a radical growth in transparency in places where laws are currently predisposed toward access and accountability such in most U.S. States and in the Nordic countries. There will be greater conflicts in countries with weak or limited freedom of information laws. Ultimately, the less democratic a country is today, the more a threat the Internet is to the status quo tomorrow.

In society, public officials will be the most publicly exposed people on the planet. Privacy for political leaders – I doubt it. In Sweden, where they actually try to follow their own laws, each government agency is responsible to maintain a register of all e-mail (traditional letters as well) coming in and going out of a government agency for public inspection. It is my understanding, although they vary from agency to agency, these registers will become remotely accessible. Unless laws specifically deny it or classify all government e-mail as private (a terrible idea), this type of register is almost inevitable for all government officials and office legally required to maintain compliance with record retention and archival laws and regulations (here is an e-mail log example in Oregon – <http://www.ci.corvallis.or.us/council/>). My prediction – people will go to jail in the future for illegally destroying government e-mail archives today. With e-mail replacing previously in-person and telephone conversations, there is much resistance with government to the fact that existing laws may allow public disclosure of such communication (this varies vastly between governments). Compliance with the spirit of freedom of information and record retention laws will probably be compelled by the courts rather than be resourced in a proactive manner by most governments.

Without changes in laws <http://www.e-democracy.org/study> and the creation of new functions within government and representative assemblies, the full potential of the Internet in governance will not be realized. Staff and fiscal resources are required to change that way organizations work and to create new content and services. The skills of the public information specialist, consultation facilitator, and librarian will be combined in a new set of e-governance positions <http://www.premiers.qld.gov.au/about/community/democracy.htm> required in the heart of any democratic government. In the end, I expect that the experience of local and regional governance (as well as smaller countries) will give us an early sense about the real impact of representative e-government activities.

New Breed of Politician After 2015

Traditional political power among insiders seems based on the spigot model. Those with power let little drops of information out at specific times to help them achieve specific goals. This works in an information poor environment. Today’s more wired political environment hasn’t changed much. Politicians still generally feel power is gained through information control or at least in an environment where they can be protected from too much information coming in or going out. This is more of a hamster bottle model where the citizens can drink as much as they like, but not when politician doesn’t refill the bottle right away. (Hamsters, more attractive than rats, are rodents people keep as pets in the U.S..) Politicians have less precise control, but ultimately they and formal representative processes are the key source.

Today, the forces of information nature are flooding our hamster cages of life. Politicians and citizens are drowning in information overload, with no context to grab onto. By 2015 I predict up to a quarter of politicians will embrace their new role as information guides. We will respect and follow those who help lead us through the information sea to “dry” places where we can see information in context and accept and trust the leadership of those who reliably tell us what is most important. (This is one reason why online news sites and journalists also have a future.)

I still see most elected officials in the first camp – information controllers or sponges that drip out information in a limited fashion. Even with 25 percent of politicians operating as information guides, ultimately this is still about power, about pursing political goals and serving the political interests of your constituents. Dueling political information guides will struggle for dominance (image 100 U.S. Senators with online political operations like Senator John McCain <http://www.straighttalkamerica.com>) and may or may not form alliances that break down existing partisanship trends. If anything, we may have guides that accentuate political divisions and mistrust among different political groups. I sincerely hope that an ethic of civic trust and multi-partisanship will inspire a new generation of wired elected officials and I plan to help make that happen.

E-Citizens, the Ultimate Challenge

Finally, e-citizens are the ultimate challenge. In focus in marginal seats in the recent UK parliamentary elections, the Industrial Society <http://www.indsoc.co.uk/isociety/press_release.htm> found that people “didn’t know there is an election online” – they were oblivious to the simple idea that they could use the Internet to seek the political information. Today many people think we have a supply problem when it comes to election-related information on the Internet, while there may be quality and usability issues, all political content providers need to realize we have lack of demand issue. Where is the democratic intent? Without it, e-citizens won’t demand much of their democracies nor take advantage of e-democracy investments across all democratic sectors.

Fellow Minneapolitan Leif Utne <http://www.utne.com> said his parents used to hang out in futurist circles and that futurists really like scenario crosses. Felix Nolte, my Swedish futurist friend helped me refine this illustration. I am a scenario cross “newbie” – perhaps you can take all of my raw materials and give them much more rigor.

On the horizontal axis we have the “Democratic motivation of citizens and society” or “E-Citizenship” and “Information and communication technological adoption in democratic institutions and processes” on the vertical axis.

Let me quickly visit the points I have marked on the diagram below:

Very Strong Citizens – Very Weak Institutions – Perhaps the vision of anti-globalization forces assuming cooperative citizens or libertarians assuming self-interested citizens.

Stronger Democratic Institutions – Weaker Citizens – This may be possible particularly where currently strong democratic cultures function on a historical democratic motivation and ethic.

Very Strong Democratic Institutions – Very Strong Citizens – This is the cyber-optimist view presented as a false measure of hope by many academics and journalists who then position themselves as skeptics to a view held by very very very few. If anything, I am fighting this perceived goal more than others with doses of cyber-pragmatism. Unrealistic, even high goals make pro-active attempts difficult to mount or celebrate. If people figure it is too much work or nearly impossible to achieve, then they will dismiss the opportunity.

Weak Citizens – Somewhat Weaker Democratic Institutions – This is where I see things going “naturally” without active intervention and worse, once things weaken we may see a downward slide. I currently believe the Internet can capture sparks of political interest better than any previous medium. If we allow democracy to slide, even a little, the average citizens will sense that democracy does not matter in the information age and pull back their interest and involvement even further. How do we make the Internet matter in real public life? Further, those inspired by notions of direct democracy enabled by technology may instead find themselves fighting to simply preserve the more participatory aspects of representative democracy.

Somewhat Stronger Citizens – Somewhat Stronger Democratic Institutions – This is where I would like us to be in 2015. If we make the Internet work for the 1 to 5 percent of people who “show up,” actively participate that is, in politics and public life between elections, then the Internet will establish itself as a reform tool that will improve both the democratic process and the public service outcomes of governance. This will help attract “average” citizens into online participation. They will not waste their time with things they think do not think matter. Let’s make it matter, and improve the outcomes of democracy through information tools with democratic strategies.

Conclusion

Where we end up in forty years will be based on our democratic intent and the actions we take, or the Internet despite its positive potential, will expand the democratic divide not close it.

I am bullish about the future of e-democracy and democracy as a whole. There is a growing alliance across the political spectrum pushing incremental change in democratic sectors around the world. Like technological advancements in the Internet, a series of small less noticed e-democracy developments will lead to unprecedented and unpredicted dramatic leaps in democracy. Together we can be an engine of democratic intent as we seek to improve our families lives, our communities, and the world around us.

Comments?

Please share your comments with the author <http://www.publicus.net/e-mail.html> or post them publicly on the web. I am increasingly encouraged by others to write a traditional “book” on my experiences and ideas related to e-democracy. What do you think? After reading this (and perhaps some of my other articles <http://www.publicus.net>), what would you like to see in a print book? Drop me a note. Thanks.

One my highlights at the Association of Internet Researchers
conference last week was meeting Mattia Miani from Italy.  He has
sent me the text of his paper presentation which you will see on
DO-WIRE later in the week.

His visit reminded me of an online interview (with really tough
questions I might add) we did last summer.  Here is the full text in
English, then Italian.

Steven Clift
Democracies Online

Originally posted at <http://www.polix.it>:

INTERVIEW WITH STEVEN L. CLIFT

Q: Mr Clift, in 1994 you started Minnesota E-Democracy, which is
widely recognized as a successful use of new technology to enhance
democratic discussion in a community. Many other, similar projects
have failed, including public forums promoted by civic groups. What
are the key factors keeping Minnesota E-democracy alive and healthy?

A: Our online forums for civic discussion are the cornerstone of E-
Democracy’s mission to improve democracy through information
networks. Every local community should have its own two-way place for
online citizen-to-citizen discussion. It also helps if this forum has
real political agenda setting power where everyone is a “citizen”
including elected officials and journalists who either participate or
at least follow the discussion.

The key factors to our success are:

A. The use of e-mail lists. The web is way too passive a medium for
organizing sustained civic discussions. People subscribe once to our
forums and have to decide to leave, not decide to visit us each time
they log on.

B. Our e-mail lists are facilitated by volunteer list managers who
are backed up by our forum’s purpose statements, rules, and
guidelines. Our key rule – you may not post more than twice a day.
This keeps the message volume down and increases the number of voices
in the discussion.

C. Reasonable expectations. We are political people. While we are
strictly issue neutral, non-profit and non-partisan we understand
that political and community discourse often involves conflict. We
cherish the clash of ideas and agendas and work to dampen personality
and rigid ideological conflicts which can drive the civic audience
away.

Most failed projects took a “build it they will come attitude” and
skipped our “online commons” step and went straight to step two a web-
based online forums or “online events” focused on a specific issues.
Our one person at a time approach helps create e-citizens not online
ghost towns. We do host labor intensive “online events” like online
candidate debates. Without the foundation of the online commons we
would not have the audience to justify such efforts. My advice –
start with what works and then build from there.

Q: In March 2001 you came to Italy to take part to the Global Forum
on Naples. Which impression did you bring home from this event? And,
by the way, how did you find Italy as far as e-government is
concerned?

A: If only I could have met all the various panelists and
participants. The challenge with large conferences is finding ways
for smaller groups to make new connections. The two things I found
somewhat odd was the large police presence for an “e-government”
conference and collections of new fax machines on tables as if they
were to be used like Internet e-mail terminals or something between
the Royal Palace conference session rooms. While Italy helps lead the
world with mobile phone usage, I get the sense that you have a lot of
opportunity to expand the use of the Internet in daily life.

You have traveled a lot in the past few years all over the world. In
your trips have you noticed any crucial cultural difference in the
usage of the Internet as a political medium?

Yes, I tend to get invited to the most “wired” and democratic places.
I believe the Internet will more dramatically change the politics of
the partly wired, less democratic places because the Internet will be
used out of necessity. The tools people use – e-mail lists, web
sites, SMS, etc. are similar but who and how people use them differ.
Minnesota E-Democracy is not a typical modern day .com American
Internet effort, we connect back to the age of the voluntary
association where people come together to solve problems without
waiting for government or the marketplace.

In Europe, the lack of an affordable at-home consumer Internet access
scheme (i.e. metered local telephone use) makes building an at-home
citizens Internet extremely difficult. The impact of the Internet on
politics seems focused on institutions like government, political
parties, the media and less so on the general public. For all the
talk of “social inclusion” the truth is that your telecommunications
pricing structures are fundamentally exclusive. No level of subsidy
to bridge the digital divide will counter the fact that the meter is
ticking for citizens trying to use the Internet to improve their
communities or access government decision-making information. Perhaps
cable modems and DSL will offer some assistance, but for now focusing
on institutional e-democracy improvements will likely be the European
base of activity.

Q: There has been much talk about the potential of the Internet as an
electoral medium. Do you think that the Internet did matter some way
in the last American election cycle? When will we witness an
“Internet election”?

A: Ask not what role the Internet had on the election, ask instead
what effect the election had on the Internet. Electricity? Does it
favor Democrats or Republicans? Electricity or the Internet, the real
question is how were certain online strategies employed and what
impact did they have compared to others.

The Internet has become the main strategic communications tool behind
the scenes in politics. It is not a medium to sway undecided voters.
It is a medium to organize your supporters, feed them your message
and get out your core vote. It may have an impact on new and less
frequent voters some day, but that seems a long way off. In my home
state of Minnesota, I claimed that Jesse Ventura could not have been
elected Governor -without- the Internet. It was their field
operation. They had little money and no other viable option. Jesse
Ventura, like John McCain are “made for Internet” candidates just as
Ronald Reagan was made for television. No candidate that I am aware
of has ever won -because- of the Internet.

Q: Would you point to us a single successful example of the usage of
the Internet as a tool to foster communication between citizens and
government, be it local or central?

A: The most dynamic example from Minnesota E-Democracy is our
Minneapolis Issues Forum where over 500 people discuss local issues
everyday. It has become the number one city-based public agenda
setting forum. It is as important as the local mass media in my
opinion (but only if the media transfers our discussion themes to the
broader public). One of our goals is to bring new voices into the
forum from immigrant and less represented communities. With people
campaigning for mayor on our forum and journalists grabbing story
ideas it is important that more and more people and community groups
join us and raise their voices. You can explore the forum directly
from <http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls/> and read my “A Wired Agora”
presentation from <http://www.publicus.net> for full details.

Q: In Italy, Mr Silvio Berlusconi, our new premier, has just
appointed a special minister in charge for e-government and
technological innovation, Mr Lucio Stanca, a former IBM CEO. He will
oversee all the process of modernization of the public administration
in Italy in the next years. Which piece of advice would you give to a
person in Stanca’s position?

A: Join me as a “radical incrementalist.” Large organizations shoot
for the moon, get half-way and think they have failed. As far as I
can tell the Internet progresses based on small incremental steps.
Design e-government in the same way. Create a strong, radical vision
for what e-government can be, and then take lots of baby steps.
Provide the political cover to the e-government workers in the
trenches who know how to do the job and knock the barriers out of
their way.

Do not waste your time on some top-down “master plan” that is out-
dated before it is finished. Like the Australian government, develop
surveys and other mechanisms to promote knowledge-sharing and
accountability
<http://www.mail-archive.com/do-wire@tc.umn.edu/msg00229.html>. If
you don’t have a baseline or set numeric goals then the bottom-up
approach will not have the motivation to work and not much will
change. However, when it comes to online navigation and directories
of government as a whole, central leadership and resources are
required to pull the e-government mess together for the citizen end-
users.

Q: A word about a topic that has become fashionable lately: e-voting
or Internet voting. Is allowing people voting trough the Internet, at
home – the “true” e-vote – a solution for the malaise modern
democracies are experiencing?

A: The Internet is not inherently democratic. Without democratic
intent these powerful tools will just be left to the online shopping
malls and entertainment sites. I do not believe that Internet voting
or convenience will reverse the malaise on their own. When the vast
majority of people come to trust online voting (which will take about
a decade longer than the technology) it will only represent five
percent of the “e-democracy” experience. Luckily we can build that in
between elections with online governance and citizen participation
now.

Q: Sometimes you say that most people are “emailing alone”. What do
you mean with this expression? And what stops people from emailing
“together”?

A: Robert Putman, a Harvard academic, wrote the book Bowling Alone.
It noted that while people in the U.S. bowl more often, they do it
with friends and family and less often as part of organized league
play. Think about your own e-mail use. You tend to e-mail friends,
family, and co-workers in private settings. This is particularly true
with most new Internet users – they got online to trade e-mail with
their family and friends and probably NOT their neighbors or members
of their broader local community. In the political arena ninety-nine
percent of online communication is private. I want to add an element
of public space to this environment where people expect to find two-
way public Internet forums where they can talk reasonably about
local, regional, national, and global affairs. The more local and
regional element is my starting point, because discussion at that
level can have a real impact on public agenda-setting and decision-
making. I am very concerned about private e-mail flooding elected
officials and the lack of opportunities for citizens to hold each
other accountable for their views and ideas. To get people to e-mail
together we must make it easier to find useful and well-promoted
forums that matter in the real world.

By Mattia Miani
Polix

26/06/2001 10:00

*** Italian Version ***

I CONSIGLI DI STEVE CLIFT A LUCIO STANCA

Ogni disciplina ha I suoi guru. Uno degli indiscussi guru della
democrazia elettronica è Steve Clift. Originario del Minnesota, Stati
Uniti, nel 1994 Clift fu fra i fondatori di Minnesota E-Democracy, un
progetto indipendente nato per stimolare la partecipazione dei
cittadini nel dibattito pubblico attraverso gli strumenti propri di
Internet: il web e la posta elettronica.

In questa intervista Clift condivide con noi la sua visione sullo
sviluppo dell’e-government: un approccio incrementale e reali
possibilità di impatto sulla vita reale on-line. E non mancano le
critiche alla via Europea a Internet: troppo focalizzata sulle
istituzioni e poco riguardosa delle implicazioni delle tariffe dei
servizi di telecomunicazione sull’uso politico della rete.

Il testo dell’intervista è anche disponibile anche in lingua inglese.

Nel 1994 lei fondò il progetto buy real ativan online della Minnesota E-Democracy che è oggi
largamente riconosciuto come un caso esemplare di applicazione delle
nuove tecnologie ai processi di discussione democratica a livello
locale. Molti studiosi hanno rilevato che simili progetti sono
regolarmente falliti (mi riferisco a tutti i forum on-line proposti
dalle reti civiche per offrire spazi di discussione su temi di
rilevanza pubblica). Quali sono i fattori che mantengono Minnesota E-
Democracy in vita e in buona salute?

I nostri forum on-line di discussione su temi pubblici sono il
cardine della missione di E-Democracy di migliorare la democrazia
attraverso le reti computerizzate. Ogni comunità locale dovrebbe
avere il proprio spazio bidirezionale per consentire la discussione
fra cittadini (citizen-to-citizen). È anche di aiuto se un simile
forum ha un reale potere di influenzare l’agenda politica in un
contesto dove ognuno è un “cittadino”, compresi i politici eletti e i
giornalisti che partecipano o almeno seguono la discussione.

I fattori chiave del nostro successo sono:

1. L’uso di mailing list. Il web è un medium troppo passivo per
organizzare discussioni sostenute su temi pubblici. Una volta che una
persona si è iscritta a un nostro forum essa deve prendere la
decisione di abbandonarci, non di visitarci ogni volta che va on-
line.

2. Le nostre mailing list sono animate da list manager volontari che
sono sostenuti nel loro lavoro dalla dichiarazione d’intenti del
forum, le sue regole e linee guida. La nostra regola chiave: nessuno
può contribuire con più di due messaggi al giorno. Questo sistema
mantiene contenuto il volume dei messaggi e aumenta il numero di voci
nella discussione.

3. Aspettative ragionevoli. Noi siamo persone che sentono molto la
politica. Mentre siamo strettamente neutrali sui temi dibattuti,
nonprofit e non allineati, ci rendiamo conto che la discussione su
temi politici e rilevanti per la comunità spesso comporta una certa
dose di conflitto. Diamo il benvenuto allo scontro di idee e agende e
lavoriamo per smorzare manie di protagonismo e rigidi conflitti
ideologici che possono far scappare il pubblico.

La maggioranza dei progetti falliti si pose con l’atteggiamento di
“lo costruisco e loro verranno” e saltò la nostra fase degli “on-line
commons” per precipitarsi alla fase successiva, forum on-line
accessibili su web o “eventi on-line” focalizzati su temi specifici.

Il nostro approccio di concentrarci su una persona alla volta aiuta a
creare “e-citizen” e non città fantasma on-line. Ospitiamo anche
“eventi on-line” molto dispendiosi in termini di lavoro come, ad
esempio, dibattiti fra candidati. Senza la fondamenta degli “on-line
commons” non avremmo il pubblico per giustificare simili sforzi. Il
mio consiglio: cominciate con quello che funziona e allora crescete a
partire da quello.

Nel marzo 2001 lei è venuto in Italia per partecipare al Global Forum
di Napoli. Che impressione le ha lasciato questo evento? Come ha
trovato l’Italia in materia di e-government, il tema principale del
forum?

Se solo avessi potuto incontrare tutti i diversi conferenzieri e
partecipanti! La sfida di conferenze così grandi è trovare modi per
consentire a gruppi più ristretti di stabilire nuovi contatti. Le due
cose che ho trovato per certi versi anomale sono state il grande
dispiegamento di forze dell’ordine per una conferenza sull’e-
government e schiere di fax nuovi sui tavoli come se dovessero essere
usati come terminali per connettersi a Internet e mandare e-mail o
qualcosa del genere, sparsi fra le stanze del Palazzo Reale destinate
alle conferenze. Quanto all’Italia, mentre essa è sicuramente in
testa al mondo con l’uso di terminali telefonici portatili, ho avuto
la sensazione che avete ancora molte opportunità per allargare l’uso
di Internet nella vita di tutti i giorni.

Lei ha viaggiato in tutto il mondo negli ultimi anni. Ha notato
differenze culturali rilevanti nell’uso di Internet come mezzo di
comunicazione politica?

In effetti tendo a essere invitato nei luoghi più “connessi” e
democratici. Credo che Internet cambierà in modo drammatico la
politica dei Paesi meno connessi e meno democratici perché Internet
sarà usata come una necessità. Gli strumenti usati (e-mail, siti web,
Sms, ecc.) sono simili, ma le persone e il modo di usarli cambiano.
Minnesota E-Democracy non è una tipica dotcom in stile americano,
piuttosto siamo legati all’epoca dell’associazionismo volontaristico,
in cui le persone si mettevano insieme per risolvere problemi senza
aspettare l’intervento del governo o il mercato.

In Europa, la mancanza di piani tariffari per l’accesso domestico a
Internet a basso costo (mi riferisco alla presenza delle tariffe
urbane a tempo) rende estremamente difficile la costruzione di un
Internet al servizio dei cittadini nelle loro case. L’impatto di
Internet sulla politica sembra concentrato intorno a istituzioni
quali il governo, i partiti politici, i media e solo in secondo piano
intorno al pubblico generalista. Nonostante tutto il parlare di
inclusione sociale, la verità è che le strutture di prezzo delle
vostre telecomunicazioni sono fondamentalmente esclusive. Nessuna
erogazione di sussidi per combattere il divario digitale potrà mai
controbilanciare il fatto che il contatore degli scatti continua a
scorrere per i cittadini intenti a usare Internet per migliorare le
loro comunità o per accedere a informazione sulle decisioni del
governo. Forse modem via cavo e DSL saranno di qualche aiuto, ma,
allo stato attuale, concentrarsi su miglioramenti nelle forme
istituzionali di e-democracy sarà probabilmente la base europea di
attività.

C’è stato molto discorrere sul potenziale di Internet come strumento
di lotta elettorale. Pensa che la rete abbia giocato un ruolo
significativo nelle ultime elezioni americane? Quando assisteremo a
un elezione in cui Internet sarà davvero protagonista?

Bisogna domandarsi non che ruolo Internet abbia avuto nell’elezione,
bensì che effetto l’elezione ha avuto su Internet. Elettricità?
Favorisce Democratici o Repubblicani? Elettricità o Internet, la vera
domanda è in che modo certe strategie on-line sono state impiegate e
che impatto hanno avuto rispetto alle altre.

In politica, Internet è diventata il principale strumento strategico
di comunicazione dietro le quinte. Non è un mezzo per conquistare
elettori indecisi. È un mezzo per organizzare i tuoi sostenitori,
alimentarli con i tuoi messaggi e mobilitare la tua base. Un giorno
potrà avere un impatto sugli elettori nuovi o su quelli meno
frequenti, ma siamo ancora molto lontani. Ho sostenuto che nel mio
stato, il Minnesota, Jesse Ventura non avrebbe potuto essere eletto
Governatore senza Internet. Essa rappresentò il loro campo operativo.
La sua campagna aveva poco denaro e nessun’altra realistica
alternativa. Jesse Ventura, come John McCain, sono candidati “fatti
per Internet” proprio come Ronald Reagan era fatto per la
televisione. Nessun candidato di cui abbia conoscenza ha mai vinto
solo grazie a Internet.

Ci potrebbe indicare un esempio di uso effettivo di Internet come
mezzo per stimolare la comunicazione tra i cittadini e il governo,
sia esso locale o centrale?

L’esempio più dinamico da Minnesota E-Democracy è il nostro forum
dedicato ai temi di Minneapolis, in cui oltre 500 persone discutono
argomenti locali ogni giorno. È diventato il forum cittadino di
definizione dell’agenda pubblica numero uno. Ritengo che abbia la
stessa importanza dei media locali (ma solo se i media trasferiscono
i temi della nostra discussione al largo pubblico). Uno dei nostri
obiettivi è portare nuove voci nel forum, provenienti da immigrati e
altre comunità meno rappresentate. Con individui intenti a fare
campagna elettorale per l’elezione di sindaco sul nostro forum e
giornalisti pronti ad afferrare idee per le loro storie è importante
che un numero sempre maggiore di persone e comunità si unisca a noi e
alzi la propria voce. Potete esplorare il forum direttamente da
questo indirizzo internet http://www.e-democracy.org/mpls/ e leggere
la mia presentazione dal titolo “A Wired Agora” sul mio sito
personale per avere tutti i dettagli.

In Italia Silvio Berlusconi, il nostro nuovo premier, ha nominato un
ministro con il compito specifico di coordinare l’introduzione dei
servizi di e-government e l’innovazione tecnologica nel nostro Paese,
Lucio Stanca, top manager della IBM. Che consiglio darebbe a una
persona nella posizione di Lucio Stanca?

Seguitemi come un “incrementalista radicale”. Grandi organizzazioni
hanno mirato molto alto, alla Luna come si dice, sono arrivate solo a
metà e pensano di aver fallito. Per quanto mi riguarda, posso dire
che Internet progredisce sulla base di piccoli passi incrementali.
Progettate l’e-government allo stesso modo. Create una solida e
radicale visione su cosa l’e-government può essere e quindi
intraprendete numerosi piccoli passi (baby steps). Sostenete
politicamente gli operativi dell’e-government, quelli in prima linea,
che sanno come fare il loro compito e abbattere le barriere che si
incontrano. Non perdete tempo con “master plan” calati dall’alto che
diventano obsoleti prima che siano completati. Come il governo
Australiano, sviluppate sondaggi e altri meccanismi per promuovere la
condivisione delle conoscenze e la responsabilizzazione. Se non avete
una base o un insieme di obiettivi quantificabili, allora un
approccio dal basso in alto (bottom-up) non avrà la motivazione di
lavorare e non cambierà molto. Comunque, quando in gioco c’è la
navigazione on-line e le directory del governo nel suo complesso, una
leadership centrale e le relative risorse sono indispensabili per
mettere ordine nella confusione dei servizi di e-government per i
cittadini utenti finali.

Una parola su un tema che è divenuto di moda negli ultimi tempi: l’e-
voting o voto su Internet. Far votare la gente da casa attraverso
Internet – la forma più estrema di e-vote – è davvero la soluzione
per l’apatia e lo stato di diffuso malessere in cui si trovano le
moderne democrazie?

Internet non è di per sé democratica. Senza uno spirito democratico,
questi potenti strumenti saranno lasciati ai centri commerciali on-
line e ai siti di intrattenimento. Non credo che il voto su Internet
o maggiore convenienza rovesceranno lo stato di malessere da soli.
Quando la stragrande maggioranza delle persone arriverà a fidarsi del
voto on-line (il che richiederà circa un decennio in più di quanto
non ci metterà la tecnologia) esso rappresenterà solo il 5%
dell’esperienza democratica. Fortunatamente, possiamo costruire
questa esperienza tra le elezioni con forme di governo on-line e la
partecipazione dei cittadini ora.

A volte lei ripete che l’uso di Internet da parte della maggioranza
delle persone può essere dipinto dall’espressione “e-mailing alone”.
Ci vuole dire cosa intende con questa espressione? E cosa bisogna
fare perché Internet diventi un fenomeno maggiormente collettivo?

Robert Putnam, un accademico di Harvard, ha scritto un libro
intitolato “Bowling Alone”. Putnam ha notato che negli Stati Uniti,
mentre le persone vanno al bowling più spesso, esse tendono a farlo
con gli amici e la famiglia e meno spesso nell’ambito di
organizzazioni.

Pensate all’uso che fate dell’e-mail. Si tende a inviare messaggi a
amici, la famiglia e i colleghi in contesti privati. Questo vale
particolarmente per molti dei nuovi utenti di Internet: queste
persone sono andate on-line per scambiare l’indirizzo di posta
elettronica con le loro famiglie e amici e probabilmente non con i
loro vicini o componenti della più vasta comunità locale.

Nell’arena politica, il 99% della comunicazione on-line è privata.
Voglio che si aggiunga una caratterizzazione di spazio pubblico a
questo ambiente dove le persone si aspettino di trovare forum
pubblici bidirezionali basati su Internet in cui possano parlare
ragionevolmente sui problemi locali, regionali, nazionali e globali.
Il fattore maggiormente locale e regionale è il mio punto di
partenza, perché la discussione a quel livello può avere un reale
impatto sulla definizione dell’agenda pubblica e sulle decisioni.
Sono molto preoccupato del sovraccarico di e-mail private a cui sono
soggetti i politici eletti e della mancanza di opportunità per i
cittadini di tracciare le responsabilità degli uni e degli altri in
merito alle loro vedute e idee.

Per avere la gente intenta “a spedire e-mail insieme” dobbiamo fare
in modo che l’uso di Internet venga percepito come utile e promuovere
forum che abbiano un peso nel mondo reale.

Intervista e traduzione di Mattia Miani

Vogliamo ringraziare la squadra di www.p4rgaming.com/blog/elo-boosting per sponsorizzare questo post.

27/06/2001 10:00

From:            Steven Clift <clift@publicus.net>
Subject:         The Net Response - What you can do online to help and respond
Send reply to:   clift@publicus.net
Date sent:       Thu, 13 Sep 2001 13:40:51 -0500
 

                                     -- Please Forward -->

The Net Response

By Steven Clift
http://www.publicus.net
Future updates: netresponse-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
 

During this time of great tragedy now is the time to use
all the tools we have available to help the families of the
missing, the dead and injured survivors.  We need to come
together as communities within our nation and nations
around the world as we respond and care for one another.

You can do something right now via the Internet from your
home and place of work as well as donate blood, money, and
time to relief efforts.  Use the Internet as a simple
communication tool to provide mutual benefit and support to
others in this crisis and help build the bonds required to
deal with what comes next.  Bringing people together and
strengthening the bonds of family, friendship, and
neighbors is step one, online and in-person.

Step two is to use the Internet to gain insight and
understanding on a global basis so we can more effectively
respond and change the environment that motivates terrorism.
While our governments, intelligence operations, and armies
will respond with great force, we as humans can do our part
one person at a time.

The cornerstone of your action is the creation of different
kinds of e-mail group lists. You can create a free e-mail
lists in minutes from websites like YahooGroups
<http://groups.yahoo.com/>, Topica <http://topica.com>, and
others.  An e-mail list allows you to exchange messages
through one e-mail address (i.e. myfamily@yahoogroups.com)
among a group of members subscribed to the list.  E-mail
can be private or public and lists may be set-up to deliver
one-way announcements or allow open discussion.  If you
create a public e-mail list, send me an announcement
netresponse@publicus.net that I can share with others.

Take action now by creating an e-mail list for:

  1. Your Family - Create an e-mail group list for your
  extended family.  E-mail lists will help you communicate
  as a family group in an easy and convenient manner.
  Step one is to collect all of your family member
  addresses. You should do this whether this directly
  affected your family or not.

  2. Friends - Create an e-mail list for friends who want
  to provide mutual support to each other and families of
  those who are missing, confirmed dead, or survivors who
  need assistance.  Of course, any group of friends can
  create a list to support the needs of any shared friend
  in any difficult life situation or simply to make group
  contact easy across the country, town, or world.

  3. Neighbors - Whether for the people who live on your
  block, your larger neighborhood or entire town, e-mail
  forums you should build an e-mail list in the common
  interest for community conversation.  These forums are
  technically like all those global special interest
  discussion forums, but instead are local and general in
  nature.  When a community is in crisis, it needs a forum
  that people can turn to for immediate many-to-many
  communication.  At the very local level we need the
  protection of neighbors who communicate with one another
  and the Internet can help buy ativan online reviews break that ice required to
  rebuild the in-person connections required to survive.  I
  run an e-mail list for my neighborhood, so can you.  If
  we see suspicious activity in our neighborhoods, we need
  the bonds to discover and report such activity to the
  appropriate authorities.  Building trust among neighbors
  is a key building block for local safety and security.
  See my related article on Building the Online Commons
  <http://e-democracy.org/do/commons.html> for more advice.

  4. Area Response to Attacks - One way to help coordinate
  tributes and the response in your country (many of those
  missing are citizens of many countries), state, or city,
  is to create special e-mail lists for communication among
  those seeking to aid the recovery or those who want to
  respond.  Such forums can be created to deal with local
  issues such as helping traumatized children, organizing
  rallies and memorial services, or dealing with local
  discrimination and acts not in the spirit of domestic
  tolerance.

  5. Share News, Information and Views - Through e-mail
  lists like the Sept11info@yahoogroups.com set up
  voluntarily by Andy Carvin
  <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sept11info> thousands of
  people are sharing breaking news and in-depth resources
  that allow us to gain deeper insights into what is
  happening.  My own site <http://www.politicalbs.com>
  provides quick links to additional web-based political
  discussion forums and to government and media sources
  around the world. As the United States and its allies
  develop their response, the Internet will be used on a
  global basis to share news and information unlike never
  before.  This and e-mail lists that you create will allow
  people to communicate directly and unmediated around the
  world.  We will be able to interact directly with those
  in the Middle East and read their news just as they can
  watch and read ours.  Nothing will break down the highly
  propagandistic mass media in some countries or even our
  own as military action is taken.  That is not that point.
  The challenge for us is to use the Internet to build
  direct human connection among the vast majority of
  moderate and reasonable individuals in all countries so
  we can learn as much as we can about the motivations of
  terrorists and how to most effectively attack and cut off
  the support for those organizations and ideologies.

However you respond to recent events, the Internet can play
a useful and practical role.  That said, the Internet is
only a small part of what we all can and should do.  Events
like these help us appreciate our families and friends and
what really matters in this world.  By organizing online we
can more quickly respond to what is next and hopefully help
control our own destiny.

Finally, if you are interested in ways we can use the
Internet to deal with this situation, join my low volume
NetResponse e-mail list and stay tuned for future updates.
To subscribe send a message to
<netresponse-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>. If you are
technically involved in any existing relief, response, or
media efforts or if you want to contribute your ideas,
advanced technical and programming skills, or your
technical infrastructure, join the NetResponse Technical
working group by sending an e-mail to
<netresponse-tech-subscribe@yahoogroups.com>.

Enhancing E-Democracy in Our Communities

Prepared for the Cities of Tomorrow Conference, March 2001

By Steven Clift

Follow this e-democracy recipe and your community will strengthen its local democracy. It can become a world leader in the future of not just e-democracy, but also a figure in the future history of democracy.

1. Take a community-wide approach. E-Democracy is neither just an e-government activity nor something to get to after you figure out online service delivery. Determine if the political will or imperative to open up citizen participation and improve the effectiveness of community and governmental agenda-setting and decision-making exists. E-Democracy is not just another word for good public relations after decisions are taken.

2. Bring community actors together. Develop a shared e-democracy vision. Understand who needs to do what and how linkages can be developed among the efforts of different community organizations to achieve common goals. Some of the community actors that immediately come to mind include governments, elected officials, political parties, media, citizen groups, universities and schools, major commercial and non-commercial local Internet sites. While online advocacy often involves the use of the Internet by citizen groups to protest government decisions, e-democracy is about working together to establish an early warning system that allows broader participation in public agenda setting.

3. Determine e-government participation. Government must take its portion of the broader “e-democracy” seriously. Government can be a leader by Internet-enabling existing representative processes. They must also create new citizen involvement opportunities, such as well-structured online government-run consultations, now uniquely possible because of the Internet. Read the Top Ten E-Democracy To Do List for Government (print out this Top Ten article with this article – they go together).

4. Start an Online Commons. Create or encourage the creation of an interactive online public commons in your community. Based on my decade of e-democracy experience, a facilitated online commons i want to buy lorazepam adds the most sustained democratic value to a local community. I highly recommend well defined use of an e-mail list with a charter, rules, and guidelines to keep discussions focused on local topics and that limit the number of posts submitted per person to no more than two a day. You need e-mail to keep the group together, but need to keep the daily message volume down to maintain the size of the participatory audience. This forum should be “of” the broader community and not controlled by anyone agenda or a single existing institution. Try creating a new community coalition designed to host the forum and the right person(s) to serve as an online facilitator. If you read my Start an Online Public Commons article you will find that community recruitment is the essential activity required to give a forum life. Build it and they will never come unless you tell them that it is there.

5. Develop community navigation online. Don’t just promote local connectivity and bandwidth development so your citizens spend all their time going to the world while losing touch with their community. Develop community-wide “public portal” web sites. These well organized, frequently updated, Yahoo-like sites make it easy to navigate your community online. Whether is finding a government service, joining a local citizen group, or interacting in the online public commons, if a citizen can’t find it, it doesn’t really exist. Build these in partnership with other organizations and launch a community linking campaign. Let people come home via the Internet.

Related Articles by Steven Clift

Top Ten E-Democracy “To Do List” for Governments Around the World – http://publicus.net/articles/egovten.html
Start an Online Commons – http://www.e-democracy.org/do/commons.html
A Wired Agora – http://www.publicus.net/articles/agora.html
Top Ten Tips for Wired Elected Officials – http://publicus.net/articles/weos.html
E-Democracy E-Book – http://www.publicus.net/ebook/

Also see the article by Steve Kranz, E-Democracy Thrives in Winona –
http://onlinedemocracy.winona.org/startup.html