Four Models of eDemocracy Associate Professor Øystein Sæbø, CAHDE 2nd plenary, Strasbourg, October 07

Four Models of eDemocracy

Associate Professor Øystein Sæbø,

CAHDE 2nd plenary, Strasbourg, October 07

Why this paper?

• eDemocracy successes vary

• unpredictable results

• missing knowledge on the link between democracy and the use of ICT

• Starting point:

• we need to better understand the context

• we need to understand the link between technology and democracy (context)

• eDemocracy models

• explain variations in the democratic context

• try to explain how technology may show usefulness for various context

Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 07 2

Models of eDemocracy

• Based on:

• inclusion in decisions

• to what degree are all citizens invited to participate?

• control of the agenda

• who decides what to be discussed?


Four Models of eDemocracy

Citizens set the agenda Partisan Direct

Governments set the agenda Liberal Deliberative

Citizens implicitly included in decision-making

Citizens explicitly included in decision-making


Liberal eDemocracy

• No changes in distribution of power

• politicians/governments in charge of decision making and agenda

• citizens mainly inform/ being informed

• eDemocracy:

• main focus: information exchange

• increase citizens’ opportunity to control and evaluate

• increase their opportunity to choose between candidates

• ICT applications (examples)

• discussion forum (focus on information exchange)

• feedback mechanisms

• distribution of candidates/parties viewpoints

• archive/ dissemination of information


Deliberative eDemocracy

• Citizens involved in decision making processes and agenda setting

• requires:

• politicians’ will to include citizens

• citizens’ will to participate

• real eDemocracy?

• real dialogue

• influence on agenda setting

• citizens could expect influence by participate


• discussion forums (real discussions)

• control mechanisms

• quality of information exchange (two-ways)

• citizens panels


Direct eDemocracy

• radical alternative

• citizens are in charge

• no use for representatives

• ICT could help to coordinate, without middlemen

• currently: very few examples

• eDemocracy

• voting/ decision making

• agenda setting

• coordination mechanism


• voting mechanism

• agenda setting mechanism


Partisan eDemocracy

• independent from traditional decision makings mechanisms

• citizens’ initiatives by using ICT

• opportunity to mass- communicate

• keep control of the agenda

• eDemocracy

• increase public debate?

• could not be led by government

• “speakers corner”


• discussion forums (uninterrupted by government/politicians)

• blogs

• social networking activities


Why discuss eDemocracy models?

• eDemocracy initiatives need to understand context

• deliberation without politicians’ will to be influenced, or citizens’ will to participate

• successful projects may not be easily transferred

• design and management of ICT applications vary

• e.g. discussion forums should be designed according to objectives

• do not promise too much!

• if citizens are asked to influence, the should expect some influence!

• if they are asked “only” to inform, they should now..


Implications for practice

• Consider context before technology

• technology is “easy”

• knowledge on how to utilise eDemocracy initiatives is difficult

• Involve major stakeholders in the development process

• citizens, politicians and government officials should discuss needs

• technological competence less important in the initial phase

• focus also on politicians

• very often taken for granted

• why should they be interested in more deliberation?

• the four models:

• only archetypes

• starting point for a discussion on democratic context and link to technology


eDemocracy tools

Øystein Sæbø,

CAHDE 2nd plenary, Strasbourg, October 07

Background

• Based on a DemoNet report

• “Current ICT to enable eParticipation”

• editors: Asta Thorleifsdottir and Maria Wimmer

• eDemocracy = rapidly developing

• report on tools are immediately out-dated

• thus: focus on framework on how to analyse

• may show importance also in the future

• opportunity to compare

• why tools, not technology?

• eDemocracy mainly based on generic technologies

• tools: applications developed to achieve some tasks

• eDemocracy: tools based on “known” technologies


eDemocracy areas

• communication needs and decision making mechanisms

• tools are developed to support eDemocracy areas

• more sustainable than tools


eDemocracy areas


Template to identify eDemocracy tools

• template to describe existing and future eDemocracy tools

• allows for comparison

• could be used to dynamically develop a “library” of various opportunities



1. general description

2. overall objectives

1. could be based on eDemocracy models

3. which area to support?

4. what are the major stakeholders’ views?

5. support which stages in the policy life cycle?

6. level of participation?

1. e.g. information exchange, deliberation, direct decision making?

7. security and privacy

8. accessibillity

9. channel availability

10. technologies used

11. evaluation




Overview core eDemocracy tools


Overview (generic) ICT tools extensively used in eDemocracy


Overview basic ICT tools needed in eDemocracy


Practical implications

• all tools are described in detail by the DemoNet project

• please let me know if you like the full report

• introduces a strategy on how to identify and compare eDemocracy tools

• could be used to develop libraries of tools for various purposes

• there no such thing as generic eDemocracy tools

• dependent on the purpose

• more knowledge is still needed on eDemocracy technologies

• what will happen when social networking technologies and web 2.0 is introduced?

• e.g how will Facebook, YouTube, MySpace and similar applications influence

• how will that change citizens’ expectations?



Thank you for your attention!

• Questions?

• Comments?

• Main references:

• tools:

• http://www.demo-net.org/demo

• models:

• Models of E-Democracy, (2006) Päivärinta Tero and Sæbø Øystein; Communication of AIS, vol 17, pp. 818- 840.

Contact information:

Øystein Sæbø (Oystein Sabo)

University of Agder

Department of Information systems

Service box 422

4604 Kristiansand, Norway

E-mail:[email protected]

Phone: +47 38 14 16 26,

+ 47 90 20 73 52

http://home.hia.no/~oysteisa

Documents

Four Models of eDemocracy Associate Professor Øystein Sæbø, CAHDE 2nd plenary, Strasbourg, October 07