Cahde(2007) 4 e symposium on e-democracy: new opportunities for enhancing civic participation
Download 151.4 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Report PROGRAMME MONDAY 23 APRIL 2007
- Introduction to the
- International organisations and networks: partners in e-democracy
- Theme I Government to citizen to government communications: engaging citizens in decision-making
- Can e-democracy close the gap between people and power
- Theme II Beneath the hype: overcoming barriers and measuring impact
- TUESDAY 24 APRIL 2007
- Stories from the grassroots: How the BBC helped citizens take action Debate (10.30 - 11.00) Coffee break 09.00-12.30 Theme IV
- Final Report by the General Rapporteur and Rapporteur of Theme II Professor Lawrence Pratchett
- Why do we need e-democracy
- Issues of supply and demand
- The scope for e-democracy
- Revolution or evolution
- Top-down and bottom-up democracy
- Conclusions from the symposium
- Report on Theme I Government to citizen to government communications: engaging citizens in decision-making by Ian Johnson
- Building the capacity of government to undertake e-participation
- Policy deliberation and input
- Report on Theme III The Return of the Citizen: New Forms of Social Networking by Daniel van Lerberghe
- Report on Theme IV : E-campaigning by Thierry Vedel Political Research Centre, Sciences-Po (Institute of Political Science)
- The potential of ITC for e-campaigning
- Internet and political involvement
- The end of traditional mediators
- Resistances and obstacles
- Conclusion: from the digital divide to the civic divide
CAHDE (2007) 4 E 20 September 2007 CAHDE(2007) 4 E Symposium on E-democracy: new opportunities for enhancing civic participation Strasbourg, Palais de l'Europe 23-24 April 2007
the Ad Hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE) and the Council of Europe Congress of Local and Regional Authorities Report PROGRAMME MONDAY 23 APRIL 2007 09.30 – 12.30 INTRODUCTORY SESSION Chair: Mr Thomas BUCHSBAUM, Chairman of the Council of Europe Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy. General Rapporteur: Mr Lawrence PRATCHETT, Professor of Local Democracy and Director of the Local Governance Research Unit, De Montfort University, UK Opening addresses Ms Maud de BOER-BUQUICCHIO, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe Mr Ian MICALLEF, President of the Chamber of Local Authorities Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe Introduction to the Ms Ann MACINTOSH - Professor of E-Governance and Director of the theme of the International Teledemocracy Centre at Napier University, UK symposium eParticipation: from e-enabling to e-empowerment Debate 11.00 – 11.30 Coffee break 11.30 - 12.30 International organisations and networks: partners in e-democracy Mr Thanassis CHRISSAFIS, DG INFSO H2 "eGovernment", European Commission Mr Dick TOORNSTRA, Director and Special Advisor for the promotion of democracy at the European Parliament, Directorate General for External Policies of the Union, European Parliament Reaching out electronically-bridging the gap? Ms Tanja TIMMERMANS, Public Governance and Territorial Development Directorate, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Challenges to citizens’ online participation: open and inclusive policy-making Mr Gherardo CASINI, Head of office in Rome, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) Mr Giuseppe PARUOLO, Deputy Mayor of the City of Bologna, Italy, Chair of Eurocities Knowledge Society Forum - Telecities What's missing for a mature civic e-democracy? 12.30 – 14.00 Lunch break 14.00 - 17.30 Theme I Government to citizen to government communications: engaging citizens in decision-making Chair: Mr Ian MICALLEF, President of the Chamber of Local Authorities Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe Introduction by the Rapporteur: Mr. Ian JOHNSON, Head of Democratic Engagement Branch, Department for Constitutional Affairs, UK Can e-democracy close the gap between people and power? Mr Ross FERGUSON, e-Democracy Programme Director, Hansard Society, UK Digital Dialogues – Government, Citizens and Online Policy Deliberation in the UK Local authorities’ initiatives – Case studies: City of Issy-les-Moulineaux, France : Mr Eric LEGALE, Director of "Issy Média" Issy-les-Moulineaux, a connected town City of Dantumadeel, The Netherlands : Mr Fokke Jagersma, Municipal Councillor Debate
City of Alcobendas, Spain, Mr Antonio DIAZ, Director “Participation Coordination and Quality” Governing with citizens: Experience with electronic participation in Alcobendas Province of Brescia, Italy, Mr. Paolo CRUGNOLA, Innovation and Territory Area The e-democracy national action plan and the Province of Brescia case Debate Ms Clélia MORALI, Project Manager, Communication Department, Ministry of Economy, Industry and Finance, France Cyberbudget - an online game for budget modelling Mr Günther LAUER, Department-Leader E-Government and Mr Carl-Marcus PISWANGER, Solution Architect E-Government, Austrian Federal Computing Centre, Austria A three-step-model for online citizen consultation Debate (15.30 – 16.00) Coffee break 14.00 - 17.30 Theme II Beneath the hype: overcoming barriers and measuring impact Chair: Ms Delia MUCICA, Vice-Chairperson of the Steering Committee on the Media and New Communication Services Introduction by the Rapporteur, Mr Lawrence PRATCHETT From politicians to citizens: overcoming the barriers to e-democracy Ms Laurence MONNOYER-SMITH, University of Compiègne, France Measuring the impact of e-democracy: a three-dimensional approach Mr Peter MAMBREY - Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology and University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany Formative evaluation to foster civic participation Ms Ulrike KOZELUH, Vienna Science Centre, Austria Measuring the quality of e-democracy: what criteria shall we use? Mr Herbert KUBICEK, Professor for Applied Computer Science, University of Bremen, Director of the Institute for Information Management, Bremen, Germany Embedding e-participation processes - Media Mix and Meta Communication Mr Lasse BERNTZEN, Vestfold University College, Norway Is there a need for regulation of e-democracy applications or is there a need to regulate citizen influence? Debate (15.30 – 16.00) Coffee break 17.45 Reception offered by the Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe TUESDAY 24 APRIL 2007 09.00 - 12.30 Theme III The return of the citizen: new forms of social networking Chair: Mr Etienne VAN VAERENBERGH, Vice-Chair of the Sustainable Development Committee of the Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of the Council of Europe Introduction by the Rapporteur, Mr Daniel van LERBERGHE, Politech Institute, Brussels, Belgium eParticipation: A bottom up revolution Ms Evika KARAMAGIOLI, Gov2u, Greece Gov2u: Using the power of online communities and social networks to create change Mr Tom STEINBERG - theyworkforyou.com, UK Successful online engagement in theory and practice', or 'The Day That an eDemocracy Site Grew as Fast as MySpace Ms Sara ERIKSEN and Ms Annelie EKELIN, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Blekinge, Sweden Who makes an active citizen? A dialogue about re-configuring roles Mr Ignacio ARSUAGA, HazTeOir.org, Spain The HazteOir.org Case Study: Building a Community and Influencing Politics Ms Amber ROSE, Senior Broadcast Journalist, BBC News Interactive, UK Stories from the grassroots: How the BBC helped citizens take action Debate (10.30 - 11.00) Coffee break 09.00-12.30 Theme IV E-campaigning Chair: Mr Andreas GROSS, Member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Introduction by the Rapporteur: Mr. Thierry VEDEL, Researcher, Centre de recherches politiques de Sciences Po (CEVIPOF), France The role of the internet in campaigning: what we know and what we are learning Mr Lorenzo MOSCA, European University Institute, Florence, Italy Campaigning online: limits and opportunities of Internet advocacy Mr Graham COVINGTON, Advocacy Online, provider of e-campaigning technology and services, UK E-campaigning: from broadcast to community Ms Ariane SELINGER, debat2007.fr, France «Débat 2007.fr» or how companies took part in the French presidential election’s social and economic debate Mr Thomas NOIRFALISSE - Oxfam International, Switzerland Oxfam International's e-campaigning strategy Debate (10.30 - 11.00) Coffee break 12.30 - 14.00 Lunch 14.00-17.00 CONCLUDING SESSION Chair: Mr Michael REMMERT, Project Manager “Good Governance in the Information Society”, Council of Europe Reports from the parallel sessions by the theme rapporteurs Presentation of Symposium findings and e-democracy issues for further research by the Symposium General Rapporteur: Mr Lawrence PRATCHETT Debate Closing remarks Final Report by the General Rapporteur and Rapporteur of Theme II Professor Lawrence Pratchett De Montfort University, UK Electronic participation in politics (e-participation) is now a reality in many countries, at least among the relatively privileged citizens of most democratic states. Governments at national, regional and local levels all seem keen to exploit new technologies in order to bridge the supposed gap between the state and its citizens, finding increasingly novel ways to inform, consult and otherwise engage their populations in aspects of the political process. Citizens, as well, are grasping the opportunities offered by the information age to discuss and self-organise across traditional geographic and political boundaries, to hold their political leaders to account and to exert influence upon them. Despite the excitement in some areas around e-democracy, however, experience of developing and applying new technologies to support or enhance citizen participation in politics is mixed. It is only in the last few years that real experiments have taken place with online engagement, and the real consequences of new modes of participation are only beginning to be thought through. This symposium, organised under the auspices of the Council of Europe’s ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE), provided an opportunity to assess developments in e-democracy across the continent. As well as hearing about a range of different initiatives from NGOs and governments operating at the local, national and international level, it also heard from academics, parliamentarians and others concerned with the new technologies and the ways in which they are being enacted in different political locations. Consequently, it went beyond mapping the range and take-up of initiatives, to provide the first cross-national consideration of how new technologies might be changing the relationship between governors and the governed. This report summarises the main themes that were discussed at the symposium, and highlights its broad conclusions in terms of the added value that e-democracy may be seen to offer governments, politicians and citizens in Europe. Overall, five key themes emerged: Why do we need e-democracy? This first theme concerns the very basis of why so many countries, governments, politicians, NGOs and citizens themselves are interested in e-democracy. Throughout the symposium, and particularly in the opening speeches, the question of exactly why those present feel e-democracy might be useful arose. Responses to this question fell into two categories: Political disengagement – many participants felt that the tools of e-democracy and e-participation represent an opportunity to respond to observed problems concerning political apathy and disengagement across Europe. These concerns are associated with a perception that the democratic deficit is growing in relation to a range of political institutions at the local, national and international level. This democratic deficit is characterised by such problems as: Declining levels of political participation, as witnessed by falling election turnout across many European countries; Declining trust in political institutions and in politicians in particular, leading to greater disengagement from politics among many groups; Declining levels of civic engagement especially among young people who are increasingly disinterested in participating in civic life; Alienation and a sense of disenfranchisement among certain groups (especially the economically, ethnically or socially excluded); The growth of extremism and racism in politics in many European countries, as witnessed by the growing success of far-right parties in local elections in particular. For those concerned with these problems, e-democracy offers new opportunities to address citizens and to re-engage various groups. The ICT opportunity – at the other extreme, there was an implicit acknowledgement from many speakers that it was the opportunity that new information and communication technologies (ICTs) offer that is most exciting about e-democracy. These opportunities include: The possibility to reach out to new groups (such as the young) using technologies that appeal to them (for example, by using Web 2.0 technologies such as Face Book, My Space, You Tube and Second Life); The possibility of using ICTs to re-engineer new political and democratic processes that fit with contemporary policy problems (the example of how e-petitioning systems have made parliaments more responsive in Germany, Scotland and elsewhere was emphasised). However, concern was also expressed about how compatible these two responses were: while concerns with political disengagement require innovative approaches to re-engaging citizens, enhancing transparency and making governments more responsive, ICT led innovation, at times at least, fails to address these problems in favour of innovation for innovation’s sake. Governments need to avoid e-democracy solutions simply because they are ‘modern’ and, instead, seek those innovations that will support their own needs. Issues of supply and demand This second theme addressed the issue of how effective contemporary e-democracy initiatives are, and whether they relate to what citizens really want from democracy. In other words, does what is being supplied by governments and other organisations match the demand of citizens? Two concerns were relevant here: If we build it they will come – too many initiatives are designed to suit the needs and preferences of governments and other bodies. There is a sense that if citizens are given the opportunities to participate they will automatically take it. The reality is that initiatives have to be much more carefully crafted to ‘scratch where people are itching’. Governments also have to accept that relatively low levels of engagement are not necessarily a problem and that raw numbers of people participating are not necessarily a good measure of success for e-democracy. The unable willing or the able unwilling – this phrase was used in the symposium to reflect the range of people that e-participation initiatives might reach and the problems associated with it. The unable willing refers to those who might want to participate but lack the resources and skills to engage. In this context, e-participation initiatives need to avoid creating further barriers to engagement among those communities that fall into this category. The able unwilling refers to those who have the resources and skills but prefer to invest them elsewhere. In this context, e-participation initiatives need to be built creatively to provide added reasons for engagement. A key point about these two categories is that a single approach to e-democracy is unlikely to meet the needs of both. The challenge for governments is to develop complementary approaches which do not have negative consequences for engagement. The scope for e-democracy One of the issues that the symposium addressed both directly and indirectly concerned the scope of e-democracy: who should be the target of e-democracy initiatives and what should they be trying to achieve? The answer to this question was seen as a continuum. At one extreme, incremental but nonetheless important changes in the operation of Parliament were proposed. These proposals included enhancing the efficiency and transparency of elected members by providing them all with email addresses and websites and, indeed, developing systems such as the UK’s theyworkforyou.com website, that monitor the parliamentary activities of individual politicians. However, it was also recognised that there was significant resistance among some (but by no means all) parliamentarians to technological innovation. At the other extreme, it was also recognised that e-democracy needs to be engaging with the latest Web 2.0 social networking technologies: there is already much citizen-led political activity on sites such as MySpace, FaceBook, YouTube and Second Life and some politicians are already responding to this latest phenomenon. However, there is also, arguably, a need for governments and politicians to be more deliberate and strategic in their approach to adopting these technologies. Between these two extremes, there are also a range of new and emerging opportunities for enhancing representation, improving participation and extending spaces for deliberation both within and across communities. The question for governments, therefore, is to decide where they wish to focus their efforts in this area. Revolution or evolution? Linked to the issue of where to focus efforts is a concern with how revolutionary or evolutionary the technologies are when placed within a political system. It is tempting to see all new applications as being revolutionary or, at the minimum, to have the potential to radically alter the behaviour of politicians, public servants, citizens and so on. Indeed, it is such radical claims that make many e-participation champions so persuasive. The revolutionary impact of particular projects is often an implicit, if not explicit, criterion in evaluating the success of e-democracy initiatives: e-democracy projects are expected to have radically changed the behaviour of politicians, greatly extended the level of participation or revolutionised the quality of engagement. These revolutionary expectations, however, need to be balanced against the more modest but nonetheless important achievements of most existing e-democracy projects. Few projects have major and sustained effects on political behaviour, participation or engagement: more significantly, even fewer have precisely the effects that their champions predict for them. The reality of e-democracy is that it exists alongside other democratic devices, many of which have long standing significance and legitimacy in different countries. The way in which politicians, citizens and intermediary organisations take-up and use devices, therefore, will be shaped by their past experience and current expectations. Equally, experience of using new devices will shape the way in which future devices might be adopted. Governments and others interested in implementing e-democracy devices need to be conscious of the way new applications will relate to, and be shaped by, existing practices. Top-down and bottom-up democracy A key conclusion from the symposium was that what governments do in the area of e-democracy matters. The attitudes of the different branches of government towards participation and innovation will shape the way in which new systems are developed. Governments need to think carefully, therefore, about what directions and incentives they are providing for engagement through electronic means. Inevitably, such the directions and incentives to e-democracy will need to be nuanced and subtle. Choices about top-down systems will indicate the governments preferred means of engaging citizens, whether it is through aggregative devices such as e-voting or focuses on more deliberative and sustained dialogues with citizens. However, democracy is also about bottom-up activities, with citizens self-organising to pursue particular political preferences or interests. What governments do (and don’t do) shapes the space in which citizens and the organisations of civil society can be active. In the rush to provide a range of e-democracy and offline channels for political engagement governments need to be careful not to crowd out or ignore grass-roots forms of engagement. Conclusions from the symposium In the context of these themes, the symposium ended by prompting all governments to think about the following questions: What type of democracy do we want? While it is not the role of any individual to decide how democracy should work in a particular country, governments and others need to reflect upon how democracy currently works and what problems they really want to address. What values do we want e-democracy to emphasise? Different devices will give emphasis to particular democratic values. The choice of devices, therefore, will reflect the priorities of governments and help to adjust the emphasis given to different democratic values. How do individual devices affect behaviour (citizens, politicians, other stakeholders)? Governments need to think not only of the problems they want to address but also how current devices affect the behaviour of stakeholders. How can individual devices link to policy decisions and outcomes? Participation and engagement is only relevant when it has effect on the policy process. Participants need to see and understand how their engagement is going to be used. What criteria should we use for evaluating democracy and how can evaluations help democratic development? Governments need to develop measures of e-democracy that reflect the reality of participation: only a limited number of people will want to engage. Evaluation, therefore, needs to focus on issues of both quantity and quality. In answering these questions, governments might begin to be able to use e-democracy to effectively shape future democratic processes. Report on Theme I Government to citizen to government communications: engaging citizens in decision-making by Ian Johnson Head of Democratic Engagement Branch, Department for Constitutional Affairs, UK Summary of presentations In this session, the theme was explored using examples that focused on: Building the capacity of government to undertake e-participation Policy deliberation and input Engaging Young People Political education Community building Building the capacity of government to undertake e-participation In the UK, the Digital Dialogues programme has worked with a number of government departments on a variety of issues, a range of levels from ministers, through to policy officials, ICT specialists and communicators and a number of e-participation methods, e.g. blogs, web-chats, discussion forums and surveys. This diversity is deliberate, as the intention was to challenge the existing unsupported and isolated approach to e-participation. Its aim was to investigate organisational, cultural and technical barriers to e-participation and by supporting these examples develop networking, documented case studies and focused guidance on the issues that arose, so building up confidence and competence in this field. The programme has just completed its second phase with another report expected shortly. The third phase will begin in a few weeks’ time and extend the range of e-participation methods examined. Policy deliberation and input In Austria, three trials were made of a structured process of gathering views for input into policy making. This consisted of three stages: Deliberation Elaboration Prioritisation The main issues to overcome were technical, organisational and trust-related and the key solutions were to ensure that the tools were easy to access and to convince people that their data would be held securely. Clear outcomes fed into the policy process as a result of these exercises. Engaging Young People The City of Dantumadeel connected better with its young people by giving them mobile phones. Each week, they were texted a question which they discussed with the mayor. They also made their own video stories to illustrate their lives and points of view. This provided for much greater insights into young people’s concerns – and was also a challenge to politicians to open up to this different type of dialogue Political education In France, concerns over high levels of public debt and the need for people to understand budgetary constraints, led to a project to engage people in a budget simulation game. This gave people the opportunity to model a 3 year budget, exploring scenarios of steady state, decreases and increases in resources, efficiency saving etc and taking into account medium and long term impacts of their decisions, unexpected events, the lobbying of vested interests and the role of Parliament. The game was very visuals and had been marketed extensively. So far, 400,000 had played the game that took about 30 minutes to complete. Community building There were three examples of e-participative methods being used to help build trust, relationships, civic knowledge and involvement. A common theme appeared to be that of building up this approach over a number of years on a firm foundation of good internet access and reliable e-government tools, testing out what worked and what did not and still retaining and using offline methods of engagement to ensure everyone was included. Examples of tools used included web TV, podcasting, citizen journalism, web debates, Q+A sessions with questions e-mailed or telephoned in and planning sessions and tools to involve civic society and schools. The main lessons seemed to be: Strong political support was needed; Ways to encourage government to put “difficult” issues for discussion needed to be considered; A multi-channel approach was important; Citizens might prefer to contribute anonymously in some circumstances; Citizen confidence in using the tools was paramount – so good usability, relevance to their lives and support was essential; Although little formal evaluation had been carried out, there was a clear feeling that these processes had added to democratic knowledge and accountability, though more could be done to measure these “soft” factors. Report on Theme III The Return of the Citizen: New Forms of Social Networking by Daniel van Lerberghe Politech Institute, Brussels, Belgium The undergoing bottom up Web 2.0 revolution is characterised by the return of the citizens in the democratic and political processes under various forms of online active participation in shaping public policies, raising public concerns, advocating ideas and campaigning initiatives towards public institutions and elected representatives. The rapid developments of multi-channel social software and ICT tools enhancing social interactions and networking have enabled the creation of vibrant communities and empower new actors to actively participate in public affairs and changing the balance of power between the different actors of the democratic system of governance such as the executive, the legislative, the press, civil society and the citizen. Therefore, are we moving toward a more participatory democracy built on an increased participation of the citizens, a more interactive style of government and a new form of journalism, is becoming the key challenge for e-Democracy. The Birth of New Actors Web 2.0, as defined by an increase in multi-channel interactivity shaping Internet in the first decade of the 21st Century, is leading the way to an emerging knowledge-based democratic society based on new forms of systemic interactions between new types of actors, highlighting the transformation from e-Government to e-Democracy: - The Political Entrepreneur (Decision-makers, elected representatives and opinion leaders) - The Active Citizen (civil society) - The Knowledge Civil Servant (Public Authorities – executive)
The Development of e-Participation and Social Networking Various examples of Web 2.0 or new forms of social networking can be presented as a sharp evolution of the interactions amongst citizens and between citizens, policy-makers and public agencies. The convergence of these new ICT tools can be classified into 3 forms of an evolving citizens’ online interactive participation: i) The Blogosphere – the leading Web 2.0 tool for active citizenship: From GLOBAL to GLOCAL – The GLOBAL role of Communities dealing with local issues (neighborhood, environment, …); 1 Blog per second is created – 60X more than 3 years ago (source: Technocrati index 2006); Bloggers are becoming opinion leaders - e.g. Etienne Chouard (the French European Constitutional Treaty Referendum campaign blogger) or Loic Lemeur (most famous French blogger); Leadership Blogging - e.g. European Commission’s Vice President Margaret Wallstrom, UK local councilors bolgging platform (ReadMyDay.gov.uk); Social Networking and Media Convergence (Webradio, video blogs (Vlog), Podcasting); Bloggers’ communities and portal style blogs: MySpace, DigitalMotion, YouTube, BBC Action Network. During the last few years, Blogs have become a new channel of communication between ordinary citizens and decision-makers. ii) Citizen journalism - when citizens are transforming into first end information witnesses and experts: Bloggers as Journalists; Witnessing the news: acting as images and content providers to professional journalists and news agencies; Examples of Citizen Journalism: OhMyNews.com; SLObserver.com We are witnessing an increasing convergence between citizen journalism and traditional journalism, as citizen journalism is more and more integrated into mainstream media online strategies (e.g. lemonde.fr). iii) From Second Life (secondlife.com) to Mediascape: Web 3.0 – A 3D virtual collaborative and interactive world using the converging ICT tools characterizing social networking and Web 2.0 developments; Total Residents in Second life: over 5 million representing an average of 30 thousands people online around the clock and generating US$ 1.5 million every 24 hours; A Secure client application providing the user a ‘One-Stop Shop Experience’ – Therefore, we are witnessing a transformation from one-stop shop portals to one-stop shop experience with the convergence of ICT tools and a more customized user experience; Public presence in Second Life: French Presidential election, Swedish Embassy, La Maison de l’Europe inaugurated officially by France and Cities (e.g. Venice); Positive Media Reviews (e.g. Der Spiegel report on Second Life in March 2007); The mediascape concept as the use of second life environment in the real world independent of the device you are using to connect to the Internet is appearing as the new challenge for tomorrow’s e-Democracy. Practical Concepts to Measure e-Democracy The e-Democracy value is a practical concept, developed by POLITECH INSTITUTE, based on the T.E. Cooke index and the emerging paradigm of Public Value Management (PVM), which confronts a given feature or service disclosed by an initiative or website, providing an added-value to the democratic process of a given community. This emerging concept of e-Democracy value proposed a magnifying glass to analyze the evolution of e-Democracy. Practical concepts and measurement tools are important to analyze and measure e-Democracy and e-Participation initiatives in terms of features and contribution to the democratic and participatory processes. Ms Evika KARAMAGLIOLI, GOV2U, Greece e-Democracy tools have the potential to offer citizens a greater share in political discourse. Despite the fact that many European countries have official policies of enabling citizen participation using ICT, there are wide gaps in the extent to which most have developed and integrated the actual tools that would support such involvement in the decision making process. Greece is an example of a European country that despite substantial EU support, continues to lag behind other Member States in terms of Internet diffusion and usage. GOV2U, a Greek organization in the field of e-Participation, has analyzed the way citizens are involved and found out that citizens, especially elderly and minority groups, do not expect that online mechanisms will influence policy. As a reaction to that finding, ‘e-Representative’, a project funded by the EU, was launched to reduce technological phobia and citizens expectancy gap in regard to policy-shaping using Internet. Therefore, it should not be neglected that awareness, education and familiarization of users to ICT are as important as coordinated and comprehensive national policies and strategies. Mr. Tom STEINBERG, MySociety.org, UK Raising the question of e-Participation successes in terms of numbers and origin, simple platforms like MySpace and YouTube not designed primarily to engage citizens in the democratic process are clearly outperforming direct e-Participation and e-Government projects. Building on that principle, MySociety.org has launched a number of successful e-Participation platforms such ‘Write to Them’. ‘Write to Them’ has shown that 40% of British citizens did not know their representatives and that 47% of them have never wrote to their representatives prior before using the system. Therefore, Tom argued that if you only help 100 people with minimum investment you already did a first step toward increasing participation. People have always been used to get involved with low-level political engagement tools and the Internet is just acting as a multiplier. Ms Sara ERIKSEN, Belkinge Institute of Technology, Sweden Who are these active citizens? Active citizen and citizenship is a much wider concept than we can imagine. An active citizen can be an active customer, a responsible human being in his/her workplace, an active community member or in a simpler way just a concerned citizen. Therefore, an active citizen is not a predefined role, but rather a context oriented individual behavior. Mr. Ignacio ARSUAGA, HazTeOir.org, Spain Citizens are not waiting for their decision-makers or public authorities to provide them with ways of participating in the democratic process. HazTeOir.org is a prime example of cyber activism initiated by citizens who were keen to learn how could they influence policy on issues of concern. To this end, Internet is a complementary channel to more classical channels of participation such as public rallies or active lobbying. Ms Amber ROSE, BBC, UK Subsequent to the 2001 historical low voting turnout during the UK General Election since the war, the BBC, as part of the establishment, has undertaken a journey to find out why people, especially between 18 and 45 were not engaging in politics. The research showed evidence of a growth of cynicism and disengagement amongst the public. People felt they were helpless to change things or they did not know where to start if they wanted to. The BBC believed that they were in a unique position to fulfill the objective of making democracy work and make it valued by the public. It came up with an idea to create a community portal and educate people using the vast amount of content and tools at its disposal: Action Network was born. The lesson learned from this successful democratic online engagement experience was that the Internet does well at creating communities around mobilizing issues, creating new technological tools, but the most important of all it helped creating democracy. Report on Theme IV : E-campaigning by Thierry Vedel Political Research Centre, Sciences-Po (Institute of Political Science) Paris, France Introduction The word e-campaigning refers to the use of information and communication technology (TIC), especially Internet, in co-ordinated action to mobilise and/or convince individuals, but it actually covers two different types of phenomena: firstly, electoral campaigns, and secondly campaigns to promote causes, endeavouring to directly or indirectly influence the shaping or implementation of public policies. For all their similarities, these two modes of campaigning are not exactly the same. Electoral e-campaigns are conducted against a fairly homogeneous national background, are generally subject to fairly strict regulations (eg limitation of electoral expenditure and prohibition of some types of political advertisement) and target a huge number of individuals. On the other hand, e-campaigns to promote causes may take a much wider variety of forms: they may be conducted at either the infra- or the supra-national level, they are not necessarily regulated or else, in the case of international campaigns, they must adapt to a multitude of statutory or cultural environments, and lastly their targets may range from small groups of politicians or company managers to enormous sections of the population. The panel meeting (with contributions from Graham Covington, Lorenzo Mosca and Thomas Noirfalisse) mainly concentrated on this latter type of e-campaign, with only Ariane Selinger broaching the electoral aspect in her statement. The potential of ITC for e-campaigning ITC, and especially Internet, have revolutionised the way in which political campaigns can be conducted to such an extent that we might wonder, as did one participant, how on earth citizens were mobilised at short notice before the advent of the Web. As Graham Covington and Lorenzo Mosca reminded us, ITC has three different types of potential: information: Internet helps improve citizen information. By cutting publishing and transmitting costs it provides citizens with fuller information (eg full-length reports). Its decentralised structure and global nature help provide greater pluralism of viewpoints; debate and discussion: Internet provides many applications (discussion forums, blogs and co-operative platforms) to facilitate exchange between individuals from different backgrounds who would probably never otherwise have engaged in joint discussions. This enables the Web to enlarge and/or revitalise the public space, so much so that some see it as a latter-day agora; mobilisation and co-ordination: Internet facilitates contact between individuals who share common interests and helps co-ordinate joint actions. This enables Internet to support official groups (parties, trade unions and economic lobbies) in bringing out new political and social forces hitherto hamstrung by the lack of a structured apparatus or low resources. Use of ITC also encourages the consolidation of collective identities, with Internet crystallising and shaping social relations around a shared project. Internet and political involvement Does Internet actually foster new modes of political involvement? Does it broaden the public space by bringing in citizens who had never previously participated into the electoral debate? How can it help groups which are more or less excluded from the political system to make their voices heard? Traditionally, citizen participation in political life is hampered by various material factors such as lack of time or the physical distance among individuals. With Internet, political involvement is much easier and cheaper. It obviates the need to attend interminable evening meetings or to march through the streets in the rain. People can debate strategies in the comfort of their own homes, sign on-line petitions and become involved in action taking place on the other side of the globe. In fact, Internet can be a remarkable co-ordinating utility, as witness the social counter-summits organised by the anti-globalist movement alongside the G8 summits. This movement uses Internet not only to host its debates but also to disseminate a huge range of practical and factual information. This is how such groups make travel and accommodation arrangements for their activists, organise rallying points, set out details for events and distribute propaganda material. Internet evidently supports (rather than generates) an aspiration to more flexible, pragmatic and contractual forms of activism (as opposed to the sacrificial, ideological and restrictive activism of the 1970s and 1980s). At the same time, research into the subject would suggest that those who become politically involved on line are among the most highly politicised population groups, and we might wonder whether they would still have become involved if Internet did not exist. The end of traditional mediators? Internet provides new channels for information and expression which are to some extent in competition with the traditional mediation processes, particularly the media. Personal or collective blogs, document- or video-sharing sites and Wiki-type co-operative applications are providing a degree of independence from the major daily newspapers and TV new broadcasts. But how far does this independence go? Ariane Selinger reminded us that the electoral debate during the French presidential campaign was still mainly structured by the traditional media, which defined most of the campaign agenda. Lorenzo Mosca noted that it would be naïve to think that Internet did away with all intermediation. Most Internet users access the resources through search engines which select and classify information and therefore constitute new mediators. However, given that the information processing methods actually implemented remain largely unknown, these new mediators are less transparent than the traditional media, with whose modus operandi people are more familiar. More broadly, new interactions are emerging between the old and new media. We still need the traditional media to clarify the political action conducted on Internet, particularly since political and economic leaders derive their information mainly from the newspapers and television. E-campaigning is often a good way of attracting media attention (paradoxically, sometimes more effectively than that of Internet users). In many countries, moreover, Internet has become a major source of information for journalists, who use it to identify new social problems. During the French presidential elections, for instance, blogs were used as an indicator for subjects of concern to the general public: they reflected the political discussions which had already existed in the past but had been less tangible. Resistances and obstacles Even if Internet is now a mass social phenomenon, its use for on-line campaigning is still facing a range of obstacles and resistances. Such resistances may be generational: the educational background and age bracket of most political leaders means that they do not necessarily know how to use Internet properly. Graham Covington considers that many politicians are still “e-dinosaurs”, pointing out that 9.5% of Scottish MPs had no email addresses and 26% no websites. Internet is not yet fully integrated in the PR procedures of the major companies and government departments. Thomas Noirfalisse reported on the reactions to several e-campaigns conducted by Oxfam, pointing out that only Starbucks had responded via Internet (by conducting a counter- campaign on YouTube). On the other hand, Nestlé answered via traditional mail, while the British Government pointed out that sending emails was a total waste of time, only mass postcard campaigns could have an impact and the best way to contact government was still to send a personalised letter. The difficulties facing e-campaigns are also bound up with the internal functioning of the organisations implementing them. It is often difficult to co-ordinate on-line and traditional campaigns, which sometimes causes time lags and strategic discrepancies. Lorenzo Mosca also stressed the possible emergence of conflicts within political organisations owing to an uneven spread of competences and expertise between activists with a good command of ITC and the others. National variations Above and beyond their common features, e-campaigns reveal major national variations1. In the electoral field, such variations are linked to the potential differences in election methods, electoral regulations and political cultures. For instance, it is easier to use websites in countries with a proportional election system (which helps promote a national party-led debate) than in those with a majority system (which is usually more conducive to localised and individualised electoral campaigns). Where campaigning to promote causes are concerned, marketing and lobbying practices are not uniformly accepted throughout Europe. France, for instance, prohibits the gathering of personal data on citizens’ opinions, whereas in the United Kingdom it is much easier to create profiled personal data bases. On balance, the diversity of national regulations and cultures is liable to hamper the Internet’s potential for e-campaigning. As Thomas Noirfalisse noted in the case of Oxfam, it is difficult to link up the global and local levels. In technical terms, Internet is a utility particularly well-suited to multinational activities mobilising citizens from different countries. However, if such global action is to be effective, the message often has to be tailored to the different national cultures (starting with language) and local specificities (eg to take account of various modes of relation with elected representatives or political leaders). Conclusion: from the digital divide to the civic divide When Internet was first launched, people were much exercised about the digital divide and the consequences of unequal access to Internet. Lower access costs and computer prices has reduced this digital divide. However, in many European countries over one half of households are not yet connected to Internet, and there can be no electronic democracy while a significant proportion of the population is not actually on line. Furthermore, there is a further divide among Internet users themselves, which we might refer to as a “civic divide”. Making full use of Internet resources necessitates cognitive skills which are even more important in such complex fields as politics, calling for highly developed critical faculties and also time in order, for instance, to separate institutional information from propaganda, opinions and rumours. In practice, several surveys have shown that Internet users concentrating on the political potential of the Web had a considerably higher standard of education and social status than other Internet users, and even more so, than the population as a whole. This would appear to mean that the Internet serves to “preach to the converted”, as Pippa Norris put it, increasing the capabilities of those who are most integrated into the political system. If we are to prevent Internet from further widening the civic divide among citizens, we must improve our approach to tapping its technical potential and create new applications that will make politics genuinely accessible to all. 1 These variations can be gauged by consulting the comparative analysis of functionalities in the websites of activist groups in seven European countries presented by Lorenzo Mosca in his paper. Directory: dgap -> goodgovernance -> Source Source -> Secretariat general Directorate General of Democracy and Download 151.4 Kb. Share with your friends:
|