2.3. Embedding in government-driven political participation via information technologies

The approach of the Institute for Information Management Bremen Ltd. (ifib) implies that tools for information, consultation and active participation, as the main components of government initiated citizen communication, must be embedded into users’ and governments’ environments not only technically, but also economically, legally, organizationally, culturally and politically. In other words: the electronic applications in the so-called virtual world need to be integrated into processes and structures in the real world (see Kubicek & Westholm, 2001; Westholm, 2003). The approach is the backbone of all of ifib's research. In e-participation specifically it concerns, for example, the embedding of websites and consultations or other tools, or the evaluation of e-voting.

Embedding (we also used the term “adaptability”) means that the technical tools and the preconditions of its use as well as the expected behaviour of its suppliers and users must fit with the situation in which they are (see figure 1). In a first step, an analysis of fit has to be performed. Mismatches require either an adaptation of the system or a change of those aspects of the situation which are not favourable for the running and the use of the system.

From a technical point of view, online participation tools should be integrated into the technical infrastructures and applications in the back-offices of administrations and governments. This may vary, for example, for planning procedures and for voter registrations in online elections. Online applications should not overstretch users’ ICT resources and capabilities.

Another precondition is the legal admissibility of existing regulations or those to be revised. There are some means of communication between administration and citizens where it is necessary that the addressees can be authenticated.

A further issue is the organizational embedding: Online participation tools have to correspond with processes and responsibility in the backoffice of the administrations. This means that on the one hand civil servants should be involved into online discussions (best by replying to postings). On the other hand, the results of such a discussion should be delivered in a format that can be used by the backoffice directly (e.g. by using the same format of a data-base). Normally, these possibilities vary from human keying in to automatically processing. It is also important that the responsible persons are addressed and involved in the process.

Another issue is the economic aspect or the cost-benefit analysis for the public authorities and the users. Public consultation is not for free and can even be considered expensive when further requirements, such as the printing and distribution of popular brochures or the rent of venues, are considered. Furthermore, public officials often fear extra workload caused by emails and forum contributions from citizens. From the point of view of the citizens as users, political participation (via the Internet or elsewhere) will only have a chance when the target groups are motivated to spend their time. The readiness of citizens to participate has often been overestimated. According to the standard model of political participation (Dalton, 1988) only citizens with a good financial and educational background and societal influence believe that they can move something with their own political engagement. There is no reason to believe in a change due to the existence of new technologies. Citizens must get a gratification – such as the promise of more influence.

Consequently, e-democracy opportunities should correspond to the political culture which supports citizens’ involvement both via onsite formal and informal means of participation and which considers citizens’ input as a chance (knowledge of citizens), not as a complaint. Politicians should take citizens’ contributions seriously and have to communicate why they adopt citizens’ opinions and why not.

The degree to which e-participation processes and tools are embedded into the respective contexts to a large extent depends on the engagement of politicians and political bodies. Voting for the budget and adaptation of laws and regulations are important steps for policy to influence direction and speed of the development of e-democracy. Policy-makers have the power to decide about more participation rights. Pressure from other sides, like from the economy or third sector associations, may affect policy-related activities.

References

Westholm, H. (2003). Online Democratic Engagement: A Multi-channel Strategy to Enhance Deliberative Policies. European Journal on Communication Research, 28 (2), 205-227.

Next: E-participation as a contingent and dynamic and complex social process Previous: Communication and interoperability framework for eParticipation