[3] The Reality Behind E-democracy by John Horvath jhorv@canada.com The dream of e-democracy lives on, despite the fact that it belongs in the realm of virtual reality. Looking back, the late 1990s expectations of a "paradigm shift" to an Internet-driven "new economy" was naively over-optimistic. The economy as a whole wasn't altered as fundamentally as some had hoped (or feared). Likewise, other utopian views of our digital future have failed to materialise. This includes notions of a new form of governance, commonly referred to as "e-democracy". Yet a growing number of people continue to view modern communications technologies, such as the Internet and e-mail, as a way to bridge the gap between citizen and government. E-democracy is still seen as a way to breathe new life into democratic systems of government. The interest in a "digital democracy" is in part due to the fact that participation in traditional democratic forums has hit new lows in the west. The explanations for this apparent drift towards apathy are manifold, as are the proposals for addressing it. Without doubt, these are tough times for democracies in the western world. At every level of government voter turnout is low and, in many cases, steadily falling. Many citizens feel government is becoming increasingly remote. There is little transparency and there is corruption at all levels economic, moral, and ideological rendering most democratic systems as nothing more than a contest between tweedle-dees and tweedle-dums. "From an intermittent democracy regulated by elections to a continuous democracy" Nevertheless, European Union leaders still consider the notion of e-democracy as something worth pursuing and promoting. In a recent special issue of The IPTS Report (1) put out this past summer by the Seville-based Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, government officials at local, national and European levels, as well as broadcasters, academics and IT specialists, attempted to identify the opportunities and pitfalls on the road towards a digital democracy. Several of the authors noted that the Internet, by breaking down traditional barriers to communication, may provide a prime opportunity to revolutionise the mechanics of democracy. "The internet has created radical new possibilities to reinvigorate and enrich democratic dialogue," stated Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou in the editorial. The feeling of those who continue to harbour pleasant dreams about a digital democracy is that the Internet could pave the way for a more participative, or direct, democracy. "We are moving from an intermittent democracy regulated by elections to a continuous democracy," explained Andre Santini, the mayor of Issy-les-Moulineaux, a Paris suburb that has carried out several experiments in e-government. Just as some ancient Greek city-states were role models for our modern democracies, Mr Santini says that modern cities are spearheading the drive towards electronic governance. "Local government has experienced a real revival through the introduction of information and communication technologies," he says. According to The IPTS Report, digital democracy has made some remarkable advances and provides a number of examples of successful experiments. These include the world's first global online poll which was set up to coincide with the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, Internet games to promote participation among young people, as well as citizen's forums and e-voting in local elections. One notable example at the EU level was the recent launch of the "e-Vote" project. As the report explains, tens of thousands of European citizens have already voted on numerous topical issues, with more than 100,000 expressing opinions on the Iraq crisis alone. One major hurdle for proponents of digital democracy, however, is the enigma of the "digital divide". Democracy is by definition inclusive, so the current level of Internet exclusion is a fundamental constraint on the spread of e-democracy. In fact, new research shows evidence of this digital divide growing in Europe. The study (2), compiled by Forrester Research, suggests that by 2008, the proportion of homes with high speed Internet access in Europe could vary from 5 per cent in Greece to 45 per cent in Norway. The study concludes that broadband in Europe will be unevenly split along a clear north/south divide. Scandinavia and the Netherlands will dominate the ratings; German-speaking Europe, Belgium, Finland, and the U.K. will form a second tier; and Southern Europe and Ireland will continue to lag. Overall, by 2008 Forrester predicts that only 30 per cent of all homes in Europe will have broadband. Realising the extent of this gap, some have suggested that if the EU and its Member States regard electronic participation seriously, they must then ensure universal access to the technology. "As we move towards a written EU constitution, we must ensure that the Internet [...] is in both its heart and mind," says Derek Wyatt, member of the UK parliament. Wyatt urges governments to view the Internet in the same way as gas and electricity, as a public utility for all. This, in itself, is a problem of sorts: if Internet access is to be regarded as a public utility like electricity, does this mean the more money you have the more you are able to exercise your democratic rights and responsibilities? And what happens when the lights go out, as in the U.S., the U.K., and more recently all of Italy? Are your democratic rights then suspended or at least put on hold until the power comes back on? No doubt, this would give extra meaning to Bertrand Russel's saying that we have our freedom until we need it the most. Waving the wand of electronic wizardry will not magically boost democratic participation. Along these lines, some have been careful to warn that simply waving the wand of electronic wizardry will not magically boost democratic participation. "The process of widening involvement [...] will be harder than just creating the opportunity to participate," cautions Greg Dyke, Director-General of the BBC. "E-democracy requires not just technical development but deep cultural change where the 'citizen consumer' is given a recognised role in the political process." Mr Dyke suggests that public television can provide an instructive model for greater citizen involvement and a crucial link between government and society. "The BBC and other European public service broadcasters may be better placed than almost any other organisations to provide a starting point to encourage the widest range of people to participate in civic life." At the end of the day, what is missed by many when considering the question of digital democracy is not just issues of technology or access. "Digital literacy" is also important. Many who use the Internet today don't exploit it to its full potential; they are trapped within the narrow confines of basic and routine tasks. Most wouldn't know how to find information which exist outside the range of Google, Yahoo, or MSN, for instance. Moreover, democracy is not simply the act of voting but also of taking a measure of interest and responsibility for actions which may affect society as a whole. While some mention activities such as communicating with elected representatives as a step forward for the concept of digital democracy, computer-mediated communications in this case can be a curse as well as a blessing. True, it makes it easier to make contact, but automation processes also enable elected representatives to hide behind their virtual identities, sometimes avoiding the public altogether. As that old adage from the late 1990s goes, "no-one knows if you're a dog on-line". But even more important than this is the realisation that most politicians and policymakers who talk about e-government are not really interested in democracy at all. The proof is in the pudding, as can be seen in anti-globalisation protests in Europe and abroad. When real democratic participation is attempted by citizens at large, leaders hide behind high fences and far away in remote locations, surrounded by successive rings of security. For digital democracy to succeed in reality, off-line democracy must first exist in practice. ---- Notes: (1) The IPTS Report. Special issue on e-democracy, Number 75, European Commission, Joint Research Centre, June 2003, http://www.jrc.es/iptsreport (2) http://dbs.cordis.lu/cordis-cgi/srchidadb?ACTION=D&SESSION= 129102003-10-8&DOC=2&TBL=EN_NEWS&RCN=EN_RCN_ID:20704&CALLER= EN_UNIFIEDSRCH ---- This article originally appeared on Telepolis: http://www.telepolis.de/english/inhalt/te/15807/1.html --------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Reprinted from the Amateur Computerist Vol 12 No 1, Winter 2003/2004 The whole issue or a subscription is available for free via email. Send a request to jrh@ais.org or see http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------