Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Telematics and Informatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tele
ICT expansion and the digital divide in democratic freedoms: An analysis
of the impact of ICT expansion, education and ICT filtering on democracy
Farid Shirazi a,*, Ojelanki Ngwenyama a, Olga Morawczynski b
a
b
Institute for Research on Innovation and Technology Management, Ted Rogers School of Management, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
Sciences Studies Unit, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 12 April 2008
Received in revised form 27 February 2009
Accepted 3 May 2009
Keywords:
ICT
Digital divide
e-Democracy
e-Government
e-Citizen
ICT filtering
ICT stock
ICT freedom
a b s t r a c t
In recent years, several case studies have appeared on how mobile telephones, SMS and the
Internet had an impact on political activities. It has been widely argued that information
and communication technology (ICT) is influencing democracy all over the world. However, few studies provide any analysis of how ICT expansion correlates with measures of
democracy. In this paper, we investigate the relationship between the global expansion
of ICT and the level of democracy within nations. We analyze archival data on 133 countries from 1995 to 2003, which was the period-of-time of explosive ICT expansion. Some
important findings of our study are: (a) there is a growing digital divide in democratic freedoms among countries; (b) in spite of rapid ICT expansion in some countries, Internet filtering is having a significant impact on democratic freedoms.
Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are central to information access and participation in social and
political life (Bennett and Fielding, 1997; Becker, 2001; Harwit and Clark, 2001; Snellen, 2001; Drezner and Farrell, 2004).
These technologies facilitate the rapid accumulation and dissemination of information, group interaction (Norris, 1999),
communication and collaboration. They allow citizens to engage in debate on political matters, and become familiar with
political opinions and events that affect their communities (Jankowski and van Selm, 2000; La Porte et al., 2001; Oates,
2003). The use of ICT for communication and collaboration is viewed as an opportunity for otherwise disenfranchised citizens to participate in political life and to challenge the dominant order. One well-cited example is that of the Zapatista rebellion in the state of Chiapas, Mexico (Cooper, 1994; La Botz, 1995; Gilbreth and Otero, 2001). This movement consisted mainly
of impoverished Mayan citizens who contested the state’s political transition towards neo-liberalism. Because the majority
of the state’s media resources sided with the ruling elite, they refused to reproduce Zapatista material. The Zapatistas needed
to find other media through which they could articulate their interest and influence the political process. Through the Internet, they contacted newsgroups, indigenous rights groups, and human rights organizations and quickly made the world
aware of their situation. Soon the story of the Zapatista made international headlines and neglected segments of the Mexican
population received increasing attention, while the ruling elite came under intense pressure and scrutiny from the international community.
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (F. Shirazi), [email protected] (O. Ngwenyama), [email protected] (O. Morawczynski).
0736-5853/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.tele.2009.05.001
22
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
Dahlgren (2005) argues that the Internet extends and pluralizes the public sphere in a number different ways including
structures, representation, and interaction. ICTs not only foster the expression of individual interests, but also enhance public
dialogue and collaboration among constituents with divergent interests.
Some even believe that these ICT initiatives are creating a new type of political actor called the ‘‘digital citizen” (Katz,
1997). While anecdotal evidence is used to argue that ICT expansion has significantly influenced the expansion of freedom
and democracy globally, there are few systematic studies on this issue (Kampen and Snijkers, 2003). The existing literature is
mostly comprised of case studies of individual countries or journalistic reports on specific regions of the world. This paper
will fill this gap in literature. Our study uses archival data from 133 counties in different stages of ICT expansion. We use 2SLS
estimate to investigate three important relationships: (1) ICT expansion and democracy; (2) literacy and ICT expansion; (3)
ICT filtering and its impact on the future development of ICTs. This will allow us to analyze the extent to which ICT is influencing democracy worldwide. The rest of the paper is organized as follows: Section 2 presents the theoretical basis of the
concepts of freedom and democracy that we are using in our study. Section 3 discusses our research hypotheses and methodology. Section 4 provides analysis of the findings. Finally, Section 5 discusses issues for future research.
2. e-Democracy framework
2.1. Defining democracy
At the most basic level, democracy denotes a form of government in which all constituents are able to participate by
standing for election to public office and electing others to represent their interests. This also includes the right to challenge and/or call to account an existing government for actions that violate public trust. In a recent comment on the nature of democracy, the Nobel laureate Amartya Sen asserted that ‘‘democracy has complex demands, which certainly
include voting and respect for election results, but it also requires the protection of liberties and freedoms, respect for
legal entitlements, and the guaranteeing of free discussion and uncensored distribution of news and fair comment”
(Sen, 1999). Norris (2001) in regards to the representative democracy points out to three major characteristics: (1) its pluralistic competition among parties and individuals for all positions of government power; (2) its participation feature that
allows citizens equal opportunities in the selection of parties and representatives through free, fair and periodic elections;
and finally (3) its civil and political liberties to speak, publish, assemble, and organize, as necessary conditions to ensure
effective competition and participation. These characteristics focus particularly ‘‘upon how representative democracies
function through free and fair elections, as the primary mechanism for holding governments accountable for their actions”
(p. 7).
Balkin (2004) argues that central to free expression and democracy is access to information. Recent research shows that
citizens who have access to ICT are more likely to participate in the political process (Weare, 2002). In this regard, the role of
the state in promoting democracy is to foster the freedom of expression and access to information. Theories of political mobilization also assert that open access to information enables citizens to monitor electoral campaigns and government actions
(Berry, 1984; Bimber, 2001). However, information also enables governments to identify citizens who participate in the
political process, and this can be problematic in societies where democracy is immature or does not exist (Lynch, 2003;
Yu, 2004).
2.2. ICT and e-democracy
Numerous studies illustrate the ways in which national and local governmental bodies are employing ICTs to enhance
democracy (Dertouzos, 1997; Sussman, 1997; Cigler and Burdett, 1998; Bennett and Fielding, 1997; Bimber, 2001). Mudhai
(2003) argues that ICTs have been perceived as a drive to the ‘‘third wave” of democratization. Balkin (2004) points out that
the digital revolution brings features of freedom of expression to the forefront of our concern and makes possible for widespread cultural participation and interaction. He identifies cultural participation as a means of citizens’ participation in the
production of culture, and in the development of the ideas and meanings that constitute them and the communities and
sub-communities to which they belong. ICTs have enabled citizen participation in the democratic process by providing
e-democracy (Clift, 2003; Coleman, 2003; McCullagh, 2003; Morrisett, 2003; Rushkoff, 2003; Norris, 1999, 2001). ICT tools
and services such as the Internet and mobile SMS have enabled citizens to not only participate in democratic process, but
also mobilization. The wide spread and usage of the Internet in organizing and mobilizing people around the world have
helped individuals and groups to debate and influence issues relevant to political life and increase civic and political
participation (Suarez, 2006; Weber et al., 2003; Gilbreth and Otero, 2001; Norris, 2001; Bennett and Fielding, 1997;
Dertouzos, 1997; Sussman, 1997).
ICT tools and services are widely used as a source of information and mobilization in political life. For example, authorities
in Thailand sent SMS messages to over 25 mobile cell phone users encouraging them to participate in election (Thai election,
2006) or in the recent US presidential election about 24% of Americans regularly learned about the presidential campaign
from the Internet (The Pew, 2008). These tools and services were also widely used as a means of mobilizing people in political discourses or monitoring the election outcomes. Suarez (2006) points out that SMS had a crucial role for mobilizing people for mass demonstration against government demanding for the truth in 2004’s Madrid terrorist attack. It had also a
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
23
crucial role in mobilizing people during the election campaign. In Iran’s presidential election (2005) the massive usage of
SMS sent by citizens in boycotting the election or to support other candidates frustrated the hardliners who monitored
the election and threatened SMS users for revenge (Iranian Judiciary, n.d.). These tools and services were also used as a
means of monitoring tool for election outcomes around the world. For example, Sierra Leone’s election was faced with
the challenge of monitoring election outcome in a country that lacks infrastructure and reliable Internet access to transmit
election data by conventional means, the election monitoring group used SMS to transmit election data and particularly from
their rural areas where there is no ICT infrastructure established (Sierra Leone, 2008). The same monitoring feature of SMS
was used in Ghana’s election 2008 after the violence and fraud experienced in Kenya, Zimbabwe, and Nigeria (Ghana, 2008).
ICT tools and services are also used for organizing groups and individuals to express their grief and protestation against different social, political and global issues (Norris, 1999; Postmes, 2002; Suarez, 2006). Backus (2001) defines e-democracy as
processes and structures that encompass all forms of electronic interaction between the government (elected representatives) and the citizens (electorate) (cf. Savic, 2006).
Clift (2003) argues that e-democracy is the use of ICTs and strategies by ‘‘democratic sectors” within the context of political processes from local communities, up to the global stage. Some researchers argue that e-government is more responsive,
and connects citizens to meet challenges of building a more sustainable society and world (Clift, 2004; Terry; 2005; Savic,
2006). However, there are many challenges in building appropriate infrastructure for citizen engagement and collaboration.
Other researchers are arguing that while communication technologies facilitate the distribution of political documents and
provide a virtual space for citizens to discuss and engage in local political processes, this does not necessarily result in wide
spread participation (Cavanaugh, 2000; Watson and Mundy, 2001; Frissen, 2002; Hoff et al., 2003; Hill and Hughes, 1998).
Riley (2003) points out that UK Government hopes to use the Internet and in particular e-voting in order to bring youth into
the democratic process since their participation in elections was regarded as very low. In other societies, such as Iran and
China, mobile telephone and Internet use for political activity has risen dramatically in the last decade, but these governments have responded with stricter controls on ICT (Sohmen, 2001; Lacharite, 2002; Lynch, 2003; Yu, 2004). Further, a troubling dimension of Internet usage concerns the propagation of hate speech and terrorism (Gerstenfeld et al., 2003). A
challenge for researchers involved in ICT and the political sphere is to understand how ICT expansion is affecting different
groups in the ‘global village’. So far, studies of the impact of ICT on democracy have focused on examining specific local social
experiments. While there is a general feeling that ICT has had an impact on democracy globally, systematic studies examining this issue are scarce (Kampen and Snijkers, 2003).
2.3. Components of e-democracy
This research adapts Clift’s (2003) e-democracy conceptual model as depicted in Fig. 1. There are five components that
construct the e-democracy model namely: ICT, e-citizens, government, civil society and media. e-Citizens in this model
are individuals that use ICTs to participate in democratization process. This participation can take many different forms.
e-Citizen can use ICTs to interact with social groups, government agencies, media and private sectors as well as the ability
to use, create and disseminate information, and demand for a more open and democratic society and/or organize social action in form of e-petition, organize social rallies and participate in the debates and policy dialogues that are shaping global,
national and local governance in the emerging information age (Lenihan, 2002). Morrisett (2003) points out that ICTs can be
used to enhance the democratic process in form of e-government in which citizens are able to effectively impact the
Civil Society
Government
text
E-Citizens
Media
Fig. 1. General model for investigation, adapted from Clift (2003).
24
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
decision-making process in a timely manner within and between institutionally, politically or geographically distinct
networked communities.
The main objective of civil society, such as NGOs, women’s groups, trade unions, human rights groups and political organizations are to use ICTs in the pursuit of ‘good governance’ (Mercer, 2004) and democratic development. For example, political groups are able to run online advocacy and political campaigns (Clift, 2003).
Government in this model represents e-government paradigm in which it provides citizens, civil society, private sector
and media with extensive access to information electronically to support the functions that a government performs
(Lenihan, 2002).
ICTs facilitate new forms of e-government based policymaking process that enshrine some of the important norms and
practices of e-democracy (Chadwick, 2003). The potential for linking e-democracy in civil society with e-government at the
local and national levels is far from straightforward but nevertheless achievable. Media is another important component of
our e-democracy model. Bentivegna (2006) argues that ICTs signify the power to destabilize the control of the production
and circulation of information held by the traditional media. The increase in the weblogs and the proliferation of text messaging, e-mail exchange, news groups, net meetings and so on have provided e-citizens with space for the creation of ideas,
promoting gender equality and respect for human rights. The explosion of ICT tools and services has also improved communication and interaction among people across the globe and assisted opening up new possibilities for political participation
(Drezner and Farrell, 2004; Yu, 2004; Doostdar, 2004). Balkin (2004) argues that the Internet has enabled people to shape the
public opinion by routing around traditional mass media. Sites such as MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Photobucket are the
examples of the power of the Internet in social networking. There are more than 100 million personal profiles on MySpace
and Facebook has over 35 million profiles online (Laudon and Traver, 2008) the same phenomena happens with YouTube.
YouTube reaches over 73 million people visitors per month just in US (Quantcast, 2008). For example, MySpace and Facebook
were media vehicles used by US Candidates in the 2008 US presidential election for mobilizing people especially young people. During his presidential campaign, the US President Obama had and still has his website, in both the English and Spanish
languages, as well as his own YouTube channel. He was actively present in other social networking sites such as Facebook,
Flickr and MySpace (DigitalNatives, 2008). These social networking sites are important sources of communication and in particular for the younger generation where approximately 67% of Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 are actively participate in these communities (The Pew, 2008).
3. Research approach
Our research is motivated by three general questions: (1) what is the impact of ICT expansion on freedom and democracy
around the world; (2) what is the impact of education on ICT expansion; and finally (3) how systematic filtering has affected
the expansion of ICTs. At the center of the model is the dependent variable political rights and civil liberties (PRCL). Our
intention is to investigate how changes in the variable ICT network expansion (ICTs) correlates with changes in PRCL. The
UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights defines PRCL as the rights to free communication, religious and political participation, and the right to engage in economic activity. However, many scholars equate PRCL with constitutional democracy
(the right of individuals to elect their governments) and freedom of the press (Pettit, 1999; Sen, 1999; Rose, 1999; Joyce,
2003). Some also argue that constitutional democracy is essential as it provides the basis for and protections of civil liberties
and political rights (Lundstrom, 2005; Berggren, 2003; Gwartney and Lawson, 2006). In this study, we do not limit our investigation to countries with constitutional democracy nor do we include the issue of economic freedom. This is beyond the
scope of our study. In this research, we focus on understanding the impact of ICT expansion on political rights and civil liberties globally.
Within the context of this study, PRCL is a complex measure of a country’s adherence to the basic principles outlined in
the UN Declaration on Human Rights. Freedom House, an independent non-governmental international organization, which
runs regular surveys, compiles data on this measure and ranks countries on various dimensions of PRCL (see Table 1A Appendix). The variable ICTs is a measure of ICT network, ICT uptake and ICT intensity (see Table 2A Appendix). Data on this complex variable is collected from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), an agency of the United Nations
organization, and provided to researchers. Variable filtering (FILTER) is a measure of the level of media freedom exercised
by citizens of each country. This variable constructed by aggregating two indices published by Freedom House and Reporters
Without Border (RWB). The final variable, education (EDU) is a measure of adult literacy and educational enrollments for
primary through tertiary levels. To investigate the model we posited three hypotheses:
H1: The expansion of ICT networks (ICTs) is positively correlated with democracy (PRCL), as ICT expansion increases the
level of democracy as measured by PRCL will also increase.
H2: The increase level of education is positively correlated with the expansion ICTs.
H3: Filtering and state censorship of ICT networks is negatively correlated with the expansion of ICTs.
3.1. Data collection
For this study we gathered two types of archival data from several sources; (1) rankings of political rights and civil liberties from Freedom of House (www.freedomhouse.org); media freedom rankings from Freedom House and Reporters
25
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
Table 1
Ranking scales of Freedom House.
Category
Political rights
Civil liberties
Press freedom
Scores
Rating scale
Free
Partly free
Not free
1–7
1–7
1–100
<3
<3
0–30
3–5
3–5
31–60
>5
>5
61–100
Without Borders (www.rsf.org). The latter was also the main source of data on the degree of filtering and state censorship
applied on ICT networks. (2) ICT expansion and information usage data were collected from the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). The ITU compiles, annually, statistics on ICT investments, infrastructure capacity, traffic, and individual uses of the Internet and telecommunication devices and costs. (3) Data on adult literacy were collected from the UN
human development database and ITU. We collected data on all countries that we were able to find complete records of
ICT networks (ICTs), education (EDU), political rights and civil liberties (PRCL) and press freedom measures. Our dataset covers 133 countries for the period between 1995 and 2003.
The data are provided for individual items and a composite democracy index. A rating scale from one to 100 is used where
one indicates the lowest rating of democratic freedom and 100, the highest. On the individual components, Freedom House
rates each country’s political rights (PR) and civil liberties (CL) on a scale from one to seven, where one represents the highest
degree of freedom, and seven the lowest. Countries that rate an average score of less than three (combined PR and CL average)
are classified as ‘‘free”, those with a rating between 3 and 5 ‘‘partly free” and a score between 5.5 and 7 are considered ‘‘not free”
(see Table 1). Freedom House defines the level of freedom of press of each country by dividing the levels into three broad categories of environments: legal, political and economic. The legal environment examines the level of influence laws and regulations have, on the media content, as well as the government’s ability and inclination to use these laws and their legal
institutions to restrict or allow the media to broadcast. The political environment refers to the degree of political control over
the news content. The economic environment includes the media structure such as ownership, transparency, costs, etc. Each
country’s press freedom rating is based on these three categories, the higher number, the less free, it is considered. A score of 0–
30 categorizes a country in the free-press group, 31–60 in the partly-free, and 61–100 in the not free-press group.
3.2. Analytical methods
To analyze the impact of ICTs on freedom and democracy as defined by hypotheses H1 through H3, a two-stage least
squares (2SLS) estimate was applied on the panel data with endogenous variables PRCL and ICTs, and exogenous variables
education (EDU) and filtering (FILTER). Since the ordinary linear regression may produce biased and inconsistent estimates
when there are relevant explanatory variables omitted from the model, or when the covariates are subject to measurement
error, a 2SLS estimate can help us to overcome this problem. The endogenous variables, in the context of this paper, are the
dependent variables of other equations in the system in which each dependent variable is associated with its own error term.
In other words, all dependent variables are considered endogenous to the system and are assumed to correlate with the disturbances in the system’s equation.
Based on the theoretical model the following 2SLS regression model was constructed where the subscript refers to country i and year t:
ln PRCLit ¼ b0 þ ln ICTSit þ e1
ð1Þ
ln ICTSit ¼ b1 þ b2 ln EDU it þ b3 ln FITERit þ e2
ð2Þ
4. Findings from analysis
Before running the 2SLS regression we tested the panel data for multicollinearity and estimated the Inflation Factor (VIF).
Multicollinearity occurs when the independent variables are highly correlated; high multicollinearity may cause a wide
swing in the estimate of parameters due to small changes in data (Shirazi, 2008). Our test shows a VIF value of 2.80 which
is far from the critical value of 10 (moderate multicollinearity) or 30 (severe multicollinearity). As Table 2 indicates the Pvalue for all the variables show a value of zero to reject null hypothesis of (P > |t| > 0.05). The model fit statistic, R2, for endogenous variables ICTS and PRCL are 0.7151 and 0.3886, respectively.
The reader will notice that in Table 2, ICTS shows a positive value for the regression coefficient along with positive correlation with PRCL.
The same relation is true in regards to variable EDU and ICTS (positive coefficient, strong t-value and positive correlation).
Thus the results from the regression support the claims described in hypotheses H1 and H2—that ICT infrastructure has a
positive impact on democracy (as measured by political rights and civil liberties), and the increased level of education (as
measured by adult literacy and gross enrollment) has a positive impact on ICT expansion. On the other hand the variable
FILTER shows a negative coefficient along with negative t-value and negative correlation with ICTS. Again, our regression
analysis confirms Hypothesis H3.
26
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
Table 2
Parameters of 2SLS regression and test statistics, an (*) indicates significance at the 0.01 confidence level.
R2 PRCL
R2 ICTS
Number of observations
Corr. PRCL, ICTS
Corr. ICTS, EDU
Corr. ICTS, FILTER
Endogenous variables: PRCL, ICTS
Exogenous variables: EDU, FILTER
Variables
ICTS
EDU
FITER
Regression test validation statistics
Root MSE: PRCL
Root MSE: ICTS
Sum squared resid
Mean VIF
0.3886
0.7151
1197
0.6677*
0.8106*
0.6342*
Coefficient
Std. error
t-Statistic
Prob. |t|
1.065113
0.8393288
0.3224954
0.0314172
0.0231836
0.0206997
33.90
36.20
15.58
0.000
0.000
0.000
23.87597
13.88358
225625.287
2.80
Akaike info criterion
Schwarz criterion
Hannan–Quinn criterion
5.2457405
5.2627416
5.2532414
Hypothesis 1: In our research model, we theorized that since communication networks facilitate social interaction by permitting open and efficient access to information, it is reasonable to expect that ICT will have a significant impact on open
discourse and political life. Our findings confirm that ICT is positively correlated with PRCL. Consequently, all other things
being equal, greater expansion of ICT infrastructure should lead to higher levels of democratic freedom.
Hypothesis 2: In our research model, we theorized that education is positively correlated with ICT infrastructure expansion. Further, prior studies have shown that education and democracy are strongly correlated (Dewey, 1952; Page, 1997; Nie
et al., 1997; Arnot and Dillabough, 2000; Print et al., 2002; Starkey, 2002; Annette, 2003; Osler, 2005a,b). However, while
there are many studies that investigate the impact of ICTs on education (Adams, 2000; Aviram and Comay, 2000; Laurillard,
2000; Aviram and Talmi, 2005), only a few studies have investigated the impact of education on the expansion of ICTs
(Caselli and Coleman, 2001; Kiiski and Pohjola, 2002; Baliamoune-Lutz, 2003). Our findings suggest an important mediating
role for education between ICT expansion and democracy, since increases in education are positively correlated with ICT
expansion, which in turn is positively correlated with democracy.
Hypothesis 3: In our research model, we theorized that filtering and state censorship of ICT is negatively correlated with
ICT infrastructure expansion. Our findings confirm that filtering of ICT inhibits its expansion, and since ICT expansion is positively correlated with PRCL, we argue that state controls and censorship of ICT networks has a direct negative impact on
democracy and freedom of expression. Further, ICT filtering and other forms of information censorship violate the fundamental rights of citizens to free and open communication and interaction (Selian, 2004).
Fig. 2 shows the relationships among variables for all countries in our analysis: (1) graph 1 indicates that countries with a
greater level of political rights and civil liberties enjoy greater access to ICTs; (2) graph 2 shows a positive correlation between ICT expansion and the increased level of education; and (3) graph 3 shows the negative correlation between filtering
and ICT expansion. Further analysis of our data shows that those countries that implement extensive state censorship and
filtering of the content of ICTs are those that have the least developed ICT infrastructure as explained in the next section.
4.1. ICT and the democratic freedoms divide
The 2SLS regression analysis also allows us to draw some conclusions about the digital divide in democratic freedoms
during the period of study. Our analysis also allows us to generate an index ranking all 133 countries with regard to the degree that their policies for ICT use are free and open; we call this the ICT freedom index. Of the 133 countries we analyzed
four main groupings emerged:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Front-runners: countries with high democracy performance and high ICT expansion.
Above potential: countries with both ICT and democracy indices above the world average.
Average: countries with both democracy and ICT expansion around the world average.
Under-performers: countries with both democracy and ICT performance below the world average.
In general, countries with higher levels of ICT infrastructure tended to enjoy higher levels of democracy and freedom of
expression. It is not surprising to see that the top democratic nations (such as Scandinavian countries, the UK, Ireland, the
Netherlands and others in Europe, along with Canada and the US in North America, and Australia and New Zealand in Oceana) are those nations with highly developed ICT infrastructure whose citizens enjoy the highest degree of e-democracy.
As indicated in Fig. 3, we can observe a transitional shift from the category of under-performers to a higher category. For
example while 54% of countries were located in the under-performers category in 1995, this value decreased to 47% in 2003.
The biggest shift was related to the front-runners category. While 14% of countries were located in this category in 1995, this
value increased to 23% in 2003. Among the newcomers in this category, we see countries from the former Eastern block such
27
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
80 100
60
icts
0
20
40
60
40
0
20
prcl
80 100
PRCL ICTs Education & Fitering (1995-2003)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0
20
40
60
80
100
Edu
icts
0
20
40
60 80 100
graph2
icts
graph1
0
20
40
60
80
100
filter
graph3
Fig. 2. Spline plots showing the impacts of ICT on PRCL and education and filtering on ICT.
Fig. 3. Four categories of ICT freedom.
as Lithuania, Estonia, along with other European countries such as Spain, Portugal, Malta and Cyprus. From Asia, those nations with highly developed ICTs such as Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea are placed in this category.
It is important to note that most of the countries located in the low performers category, such as Saudi Arabia, Iran,
Tunisia and China, impose heavy and systematic censorship on Internet and other ICT media (OpenNet Initiative Report,
2004, 2005). In addition, there are a number of countries whose ICT infrastructures are highly developed but rank below
the world average on democratic freedoms. These countries include some of the Middle East countries of the Persian Gulf
region such as Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates as well as Singapore in Asia.
5. Limitations and conclusions
This research has some limitations resulting from the choice methodology and the data we analyzed. Our research was
broad and focused on the macro level; we did not investigate the micro level. We were interested in investigating the general
impact of ICT on freedom and democracy. As such, we did not examine any case studies of individual countries to understand
the nature of the ICT impact and responses to it. In-depth field studies are needed to understand how specific ICTs are influencing freedom of expression and democracy in each country. These studies can reveal which ICTs are making the greatest
contribution to the expansion of such freedoms in each country. They can further reveal the unique barriers that community
members face when accessing an application. As has been noted by several in-depth studies of ICTs, access does not translate
to usage. A variety of barriers, including gender relations, affect if and how a technology is used (Morawczynski, 2008).
Furthermore, studies are needed to understand the impact on freedom and democracy of filtering and censorship practices
28
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
in the specific countries where they occur. However, in this study we have demonstrated that there is a very high correlation
between ICT expansion and democratic freedoms. We have also demonstrated that filtering has a significantly negative impact on democratic freedoms and that there is a wide gap in ‘digital democracy’ among countries and regions (Milner, 2006).
In general, ICT infrastructure expansion has had a positive impact on democracy and freedom of expression. New ICTs, such
as the Internet, enable new dimensions of expression and democratic participation (Gimmler, 2001; Klein, 1999; Lynch,
2003). These technologies have also changed the nature of interaction. Individuals can now more easily engage in discussions
with individuals, and not be constrained by time and space. The explosion of websites, weblogs, e-mails, and SMS has also
improved communication and interaction among people across the globe and assisted opening up new possibilities for political participation (Drezner and Farrell, 2004; Yu, 2004; Doostdar, 2004). It is also important to note that these new ‘‘digital
activities” mediated by ICT not only include interpersonal communication, political organization and promotion of free
speech, but also ‘hate speech’, religious fundamentalism, fraud and terror (Roman, 2005; Barzilai-Nahon and Barzilai,
2005; Gerstenfeld et al., 2003; Weimann, 2005). Several examples have been noted in the media, which illustrate that ICTs
also provide a meeting place for radical hate groups to collaborate. In some cases, the result is terrorist activity that undermines the democratic freedoms of other citizens. One such example are the July 7, 2005 London bombings. There were assertions that the London bomb plot was heralded on the web (Lyall, 2006). This example illustrates that ICTs can be used to both
enhance, and undermine democratic freedoms. Some governments have responded by filtering Internet sites and threatening to ban some forms of communication (Zittrain and Edelman, 2003; Harwit and Clark, 2001; Lacharite, 2002). However,
these practices negatively impact democracy and freedom of expression. For example, when millions of young Iranians to
sent SMS messages in support of, or against specific candidates during June 2005 presidential election, clerics and hardliners
appealed to the Ministry of Justice and obtained a ban on SMS messaging (Iranian Judiciary, n.d.). Such negative practices are
prevalent in countries such as China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria and Singapore. The filtering of websites in many of these countries also affects some groups more than others and silences voices. A specific example is the unequal access to the Internet
that women face in the Middle East. A review of the OpenNet Initiative’s documents show that the filtering of sites related to
women’s rights is the fourth most prevalent practice in this region. Further, Internet filtering and censorship is not only done
by local governments, but also some larger ISPs in the region that are actively involved in the practice (Harwit and
Clark, 2001; Rheingold, 1993; Sohmen, 2001). Our analysis shows that such filtering of ICTs has an especially negative impact
on political rights and civil liberties.
Appendix 1
Table 1A. Democracy components.
Electoral process
Political participation
Government
Political rights
Head of State and/or Head
of Government elected
through free and fair
elections
Individuals have the right to
organize into political parties
and to seek electoral office in
an open and fair system
Freely elected representatives
determine the policies of the
government
Legislative
representatives are
elected through free
and fair elections
Is there a realistic possibility
for the opposition to increase
its support or gain power
through elections?
The government free from
pervasive corruption
Are there fair electoral
laws, equal opportunity
to campaign, fair
polling, and honest
tabulation of ballots?
People’s political choices are
free from domination by
military, foreign powers,
totalitarianism religious
hierarchies, economic
oligarchies, or other
dominant groups
The government accountable
to the electorate between
elections, and does it operate
with openness and
transparency
Ethnic, religious, and other
minorities have reasonable
self-determination, selfgovernment, autonomy, or
participation through
informal consensus in the
decision-making process
For traditional monarchies
that have no parties or
electoral process, does the
system provide for
consultation with the people,
encourage discussion of
policy, and allow the right to
petition the ruler?
29
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
Table 1A (continued)
Freedom of expression
Associational and
organizational rights
Rule of law
Personal autonomy
There is freedom of assembly,
demonstration, and open
public discussion
There is an independent
judiciary
There is personal autonomy.
Citizens’ right to travel, choice
of residence, or choice of
employment are protected.
System is free of extensive
political indoctrination
There are free religious
institutions, and there
free private and public
religious expression
There is freedom of political
or quasi-political
organization including
political parties, civic
organizations, ad hoc issue
groups, etc.
The rule of law prevails in civil
and criminal matters. Police is
under direct civilian control
Citizens have the right to own
property and establish private
businesses. Private business
activity is not influenced by
government officials, the
security forces, or organized
crime
There is academic
freedom, and the
educational system is
free of extensive
political
There are free trade unions
and peasant organizations or
equivalents, and there is
effective collective
bargaining
There is protection from
police terror, unjustified
imprisonment, exile, or
torture, whether by groups
that support or oppose the
system and there is freedom
from war and insurgencies
There are personal social
freedoms, including gender
equality, choice of marriage
partners, and size of family
There is open and free
private discussion
Professional and other
private organizations are free
Population is treated equally
under the law
Are there equality of
opportunity and the absence
of economic exploitation?
Civil liberties
There is a free and
independent media and
other forms of free
cultural expression
Source: Freedom House.
Table 2A. ICT measurement characteristics.
ICTs
(a)
(b)
(c)
Networks
Main telephone lines per 100 inhabitants
Waiting lines/mainlines
Digital lines/mainlines
Cell phones per 100 inhabitants
Cable TV subscriptions per 100 households
Internet hosts per 1000 inhabitants
Secure servers/Internet hosts
International bandwidth (Kbs per inhabitant)
Uptake
TV equipped households per 100 households
Residential phone lines per 100 households
PCs per 100 inhabitants
Internet users per 100 inhabitants
Intensity
Broadband users/Internet users
International outgoing telephone traffic minutes per capita
International incoming telephone traffic minutes per capita
Education
(a)
(b)
Adult literacy rates
Gross enrollment ratios
primary education
secondary education
tertiary education
Source: ITU and Orbicom (2005).
30
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
References
Adams, S., 2000. Computer-based cooperative, collaborative and individual learning: a report of research. In: Sparks, K.E., Simonson, M. (Eds.), 22nd Annual
Proceedings of Selected Research and Development Papers Presented at the National Convention of the Association for Educational Communications
and Technology, Sponsored by the Research and Theory Division (Long Beach).
Annette, J., 2003. Community, politics and citizenship education. In: Lockyer, A., Crick, B., Annette, J. (Eds.), Education for Democratic Citizenship: Issues of
Theory and Practice. Ashgate, Aldershot, pp. 139–148.
Arnot, M., Dillabough, J.A., 2000. Challenging Democracy: International Perspectives on Gender, Education and Citizenship. RoutledgeFalmer, London.
Aviram, A., Comay, O., 2000. From ‘Computers in the Classroom’ to the critical radical adaptation of educational systems to the new emerging ICT culture. In:
Proceedings of the EDEN Fourth Open Classroom Conference, Barcelona, Spain, November 19–21.
Aviram, A., Talmi, D., 2005. The impact of information and communication technology on education: the missing discourse between three different
paradigms. E-Learning 2 (2), 161–191.
Backus, M., 2001. E-Governance and Developing Countries – Introduction and Examples. Research Report No. 3, April 2001. International Institute for
Communication and Development (IICD), The Netherlands.
Baliamoune-Lutz, M., 2003. An analysis of the determinants and effects of ICT diffusion in developing countries. Information Technology for Development
10, 151–169.
Balkin, M.J., 2004. Digital speech and democratic culture: a theory of freedom of expression for the information society. New York University Law Review 79
(1).
Barzilai-Nahon, K., Barzilai, G., 2005. Cultured technology: the internet and religious fundamentalism. Information Society 21 (1), 25–40.
Becker, T., 2001. Rating the impact of new technologies on democracy. Communications of the ACM 44 (1), 39–43.
Bennett, D., Fielding, P., 1997. The Net Effect: How Cyberadvocacy is Changing the Political Landscape. e-Advocate Press, Merrifield.
Bentivegna, S., 2006. Rethinking politics in the world of ICTs. European Journal of Communication 21, 331–343.
Berggren, N., 2003. The benefits of economic freedom: a survey. The Independent Review 8 (2), 193–211.
Berry, J., 1984. The Interest Group Society. Little, Brown, Boston.
Bimber, B., 2001. Information and political engagement in America: the search for effects of information technology at the individual level. Political
Research Quarterly 54 (1), 53–67.
Caselli, F., Coleman, W.J., 2001. Cross-country technology diffusion: the case of computers. American Economic Review 91, 328–335.
Cavanaugh, W.J., 2000. E-democracy: thinking about the impact of technology on civic life. National Civic Review 89 (3), 229–234.
Chadwick, A., 2003. Bringing e-democracy back in: why it matters for future research on e-governance. Social Science Computer Review 21, 443–455.
Cigler, A., Burdett, L., 1998. Interest Group Politics, fifth ed. Congressional Quarterly Press, Washington.
Clift, S., 2003. E-Democracy, E-Governance and Public Net-Work, Publicus.Net, September. Retrieved from: <www.publicus.net/articles/
edempublicnetwork.html>.
Clift, S., 2004. E-Government and Democracy: Representation and Citizen Engagement in the Information Age. Report Prepared for United Nations – UNPAN/
DESA, 2003, World Public Sector Report.
Coleman, S., 2003. The Future of the Internet and Democracy: Beyond Metaphors, Towards Policy, in OECD, 2003, Promise and Problems of E-Democracy:
Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. OECD, Paris, pp. 143–162.
Cooper, M., 1994. Spreading Hope for Grassroots Change. Open Magazine Pamphlet Series, Westfield.
Dahlgren, P., 2005. The internet, public spheres, and political communication: dispersion and deliberation. Political Communication 22 (2), 147–162.
Dertouzos, M., 1997. What Will Be: How the Information Marketplace Will Change our Lives. Harper, San Francisco.
Dewey, J., 1952. Democracy and Education: an Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. Macmillan, New York.
DigitalNatives, 2008. In the Moment: An Analysis of the 2008 US Presidential Election Based on Camphone-Video Broadcasts. <http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/
digitalnatives/2008/11/26/in-the-moment-an-analysis-of-the-2008-us-presidential-election-based-on-camphone-video-broadcasts/>.
Doostdar, A., 2004. The vulgar spirit of blogging: on language, culture, and power in Persian Weblogestan. American Anthropologist 106 (4).
Drezner, D.W., Farrell, H., 2004. The Power and Politics of Blogs American Political Science Association Annual Conference.
Frissen, P.H.A., 2002. Representative Democracy and Information Society – A Postmodern Perspective. Information Polity, vol. 7. IOS Press.
Gerstenfeld, P.B., Grant, R.D., Chiang, C., 2003. Hate online: a content analysis of extremist internet sites. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 3 (1), 29–
44.
Ghana, 2008. SMS Critical in Election Monitoring in Ghana. Retrieved from: <http://mobileactive.org/sms-critical-election-observation-ghana>.
Gilbreth, C., Otero, G., 2001. Democratization in Mexico: the Zapatista uprising and civil society. Latin American Perspectives 28 (4), 7–29.
Gimmler, A., 2001. Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the internet. Philosophy and Social Criticism 27 (4), 21–39.
Gwartney, J., Lawson, R., 2006. Economic Freedom of the World 2006 Annual Report. The Fraser Institute.
Harwit, E., Clark, D., 2001. Shaping the internet in China: evolution of political control over network infrastructure and content. Asian Survey 41 (3), 377–
408.
Hill, K.A., Hughes, J.E., 1998. Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Hoff, J., Löfgren, K., Torpe, L., 2003. The State We are in: E-democracy in Denmark. Information Polity, vol. 8. IOS Press.
Iranian Judiciary Threatens SMS Campaigners (n.d.). Retrieved from: <http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/Default.asp?NewsCode=32749&
NewsKind=Current%20Affairs>.
Jankowski, N., van Selm, M., 2000. The promise and practice of public debate in cyberspace. In: Hacker, K., van Dijk, J. (Eds.), Digital Democracy: Issues of
Theory and Practice. Sage, London, pp. 149–165.
Joyce, P., 2003. The Rule of Freedom: Liberalism and the Modern City, London, Verso.
Kampen, J.K., Snijkers, K., 2003. E-democracy. A critical evaluation of the ultimate e-dream. Social Science Computer Review 21 (4), 491–496.
Katz, J., 1997. The digital citizen. Wired 5 (12).
Kiiski, S., Pohjola, M., 2002. Cross-country diffusion of the internet. Information, Economics and Policy 14, 297–310.
Klein, H.K., 1999. Tocqueville in cyberspace: using the internet for citizen associations. The Information Society 15 (4), 213–220.
La Botz, D., 1995. Democracy in Mexico: Peasant Rebellion and Political Reform. South End Press.
La Porte, C., Pochet, P., Room, J.G., 2001. Social benchmarking, policy making and new governance in the EU. Journal of European Social Policy 11 (4), 291–
307.
Lacharite, J., 2002. Electronic decentralisation in China: a critical analysis of Internet filtering policies in the People’s Republic of China. Australian Journal of
Political Science 37 (2), 333–346.
Laudon, K.C., Traver, C.G., 2008. E-commerce: Business, Technology, Society. Upper Saddle River, NJ, Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Laurillard, D., 2000. The impact of communination and information technology on higher education. In: Scott, P. (Ed.), Higher Education Redformed.
Routledge.
Lenihan, D. G., 2002. Realigning Governance: From E-Government to E-Democracy, OECD Discussion Paper, for the Public Sector Management division’s EGovernment Working Group, Centre for Collaborative Government.
Lundstrom, S., 2005. The effect of democracy on different categories of economic freedom. European Journal of Political Economy 21 (4), 967–980.
Lyall, S., 2006. London Bombers Tied to Internet, Not Al Qaeda, Newspaper Says, The New York Times. Retrieved from: <http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/
11/world/europe/11london.html?_r=1>.
Lynch, M., 2003. Beyond the Arab Street: Iraq and the Arab public sphere. Politics and Society 31 (1), 55–91.
McCullagh, K., 2003. E-democracy: potential for political revolution? International Journal of Law and Information Technology 11 (2), 149–161.
F. Shirazi et al. / Telematics and Informatics 27 (2010) 21–31
31
Mercer, C., 2004. Engineering civil society: ICT in Tanzania. Review of African Political Economy 31 (99), 49–64.
Milner, H., 2006. The digital divide: the role of political institutions in technology diffusion. Comparative Political Studies 39 (2), 176–199.
Morawczynski, O., 2008. Surviving in the ‘Dual system’: how M-PESA is fostering urban-to-rural remittances in a Kenyan slum. Paper presented at the IFIP
WG 9.4-University of Pretoria Joint Workshop, Pretoria, South Africa. <http://www.nextbillion.net/multimedia/2008/05/29/surviving-in-the-dualsystem-how-m-pesa-is-fostering-urban-to-rural-remittances-in-a-kenyan-slum>.
Morrisett, L., 2003. Technologies of freedom? In: Jenkins, H., Thorburn, D. (Eds.), Democracy and New Media. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., pp. 21–31.
Mudhai, O.F., 2003. Methodological Issues in the Study of Digital Media and Perceptions of Civil Society in Urban Kenya and Zambia, Background Paper, IT & Civil
Society Research Network, US Social Science Research Council. <http://www.ssrc.org/programs/itic/publications/civsocandgov/okoth_fredrick_mudhai.
pdf>.
Nie, H.N., Junn, J., Stehlik-Barry, K., 1997. Education and democratic citizenship in America. American Journal of Education 105 (4), 446–457.
Norris, P., 1999. Who surfs? New technology, old voters and virtual democracy in the 1996 and 1998 US elections. In: Kamarck, E. (Ed.), Democracy.com?
Hollis, Cambridge.
Norris, P., 2001. Digital Divide: Civic Engagement, Information Poverty and the Internet in Democratic Societies. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Oates, B.J., 2003. The potential contribution of ICTs to the political process. Electronic Journal of e-Government.
OpenNet Initiative (ONI), 2004–2005. Internet Filtering in China in 2004–2005: A Country Study. Retrieved from: <http://www.opennetinitiative.net/
studies/china/>. See also Internet Filtering in Iran in 2004–2005: A Country Study Internet Filtering in Tunisia in 2005: A Country Study Internet
Filtering in Saudi Arabia in 2004.
Orbicom, 2005. From the Digital Divide to Digital Opportunity: Measuring Infostates for Development. Retrieved from: <http://www.orbicom.ca/
index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=222>.
Osler, A., 2005a. Education for democratic citizenship: new challenges in a globalised world. In: Osler, A., Starkey, H. (Eds.), Citizenship and Language
Learning: International Perspectives. Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.
Osler, A., 2005b. Looking to the future: democracy, diversity and citizenship education. In: Osler, A. (Ed.), Teachers, Human Rights and Diversity: Educating
Citizens in Multicultural Societies. Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham.
Page, M., 1997. Pluralistic citizenship: a reference for citizenship education. Canadian Ethnic Studies 29 (2), 22–31.
Pettit, P., 1999. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, revised ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Postmes, T., 2002. Collective action in the age of the internet: mass communication and online mobilization. Social Science Computer Review 20 (3), 290–
301.
Print, M., Ornstrom, S., Nielsen, H.S., 2002. Education for democratic processes in schools and classrooms. European Journal of Education 37 (2), 193–210.
Quantcast, 2008. YouTube Monthly Traffic. Retrieved from: <http://www.quantcast.com/youtube.com>.
Reporters Without Borders, 2004. Internet Under Surveillance. Retrieved from: <http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=433>.
Rheingold, H., 1993. The Virtual Community: Homesteading on the Electronic Frontier. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.
Riley, C.G., 2003. The Changing Role of the Citizen in the E-Government and E-democracy Equation, Commonwealth Centre for e-Governance, September,
2003. <http://www.electronicgov.net>.
Roman, A.G., 2005. Texting God: SMS and religion in the Philippines. Journal of the Asian Research Center for Religion and Social Communication 3 (1), 1–18.
Rose, N., 1999. Powers of Freedom: Reframing Political Thought. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Rushkoff, D., 2003. Open Source Democracy: How Online Communication is Changing Offline Politics, DEMOS, London. Retrieved from: <www.demos.co.uk/
media/opensourcedemocracy>.
Savic, S., 2006. E-Governance: Theoretical Foundations and Practical Implications. Retrieved from: <www.dobrica.savic.ca/pubs/egovernance_foundations.
pdf>.
Selian, A., 2004. The world summit on the information society and civil society participation. The Information Society 20 (3).
Sen, A., 1999. Democracy as universal value. Journal of Democracy 10 (3).
Shirazi, F., 2008. The contribution of ICT to freedom and democracy: an empirical analysis of archival data on Middle East. The Electronic Journal of
Information Systems in Developing Countries 35 (6), 1–24.
Sierra Leone, 2008. SMS as a Tool in Election Observation. Retrieved from: <http://mobileactive.org/sms-tool-election-observation>.
Snellen, I., 2001. ICT:s, Bureaucracies and the Future of Democracy. Communications of the ACM, January.
Sohmen, P., 2001. Taming the dragon: China’s efforts to regulate the internet. Stanford Journal of East Asian Affairs 1 (1), 17–26.
Starkey, H., 2002. Language teaching, citizenship, human rights and intercultural education. In: Swarbrick, A. (Ed.), Modern Foreign Languages in Secondary
Schools. RoutledgeFalmer, London, pp. 95–111.
Suarez, L.S., 2006. Mobile democracy: text messages, voters turnout and the 2004 Spanish general election. Representation 42 (2), 117–128.
Sussman, G., 1997. Communication, Technology and Politics in the Information Age. Sage, Thousand Oaks.
Terry, F., 2005. From e-government to online deliberative democracy. In: Proceedings Oxford Internet Institute, Summer Doctoral Program 2005. Chinese
Academy of Social Sciences, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Beijing, China. Retrieved from: <www.publicus.net/e-government>.
Thai Election, 2006. SMS Messages in Use in the Thai Election. Retrieved from: <http://mobileactive.org/sms_in_Thai_election_06>.
The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, 2008. Internet’s Broader Role in Campaign 2008. Retrieved from: <http://people-press.org/report/
384/internets-broader-role-in-campaign-2008>.
Watson, R.T., Mundy, B., 2001. A strategic perspective of electronic democracy. Communications of the ACM 44 (1), 27–30.
Weare, C., 2002. The internet and democracy: the causal links between technology and politics. International Journal of Public Administration 25 (5), 659–
691.
Weber, M.L., Loumakis, A., Bergman, J., 2003. Who participates and why? Social Science Computer Review 21 (1), 26–42.
Weimann, G., 2005. How modern terrorism uses the internet. Journal of International Security Affairs, 8.
Yu, H., 2004. The power of thumbs: the politics of SMS in urban China. Graduate Journal of Asia-Pacific Studies 2 (2), 30–43.
Zittrain, J., Edelman, B., 2003. Internet filtering in China. IEEE Internet Computing 7 (2), 70–77.