Moving from an intermittent to a continuous democracy

Floater

John Horvath 09.10.2003

The dream of e-democracy lives on, despite the fact that it belongs in the realm of virtual reality

Looking back, the late 1990s expectations of a "paradigm shift" to an Internet-driven "new economy" was naively over-optimistic. The economy as a whole wasn't altered as fundamentally as some had hoped (or feared). Likewise, other utopian views of our digital future have failed to materialise. This includes notions of a new form of governance, commonly referred to as "e-democracy".

Yet a growing number of people continue to view modern communications technologies, such as the Internet and e-mail, as a way to bridge the gap between citizen and government. E-democracy is still seen as a way to breathe new life into democratic systems of government. The interest in a "digital democracy" is in part due to the fact that participation in traditional democratic forums has hits new lows in the west. The explanations for this apparent drift towards apathy are manifold, as are the proposals for addressing it.

Without doubt, these are tough times for democracies in the western world. At every level of government voter turnout is low and, in many cases, steadily falling. Many citizens feel government is becoming increasingly remote. There is little transparency and corruption at all levels -- economic, moral, and ideological -- has rendered most democratic systems as nothing more than a contest between tweedledees and tweedledums.

"From an intermittent democracy regulated by elections to a continuous democracy"

Nevertheless, European Union leaders still consider the notion of e-democracy as something worth pursuing -- and promoting. In a recent special issue of the The IPTS Report1 put out this past summer by the Seville-based Institute for Prospective Technological Studies, government officials at local, national and European levels, as well as broadcasters, academics and IT specialists, attempted to identify the opportunities and pitfalls on the road towards a digital democracy.

Several of the authors noted that the Internet, by breaking down traditional barriers to communication, may provide a prime opportunity to revolutionise the mechanics of democracy. "The internet has created radical new possibilities to reinvigorate and enrich democratic dialogue," stated Greek Foreign Minister George Papandreou in the editorial.

The feeling of those who continue to harbour pleasant dreams about a digital democracy is that the Internet could pave the way for a more participative, or direct, democracy. "We are moving from an intermittent democracy regulated by elections to a continuous democracy," explained Andre Santini, the mayor of Issy-les-Moulineaux, a Paris suburb that has carried out several experiments in e-government. Just as some ancient Greek city-states were role models for our modern democracies, Mr Santini says that modern cities are spearheading the drive towards electronic governance. "Local government has experienced a real revival through the introduction of information and communication technologies," he says.

According to The IPTS Report, digital democracy has made some remarkable advances and provides a number of examples of successful experiments. These include the world's first global online poll which was set up to coincide with the Earth Summit in Johannesburg, Internet games to promote participation among young people, as well as citizen's forums and e-voting in local elections. One notable example at the EU level was the recent launch of the "e-Vote" project. As the report explains, tens of thousands of European citizens have already voted on numerous topical issues, with more than 100,000 expressing opinions on the Iraq crisis alone.

One major hurdle for proponents of digital democracy, however, is the enigma of the "digital divide". Democracy is by definition inclusive, so the current level of Internet exclusion is a fundamental constraint on the spread of e-democracy. In fact, new research shows evidence of this digital divide growing in Europe. The study, compiled by Forrester Research, suggests that by 2008, the proportion of homes with high speed Internet access in Europe could vary from 5 per cent in Greece to 45 per cent in Norway.

The study concludes that broadband in Europe will be unevenly split along a clear north/south divide. Scandinavia and the Netherlands will dominate the ratings; German-speaking Europe, Belgium, Finland, and the UK will form a second tier; and Southern Europe and Ireland will continue to lag. Overall, by 2008 Forrester predicts that only 30 per cent of all homes in Europe will have broadband.

Realising the extent of this gap, some have suggested that if the EU and its Member States regard electronic participation seriously, they must then ensure universal access to the technology. "As we move towards a written EU constitution, we must ensure that the Internet [...] is in both its heart and mind," says Derek Wyatt, member of the UK parliament. Wyatt urges governments to view the Internet in the same way as gas and electricity, as a public utility for all.

This, in itself, is a problem of sorts: if Internet access is to be regarded as a public utility like electricity, does this mean the more money you have the more you are able to exercise your democratic rights and responsibilities? And what happens when the lights go out, as in the US, the UK, and more recently all of Italy? Are your democratic rights then suspended or at least put on hold until the power comes back on? No doubt, this would give extra meaning to Bertrand Russel's saying that we have our freedom until we need it the most.

Waving the wand of electronic wizardry will not magically boost democratic participation

Along these lines, some have been careful to warn that simply waving the wand of electronic wizardry will not magically boost democratic participation. "The process of widening involvement [...] will be harder than just creating the opportunity to participate," cautions Greg Dyke, Director-General of the BBC. "E-democracy requires not just technical development but deep cultural change where the 'citizen consumer' is given a recognised role in the political process." Mr Dyke suggests that public television can provide an instructive model for greater citizen involvement and a crucial link between government and society. "The BBC and other European public service broadcasters may be better placed than almost any other organisations to provide a starting point to encourage the widest range of people to participate in civic life."

At the end of the day, what is missed by many when considering the question of digital democracy is not just issues of technology or access. "Digital literacy" is also important. Many who use the Internet today don't exploit it to its full potential; they are trapped within the narrow confines of basic and routine tasks. Most wouldn't know how to find information which exist outside the range of Google, Yahoo, or MSN, for instance.

Moreover, democracy is not simply the act of voting but also of taking a measure of interest and responsibility for actions which may affect society as a whole. While some mention activities such as communicating with elected representatives as a step forward for the concept of digital democracy, computer-mediated communications in this case can be a curse as well as a blessing. True, it makes it easier to make contact, but automation processes also enable elected representatives to hide behind their virtual identities, sometimes avoiding the public altogether. As that old adage from the late 1990s goes, "no-one knows if you're a dog on-line".

But even more important than this is the realisation that most politicians and policymakers who talk about e-government are not really interested in democracy at all. The proof is in the pudding, as can be seen in anti-globalisation protests in Europe and abroad. When real democratic participation is attempted by citizens at large, leaders hide behind high fences and far away in remote locations, surrounded by successive rings of security. For digital democracy to succeed in reality, off-line democracy must first exist in practice.

http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/15807/1.html

vinnyfitz

Very interesting Floater. Thanks for posting this. I had not seen it or the IPTS report though I try and keep an eye on this sort of thing.

One could argue that Boards.ie itself is an embryonic e-democracy institution.

There are lots of on-line discussions about e-democracy - this being one good gateway: http://www.e-democracy.org/ (despite being US based it has a lot of good content and links.)

Anyone around here interested in discussing how much progress we are making on e-democracy here in Ireland?

Sparks

Nevertheless, European Union leaders still consider the notion of e-democracy as something worth pursuing -- and promoting.

No they don't. No politician in a representative democracy will support the introduction of a direct democracy, not when a direct democracy takes power from them and returns it to the taxpayers.

Floater

Originally posted by Sparks
No they don't. No politician in a representative democracy will support the introduction of a direct democracy, not when a direct democracy takes power from them and returns it to the taxpayers.

Yes, but! Is this not just formalizing the opinion poll driven system of government - ie dealing with the day to day mechanics of measuring the voters' wishes in an automated systematic way?

You can't have a "votieserver" actually running the country. It’s just a bit of software running on a handful of blade servers connected to the internet. It won't put politicians out of a job. They still have politicians in Switzerland where they have had e-government using pen and paper after church virtually every Sunday for hundreds of years, long before the computer or internet was invented!

Surely anything less is tantamount to political fraud, in the 21st century? Ie if you vote for X s/he will surely be quite happy to hear from you as to what initiatives s/he will take on your behalf. The box just makes it easy to communicate the detailed day to day, week by week, choices on current matters to the system you as an elector put in place. Forces them to put a system in place to educate the public about matters various, which must surely be good. Makes it easier for them to be re-elected too!

Floater

Sparks

Originally posted by Floater
Yes, but! Is this not just formalizing the opinion poll driven system of government - ie dealing with the day to day mechanics of measuring the voters' wishes in an automated systematic way?

Nope.
The fundamental difference between a direct democratic model of government and an opinion poll model of government is that of consent. In a blair government, opinion polls inform, they do not decide. The people in a direct democracy give consent to government to follow a set policy direction, whereas they don't have that option in a representative democracy.

They still have politicians in Switzerland where they have had e-government using pen and paper after church virtually every Sunday for hundreds of years, long before the computer or internet was invented!

Yes, but not with the same level of power as in representative democracies. You'll always need politicians in one way or another - but you don't need to give them absolute power over the state's policy-making process.

And you shouldn't.

Surely anything less is tantamount to political fraud, in the 21st century? Ie if you vote for X s/he will surely be quite happy to hear from you as to what initiatives s/he will take on your behalf. The box just makes it easy to communicate the detailed day to day, week by week, choices on current matters to the system you as an elector put in place. Forces them to put a system in place to educate the public about matters various, which must surely be good. Makes it easier for them to be re-elected too!

Lovely theory.
Now go google "diebold".

bonkey

Originally posted by Floater
They still have politicians in Switzerland where they have had e-government using pen and paper after church virtually every Sunday for hundreds of years, long before the computer or internet was invented!

Interesting description of the Swiss system. Not entirely accurate, mind. Consider when you're saying "for hundreds of years" that the nation only exists since 1848.

jc

DadaKopf

*Is* there a swiss nation?

Anyway, it's absolutely true that technology like this can fundamentally alter people's political imagination and capabilities (if those currently in power permit it). I think there are two flaws in this, though.

Firstly, the internet divides people from each other at the same time it connects people. Also, evidence has shown (I dunno, Anthony Giddens said it) that the internet is great at bringing together people of like minds and mobilising political support of the converted, but it doesn't facilitate cross-partisan debate in a remotely constructive way. The distance between people still remains great - it's a weird kind of virtual distance.

Secondly, I can't see how a technology like this, with this shortcoming, can re-establish trust between politicians and the public. I don't doubt that the internet is a great tool, but trust? I still find the technology very contradictory.

As much as the internet can be viewed as a horizontal mode of communication, it's still hierarchical and while it's not strictly speaking centralised, in a political context, it would kind of have to be.

The problem this is trying to address is apathy laziness. It's not addressing the causes. And it might even exacerbate the symptoms.

vinnyfitz

I'm, not sure I'd like that idea.
We employ politicians to think long and hard, to listen critically to all the different arguments and reflect carefully before taking decisions on our behalf.

Say, for example, we had universal electronic access and an on-line voting system in place. The threshold of inconvenience for holding referenda would be much lower. So ask yourself what questions would you like to be put directly to the people? What ones would you feel required a more sophisticated deliberative process?

The temptation for the Irish Government to duck tough decisions themselves and "let the people decide" might be too great. (An ideal buck passing opportunity for an indecisive Taoiseach.)

For me e-democracy is not about on-line voting but it is about the way we do, could do, ought be able to do, eventually will do politics in the future.

star gazer

Who decides the questions to vote on?
Who's going to vote for higher taxes in this country to balance the books? Would we just vote for borrowing every time?
How secure would a country-wide system be and would it be realistic to expect an older generation to become computer literate enough to log on, remember passwords and be comfortable if the system crashes every once in a while?
Would the system be fool-proof and 100% (99%) trust worthy?

While i agree with some of the posters above, that politicians only want to wash their hands of responsibility for hard decisions, they are already doing that. There needs to be a proper system of checks and balances. Accountability plus responsibility. If decisions are made in secret there should be accountability if the decision made was the wrong one.
Our system of democracy is representative. We elect leaders to do a job for us and trust in them that they would do a better job than we could. If that trust is betrayed then we get to vote them out after at most 5 years. We had the problem last time out that the media and the general public did not like the potential alternative to Bertie Ahern and Bertie nicely managed the campaign with lots of sweeties for the electorate. We feel somewhat betrayed, but as an electorate it was our choice to make. Our problem now is that we have a leader who doesn't want to lead. When i say that i don't mean he's waiting for his first chance to resign, i mean that he does not want to lead from the front, stick his neck out for the irish people when it comes to taking on a vested interest and is always interested in compromise, which is good sometimes but not always. I think we'd all agree that there are some times when you can not compromise. If our leaders were actually leading then they would have our support and we wouldn't worry about edemocracy. Perhaps in the future it will be necessary to bring it in, but i think we would have to wait at least a generation and have more experience of internet security.

Floater

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope.
The fundamental difference between a direct democratic model of government and an opinion poll model of government is that of consent. In a blair government, opinion polls inform, they do not decide. The people in a direct democracy give consent to government to follow a set policy direction, whereas they don't have that option in a representative democracy.

Yes, but not with the same level of power as in representative democracies. You'll always need politicians in one way or another - but you don't need to give them absolute power over the state's policy-making process.

Don't misinterpret me by compartmentalizing the e-gov concept!

It is up to the implementers of e-gov and the citizens to decide how it should be configured. I introduced Switzerland into the issue because it seems to me that they have had the closest to pure transaction driven e-gov going since long before the technology was invented. As I said it is just a piece of software and hardware.

Floater

Floater

Originally posted by bonkey
Interesting description of the Swiss system. Not entirely accurate, mind. Consider when you're saying "for hundreds of years" that the nation only exists since 1848.

Not entirely accurate! The current constitution is only in place since 1848.

The Swiss Confederation dates back to 1291. Why do we have all these fireworks on August 1 every year if not to celebrate this?

Floater

vinnyfitz

Originally posted by Sparks
No they don't. No politician in a representative democracy will support the introduction of a direct democracy, not when a direct democracy takes power from them and returns it to the taxpayers.

Coincidentally this a clip from a speech by EU Commissioner Liikanen earlier today:

"eGovernment is not a goal in itself. It is a tool for public sector reform with three objectives:

* First, a public sector that is open and transparent. Administrations should be more understandable and accountable to the citizens......


......These are ambitious objectives.

Open government - reinforcing democracy

"Information and communication technology and especially the Internet is a great tool to make governments more open and transparent. It empowers citizens.

"eGovernment can make governments more relevant to citizens by increasing participation and involvement in decision-making. It can help to restore ownership: the government is of the people.

"eGovernment is also the way to increase accountability. ICT makes it possible to follow all administrative steps. To see where decisions are prepared and made. Know who is responsible. "


Maybe the Commisison is so far away from citizens it sees the opportunity more than the threat from e-democracy.
full speech here.

bonkey

Originally posted by Floater
Not entirely accurate! The current constitution is only in place since 1848.

Yup - and thats when the current political structure came into being, which is what I was driving at. While the "voting in the square" has indeed been going on for centuries (although not generally anything close to weekly for quite some time now), its co-existence with the current political structure only dates from 1848.

The important thing that makes the system work (in my opinion) is the effort required in acquiring sufficient interest. Something like 100,000 signatures are needed over here to force a referendum on an issue, and even then it has to be scheduled. Thus, there is little room for kneejerk-democracy.

Moving such a system on to the internet could work, but would require such incredible levels of protection from systematic abuse that its unlikely to see it working. I would also be concerned about the implications of how rapid a turnaround could/would be expected on such a system. I can see how it would be beneficial, but I can also see how it could be abused by popular movements.

jc

vinnyfitz

Originally posted by bonkey


Moving such a system on to the internet could work, but would require such incredible levels of protection from systematic abuse that its unlikely to see it working.
jc

Is this really such a concern? I understood that very large proportion of Swiss voters use postal ballots rather than heading down to the polling station. Would an electronic solution be much more vulnerable than a postal one?

bonkey

Originally posted by vinnyfitz
Would an electronic solution be much more vulnerable than a postal one?

Think of online votes such as Time's Man of the Millenium, that song one last year, etc. and just think of how easy it is to get mass interest in a few clicks "for a bit of crack".

Think when's the last time you heard of such a thing happening with a postal vote.

jc

vinnyfitz

People are pumping quite a lot of money into experiments at the moment e.g.

(Don't get me wrong - I'm not advocating this stuff but lots of IT vendors are and lots of politicians fancy it as a fig leaf for addressing declining turnout and "being trendy").

Sparks

Would an electronic solution be much more vulnerable than a postal one?

Not necessarily in theory.
In practise, a secure voting system like e-Democracy talks about would be the first of it's kind.

Thing is, at the end of the day, it's technology. It has the potential to be helpful, but it's not a revolution. It's "revolutionary status" depends on how it's used.

I'm, not sure I'd like that idea.
We employ politicians to think long and hard, to listen critically to all the different arguments and reflect carefully before taking decisions on our behalf.

We do? Really?
Because I thought we had a shower of crooks who took the option that gave them the most reward for the least risk in between breaking the law when they thought they'd get away with it.

Say, for example, we had universal electronic access and an on-line voting system in place. The threshold of inconvenience for holding referenda would be much lower. So ask yourself what questions would you like to be put directly to the people? What ones would you feel required a more sophisticated deliberative process?

So you'd trust the opinion of GV Wright or Jackie Healy Rae or Haughey over your own?
Hmph.

The temptation for the Irish Government to duck tough decisions themselves and "let the people decide" might be too great. (An ideal buck passing opportunity for an indecisive Taoiseach.)

Again, you've missed the point. Direct democracy isn't about letting politicians pass the buck - it's about taking the buck off them and making the decision yourself. You're the one paying taxes, you're the one suffering the consequences of the decision, so you should be the one who makes it.

Maybe the Commisison is so far away from citizens it sees the opportunity more than the threat from e-democracy.

Well, you can think that as you wish, but I don't generally bet on a politician forgetting about his or her own self-interest...

m1ke

How could the state follow a policy direction on a macro level with something like direct democracy. Peoples opinions change daily, and are easily manipulated and influenced. I wouldn't trust people in a pure direct democracy to get things done.

You'd have knee jerk reactions to crap the media put out and people would vote on things without sources of correct or unbiased information, or wouldn't even have the time to consult a variety of sources and make up their mind with all the information.

Surely direct democracy would be the rule of the media. I'll stick with representative democracy thanks.

Although stuff like improving communication, transparency, anti-corruption, improving voter turn-out for referendums etc... adding another check and balance to the system via e-democracy is where the potential lies ... not letting the people decide everything for themselves, there are a lot of foo's out there

Sparks

Originally posted by m1ke
How could the state follow a policy direction on a macro level with something like direct democracy. Peoples opinions change daily, and are easily manipulated and influenced. I wouldn't trust people in a pure direct democracy to get things done.

Yet you trust people like Jackie Healy Rae to "get things done"?
I hate sounding like a broken record, but the facts are there for anyone to see - our representative government is basicly as bad as the worst fears over direct democracy, with the addition of corruption and the general high-jinks of the FF lifestyle.

You'd have knee jerk reactions to crap the media put out and people would vote on things without sources of correct or unbiased information, or wouldn't even have the time to consult a variety of sources and make up their mind with all the information.

That's the situation we're in right now. The government makes knee-jerk decisions in some cases, and in other cases make decisions that are so damn close to illegal that they have to be taken to the high court over it if possible, and we sell beef to Hussein if not.

Surely direct democracy would be the rule of the media. I'll stick with representative democracy thanks.

Well, if you really have that little confidence in the average voter, I guess you just have one question to answer - why do you have so much confidence in the average TD, despite all the physical evidence pointing to the lack of wisdom in trusting them?

Although stuff like improving communication, transparency, anti-corruption, improving voter turn-out for referendums etc...

And you're going to get this how? In a representative democracy, the representatives have the authority. And I've yet to meet a politician who wasn't self-serving by definition.

adding another check and balance to the system via e-democracy is where the potential lies ...

You need to google "diebold" and then read this and this.
E-Democracy introduces further need for checks and balances, it doesn't add them to the system.

not letting the people decide everything for themselves, there are a lot of foo's out there

Yes, we know - they keep voting for corrupt politicians and dumping the rest of us in the ****e.

RainyDay

Continuous democracy just wont work. Even ignoring the technical issues involved in building a secure, accessible, auditable voting network, most people would vote on a purely selfish basis.

There are times when we need real leadership from politicians to take the tough decisions necessary to get our country back on the road. And by the way, cutting taxes and public services isn't a tough decision - it is an easy, populist decision that appeals to those in the middle/upper classes who have had the opportunities to look after themselves, at the expense of others.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
There are times when we need real leadership from politicians to take the tough decisions necessary to get our country back on the road.

You know, I keep hearing this, but the fact is, it's a fundamentally flawed arguement. It's flawed because it assumes that politicians are better human beings than the rest of us, when in fact the opposite is usually true.

When you can show me a government of honest politicians who take long-term views, are selfless and devoted to the community they serve, and who would sacrifice their careers in the name of the right decision, then you'll have a point.

But until then, you've only got a delusion that ignores all the facts.

RainyDay

Originally posted by Sparks
When you can show me a government of honest politicians who take long-term views, are selfless and devoted to the community they serve, and who would sacrifice their careers in the name of the right decision, then you'll have a point.

When you can show me a community of honest voters who take long-term views, are selfless and devoted to the community they serve, and who would sacrifice their careers in the name of the right decision, then you'll have a point.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
When you can show me a community of honest voters who take long-term views, are selfless and devoted to the community they serve, and who would sacrifice their careers in the name of the right decision, then you'll have a point.

We get the politicians we deserve.

Actually, I don't need to show you those voters to have a point. If the government and the voters are both corrupt myopic fools, it's still a better solution to use direct democracy, for purely pragmatic reasons and for one basic one.
Pragmatically, it's harder to bribe 3 million people than it is to bribe 80 people - it's easier to legislate for how the media act than for how the government act - it's easier to overrule government's corrupt acts when you have the option to do so than when you don't - and so on.

Basicly, if they're corrupt and you're as bad, you can't say they're better than you, not logically. So why give them authority over you?

RainyDay

Interesting point, Sparks - but I don't think logic has much to do with it. The Irish electorate has shown itself to be incredibly gullible (e.g. Charlie McCreevy - "There are no cutbacks whatsoever under consideration" etc etc).

The idea of serious decisions being made on the basic public opinion (which is subject to huge media manipulation) terrifies me. You might at well hand over the keys of the nation to Tony O'Reilly & Rupert Murdoch - they will control public opinion.

Sparks

Originally posted by RainyDay
Interesting point, Sparks - but I don't think logic has much to do with it. The Irish electorate has shown itself to be incredibly gullible (e.g. Charlie McCreevy - "There are no cutbacks whatsoever under consideration" etc etc).

Doesn't matter how bad the electorate or the politicans are - the logic stands anyway because it assumes that the politicians are as bad as the voters, not that the voters are as good as the politicians should be. (Though it works even better were that the case).

The idea of serious decisions being made on the basic public opinion (which is subject to huge media manipulation) terrifies me. You might at well hand over the keys of the nation to Tony O'Reilly & Rupert Murdoch - they will control public opinion.

As I said, it's easier to legislate to control media than to legislate to control government. In fact, we already have a constitutional precedent for doing so...

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Sparks
it's easier to legislate for how the media act than for how the government act - it's easier to overrule government's corrupt acts when you have the option to do so than when you don't - and so on.

How would such legislation work? What about foreign publications like the 'Irish' Sun.

Even though there is a big-business bias in a lot of the media, I think attempts to control it through legislation would do more harm than good.

Sparks

Originally posted by SkepticOne
How would such legislation work?

Well, it would obviously have to work along the lines of current libel law (though that is in dire need of reform) and the constitution - article 40, section 6 :

The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.

The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.

Now it's not a huge stretch to say that the media influencing the way the public votes on a topic by publishing distorted or false information deliberately would count as undermining the authority of the state because it's seeking to interfere with the way it's meant to work.

It is, however, a delicate place to step, legally speaking - size 12 clodhoppers like FF would happily do more damage than good there.

What about foreign publications like the 'Irish' Sun.

Nothing we can do to them. Well. You could ban them from circulation, of course, but that's a road I would personally shoot Bertie over heading towards. We had a banned books list here for many years and it wasn't just offensive and wrong, it was downright embaressing.

Even though there is a big-business bias in a lot of the media, I think attempts to control it through legislation would do more harm than good.

There is certainly the potential for that, but the rewards would be worth the risk, so long as we went about it in the right way - openly, with a dump-truck full of oversight and everything public.