Vitalizing Democracy Through E-Participation

Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Daniel Medimorec Peter Parycek Judith Schossbck
| Page 2
Kontakt: Frank Frick Director Programm Zukunft der Beschftigung/Good Governance Bertelsmann Stiftung Telefon +49 5241 81-81253 Fax +49 5241 81-681253 frank.frick@bertelsmann-stiftung.de www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de Christina Tillmann Project Manager Programm Zukunft der Beschftigung/Good Governance Bertelsmann Stiftung Telefon +49 5241 81-81335 Fax +49 5241 81-681335 christina.tillmann@bertelsmann-stiftung.de www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
| Page 3
Inhalt
Abstract 1. The value of democracy in Austria and Eastern Europe 2. E-democracy and e-participation as democratic enhancements? Classification and potential 2.1. Definitions 2.2. Classification of e-participation initiatives 2.3. E-participations potential 2.4. Democratization through the Internet? 2.5. Unexploited potential for e-participation and standardized information 3. Policies and Strategies 3.1. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE, 2006-2008) 3.2. Project group e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM) 3.3. Further PG-EDEM contributions 4. Promising approaches in the enhancement of democracy 4.1. Transparency 4.1.1. Information 4.1.2. Open Data 4.1.3. Bottom-up initiatives 4.2. Participation and collaboration 4.2.1. Innovation communities for policy-making 4.2.2. Innovation mall for legislative and administrative procedures 4.2.3. Impetus of third parties or borders becoming blurred 4.2.4. Key drivers and obstacles 4.3. Outlook: Empowering citizens through transparency and collaboration 4 4 6 7 8 8 9 12 13 14 14 16 17 17 17 19 20 22 22 23 24 24 25
| Page 4
Abstract
This paper deals with the potential held by electronic forms of participation for re-enhancing democracy based on experiences in Austria and Eastern Europe. The value of democracy in this region as well as prospects for e-democracy will be discussed. An additional focus addresses open government and collaboration as promising strategies in the revitalization of democracy and governance in these countries. While countries including the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and the countries of Northern Europe have already included this approach in their policies in a top-down manner, in Austria and Eastern Europe such concepts are based mainly on bottomup initiatives.
1. The value of democracy in Austria and Eastern Europe

The effort to revitalize democracy in Central and Eastern Europe begins from a challenging starting point. While officials emphasize the urgent need for (re-)democratization initiatives, the low value attributed to democracy by the population has been reflected in continuously falling election turnout rates during the last decade. Although one has to be careful in equating low turnout rates with a general disenchantment with politics (in times of a crisis, for instance, voter participation can also increase, and in any case represents just one factor of political participation1), longitudinal comparative studies on nations values2 show that mistrust of politics in general and political parties in particular is increasing. In addition, a strong tendency toward a substantial loss of faith in democracy itself is evident. In Western European democracies, the voter turnout rate averaged 83 percent between 1945 and 1980. In the following years, a constant decrease in the percentage of active voters can be seen. 3 However, as 100 percent participation in any project or election is an impossible goal, we must address not just short-term low levels of participation in general, but rather the long-term tendency of citizens to withdraw from elections.4 The role of turnout in the participatory system of democracy can be observed within the member states of the European Union. In all regions, a majority of the population has voted in the general elections. Northwestern, Central, and Southern Europe all displayed participation rates of over 80 percent between 2001 and 2006, in comparison to an average of 60 percent in Western Europe and the post-communist countries. The obligation to vote does not correspond with high participation rates in this case. In Eastern Europe, turnout rates are significantly lower than in the rest of Europe.5 Poland is the only country in Europe in which a minority of the eligible population participates in elections. The tendency toward decreasing participation is even significantly higher when looking at other forms of participation (such as memberships in or work for parties). The post-communist democracies in particular (with the
Peter Filzmaier, Was ist politische Beteiligung? http://austrialexikon.at/af/Wissenssammlungen/Essays/Politik/Was_ist_politische_Beteiligung_ (accessed July 31, 2010). 2 Christian Friesl et al., Die sterreicherInnen. Wertewandel 1990-2008 (Vienna: Czernin-Verlag, 2009). 3 http://www.politischebildung.com/pdfs/27_wahlbet.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010) 4 Andy Williamson, Distribution and Empowerment: Embedding Citizens at the Heart of Democracy, Keynote Speech at the Conference for Electronic Democracy, Danube-University Krems, 2010. 5 Oscar Gabriel and Kerstin Vlkl, Politische und soziale Partizipation. In: Oscar Gabriel and Sabine Kropp (eds), Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Stukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte. (Wiesbaden: Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften, 2008): 280
| Page 5
exception of Hungary) have had to deal with a significant decline in turnout. The grounds for this tendency in the current period can only be evaluated empirically.6 Austrians appear to be retreating from the political system and its institutions.7 According to a study of Austrian values, the level of trust in institutions is decreasing (between 1999 and 2008 from 39% to 28% for the parliament and from 17% to 14% for political parties). While this might represent a reaction to the countrys specific political culture, it can also point to a lack of real participation opportunities, political education or democratic self-conception. In 2008, only half of the population in Austria was satisfied with democracy, compared to 73 percent in 1999. When looking at the data for 2008, a problem is that long-term political studies are always limited insofar as they convey the values and attitudes of a certain point in time. Moreover, 2008 was marked by a struggle between the two opposition parties. However, the following trends are visible: Low political interest (democracy as a value is questioned), criticism of the political practice/system, and strong individualism (leading to disaffection in certain portions of the population). Given the existing criticism, we can conclude that changing these tendencies will most definitely have to be accompanied by a fundamental change in the system itself. On a side note, interest in politics strongly correlates with the level of education a connection particularly visible in young people. A study of 14-year-olds conducted by the Danube University Krems in 2010 furthermore showed that when young people are willing to participate, they are most likely to focus on non-traditional, electronic forms of political activity.8 This legitimates a strong focus on e-participation projects for young people in an educational environment. When asked about their satisfaction with democracy, half of the population in Austria claimed to be satisfied (but only 4% were very satisfied). It is remarkable that this figure has declined by a third since 1999, and that the number of unsatisfied citizens has doubled (to 46%). It is hard to make out the exact reasons for dissatisfaction in this context. However, certain groups can be identified: The people least satisfied with democracy were those who defined themselves as politically right-wing or unsatisfied with their quality of life this populations satisfaction decreased by almost half.9 In criticisms of democracy, the following arguments often appear: Democracies are too hesitant, and there are too many controversies. Half the population looks favorably upon decisions made by experts (as opposed to officials); but society in general is also viewed as a source of enriched political decision-making. According to a survey performed by the Federal Data Center (BRZ10) and the Danube University Krems, 64 percent of participants believed that collaboration with society and Government 2.0 services would increase.11 Many think of these developments as an explosive political mixture, especially as traditional politicians and administrators seek to bury their head in the sand of obsolete authority structures or of a system based on constraints.
Oscar Gabriel and Kerstin Vlkl, Politische und soziale Partizipation In: Oscar Gabriel and Sabine Kropp (eds), Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Stukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte. (Wiesbaden: Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften, 2008): 286 7 Oscar Gabriel and Kerstin Vlkl, Politische und soziale Partizipation In: Oscar Gabriel and Sabine Kropp (eds), Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Stukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte. (Wiesbaden: Verlag fr Sozialwissenschaften, 2008): 302 8 Peter Parycek, Ursula Maier-Rabler and Gertraud Diendorfer, Internetkompetenz von SchlerInnen. Themeninteressen, Aktivittsstufen und Rechercheverhalten in der 8. Schulstufe in sterreich. Studienbericht. Vienna/Salzburg/Krems, (June 2010): p. 121 9 Christian Friesl, et al., Die sterreicherInnen. Wertewandel 1990-2008, (Vienna: Czernin-Verlag, 2009): 220 10 http://www.brz.gv.at (accessed July 31, 2010) 11 Only 3% think collaboration will decrease.
| Page 6
Against this tendency towards disenchantment with politics stands a tremendous amount of Internet-based bottom-up political initiatives such as thematic blogs, informal political networking and new organizational forms for political activities. One example of an extremely fast organization via open source systems and social media networks in Austria is represented by the student protests of 2009. Starting from the University of Vienna and spreading out across Germany, they occupied the auditorium of the university for more than two months and received a lot of attention in the Austrian media as Generation 09. Aside from the fast organization and flexibility of the group process,12 it is remarkable that the protests were not organized by their student union (H), as had been typical of large-scale demonstrations, but by the students themselves. In summary, it may be noted that while new forms of mobilization and crowd self-organization definitely worked, the initiative itself couldnt agree on a common political position. Thus, it did not succeed in achieving its goals. The question remains as to whether the crowd will learn from its mistakes in order to achieve political influence through future initiatives. In reaction to these tendencies, governments have sought to set up initiatives to vitalize democracy in the field of e-participation. We will come back to these characteristics and prospects in more detail later. We still need to evaluate the theory that we can meet tendencies toward disenchantment and individualization by focusing on new forms of governance, creating awareness of collaboration opportunities, and offering real participation opportunities.
2. E-democracy and e-participation as democratic enhancements? Classification and potential

Do information and communications technology (ICT) factors or electronic forms of participation and democracy enhance democratization? In this chapter we will define the terms e-democracy and e-participation, and sum up the current state of research in these fields. Looking at the ICT development of the last 50 years and the future, we are now, according to The Seeds of the Next Big Thing report prepared by Forrester Research,13 in the time of IT everywhere. With Internet penetration above 70 percent in Austria,14 electronic communication is now mainstream. The regions of Central and Eastern Europe generally enjoy high Internet levels penetration: In 2009, 70 percent of this areas population was online. Other regional leaders include Slovenia, Estonia, Austria and the additional Baltic states (Lithuania and Latvia).15 The Visegrd four (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia) showed penetration above 50 percent. And often, Internet penetration does not directly correlate to its usage frequency, that is, the frequency with which individual users go online. For instance, in Romania and Bulgaria, where current penetration is under the regional average, a substantially higher percentage of users go online every day than in Austria or the Czech Republic. Mobility in Europe is on the rise, and social networks show an unforeseen growth (e.g., with Facebook gaining about 300,000 new user profiles per day, or the significance of Web 2.0 technologies slowly being recognized by decision
12
Andreas Leef: Leben im Schwarm. Ein neues Leitbild transformiert Gesellschaft und Mrkte, http://www.changex.de/Article/article_924 (accessed July 31, 2010) 13 Forrester Research, The Seeds of the Next Big Thing (June 24, 2005). 14 Austrian Internet Monitor, 1. Quartal 2010, http://mediaresearch.orf.at/index2.htm?Internet/Internet_aim.htm (accessed July 31, 2010) 15 GfK Slowakia, Internet penetration in the CEE on the rise, http://www.gfk.at/imperia/md/content/gfkaustria/data/press/2009/2009-0224_Internet_penetration_in_cee.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)
| Page 7
makers). The Barack Obama campaigns successful use of social media and participation strategies lead to a high public interest and media attention, but the boom we can observe in national and international e-participation initiatives is taking place for broader reasons.
2.1. Definitions
There are a number of ways to define e-democracy and e-participation. Although these definitions are necessary, a too-rigid separation between e-government, e-participation and e-democracy is considered to be impracticable, as these terms often overlap. However, one can differentiate between the various roles of citizens as customers, participators and creators, and even as sovereigns. In the narrowest sense, e-democracy refers to the digitalization of decision-making processes regulated by law. In the broader sense it aims to strengthen constitutional principles, elements of direct that is, non-representative democracy, and citizen engagement, primarily in the form of opinion shaping and self-organizing processes. E-democracy is not only a way of using ICTs to support democratic processes and institutions necessary in lawmaking, jurisdiction and administration, but is also a way of enhancing and facilitating democracy itself. It is not meant to replace traditional forms of representative democracy, but is about modernization and endorsement of an interactive democracy.16 It is a fundamental principle of democracy that participation includes engagement in acts of representative democracy. According to the broad definition offered by Macintosh, e-participation is the usage of ICT in order to enhance and deepen the political participation of citizens.17 The use of electronic technology in all public activities and societal processes, including participation in political opinion shaping, decision-making and the provision of public services (e-services) is able to strengthen constitutional principles and public engagement by individual citizens as well as interest groups. Ideally, this increased level of interaction between citizens and politicians can strengthen democracy. Online participation is also possible in other non-governmental areas including socio-political commitments, citizen-to-business (C2B) and citizen-to-citizen (C2C) activities, and non-governmental organization (NGO) activities. ICT can support and encourage democratic change particularly in this latter sector, for example in its internal communication. Digital networks allow for new forms of collaboration and ways of working together in public administrations and political environments. Feedback encourages the transformation from a monolithic state to a pluralistic network, and in the future, cooperative networks (so-called governance webs, a term coined by Don Tapscott18) will provide public services and influence political processes.
16
Noella Edelmann and Peter Parycek: E-participation and E-democracy in Austria: Projects and Tenets for an E-democracy Strategy. In A. Kaplan et al. (eds.), Advances in eGovernment & eGovernance, Proceedings 1st International Conference on eGovernment & eGovernance, March 12-13, 2009, AnkaraTurkey: 2 17 A. Macintosh, eParticipation in policy-making: the research and the challenges, In P. Cunningham and M. Cunningham (eds), Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications and Case Studies (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006): 364-369 18 st D. Tapscott, E-Government in the 21 century. Moving from industrial to digital government. (New Paradigm Learning Corporation, 2004), http://www.sap.com/industries/publicsector/pdf/Misc_EGov_WhitePaper.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)
| Page 8
2.2. Classification of e-participation initiatives

E-participation as electronic civic participation can come in two different types: formal (i.e., with a legal basis, such as an environmental impact assessment stemming from an EU directive making citizen participation compulsory. Such processes are often found in the area of urban development) and informal (participation based on the voluntary decisions of administrators or politicians, in an opinion-making).19 20 In Austria, the standards of public participation of the Council of Ministers provide practical advice on this matter.21 Another factor is whether projects are bottom-up or top-down. Bottom-up participation is usually informal, initiated and/or carried out by individuals, temporary citizens' action groups or organizations such as NGOs, trade unions or religious communities. However, the public administration can engage with grassroots movements or take up suggestions from the population (for instance via complaint management), and implement an informal participation process. One model evaluating the depth of participation looks at the levels of intensity of e-participation. Participation can be roughly divided into four stages; with e-participation in the narrowest sense focusing on the cooperative elements of steps three and four. Information is the essential foundation for participation, providing the basis on which continuing activity can evolve. Transparency increased through the use of ICT forms an indispensable basis for informed decision-making, citizen engagement and new forms of public private partnerships. Consultation enables the involved parties (citizens, companies, NGOs) to express their opinion on questions posed, or to make proposals or official statements on submitted drafts. Cooperation between the state and civil society allows participants to discuss issues with decision makers and actively collaborate with the state. High impact in this regard requires intense, electronically supported communication between all stakeholders, including the persons responsible for planning and the public. Participation can finally culminate in codetermination, when citizens make a decision, typically in conjunction with the politicians in charge.
2.3. E-participations potential

Using ICT in the course of democratic participation is particularly attractive to a number of target users, including citizens living abroad, younger generations, and companies and organizations which would otherwise not be able to participate. But ICT also offer a number of other advantages. One of the main benefits of e-participation is the flexibility it offers in terms of time and location, as well as the choices made available to the participants. This flexibility can be geographical in this sense, electronic participation combines the advantages of centralization and decentralization but flexibility can also be understood in terms of time. Online services can be set up quickly, can easily be adapted to different needs and are more up to date than offline tools. The use of ICT in participation can also offer different forms and levels of information, allowing users themselves to decide which services to use, how to access them and what depth of information they wish to have. Personalization allows the users to modularize, customize and personalize their profiles, thus increasing the usability of online services and applications. Certain
19
Neubauer Kirsten and Peter Khnberger, E-Partizipation. Brger erfolgreich ber das Internet einbinden (Vienna: Neu&kuehn, 2010) 20 PG EDEM, Whitepaper. Positionspapier zu E-Democracy und E-Participation in sterreich (Vienna: 2008): 7 21 Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Bundeskanzleramt and Kerstin Arbter, Praxisleitfaden zu den Standards der ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (Vienna: March 2009).
| Page 9
target groups can be reached more easily online,22 including citizens living abroad, so-called digital natives (tech-savvy young people), and companies and groups with low financial or time budgets. Interactivity is another major advantage: Today there are a number of ways users can give feedback using non-linear features such as maps, construction documents, Web 2.0 modules or computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). Interactivity also improves the services offered by public administration, as it allows quick reactions and the ability to provide further information when required, thus improving the relationship with users. Modern and interactive ICTs offer a number of opportunities to communicate synchronously as well as asynchronously at the individual or mass level. The Internets particular strengths are its manyto-many communication, hypertext linking and networking. The user is not restricted to the recipient role, but is able to coproduce and broadcast information. Thus, the utilization of several communication channels can strengthen a (democratic) discussion; while transparent discussions, comments and feedback allow for user evaluation and control, which in turn can increase trust and acceptance. Finally, the cost-benefit ratio is relatively favorable. High-quality services can be provided, which, though themselves costly, allow for citizen participation and the (free) contribution of relevant information, while reducing costs for customer support, telephone-based services and printed documentation.
2.4. Democratization through the Internet?

When talking about initiatives to vitalize democracy, the role of ICT and the Internet is much debated, yet undeniably crucial. Fora.tv23 recently published a debate on the question: Does the Internet and its unchecked nature of information threaten democracy?24 Among the benefits, the discussion participants noted the spread of information around the world, improved access to information and the ability to mobilize demonstrators. Beyond these factors, the Internet can foster deep and neutral analysis, the propagation of free information with greater transparency, and more free speech with lower barriers of entry. People can also select news sources to reinforce their views, although depending on the topic and form of discussion, they might still stay within their original discursive boundaries. According to Jimmy Wales, democracy is about deciding, and the Internet is very much a function of that. People engage in deep analysis online that is impossible to find in a traditional newspaper. His theory is that democracy is enriched by the flow of information. What is new is that although we can now all participate, the overall effects of opening up decision processes are not yet known. By contrast, Andrew Keen argued that the continuing and obsessive questioning of authority taking place in the course of Internet discussions is not democracy. In his opinion, the Internet can reflect serious, authoritative value, but the absence of a center on the Internet could lead democracy to suffer.25 In his controversial book The Cult of the Amateur,26 Keen does not focus on the productive side of user contributions as quality content, but argues that
22
PG EDEM, Whitepaper. Positionspapier zu E-Democracy und E-Participation in sterreich (Vienna: 2008): 16 23 http://fora.tv/ (accessed July 31, 2010) 24 Does the Internet threaten democracy? A debate with Jimmy Wales, Andrew Keen, Farhad Manjoo and Micah L. Sifry. http://fora.tv/2010/05/18/Debate_The_Internet_and_Democracy (accessed July 31, 2010). Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia, Andrew Keen author of The Cult of the Amateur, Farhad Manjoo author of True Enough and Micah L. Sifry editor of the Personal Democracy Forum. 25 Does the Internet threaten democracy? A debate with Jimmy Wales, Andrew Keen, Farhad Manjoo and Micah L. Sifry, http://fora.tv/2010/05/18/Debate_The_Internet_and_Democracy (accessed July 31, 2010). 26 Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy (London: 2007).
| Page 10
amateur content is threatening our values, economy, innovation and creativity. However, this argument is now, three years later, put even more into perspective with the vast majority of people participating in online discussions, social networks or other forms of online communication. To exclude amateur content from the Internet could lead to a misjudgment of its value or even discrimination, and is not a realistic option. In innovation processes, a heterogeneous crowd is more productive than closed systems. As a recent article in Harvard Business Review on open innovation showed, crowd-produced content and outsiders contributions enable enterprises to create offerings that outstrip their own internal capabilities.27 Open innovation breaking down traditional corporate boundaries, carried out by economies for about 10 years, allows intellectual property, ideas and people to flow freely both into and out of an organization. One can also argue against Keens thesis that the distinction between professional and amateur content is becoming harder to draw. Moreover, the quality of a contribution is not per se related to whether its creator was paid. When comparing a typical amateur content portal, Wikipedia, with the traditional Encyclopedia Britannica (using a sample of articles on a wide range of subjects and based on reviews from a field of 42 experts), a study performed by Nature concluded that Wikipedia and Britannica were largely comparable when assessed in terms of accuracy and reliability. Eight serious errors were discovered four from each encyclopedia. In Wikipedia, moreover, factual errors can be corrected instantly through the power of crowdsourcing.28 In addition, many amateur media-like blogs already function as quality control for traditional media. Nevertheless, with the bulk of people now participating in some way, we run the risk of measuring the quality of political discourse by hits and clicks rather than by the quality of the content.29 Furthermore, misinformation and the egoistic behavior of a few users can jeopardize the success of ICT tools for democratic purposes. As Sunstein points out in his book Infotopia, polarization effects skew the results of joint decisions in group discussions.30 He cites an experiment with 60 American citizens discussing political topics in groups of five to seven people. After the discussion, participants did not moderate their opinions; rather, positions even became more radical, with the gap between liberals and conservatives increasing. Therefore, online discussions can also be a bad instrument for aggregating information, and political groups can become even more radical when confronted with each other. The difference between information pooling and discussions thus needs to be considered.31 Umar Haque also argues in his social media bubble32 theory that the social web in particular fuels hate against people or subjects, and that people self-organize into very homogeneous groups, sometimes with rather narrow common interests. The former political public has turned into a collection of target-group-specific echo chambers. Cass Sunstein argues that these chambers represent one of the Internets most significant dangers, leading to political communication in which people listen and talk only to like-minded individuals. According to him,
27
Henry W. Chesbrough and Andrew R. Garman, How Open Innovation Can Help You Cope in Lean Times, Harvard Business Review, December 2009: 68-80. 28 Matthew Fraser and Soumitra Dutta,Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom. How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World, (Chichester, 2008): 221. 29 J. Jessen, Das Netz trgt, http://www.zeit.de/2009/24/Internetdebatte (accessed July 31, 2010). 30 C. R.: Sunstein, Infotopia. How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford: University Press, 2008). 31 Ralf Grtker, Willkommen im Schwarm! http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/23/23822/1.html (accessed July 31, 2010) 32 Urmair Haque, The Social Media Bubble, http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/03/the_social_media_bubble.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=fe ed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29 (accessed July 31, 2010)
| Page 11
citizens have a tendency to look only to reinforce their own pre-existing opinions on the Internet, weaving themselves into information cocoons.33 However, most conversations around government 2.0 are based on the values of social networking and on the assumption that networking enabled by technology will fundamentally change the way citizens relate both to institutions and to each other.34 The question as to whether the Internet will democratize our society is one of Crowds and Power, but also of the nature of the problem. Decisions borne by as many people as possible do not necessarily have to be better. The failure or success of a decision process is rather based form of problems themselves. As Surowiecky argues in The Wisdom of Crowds,35 cognitive problems can be solved easily by a mass of individuals; however, making policy in a democracy is not cognition, but rather a coordination problem with less than definitive answers. Another problem is posed by the digital divide between different age groups, most notably between groups of different social status, migration background or gender. Andy Williamson points out that the Internet does not of itself change an individuals motivation to become engaged. Hansard Society research has shown that a minority of citizens now want to be involved in decision-making (43% nationally and 48% locally). In the United Kingdom, 57 percent of citizens do not wish to become involved in national decision-making processes, 40 percent because of a lack of time. Eighty-five percent feel that they exert little or no influence over decision-making at the national level. What the Internet does do is reduce the number of barriers to engagement, hence lowering the motivational threshold at which citizens choose to engage.36 However, the current tendency of strongly promoting the use of digital media as a tool in citizen engagement also includes the risk that those people who best know how to use the Internet as a tool for information gathering and engagement will become the new digital elite, although the general elite may also be broadened. Experts on the digital divide, such as Ismael Pea-Lopez, point out that technological literacy in Europe is still limited, as European citizens are not proficient or comfortable using computers and the Internet.37 This constraint is particularly keen when abilities rather than technical access are the subject of focus. Insufficient or varying levels of e-literacy are thus amongst the biggest barriers to a new e-democracy. Based on British surveys,38 the typical Internet user in the United Kingdom is of above-average income and education, in the 25-45 age cohort, male, and educated. Late adopters often do not see sufficient value in being online, or do not feel motivated enough to acquire the necessary skills. Knowing that the digital divide still exists, we need to take steps not to exclude those who are already marginalized. Otherwise, citizens with no Internet access will become further discriminated against, and excluded from social and political activities. Regarding the digital gap in Austria, the situation has improved since the 1990s, and at least with regard to technical access, no significant differences can today be identified. However, differences
33
Cass Sunstein, Echo Chambers (Oxford: 2001); Miriam Meckel, Gefangen in der Echokammer, http://www.miriammeckel.de/2010/01/18/gefangen-in-der-echokammer/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 34 A. DiMaio, Government 2.0 and the Social Media Bubble, March 25, 2010 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2010/03/25/government-2-0-and-the-social-media-bubble/ (accessed July 31, 2010) 35 J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Doubleday, 2004) 36 Andy Williamson, Distribution and Empowerment: Embedding Citizens at the Heart of Democracy, EDem2010. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-Democracy (Vienna: 2010): 61. 37 Ismael Pea-Lopez, Goverati: E-aristocrats or the delusion of e-democracy, EDem2010. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-Democracy. (Vienna: 2010): 28. 38 Oxford Internet Institute, The Internet in Britain (Oxford: University of Oxford, 2007).
| Page 12
can still be observed when combining usage patterns with socio-demographic data. Education and school type are still a main criterion for access to information and knowledge through ICT. The youth participation study performed by Maier-Rabler and Hartwig in Austria showed a permanent structural disadvantage for pupils in a Hauptschule-type school as compared to those attending a more prestigious Gymnasium.39 We can currently observe that the digital gap between certain segments of society is increasing rather than decreasing, and that substantial differences concerning patterns of usage can be identified. Therefore, the digital divide has to be described with regard to different capabilities as opposed to access to technical infrastructure. Some experts even see a divide based on religious and moral aspects of Internet use. Peter Kruse investigated a group of heavy Internet users and identified different moral concepts responsible for the digital gap. Whereas one group experiences online communication as a major part of their socialization, others see it only as an instrument. Because of these different belief systems, discussions about the relevance of the Internet often find little common ground.40 Among the other limits of technology include the fact that the Internet can still be blocked by authorities or used by totalitarian governments to promote their ideologies. Iran runs one of the worlds most extensive technical filtering systems,41 while China has mandated the installation of content control software (Green Dam) on every computer sold in the country, and runs the socalled Great Firewall of China, which blocks IP addresses and proxy servers or operates through DNS cache poisoning. Even though the Internet provides generally various opportunities to participate, it is also a space where anti-democratic ideas are published, attracting adherents and becoming popular the easy way. Despite all positive and negative effects of engagement via the Internet, 100 percent participation is not the goal. But we can draw on the potential of the Internet to strengthen democracy through transparency to achieve better decisions as a result of a more knowledgeable society. Governments wanting to address the current democratic deficit need to understand that as Mica F. Sifry put it42 the Internet is the dial tone of our time and that they act as a repository for a tremendous amount of data. They need to move into the 21st century, stop hoarding information and stop using 18th century metrics.
2.5. Unexploited potential for e-participation and standardized information

From the legal perspective, participatory elements can be found at all three state levels in Austria: legislative, administrative and juridical. In the judiciary system, (offline) participation is manifested in the form of juries and lay judges. Generally, electronic information, communication and transactions are quite common in Austria. Far fewer projects are planned in the area of e-
39
U. Maier-Rabler, and C. Hartwig, e-Partizipation. Eine aktive Jugend durch neue Medien? Das aktive IKTNutzerverhalten von Salzburger Jugendlichen mit besonderer Bercksichtigung von (politisch) partizipativen Formen von Internet und mobiler technischer Kommunikation, ICT&S Research Report, (Salzburg, 2007), http://www.icts.sbg.ac.at/content.php?id=1447&m_id=1011&ch_id=1444 (accessed May 15, 2010) 40 See the talk by Peter Kruse: Whats next?, re:publica conference 2010, Berlin, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbD3bCijS4 (accessed July 31, 2010). 41 OPENNET Initiative, Internet Filtering in Iran in 2006-2007, http://opennet.net/studies/iran2007 (accessed July 31, 2010) 42 Does the Internet threaten democracy? A debate with Jimmy Wales, Andrew Keen, Farhad Manjoo and Micah L. Sifry, http://fora.tv/2010/05/18/Debate_The_Internet_and_Democracy (accessed July 31, 2010)
| Page 13
participation, although substantial potential exists for digital development in the areas of public services and co-determination.43 A recent Austrian study by e-participation consultants and project developers neu&khn (Neubauer and Khnberger44) dealt with the potential of e-participation by examining and analyzing 30 e-participation projects. As the consultants argued, e-participation can strengthen a local sense of belonging, increase the efficiency of administrative actions and improve the image of a municipality. Unfortunately, no examination of the technical dissemination of e-participation in Austria currently exists. However, one can extrapolate from the general interest in online participation opportunities in Germany. Successful e-participation projects focus on issues relevant to citizens lives, either on a regional level (e.g., urban development) or with regard to content (budget planning). Whereas Germany has many participation projects in this area, initiatives such as participatory budgets are currently lacking in Austria, where the focus is decidedly not on consultation. However, a number of bottom-up initiatives have sought to promote the collaboration of governments with society (with a new focus on concepts such as open government and open data), and official working groups have attempted to convey the importance of e-participation and collaborative projects in Austria. The reference countries for participation projects of this kind can be found in the Anglo-American and Scandinavian countries. In these countries, both local and national initiatives can be found, whereas the German-speaking countries have tended to focus on regional topics. While a broad range of online information panels and platforms can be found in Austria, the process of establishing Internet-based interaction and direct decisions remains in the early stages.45 Whereas Germany boasts 67 cities with participatory budgeting procedures, Austria is still in the planning process. However, the Austrian e-government strategy has been awarded a top ranking in the Capgemini benchmarking process since 2006. As already pointed out, there is a comprehensive body of information available (the RIS (legal information system), the Austrian one-stop-shop egovernment portal (help.gv.at), information from the parliament and the federal environmental agency, and much more). However, there remains much unexploited potential for e-participation, new forms of interactive software and citizen involvement.46 Governments must include eparticipation as a part of the political decision-making process in order to make use of this potential.
3. Policies and Strategies

In Austria, strong cooperation between various stakeholders has been established in order to extend the potential of e-participation and vitalize democracy. The Danube University Krems is cooperating on the national and international level with all three sectors (public, private and NGOs) and with the Austrian Federal Chancellery in policy-making and research. The research interests of
43
PG EDEM, Whitepaper. Positionspapier zu E-Democracy und E-Participation in sterreich, (Vienna, 2008). 44 Kirsten Neubauer and Peter Khnberger, E-Partizipation. Brger erfolgreich ber das Internet einbinden, (Vienna: Neu&kuehn, March 2010). 45 UN E-Government Survey 2008, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010) 46 Peter Parycek and Judith Schossbck, Neue Entscheidungskulturen in Politik und Verwaltung. EDemokratie, E-Partizipation und deren Potenziale fr sterreich. In: GlobArt Academy 2009 (eds), Demokratie neu erfinden (Vienna: 2010): 146-151
| Page 14
the Center for E-Government at the Danube University Krems focus on the field of e-democracy and e-participation on the national and international level. The following chapter gives an overview of the main e-participation activities, initiatives, policies and strategies on the international level, including the Ad Hoc Committee on E-democracy (CAHDE) of the Council of Europe and the Austrian project group for e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM).
3.1. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE, 2006-2008)

One of the starting points for national research in this area was the contribution of experts from the Center for E-Government at the Danube University Krems and the Austrian federal administration to the activities of the Council of Europe in the field of e-democracy. From 2006 to 2008, the Ad Hoc Committee on E-democracy (CAHDE) developed the CM/Rec(2009)1 recommendations.47 These can be seen as the first international legal instrument aimed at setting standards in the field of e-democracy, emphasizing among other things that: the principles of individual freedom, political liberty, human rights and the rule of law form the basis of all genuine democratic systems; the application of democratic values, effective democratic processes, good governance and the engagement and involvement of citizens and civil society are essential for preventing conflicts, promoting stability and facilitating economic and social progress and cohesion at all levels; the acknowledgement that, while democracy is the only mode of government ensuring lasting solutions to the political, economic, social and cultural problems facing Europes societies, it can take different forms in different countries, depending on the political and constitutional traditions and political and legal culture of each member state; the importance of maintaining and improving democratic institutions and processes in the context of the new opportunities and challenges arising from the information society; and the recognition that information and communication technology (ICT) is progressively facilitating the dissemination of political information and the discussion of political issues; is encouraging wider democratic participation by individuals and groups; is enabling greater transparency and accountability in democratic institutions and processes; and is serving citizens in other ways that benefit democracy and society.48
3.2. Project group e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM)

Additionally, Austrias Project Group E-democracy and E-participation (PG-EDEM), an interministerial group of external experts lead by the Center for E-Government at the Danube University Krems by order of the Federal Chancellery, is working on these topics. The working group on e-democracy has been active since 2006, and the significance of e-democracy, e-participation and Web 2.0 technologies are now recognized by decision-makers. The main objectives of this group are to strengthen and enhance democracy though the incorporation of
47
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/CAHDE/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Reco mmendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)

48
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/cahde/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recom mendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 15
citizen participation and citizen knowledge, and to improve processes and results in politics, administration and society, particularly through the usage of interactive media. The group has been working on the preparation of a recommendation for Austrias e-democracy strategy since 2008, based on the Austrian Council of Ministers Standards for Public Participation (Standards der ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung49) and the Council of Europes recommendations on electronic democracy (e-democracy). The Austrian set of standards50 provides political recommendations and practical advice in the field of e-participation (project lead: Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Environment). The document includes various checklists and tips for running e-participation projects, such the need to engage groups. The Austrian e-democracy strategy is one important part of the overall effort to successfully implement e-democracy and e-participation in Austria, and is strongly linked to the results of the Council of Europes work with CAHDE. It is the main building block in Austrias long-term approach to e-democracy. Apart from this strategy, the overall approach to e-democracy includes a definition of e-democracy principles, an overview of e-democracy and e-participation instruments with concrete examples, a test case illuminating potential e-participation processes, as well as eparticipation building blocks such as registration, identification, data protection and voting. The Austrian e-democracy strategy defines goals, principles, measures and projects in order to strengthen existing democracy, democratic institutions and processes through the use of ICT. The main goals defined include: an increase in transparency and accountability, improvement in equity and opportunities for communication, development of new forms of participation, a more effective implementation of participation-focused projects, and the connection of citizens with politics and political administration by means of online platforms. This strategy is intended to serve as an orientation point in the field of transparent information and communication in politics and administration. As previously mentioned, one of the results of the strategys development was the definition of e-democracy principles: transparency and sustainability, free access to information, data security, digital inclusion, usability, joint responsibility, decision and feedback. The following measures were developed as means for promotion of e-democracy values: evaluation of edemocracy projects, interdisciplinary research, promotion of intermediates (organized civil society) and continuing education (digital literacy). The work group also published a position paper on e-democracy and e-participation in Austria in 2008. This paper was the basis for the development of further participation guidelines, and serves as an introduction to administration experts and stakeholders as well as a starting point for further activities such as collecting and classifying e-participation projects. Furthermore, the annual conference for e-democracy (CEDEM)51 has established itself as a wellknown and international conference in the fields of e-democracy and open government. The document offers all European governments and other stakeholders guidelines and principles to consider when engaging in e-democracy activities. Included, for example, are recommendations that the member states:52
49
The Standards der ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung were produced by an interministerial working group and a cooperation of NGOs, external experts and chambers within the frame of a project by order of the Federal Chancellery and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. 50 Bundesministerium fr Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft and Bundeskanzleramt and Kerstin Arbter, Praxisleitfaden zu den Standards der ffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (Vienna: March 2009). 51 http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/cedem (accessed July 31, 2010). 52 Of the Council of Europe and other international institutions such as the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the European Union.
| Page 16
make use of the opportunities afforded by e-democracy to strengthen democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes; consider and implement e-democracy as a support and enhancement of democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes by means of ICT, linked to the engagement and reengagement of citizens in democracy; and introduce, develop or review e-democracy policies and practices, and where it is deemed appropriate, introduce legislation guided by the light of these principles and the guidelines appended to, and constituting an integral part of, this recommendation.53 CAHDE also developed further recommendations for the Committee of Ministers intended to guide future actions in the field of e-democracy within the framework of the Council of Europes agenda on strengthening democracy and good governance.54
3.3. Further PG-EDEM contributions

Project Group E-democracy (PG-EDEM) is also working on Beamte 2.0, a guideline for the usage of Web 2.0 tools aimed at public officers and administrative employees, to be published in the second half of 2010. Since 2006, with reference to the results of previous projects, the group has also been working on the E-Government Visions 2020 policy statement. The recommendations in this document include the enhancement of transparency and trust (e.g., active data protection), diversity in e-government (e.g., low entry barriers and free access for everyone) and the establishment of one-stop applications. The abovementioned papers describe the current state of research in the field of e-participation with reference to the topics definition and potential, varying states of participation, critical success factors and opportunities for implementation. Future challenges include the following: Participation projects must be implemented as a part of the decision-making process in order to avoid pseudo-participation. Who decides when to include the public? In many cases, informal (legal) decisions have already been made before the public is officially consulted. Problem as to the outcome: Are the results binding or even relevant? Citizens have to believe in the advantages of participation. How can citizens identify themselves in the process? The quality of identification needs to be questioned (citizen ID card, Facebook Connect, etc.). Another challenge is the balance between quantity and quality (mass participation vs. elites). Beyond these activities, PG EDEMs Visions for 2020 project has sought to encompass new forms of governance such as open government, or collaboration for innovation. These have already been implemented in the business sector, where crowdsourcing and collaborative innovation as a principle have been put to good use. The biggest challenge is to include these new principles in
53
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/cahde/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recom mendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).

54
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/CAHDE/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/6647 -0-ID8289-Recommendation%20on%20electronic%20democracy.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 17
top-down initiatives, as at the moment, most initiatives are being driven from the bottom up. Furthermore, both fear of change and ignorance of the potential prevent these approaches from being utilized in government strategies.
4. Promising approaches in the enhancement of democracy

One of the most promising approaches to the vitalization of democracy is the open government strategy. Among its origins are the Obama administrations three-pillar White House policy emphasizing transparency, participation and collaboration.55 Similarly, the U.S. administrations Open Government Directive, part of a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, conveyed the importance of publishing government information online in order to create a culture of open government.56 Keywords like openness and transparency were also part of the Obama brand during the last presidential election in the United States.57 Discussion on the issues of transparency and open information in America is not new, and these topics have been discussed within the open access and open source movements for at least the last 10 years. But apart from being addressed in the Council of Europe it is only now that these concepts are being broadly discussed at the level of governance. For the first time, these principles and strategies have been defined at the highest governance level with the aim of strengthening democracy, especially in the United States and Australia.
4.1. Transparency
Transparency is one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic constitutional state. There can be different levels of transparency, related to a systems historical background. Depending on the aspect of democracy being promoted, e-democracy can also employ different techniques: tools can be variously used for increasing transparency, for enhancing citizen participation, or for improving the quality of opinion formation by opening new sources of information.58 In this section, emphasis will be put on transparency, with a focus on information and open data. We will also present further initiatives addressing these concepts before summing up current tendencies and changes in the outlook. 4.1.1. Information One of the principles of open government is the provision of information to citizens. In the open government idea, the state commits all government agencies and service providers to supply all relevant information in an appropriate manner. Open information is the basis for open government, given that only free and easy information access can facilitate participation and collaboration.
55
Barack Obama, Transparency and Open Government, The White House, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government (accessed July 31, 2010). 56 Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Open Government Directive, 2009. 57 Peter P Swire, Its Not the Campaign Any More. How the White House is using Web 2.0 technology so far, http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/web2.0_memo.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010). 58 http://www.edemocracyblog.com/edemocracy-blog/edemocracy-and-the-lessons-of-iraq/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 18
Transparency based on correct information allows citizens to take democratic decisions that have not been corrupted by a powerful elite.59 The hurdles placed in front of conventional information access are closely tied to a countrys prevailing information culture. Within the European Union, the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act of 1766 was an early milestone in the states obligation to provide the public with information. It stated that anyone is entitled to contact a public authority or agency in Sweden and request access to an official document, such as a decision it has made. An individual who makes such a request does not need to give his name or specify the purpose of his request.60 However, while in certain countries the publishing of free information takes place with reference to a legal framework, the situation in Austria and Eastern Europe is more complex. In contrast to many other European countries, the right to information does not lead to the right of citizens to access records. Unique within the EU, official secrecy is also a part of the constitution act. Whereas in many countries, the electronic discovery of data implies an obligation to deliver, in Austria we refer to the term right to information or access right. The freedom of information law is called the Auskunftsrecht, which means that there is a right to ask for information, but no obligation to publish it proactively (in addition, there is a catalogue of exceptions such as Amtsverschwiegenheit, or official secrecy). In an ideal world, authorities would deliver information without reference to any particular occasion. In Australia, for instance, the obligation to publish is set as the default condition, and the Anglo-Saxon countries have traditionally restricted information access to a relatively lesser extent. The Bertelsmann Stiftung conducted an international comparison of freedom of information rights based on the Banisar Study,61 comparing processing periods and administrative fees among other things.62 Sweden holds the top position when it comes to the processing period, followed by Hungary with a period of eight days and the United States with a 20-day processing period. Austria is well toward the rear, showing an eight-week delay. In Austria, there is no constitutional freedom of information right that would force the state to continuously and actively publish information. However, in the environmental area, due to the national implementation of the regulation 2007/2/EG, which mandated the creation of a national environmental data portal, the offering of standardized information by the state is expected to expand, as Austria is working on a central environmental data portal.63 As for standardized information, this situation also applies to Eastern European countries. To date, there have been no initiatives leading to a legal obligation to publish standardized information in these states. However, for the new EU member states, as well as for the candidate countries, this will change in the near future, as they too will be obliged to implement the compulsory EU national environmental data portal.
59
Parycek and Sachs, Open Government. Information Flow in Web 2.0, ePractice Journal 2010, http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/313345 (accessed July 31, 2010). 60 Sveriges Riksdag, The Freedom of the Press Act 2009, http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8908.aspx (accessed January 27, 2010). 61 David Banisar, The www.freedominfo.org Global Survey, Freedom of Information and Access to government record laws around the World, http://www.freedominfo.org/survey.htm (accessed September 28, 2003). 62 Thomas Hart and Carolin Welzel, Informationsfreiheit und der transparente Staat (Gtersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2003). 63 for implementation reports see http://www.ref.gv.at/uploads/media/Austria_on_the_way_to_a_European_Shared_Environmental_Informatio n_System.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 19
On the one hand, freedom of information is an important factor in re-democratization, and is closely tied to open government and the transparent state,64 as citizens are more motivated to participate in a culture defined by transparency. By embracing the principles of open government, governments of the world could become more effective, transparent and relevant to citizens lives. This could lead to changing concepts of governance, a change driven by information technology and the changing role of the citizen.65 On the other hand, changing information hierarchies and new forms of governance can also lead to strong conflicts. We need to think critically about where and when transparency works. As Lessing points out, management transparency, which is designed to make the performance of government agencies more measurable, will improve how governments work, while making government data available to others has historically produced enormous value.66 But according to Lessig, we need to see what comparisons the acts of transparency will enable, and whether they are in fact meaningful. In addition, acting on the Internet always relinquishes a certain kind of control. Another problem in the context of open information is, again, the digital divide. How to access and interpret governmental information and data sets is not yet well known beyond an information elite. As documents published by public authorities are often written in sophisticated language, the average citizen might encounter difficulties understanding the content in detail. However, projects to enhance democracy do not always have to cater to the masses they can also be targeted at an elite or at intermediates who in turn make the data broadly accessible for the average citizen. 4.1.2. Open Data Transparency can be put into practice with reference to two different pillars: general information and data. Whereas the publishing of information has a longer history of discussion (often related to a countrys information policy history) and is targeted at a broader audience, the concept of publishing raw data, as in the open data philosophy, aims at a certain elite. While open data does draw on open government principles, it is most remarkable that with open data the state not only commits itself to publish information, but to publish standardized raw data. On this basis, new intermediates can create services and applications to make data understandable for the mass. The consequence is the formation of a broader elite that knows how to access and edit information, and can support the cause of transparency and free information for a wider audience. Open data requires that data be freely available to everyone, without restrictions associated with copyright or other mechanisms of control. This means the provision of public and non-personalized data (i.e., non-textual material) offered freely for use, ideally in a central portal. Open data advocates have already developed a set of principles guiding this practice.67 The surplus of open data can be applied to many different contexts. The scientific community, by publishing raw data from empirical studies for use by other scientists (a concept sometimes defined as part of an open science policy), could put open data to good use. And as for democratic
64
Thomas Hart and Carolin Welzel, Informationsfreiheit und der transparente Staat. Eine Analyse der Bertelsmann-Stiftung. (Gtersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2003). 65 For describing the changes in information hierarchies, Mayer-Schnberger and Lazer use the term iGovernment (Information Government). iGovernment is concerned with analyzing the flow of information within a country and society. Viktor Mayer-Schnberger and David Lazer, From Electronic Government to Information Government. In: Viktor Mayer-Schnberger and David Lazer (eds), Governance and Information Technology (Cambridge & London: MIT Press, 2007): 1-14. 66 Lawrence Lessig: Against Transparency. The perils of openness in government, http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0 (accessed July 31, 2010). 67 http://wiki.opengovdata.org/index.php?title=OpenDataPrinciples (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 20
value, the innovative strength of society has been calculated in the contest apps for democracy.68 This contest, held in Washington D.C. in 2009, invited software developers to compete to create the best new applications designed to make D.C. government data more accessible and useful for the public. The competition asked developers to create mashup applications for District data using popular consumer technologies such as the iPhone, Facebook, Google Maps and others. The entries were judged by an appointed jury based on criteria including usefulness to citizens, usefulness to government and originality. The contest carried a prize value of $20,000 and generated 47 applications for the Internet, iPhone and Facebook. The projects return on investment was calculated at $2.3 million. Open data principles involve the provision of raw data, ideally via open APIs (application programming interfaces), which enable externally developed mashup services developed either for profit or nonprofit applications. One such example is the central data portal of the U.S. government (http://www.data.gov). There are other examples of transparency and cooperation at federal level69, but bigger cities too are planning to provide access to raw data from numerous administrative databases. Another city offering new data sets on an ongoing basis is San Francisco (http://datasf.org).70 Based on this data, several websites and iPhone applications have been developed by external programmers.71 Australias government offers another central data portal (http://data.australia.gov.au), enabling outside programmers to use the data in creating new services and applications. For each data set, there are licenses defining what users can and cannot do with the data. Open data can offer great benefit to society, but also bears certain risks, as shown in the visualization of existing data on hazardous waste sites on maps by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),72 which resulted in an immediate adjustment of real estate prices. Houses situated near hazardous waste sites were subjected to an extreme loss in value, leading to immense financial losses by individuals. In Austria, data on hazardous waste sites is also open information, but is available only in print form. How to access this data is not well known; consequently only an information elite such as professional estate agents knows how to access and process the information. The efficiency of this example is beyond dispute, but it raises the question of whether a society is always willing to accept the results. Both open government and open data are the basis of a self-concept of a government grounded in the obligation to publically provide information for which citizens have paid through taxes. The concepts provide the opportunity to benefit from citizen involvement and knowledge, by providing platforms where collaboration among citizens or between citizens and the state can take place. 4.1.3. Bottom-up initiatives If governments do not reinforce open information and the development of data portals, it is very likely that society will do so on its own. Two examples of bottom-up open data initiatives are the Open Data Network,73 which fosters access to data, open government, transparency and participation, and the Offene Daten74 portal in Germany, which aims to make open data in
68 69
http://www.appsfordemocracy.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). http://opendata.gov/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 70 http://datasf.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 71 http://datasf.org/showcase/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 72 http://www.epa.gov/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 73 http://opendata-network.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 74 http://offenedaten.de/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 21
Germany more traceable and usable, and includes data from politics, public administration, libraries, science and research institutions. Likewise, and as opposed to the government-initiated portals in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia or New Zealand (top-down approaches), most initiatives in Austria are driven from the bottom up, started by civil society elements such as semantic web enthusiasts or interested non-governmental parties.75 Activists seek to convey the importance of open data via nongovernmental initiatives. However, transparency, raw data and mashups are included in the Visions for 2020 project defined by Federal Chancellerys Digital Austria platform. For prospective or flagship projects, potential data sets need to be identified. At the Open Government Data Meeting in May 2010, participants initially defined the following areas as promising and potential sources of data: geolocation, public promotions and sponsorship services, infrastructure, the environment, security and health. Based on a community ranking, data on infrastructure and the environment has the biggest evident potential. From an Austrian perspective, the publication of financial data does not appear to have a big potential. It was argued that this will take much more time, as this form of data is untouchable for Central and Eastern European countries at the moment. As an example of an initiative in Eastern Europe striving for more transparency, the Open Society Institute76 has teamed up with mySociety77 a community of volunteers and open-source programmers to help people in Central and Eastern Europe build transparency and democracy websites suited to the needs and realities of their local political environments. In the United Kingdom, mySociety runs a variety of sites such as TheyWorkForYou.com, FixMyStreet.com, and the freedom of information website WhatDoTheyKnow.com. As there are many people outside the United Kingdom longing to build similar sites that help increase transparency and accountability in their own government institutions, a call for proposals for participants in Central and Eastern Europe has been launched. Through this effort, mySociety is looking for projects that either because of a lack of funds or appropriate skills cannot be started by citizens. The group is particularly interested in projects aiming at providing increased transparency in government spending, and collaboration with civil society is an important factor. They argue that in this area its not enough to simply build some fancy reports on currently existing data (useful as that might be). To meet our criteria, its important to build something that can run with minimal human involvement: regularly spidering official data sources, converting them into usable formats, and updating the site with the results.78 One of the shortlisted projects, (Dont vote blindly79) offers an answer to several problems: a need to spread knowledge about elections and candidates who are running for local government positions, a need for information about self-government institutions, and a need to promote the active participation of citizens in public life. According to research carried out by the Public Opinion Research Center in 2006, the statement I dont know who to vote for is the most common reason for voter abstention. To address this problem, project leaders want to create a mechanism of communication between candidates and voters, which will motivate candidates to increase their engagement in campaigns, and encourage voters to become more aware and proactive while deciding who to vote for.
75 76
http://gov.opendata.at/site/ (accessed July 31, 2010). http://www.soros.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 77 The project page is http://cee.mysociety.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 78 http://cee.mysociety.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 79 http://cee.mysociety.org/cfp/2009/11/don%E2%80%99t-vote-blindly-kandydaci2010-pl-%E2%80%93-civicmonitoring-of-candidates-running-in-local-elections/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 22
4.2. Participation and collaboration

In the context of Government 2.0, public value no longer needs to be provided by the government alone, but can be provided by any combination of public agencies, the private sector, community groups or citizens.80 The biggest current challenge for many governments is a lack of money available to deliver services and to establish a framework in which the government itself takes the lead in defining these new institutional governance roles, while still effectively using the innovative capacity of the society. The closed, hierarchal model of government is becoming increasingly untenable, but the public administration has not yet found its new role in this virtualized environment. The informal, non-hierarchical nature of mass collaboration, facilitated by electronic communication technology, has not yet been fully endorsed by public administrations. The traditional organizational structure of public administration is that of a hierarchical, closed entity. As mentioned in the previous section examples of peer production in public administration exist, either triggered by the administrations themselves or as bottom-up approaches. With free collaborative tools at hand, citizens can engage on a self-directed basis, and create the services that the public administration has failed to provide. As a starting point, participation and mass collaboration can be compared. Any collaboration model requires a certain degree of transparency. Participation in this sense can be seen as a traditional form of participation in a joint activity, seeking common solutions for problems and challenges that are affecting a number of people or the society as a whole. The Austrian Standards for Public Participation introduced in section three should serve as a useful document in the solution of these problems. On the one hand, new media enables government administrations to use new instruments of mass collaboration to find solutions to outstanding problems. On the other hand, high numbers of participants in collaborative work do not necessarily produce high-quality results. According to Pisano et al,81 different models of collaboration can support innovation, depending on governance structure (flat vs. hierarchical) and forms of participation (closed vs. open). The advantage of these forms of collaboration is that the community produces new ideas, which are often beyond the traditional scope of organizational thinking.82 We would suggest another model focusing on the two forms of state processes in reference to Tapscott, and on Pisanos open innovation approach. First, the innovation mall and innovation community are concepts (Pisano) defined either by a flat or relatively more governed community. In a second step, we can distinguish projects and initiatives along two separate dimensions: administration and policies. The Center for E-government is currently focusing strongly on the research field of open concepts, innovation communities and innovation malls. 4.2.1. Innovation communities for policy-making Innovation is the driving force behind economic growth and wealth in society. The concept of an innovation community generally addresses all people who are willing to provide solutions for change in many fields. The advantage of open participation is that new ideas, which extend well beyond the scope of traditional organizational thinking, might be surfaced by the community. The
80
D.Tapscott, A.D. Williams and D. Herman, Government 2.0: Transforming government and governance for the twenty-first century (New Paradigm, 2007): 5 81 Pisano et al. Which kind of collaboration is right for you?, HBR, December 2008. 82 The challenging part is incorporating these new ideas in actual problem solutions.
| Page 23
challenging part is determining whether these new ideas can actually be incorporated in effective problem-solving. This is especially true for hierarchical decision structures, where the public administration reserves the right to decide which ideas to capture and which to reject. However, if too many ideas for solutions and changes are rejected, it is very likely that the community will be distracted. This concept was used by the U.S. administration during the Open Government Dialogue.83 The goal of this project was to solicit suggestions from citizens for improvement of the federal government and its agencies. The discussion allowed everyones free opinion to be expressed as long as it was legally and morally appropriate. In May 2009, the Obama administration started this participatory initiative, which gave citizens the opportunity to submit their ideas, discuss and refine others' ideas, and vote for the best ones. Less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens actively used the participation platform (ODell, 2009). Nevertheless the U.S. administration continues to promote the use of information and communication technology to include citizens in democratic processes, given that several notable suggestions were discussed thoroughly. Given the strong innovative potential of these methods, they offer the chance to integrate collaboration concepts and the potential latent within the informed mass (i.e., the citizens) into the administrative reform process now facing a majority of states. Again, this could successfully be implemented with the help of innovation communities. 4.2.2. Innovation mall for legislative and administrative procedures One example of collaboration during a legislative process is offered by New Zealands police act review. Dating back to 1958, New Zealands police act was known for being hard to comprehend from the public point of view, and was ultimately a poor public relations tool. A wiki version of the act was launched in September 2007 as an innovative way to capture public views on what a new police act might look like. This project produced a strong example of the utilization of collaborative technologies in the writing of laws. In total, 234 opinions were collected.84 The review was completed on September 5, 2008, and become effective October 1, 2008. The Wiki Act received nearly 26,000 visits,85 with the vast majority of hits coming as referrals from links in online news stories. The outcome of the process showed that the involvement of the public was of high quality even if only a very small amount of visitors became active. This approach helps to strengthen the trust of citizens in the government and the administration in general, and in this case in the New Zealand police force in particular, but in a narrow sense it cannot be seen as a direct contribution to the strengthening of democracy. An example of collaborative production in administrative procedures is the Peer To Patent project in the United States.86 In 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) was confronted with a backlog of about 800,000 patent applications. With these numbers in mind, and the rate at which patents were granted, it would have taken years to obtain a patent grant. Thus, Peer to Patent was focused on helping patent officers perform high-quality examinations of pending patent applications by enlisting the public to help find and explain prior art, accelerating the process overall. In this example, the knowledge of the crowd is incorporated into a decision processes which requires very specific, in-depth knowledge, through the establishment of an open
83 84
http://opengov.ideascale.com/ (accessed July 31, 2010). http://www.policeact.govt.nz/pdf/public-views-on-policing.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010). 85 http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/gazette/vol70n1/fea-ved1-eng.htmv (accessed July 31, 2010). 86 http://www.peertopatent.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
| Page 24
collaboration portal. The governance model is flat in that all participants have equal power in making comments and suggestions; however, their voices represent mere recommendations to the patent office clerk, who has the final say as to the relevance of the prior art submitted. This is an example of a self-service society application, in which through collaboration, the citizen helps the administration to improve services and the quality of procedures. 4.2.3. Impetus of third parties or borders becoming blurred With the rise of ICT, the access barrier for coordination in mass collaboration has dropped. But in the same time, the amount of available information, meaningful or not, has drastically increased: More people have easier access to an ever-increasing amount of information, and have tools to creatively combine, reshape and re-purpose this information. At a certain point, the peoples voice can no longer be ignored, either by the government (representing their electoral vote) or the state administration (in its role carrying out public policies). One excellent example of the potential held by citizen-driven bottom-up movements is shown by Folkets Ting (Danish for Peoples Parliament, found at http://www.folketsting.dk). Founded by reboot.dk, a community event focused on digital change and culture, the project started reposting laws and speeches from the Danish Parliament website on its own website, allowing visitors to debate and vote on the issues themselves. At one point, the website became so successful that the administration could no longer ignore it. The input in the blogs and comments on bills was valued enough by government representatives that they approached reboot.dk and asked for changes which would be helpful for the government. Ironically, the website was awarded a prize for accessible and citizen-centric content, a prize previously reserved for government websites.87 4.2.4. Key drivers and obstacles As users typically use their spare time to focus the talents necessary for high quality collaboration, collaborative platforms must give credit to contributors. Collaborators must realize that their contributions are valued, and that their work has recognizable impact on the public administration that runs the collaboration platform. Even though users may not be academic experts, many will have in-depth knowledge on the issues they decide to contribute to. Exchanging knowledge and ideas enhances the knowledge base of the whole collaborative community. A diversity of users is desirable, as innovation is triggered by merging different opinions, standpoints and ideas. Factors that drive users to participate voluntarily and actively in a collaborative production system might include the following motivations, among others: to join a community of peers and establish new contacts; to gain respect from peers and good reputation for qualitative contributions; to contribute in fields that are of major interest to collaborators (private and business); to gain insights into latest developments in a certain field; and an altruistic attitude and the wish to improve society.
Ideally, a good mixture of motivating factors and key drivers will lead to successful projects, as different users have different needs.
87
J. Gtze and C.B. Pedersen (eds.), State of the eUnion (Copenhagen: 2009): 196-205.
| Page 25
Another critical factor in success is the number and quality of contributions. Collaborative production systems in e-government can attract input from external collaborators and produce output from the result. In public administration circles, this can be applied to policy-making as well as service delivery. Collaboration does not need mass participation; indeed, even the most successful collaboration systems, such as Wikipedia or Linux, are based on high-quality contributions by a minority of users. The collaborative production processes for Wikipedia and Linux were based on already-existing content, when it became crucial to initiate a collaborative momentum within these projects. A critical mass of participants is needed to run collaborative processes and to create a momentum within the processes. One of the main obstacles is that government officials work in hierarchical structures, and have to adapt their working guidelines to network structures within these communities. But all users of a collaborative production system must be empowered equally if they collaborate to any substantial extent. This is valid for official agents and private-sector or business collaborators. Collaborative production must be taken seriously by high-level officials and spokespersons. Even if collaboration platforms are not successful in their early days, a long-term perspective must be utilized.
4.3. Outlook: Empowering citizens through transparency and collaboration

As outlined above, the progressive enablement of citizens and social innovation is based on the availability of authorized, broad-ranging information. Transparency and participation are motivating factors that could lead to a re-democratization of our society. But to make this happen, and to make use of the knowledge of citizens, governments need to implement open government and open data principles in order to adapt to changing values of governance, and to include societyheld knowledge in policy-making and administrative processes. Creating awareness of open government, open data and collaborative governance ideas and initiatives is an important part of this course change. The first step enabling citizens by offering them the ability to build opinions on the basis of secure/authorized and broad-ranging information will require a radical change in roles, and a new mindset on the part of officials within Central and Eastern European government administrations. For instance, citizens should not need to argue why they deserve access to information. At the moment, governments and administration are fighting against the loss of administrative sovereignty. This is especially true in Eastern European countries, due to the government and administrative traditions left over from the former communist systems. Getting naked is harder for governments than it might seem. Though transparency is desirable when discussing the use of social media tools in a governmental context, it remains debatable whether governments in Central and Eastern Europe will accept this change. Christina Gagnier raises the question of whether the Government 2.0 demand for websites and tweets has swept the general idea of radical transparency aside by focusing too much on the use of social media.88 It is clear that creating upgraded websites and social media solutions alone (sometimes as a form of reputation management) will not lead to a change in the perception of the political and administrative system. As for enhancing democracy, it is a combination of participation, engagement, collaboration and cooperation that we should be aiming for.
88
Christina Gagnier, Government 2.0. Getting Naked is Harder Than It Seems, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-gagnier/government-20-getting-nak_b_542415.html (accessed July 31, 2010)
| Page 26
As services alone do not lead to democratization, governments have to make sure to integrate citizens knowledge by fostering a culture of collaborative production, even in a traditionally hierarchical environment. The potential of the informed mass (the citizens) lies in what they know, what they create, how they rate solutions, and how they use their money (in the form of microloans89). A flat governance model is likely to encourage user contributions, while open models offer more potential for innovation. For now, neither Austria nor the Eastern European states have a flat governance structure that would facilitate stronger contributions by their citizens. In terms of reaching the goal of enabling citizens through information and collaboration, legislative amendments and policies are necessary. The state has to provide a basic set of information, data and applications. Additionally, society should define limits and enhance the ethics discourse in the context of open government and open data flow. A culture of open information as the basis for collaboration and participative decision-making could then transform our current political and administrative system and fight political disenchantments root cause: A lack of real participation opportunities in todays non-transparent system.
89
J. Howe, Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business (Three Rivers Press, 2009):146-258

Vitalizing Democracy Through E-Participation

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vitalizing Democracy Through E-Participation

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective

Daniel Medimorec Peter Parycek Judith Schossbck

1. The value of democracy in Austria and Eastern Europe

2. E-democracy and e-participation as democratic enhancements? Classification and potential

2.2. Classification of e-participation initiatives

2.3. E-participations potential

2.4. Democratization through the Internet?

2.5. Unexploited potential for e-participation and standardized information

3. Policies and Strategies

3.1. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE, 2006-2008)

3.2. Project group e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM)

http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/CAHDE/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Reco mmendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)

http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/cahde/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recom mendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).

3.3. Further PG-EDEM contributions

http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/cahde/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recom mendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).

http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/CAHDE/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/6647 -0-ID8289-Recommendation%20on%20electronic%20democracy.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).

4. Promising approaches in the enhancement of democracy

4.2. Participation and collaboration

4.3. Outlook: Empowering citizens through transparency and collaboration

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi