Building Strong E-Democracy—The Role of
Technology in Developing Democracy for the
Information Age
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko
The idea of democracy had come a long way before it was given its first modern forms
in the liberal ideas of the 17th and 18th centuries. Now the premises of this hierarchical and representative political system are crumbling, and we must seriously consider the need to revitalize democracy. This article aims at clarifying the overall
preconditions for the revitalization of democracy, and demonstrates how to build a
comprehensive framework for a multidimensional institutional design in which the
potentials of ICTs are made to serve relevant democratic purposes.
What conditions the functioning of any contemporary democratic system
includes such contextual factors as increased global interdependency, extended use of
market-based mechanisms, significant impacts of media and ICTs, new forms of governance, and individualism in its various forms. One of the most burning issues is
how to develop new democracy in such a complex setting so that it accords with people’s ways of thinking and acting. To ensure this, citizens with all their collective
actions and willingness to influence public affairs must be placed in the overall
framework of e-transformation in politics [11]. This implies that we go beyond the
dichotomous discourse that suggests that we have a choice to make between democracy-as-usual and direct e-democracy [9].
Beyond One-Dimensionality
The underlying hypothesis here is that both representative and direct democracy are
too one-dimensional for complex societies with increased interdependencies and
technological mediation. A representative system of government is usually characterized as being too elitist and remote and even untrustworthy, but even if these particular weaknesses were overcome in an ideal model of direct democracy, serious
problems remain. Direct democracy tries to find the solution to the democracy deficit
from the quantity of direct citizen participation in decision-making. This is highly
problematic in regards to the quality of decisions and decision-making processes, and
also in regard to the decisional burdens of citizens.
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko ([email protected]) is a professor in the Department of Local Government Studies,
University of Tampere, Finland.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies
are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy
otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
© 2003 ACM
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve
121
A one-dimensional antithesis to the representative system is presented by the
Israeli direct democracy advocate Aki Orr, who in his Direct Democracy Manifesto,
concludes that the core of direct democracy is that all citizens have the right to vote
on every political issue [10]. In principle most of us probably have some sympathy
with this idea, but in practice it is only a partial and rather impractical solution to a
multi-faceted problem.
This kind of one-dimensionality has been criticized by Australian expert, Lyn
Carson, who contends that there is an essential social element that needs to be given
a high practical value: deliberation [4]. This aspect relates to the quality of decisions
and decision-making processes. Awareness of the importance of such requirements
partly explains the increasing interest over the last few years in participatory and
deliberative democracy [7, 1].
A challenge for democratic theory is to provide analytical tools for understanding
new demands resulting from profound societal changes, and also to expand the horizons of “rule by the people” in the information society [5, 6]. Let us translate this
dilemma into the question of how to overcome one-dimensionality, and in particular
how to assess the contextual role of ICTs as a part of e-democratic practices. In such
a framework the following aspects must be considered:
•
•
•
•
•
122
Contextual pressures and challenges to democracy. The first task is to contextualize
the field of citizen influence and participation. In a practical sense this means that
changes in social structures, institutions, and mentalities must be identified and
taken into account when assessing the processes and outcomes of the democratic
system. The major challenge is that as complexity, corporate power, and global
interdependency increase, there is no point in maintaining that revitalization of
democracy is about e-voting or about setting up electronic discussion forums.
Institutional mediation mechanisms of a democratic system. This element determines how and to what degree citizens influence and control collective decisions.
These mechanisms have a decisive role in operationalizing different models of
democracy.
Technological mediation tools. These tools as such are causing a transformation in
this field. This particular dimension went through a revolution in the latter half
of the 20th century. Contemporary societies rely heavily on different kinds of
mediation tools and channels of influence, varying from letters to the editor to
the use of cable TV, networked computers, and mobile phones.
Varieties and levels of political issues. Politics and policies deal with practically
everything that has a collective nature or relevant social dimension. Thus, political issues vary greatly, as do our abilities and willingness to influence them in
respect to the nature of these issues. A tentative classification of types of political
issues, with special reference to local politics, is presented in Table 1. It shows that
the nature of the issues to be dealt with and the scale of issues directly affect the
appropriateness of mechanisms of citizen influence.
Different phases of a democratic process. This dimension is based on a process view
of democracy. The very act of decision-making has for understandable reasons
been given priority as the core element of a democratic process. Yet other elements of this process are also vitally important. Thus, in the ideal model, all the
phases from agenda setting, planning and preparation, decision-making, implementation (including service provision), and control and evaluation of collective
action have their roles, none of which should be underestimated when theorizing
about new forms of democracy.
September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
Types of issue
Unique strategic
decisions
General policy
decisions
Civic rights and
control
Citizens economic
rights and interests
Descriptions and examples
Democratic mechanisms
Major historical take-it-or-leave-it
issues with long-term impacts:
merging
of
municipalities,
membership
in
supranational
communities etc.
Interdependent
policy
and
allocation issues: budget decisions,
taxation, recruitment of top
management etc.
Representative system and forms
of direct democracy
- popular referenda
- legislative referenda
- local consultative referenda
Representative, direct and participatory mechanisms
- enabling councils
- recalls
- citizen panels, deliberative polls
etc.
Legal control mechanisms
- legal system (appeals)
- administrative procedures incl.
petitions for rectification
Industrial or workplace democracy
and interest group politics
- forms of private or group interest
mediation
- lobbying
Mechanisms used in user and
participatory democracy
- feedback systems and hearings
- vouchers
- citizen panels, focus groups etc.
Participatory mechanisms
- participatory planning
- citizen panels
- consensus conferencing
Associative
and
participatory
mechanisms
- neighborhood associations
- local public hearings
- participatory planning
Direct and indirect citizen control
based on constitutional and
political rights and institutionalized
control mechanisms
Interests and issues concerning
livelihood, employment, work, and
working conditions
Basic public services
Public service provision bringing
direct benefits to service users:
social welfare, health care,
education etc.
Services related to
environment and
living conditions
Housing, land use, environment,
infrastructure, and technology
Neighborhoods and
residential areas
Neighborhood issues concerning
local traffic, parks, bus stops,
security issues etc.
Table 1. Types of issues to be dealt with in a political community.
Table 1. Types of issues to be dealt with in a political community.
New Forms of Mediation in Focus
The relevance of analyzing the basic dimensions of the framework is that it demonstrates the impossibility of designing one-dimensional solutions to the problems of
democracy. Thus, the endeavor in question requires much more than designing electronic means to make direct e-voting possible.
At the core of the wider framework briefly discussed earlier in the article is the
understanding of how the institutional and technological mediation tools can be used
in constructing a new democratic system, as illustrated in Figure 1. The point of Figure 1 is that the traditional representative system gives citizens two basic roles, those
of voters and service users. Politically they form an electorate, whereas the rest of the
process is controlled by political–administrative machinery. This simplified picture
illustrates how this “democratic” system contains separate sub-systems that are to
some extent insulated from civic influence. Another aspect that becomes visible in
Figure 1 is that new forms of institutional and technological mediation have a potential to transform the entire political system. Next we briefly discuss two framework
elements that focus on forms of institutional and technological mediation.
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve
123
Political-administrative system
Public service
personnel
Administrators
and experts
Politicians
Forms of technological mediation
E-mail
Telephone
Mobile
communications
Internet
Videoconference
Mass media
TV, radio
New forms of institutional mediation
Individuals
Smaller groups
- Feedback systems
- Vouchers
- Citizen charters
- Consumer choice
- Citizens' juries
- ETMs
- Consensus conferences - Deliberative polls
- Interactive panels
- Research panels
- Community groups
- Referenda
USER DEMOCRACY
Service users
PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY
Inhabitants
Larger groups
DIRECT DEMOCRACY
Active citizens
REPRESENTATIVE
DEMOCRACY
Voters
Citizens in different roles
Figure 1. Institutional and technological mediation tools in a democratic system.
Figure 1.
Institutional and technological mediation tools in a democratic system.
Mechanisms of citizen influence. It goes without saying that democracy requires
mechanisms that make the “rule by the people” possible. There are alternative ways
of arranging political processes in which people can set the agenda, have their say,
make decisions, and control effectively. As to the decision-making procedure itself,
citizen influence can be channeled through representative systems based on elections,
associations or corporatist organizations founded on shared interests and memberships, direct decision-making by citizens through voting in referenda or attending
town meetings, and participatory mechanisms in which decision-making arises from
various forms of deliberation and participation. This implies that there are different
kinds of democratic mechanisms that can be used to transform demands into legitimate political outputs. In practice the representative system forms the core in every
Western democracy.
Along with its advantages, the representative system of government also has undeniable weaknesses, but in spite of its much-discussed problems it cannot be easily
replaced by alternatives. Instead, the way ahead seems to be to strengthen complementary institutional arrangements operating somewhere between the representative
system and pure direct democracy. An example of an early innovation in this field is
John Burnheim’s concept of “demarchy,” which is based on the use of representative
124
September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
and authoritative committees operating in specific activity areas, such as traffic, social
welfare, and health care. Members would be selected statistically to guarantee that the
committees are representative of diverse interests [3]. This idea contains some practical problems, but it indicates the direction in which new forms of democracy have
been sought. The same holds for citizens’ juries, scientific deliberative polls, electronic
town meetings, and innovative uses of the Internet, which will obviously play a role
in new democracy, as concluded convincingly by Becker and Slaton [2]. In a nutshell,
the mission is to determine the proper mix of mechanisms that meets the requirements of a new democracy.
Technological mediation tools. Contemporary societies are heavily dependent on
technological mediation. The classic communication tools are, of course, the telephone and forms of mass communication such as radio and television. As is well
known, we have witnessed a revolution in this area. The Internet in particular has
provided totally new perspectives on communication and interaction. Sooner or later
technological convergence and mobile communications are likely to radicalize these
developments further.
Some have claimed that media institutions have become dominant in contemporary society as a whole, and also in the privileged space of politics [6]. Some of these
tendencies constitute a threat to democracy, but at the same time computer-mediated
communication and information networks have already shown that they contribute
to the overall increase of transparency and pluralism, and this may be just a prelude
for a wider societal e-transformation. Whatever the actual impacts of ICTs on our
political behavior are, it seems clear that “informationalization” of everyday life will
increase the demands on democracy to follow suit.
Telephone, radio, TV, and new ICTs can be utilized in three basic ways in democratic processes: to provide and disseminate information, to facilitate communication
and interaction, and to make transactions such as televoting or payments possible.
The huge potential of such tools as the Internet should not induce us to assume there
is something inherently democratic about them. They must be incorporated in both
voluntary and institutionalized activities within a democratic system in order to
ensure sustainable benefits for citizens who wish to influence public affairs.
Thus, when assessing the role of ICTs in reinventing democracy, and also when
designing or evaluating e-democracy projects, the relevance of technology should be
assessed in a broad perspective. Of all the elements discussed in the framework above,
technology—or that magical “e” in e-democracy—is needed primarily when addressing the technical dimension of the question “how?” The added value of technology
will ultimately be proven through democratic objectives and gains. When assessing
the relevance of technology, the following questions must be asked, in relation to the
“Four Is” of institutions, influence, integration, and interaction:
•
•
•
Institutions. To what extent are the ICT-based citizen-centered solutions and
applications integrated in the practices of existing political institutions and how
do they affect actual decision-making processes?
Influence. Are the e-democracy experiments or practices such that people involved
may truly influence the issues of interest?
Integration. Is the potential of technology used optimally in integrating the basic
elements of the entire e-democratic process, including agenda-setting, planning,
preparation, decision-making, implementation, evaluation, and control?
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve
125
•
Interaction. Is the potential of technology in disseminating information, facilitating interaction, and conducting political transactions used so as to increase the
transparency, efficiency, flexibility, cost-effectiveness, and inclusiveness of a democratic system?
Clearly, both institutional and technological mediation must be addressed contextually if we really wish to meet the challenge of revitalizing democracy for the information age. Institutional mechanisms inherited from the 18th and 19th centuries do not
work well in the postmodern societies. It seems that the trend in rhetoric is moving
towards decentralization and participation, whereas actual developments indicate a
transition towards managerialist multi-level governance. To increase pluralism and
democracy in this process, new institutional forms are needed. Indeed, several teledemocratic experiments have been conducted since the late 1970s, but the breakthrough is not likely to happen unless these new institutional arrangements, such as
citizens’ juries, deliberative polls, electronic town meetings, and e-voting systems,
prove to be forums for effective citizen influence and meaningful participation.
Technological mediation tools may well develop much more rapidly than the
institutional arrangements in which they can be applied. In any case, new developments in ICTs contain a seed of transformation. So far they have stimulated people’s
imaginations and provided tools for some experiments, thereby enriching the edemocracy agenda. In the future, notably in the developed world, ICTs may prove to
be a decisive element in renewing conceptions of democracy and in transforming
democratic practices [2]. But still it seems that only modest democratic gains can be
achieved through electronic means unless a radical redesign of institutions is carried
out and ICTs are connected to these reorganized processes.
However elegant our institutional and technological designs are, they miss the
very heart of democracy if they are not built by the people and for the people, to paraphrase Lincoln’s famous definition of democracy. Yet, instead of the idyllic and more
or less closed and community-based idea of citizenship, new democracy needs to be
anchored in emerging postmodern identities with inherent connections to the dialectics of local and global, and of real and virtual [5, 6]. Fine-tuning new democratic
practices requires an understanding of people’s preferences and orientations as political actors.
Future Trends
What may be in progress is the formation of a mosaic-like democracy in which a considerable part of decision-making takes place in various public forums within a third
sector, in the realm of civil society, and occasionally with the help of the market
mechanism. Even if the democratic deficit is widely recognized, there is no serious
immediate threat to representative institutions in western democracies. On the other
hand, a formal political system may, provided democratization really affects the
course of events, develop toward new participatory, deliberative, and associative
forms, and possibly even direct ones. A profound transformation is also underway in
the area of user democracy, a trend that is supported by reforms in line with consumerism and the new public management doctrine. It is probably the cheapest form
of democracy but also gives least to society’s most disadvantaged. This is why it will
continue to have only a supplementary role in this picture.
126
September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM
INTERDEPENDENCY
Globalization and
network society
Relevance of participation and
scales and levels of influence
PARTNERSHIP
GOVERNANCE
Developmentalism
and new governance
Social
construction of
inclusiveness
E-DEMOCRACY
Efficiency
and flexibility of
participation
TECHNOLOGICAL
MEDIATION
Information
society
Tailored participation and
sensitivity to individual preferences
and life-cycles
INDIVIDUALISM
Postmodern culture
Figure 2. Future challenges and directions of e-democracy.
Figure 2. Future challenges and directions of e-democracy.
The future directions of e-democracy remain open, but it is evident that its development is conditioned by such pervasive changes as increased interdependency, technological multimediation, partnership governance, and individualism. Democracy
must be tailored to really give people tools to achieve government “of the people, by
the people, and for the people.” These challenges are illustrated in Figure 2.
To sum up, a hybrid model of democracy is in the making, in which the new
technology employed is evolving along with the societal and governmental structures
[8]. Technology may indeed be one decisive element that will facilitate the creation of
this hybrid model, for it is a powerful tool for increasing transparency and facilitating information and communication processes. In addition, from the point of view
of a future model of democracy in which increased complexity will be a burning issue,
the potential of ICT is that it helps to integrate different forms and mechanisms of
democracy.
References
1. Barber, B. Strong Democracy—Participatory Politics for a New Age. University of California
Press, Berkeley, 1994.
2. Becker, T. and Slaton, C.D. The Future of Teledemocracy. Praeger, Westport, CT, 2000.
3. Burnheim, J. Democracy, nation states and the world system. In David Held, D. and Pollit, C. (eds.) New Forms of Democracy. Sage, London, 1986, 218–239.
4. Carson, L. Building deliberative capacity. Worldwide Direct Democracy Newsletter 2, 2 (June
2000), 1–2.
5. Castells, M. The Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I: The Rise of the Network Society. Blackwell, Oxford, 1996.
COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve
127
6. Castells, M. The Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. II: The Power of Identity. Blackwell, Oxford, 1996.
7. Hauptmann, E. Putting Choice Before Democracy. A Critique of Rational Choice Theory. State
University of New York Press, New York, 1996.
8. Keskinen, A. Towards user empowerment—On development of utilisation of information
and communications technology in decision making of administrations. Studia Politica Tamperensis 6 (1999).
9. London, S. Electronic Democracy: A Literature Survey. A Paper Prepared for the Kettering
Foundation (March 1994); www.scottlondon.com/reports/ed.html.
10. Orr, A. Direct Democracy Manifesto. Politics for the 21st Century. (2000) Direct
Democracy Forum; ao.com.au/ddf/aki_orr_manifesto.htm.
11. Woolpert, S., Slaton, C.D., and Schwerin, E.W. (eds.) Transformational Politics. Theory,
Study, and Practice. State University of New York Press, Albany, NY, 1998.
128
September 2003/Vol. 46, No. 9ve COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM