Polarity in international relations is any of the various ways in which power
is distributed within the international system. It describes the nature
of the international system at any given period of time. One generally
distinguishes three types of systems: unipolarity, bipolarity, and multipolarity for three or more centers of power. The type of system is completely dependent on the distribution of power and influence of states in a region or globally.
Scholars differ as to whether bipolarity or unipolarity is likely to produce the most stable and peaceful outcomes. Kenneth Waltz and John Mearsheimer are among those who argue that bipolarity tends to generate relatively more stability. In contrast, John Ikenberry and William Wohlforth are among those arguing for the stabilizing impact of unipolarity. Some scholars, such as Karl Deutsch and J. David Singer, argued that multipolarity was the most stable structure.
The Cold War period was widely understood as one of bipolarity with the US and the USSR as the world's two superpowers,
whereas the end of the Cold War led to unipolarity with the US as the
world's sole superpower in the 1990s and 2000s. Scholars have debated
how to characterize the current international system.
Unipolarity
Unipolarity
is a condition in which one state under the condition of international
anarchy enjoys a preponderance of power and faces no competitor states.
According to William Wohlforth, "a unipolar system is one in which a
counterbalance is impossible. When a counterbalance becomes possible,
the system is not unipolar." A unipolar state is not the same as an empire or a hegemon that can control the behavior of all other states.
Liberal institutionalist John Ikenberry
argues in a series of influential writings that the United States
purposely set up an international order after the end of World War that
sustained U.S. primacy.
In his view, realist predictions of power balancing did not bear fruit
because the United States engaged in strategic restraint after World War
II, thereby convincing weaker states that it was more interested in
cooperation rather than domination. U.S. strategic restraint allowed
weaker countries to participate in the make-up of the post-war world
order, which limited opportunities for the United States to exploit
total power advantages. Ikenberry notes that while the United States
could have unilaterally engaged in unfettered power projection, it
decided instead to "lock in" its advantage long after zenith by
establishing an enduring institutional order, gave weaker countries a
voice, reduced great power uncertainty, and mitigated the security dilemma.
The liberal basis of U.S. hegemony—a transparent democratic political
system—has made it easier for other countries to accept the post-war
order, Ikenberry explains. "American hegemony is reluctant, open, and
highly institutionalized—or in a word, liberal" and "short of
large-scale war or a global economic crisis, the American hegemonic
order appears to be immune to would-be hegemonic challengers."
Current debates
Scholars have debated whether the current international system is characterized by unipolarity, bipolarity or multipolarity. Michael Beckley argues American primacy is vastly underestimated because power indices frequently fail to take into account GDP per capita in the U.S. relative to other purportedly powerful states, such as China and India. In 2011, Barry Posen argued that unipolarity was in wane and that the world was shifting towards multipolarity. In 2019, John Mearsheimer argued that the international system was shifting from unipolarity to multipolarity.
In 2022, William Wohlforth argued that the international system
was heading towards a system that can be characterized neither as
bipolarity nor multipolarity. He added that polarity did not appear to
matter as much in the current international system, as great powers
command a far smaller share of power vis-a-vis the rest of the states in
the international system.
In 2023, Wohlforth and Stephen Brooks argued that the United States is
still the unipole but that U.S. power has weakened and the nature of
U.S. unipolarity has changed.
They add, "The world is neither bipolar nor multipolar, and it is not
about to become either. Yes, the United States has become less dominant
over the past 20 years, but it remains at the top of the global power
hierarchy—safely above China and far, far above every other country...
Other countries simply cannot match the power of the United States by
joining alliances or building up their militaries."
In April 2023, the Australian government released their 2023
national review where it stated that the age of American unipolarity and
primacy in the Indo-Pacific is effectively over, with the subsequent
power vacuum allowing for great power competition and a more fractious
world order.
Impact on conflict and cooperation
Scholars have debated the durability and peacefulness of unipolarity. William Wohlforth
argues that unipolarity is durable and peaceful because it reduces the
likelihood of hegemonic rivalry (because no state is powerful enough to
challenge the unipole) and it reduces the salience and stakes of balance
of power politics among the major states, thus reducing the likelihood
that attempts at balances of power cause major war. Wohlforth builds his argument on hegemonic stability theory and a rejection of the balance of power theory.
With no great power to check its adventurism, the United States will
weaken itself by misusing its power internationally. "Wide latitude" of
"policy choices" will allow the U.S. to act capriciously on the basis of
"internal political pressure and national ambition."
According to Carla Norrlöf,
U.S. unipolarity is stable and sustainable due to a combination of
three factors: 1. The status of the American dollar as the world's
dominant reserve currency,
2. American commercial power, and 3. American military preponderance.
The United States benefits disproportionately from its status as
hegemon. Other states do not challenge U.S. hegemony because many of
them benefit from the U.S.-led order, and there are significant
coordination problems in creating an alternative world order.
Nuno P. Monteiro argues that unipolarity is conflict-prone, both between the unipole and other states, and exclusively among other states.
Monteiro substantiates this by remarking that "the United States has
been at war for thirteen of the twenty-two years since the end of the
Cold War. Put another way, the first two decades of unipolarity, which
make up less than 10 percent of U.S. history, account for more than 25 percent of the nation's total time at war." Kenneth Waltz that unipolarity is "the least durable of international configurations."
Secondly, even if the United States acts benevolently, states will
still attempt to balance against it because the power asymmetry demands
it: In a self-help system, states do not worry about other states'
intentions as they do other states' capabilities. "Unbalanced power
leaves weaker states feeling uneasy and gives them reason to strengthen
their positions," Waltz says.
In a 2009 study, Martha Finnemore
argues that unipolarity has, contrary to some expectations, not given
the United States a free rein to do what it wants and that unipolarity
has proven to be quite frustrating for the United States. The reasons
for this is that unipolarity does not just entail a material superiority
by the unipole, but also a social structure whereby the unipole
maintains its status through legitimation, and institutionalization. In
trying to obtain legitimacy from the other actors in the international
system, the unipole necessarily gives those actors a degree of power.
The unipole also obtains legitimacy and wards off challenges to its
power through the creation of institutions, but these institutions also
entail a diffusion of power away from the unipole.
In a 2021 study, Yuan-kang Wang argues from the experience of Ming China (1368–1644) and Qing China
(1644–1912) that the durability of unipolarity is contingent on the
ability of the unipole to sustain its power advantage and for potential
challengers to increase their power without provoking a military
reaction from the unipole.
Bipolarity is a distribution of power in which two states have a preponderance of power. In bipolarity, spheres of influence and alliance systems have frequently developed around each pole. For example, in the Cold War
of 1947–1991, most Western and capitalist states would fall under the
influence of the US, while most Communist states would fall under the
influence of the USSR. According to Wohlforth and Brooks, "the world was undeniably bipolar" during the Cold War.
Kenneth Waltz's influential Theory of International Politics
argued that bipolarity tended towards the greatest stability because
the two great powers would engage in rapid mutual adjustment, which
would prevent inadvertent escalation and reduce the chance of power
asymmetries forming. John Mearsheimer argues that bipolarity is the most stable form of polarity, as buck passing is less frequent.[31]
Dale Copeland has challenged Waltz on this, arguing that bipolarity
creates a risk for war when a power asymmetry or divergence happens.
Classical realist theorists, such as Hans Morgenthau and E. H. Carr,
hold that multipolar systems are more stable than bipolar systems, as
great powers can gain power through alliances and petty wars that do not
directly challenge other powers; in bipolar systems, classical realists
argue, this is not possible.
Neorealists
hold that multipolar systems are particularly unstable and
conflict-prone, as there is greater complexity in managing alliance
systems, and a greater chance of misjudging the intentions of other
states. Thomas Christensen and Jack Snyder
argue that multipolarity tends towards instability and conflict
escalation due to "chain-ganging" (allies get drawn into unwise wars
provoked by alliance partners) and "buck-passing" (states which do not
experience an immediate proximate threat do not balance against the
threatening power in the hope that others carry the cost of balancing
against the threat). John Mearsheimer also argues that buck passing is more common in multipolar systems.
Multipolarity does not guarantee multilateralism and can pose a challenge against multilateralism.According to Kemal Derviş,
a decline in unipolarity creates a crisis in multilateralism; it is
possible to revive multilateralism in a multipolar system, but this is
more threatened and the structure to do so is not fully developed.
In multipolarity, larger powers can negotiate "mega-regional"
agreements more easily than smaller ones. When there are multiple
competing great powers, this can lead to the smaller states being left
out of such agreements.
Though multipolar orders form regional hegemonies around 'poles' or
great powers, this can weaken economic interdependencies within regions,
at least in regions without a great power.
Additionally, as multipolar systems can tend to regional hegemonies or
bounded orders, agreements are formed within these bounded orders rather
than globally. Though, Mearsheimer predicts the persistence of a thin
international order within multipolarity, which constitutes some
multilateral agreements.
Measuring the power concentration
The Correlates of War uses a systemic concentration of power formula to calculate the polarity of a given great power system. The formula was developed by J. David Singer et al. in 1972.
t = the time at which the concentration of resources (i.e. power) is being calculated
i = the state of which the proportion of control over the system's power is being measured
Nt = the number of states in the great power system at time t
S = the proportion of power possessed. Hence, Sit = the proportion of power possessed by state i at time t.
The expression represents the sum of the squares of the proportion of power possessed by all states in the great power system.
The closer the resulting concentration is to zero, the more
evenly divided power is. The closer to 1, the more concentrated power
is. There is a general but not strict correlation between concentration
and polarity. It is rare to find a result over 0.5, but a result between
0.4 and 0.5 usually indicates a unipolar system, while a result between
0.2 and 0.4 usually indicated a bipolar or multipolar system.
Concentration can be plotted over time, so that the fluctuations and
trends in concentration can be observed.
E-democracy (a blend of the terms electronic and democracy), also known as digital democracy or Internet democracy, uses information and communication technology (ICT) in political and governance processes.The term is credited to digital activist Steven Clit. By using 21st-century ICT, e-democracy seeks to enhance democracy, including aspects like civic technology and E-government.
Proponents argue that by promoting transparency in decision-making
processes, e-democracy can empower all citizens to observe and
understand the proceedings. Also, if they possess overlooked data,
perspectives, or opinions, they can contribute meaningfully. This
contribution extends beyond mere informal disconnected debate; it
facilitates citizen engagement in the proposal, development, and actual creation of a country's laws. In this way, e-democracy has the potential to incorporate crowdsourced analysis more directly into the policy-making process.
Electronic democracy incorporates a diverse range of tools
that use both existing and emerging information sources. These tools
provide a platform for the public to express their concerns, interests,
and perspectives, and to contribute evidence that may influence
decision-making processes at the community, national, or global level.
E-democracy leverages both traditional broadcast technologies such as
television and radio, as well as newer interactive internet-enabled
devices and applications, including polling systems. These emerging
technologies have become popular means of public participation, allowing
a broad range of stakeholders to access information and contribute
directly via the internet. Moreover, large groups can offer real-time
input at public meetings using electronic polling devices.
Utilizing information and communication technology (ICT), e-democracy bolsters political self-determination. It collects social, economic, and cultural data to enhance democratic engagement.
As a concept that encompasses various applications within
differing democratic structures, e-democracy has substantial impacts on
political norms and public engagement. It emerges from theoretical
explorations of democracy and practical initiatives to address societal
challenges through technology. The extent and manner of its
implementation often depend on the specific form of democracy adopted by
a society, thus shaped by both internal dynamics and external
technological developments.
When designed to present both supporting and opposing evidence and arguments for each issue, apply conflict resolution and Cost–benefit analysis techniques, and actively address confirmation bias and other cognitive biases,
E-Democracy could potentially foster a more informed citizenry.
However, the development of such a system poses significant challenges.
These include designing sophisticated platforms to achieve these aims,
navigating the dynamics of populism while acknowledging that not
everyone has the time or resources for full-time policy analysis and
debate, promoting inclusive participation, and addressing cybersecurity
and privacy concerns. Despite these hurdles, some envision e-democracy
as a potential facilitator of more participatory governance, a
countermeasure to excessive partisan dogmatism, a problem-solving tool, a
means for evaluating the validity of pro/con arguments, and a method
for balancing power distribution within society.
Throughout history, social movements have adapted to use the
prevailing technologies as part of their civic engagement and social
change efforts. This trend persists in the digital era, illustrating how
technology shapes democratic processes. As technology evolves, it
inevitably impacts all aspects of society, including governmental
operations. This ongoing technological advancement brings new
opportunities for public participation and policy-making while
presenting challenges such as cybersecurity threats, issues related to
the digital divide, and privacy concerns. Society is actively grappling
with these complexities, striving to balance leveraging technology for
democratic enhancement and managing its associated risks.
Considering e-democracy
E-democracy incorporates elements of both representative and direct democracy.
In representative democracies, which characterize most modern systems,
responsibilities such as law-making, policy formation, and regulation
enforcement are entrusted to elected officials. This differs from direct democracies, where citizens undertake these duties themselves.
Motivations for e-democracy reforms are diverse and reflect the
desired outcomes of its advocates. Some aim to align government actions
more closely with the public's interest, akin to Populism,
diminish the influence of media, political parties, and lobbyists, or
use public input to assess potential costs and benefits of each policy.
E-democracy, in its unstructured form, emphasizes direct
participation and has the potential to redistribute political power from
elected officials to individuals or groups. However, reforms aimed at
maximizing benefits and minimizing costs might require structures that
mimic a form of representation, conceivable if the public had the
capacity to debate and analyze issues full-time. Given the design of
electronic forums that can accommodate extensive debate, e-democracy has
the potential to mimic aspects of representation on a much larger
scale. These structures could involve public education initiatives or
systems that permit citizens to contribute based on their interests or
expertise.
From this standpoint, e-democracy appears less concerned with
what the public believes to be true and more focused on the evidence the
public can demonstrate as true. This view reveals a tension within
e-democratic reforms between populism and an evidence-based approach akin to the scientific method or the Enlightenment principles.
A key indicator of the effectiveness of a democratic system is
the successful implementation of policy. To facilitate this, voters must
comprehend the implications of each policy approach, evaluate its costs
and benefits, and consider historical precedents for policy
effectiveness. Some proponents of e-democracy argue that technology can
enable citizens to perform these tasks as effectively, if not more so,
than traditional political parties within representative democracies. By
harnessing technological advancements, e-democracy has the potential to
foster more informed decision-making and enhance citizen involvement in
the democratic process.
History of e-democracy
E-democracy traces back to the development of information and communication technology (ICT)
and the evolution of democratic structures. It encompasses initiatives
from governments to interact with citizens through digital means and
grassroots activities using electronic platforms to influence
governmental practices.
Early developments
The inception of e-democracy corresponds with the rise of the Internet in the late 20th century. The diffusion of personal computers
and the Internet during the 1990s led to the initiation of electronic
government initiatives. Digital platforms, such as forums, chat rooms,
and email lists, were pivotal in fostering public discourse, thereby
encouraging informal civic engagement online. These platforms provided
an accessible medium for individuals to discuss ideas and issues, and
they were utilized by both governments and citizens to promote dialogue,
advocate for change, and involve the public in decision-making
processes.
Concept and approach
The structure of the Internet, which currently embodies characteristics such as decentralization, open standards, and universal access, has been observed to align with principles often associated with democracy. These democratic principles have their roots in federalism and Enlightenment values like openness and individual liberty.
Steven Clift, a notable proponent of e-democracy, suggests that
the Internet should be utilized to enhance democratic processes and
provide increased opportunities for interaction between individuals,
communities, and the government. He emphasizes the importance of
structuring citizen-to-citizen discussions online within existing power
structures and maintaining significant reach within the community for
these discussions to hold agenda-setting potential.
The concept involves endorsing individuals or policies committed
to leveraging internet technologies to amplify public engagement without
modifying or substituting existing constitutions. The approach includes
data collection, analysis of advantages and disadvantages, evaluation
of interests, and facilitating discussions around potential outcomes.
Late 20th Century to Early 21st Century
In
the late 20th century and early into the 21st century, e-democracy
started to become more structured as governments worldwide started to
explore its potential. One major development was the rise of e-government initiatives, which aimed to provide public services online.
One of the first instances of such an initiative was the
establishment of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) by
the United States government in 1994.
GILS was a searchable database of government information accessible to
citizens and businesses, and it served as a tool to improve agency
electronic records management practices.
Along with the rise of e-government services, government websites
started to spring up, aiming to improve communication with citizens,
increase transparency, and make administrative tasks easier to
accomplish online.
As the digital age progressed, so too did the interaction between
governments and citizens. The advent and rapid adoption of the internet
globally catalyzed this transformation. With high internet penetration
in many regions, politics have increasingly relied on the internet as a
primary source of information for numerous people. This digital shift
has been supported by the rise in online advertising among political
candidates and groups actively trying to sway public opinion or directly
influence legislators.
This trend is especially noticeable among younger voters, who
often regard the internet as their primary source of information due to
its convenience and ability to streamline their information-gathering
process. The user-friendly nature of search engines like Google and
social networks encourages increased citizen engagement in political
research and discourse. Social networks, for instance, offer platforms
where individuals can voice their opinions on governmental issues
without fear of judgement. The vast scale and decentralized structure of the internet enable anyone to create viral content and influence a wide audience.
The Internet facilitates citizens in accessing and disseminating
information about politicians while simultaneously providing politicians
with insights from a broader citizen base. This collaborative approach
to decision-making and problem-solving empowers citizens. It accelerates
decision-making processes by politicians, thereby fostering a more
efficient society. Gathering citizen feedback and perspectives is
essential to a politician's role. The Internet functions as a conduit
for effective engagement with a larger audience. Consequently, this
enhanced communication with the public strengthens the capability and
effectiveness of the American government as a democracy.
The 2016 U.S. Presidential Election is an example of social media
integration in political campaigns, where both Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton actively utilized Twitter as a communication tool. These
platforms allow candidates to shape public perceptions while also
humanizing their personas, suggesting that political figures are as
approachable and relatable as ordinary individuals. Through resources
such as Google, the Internet enables every citizen to readily research
political topics. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram encourage political engagement, allowing users to share their
political views and connect with like-minded individuals.
Generation X's disillusionment with political processes,
epitomized by large-scale public protests such as the U.K. miners'
strike of 1984-1985 that appeared to fail, predated the widespread
availability of information technology to individual citizens.
There is a perception that e-democracy could address some of these
concerns by offering a counter to the insularity, power concentration,
and post-election accountability deficit often associated with
traditional democratic processes organized primarily around political
parties. Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the U.K. Labour Party, once stated:
It feels like the Labour frontbench
is further away from our members than at any point in our history, and
the digital revolution can help bring the party closer together … I'm
going to ask our NEC to see whether we can have digital branches and
digital delegates to the conference. Not replacing what we do but
providing an alternative platform. It's a way of organizing for a
different generation of people who do their politics differently, get
their news differently.
— Tom Watson
Despite the benefits of the digital shift, one of the challenges of
e-democracy is the potential disconnect between politics and actual
government implementation. While the internet provides a platform for
robust political discourse, translating these discussions into effective
government action can be complex. This gap can often be exacerbated by
the rapid pace of digital dialogue, which may outpace the slower, more
deliberative processes of policy-making. The rise of digital media has
created new opportunities for citizens to participate in politics and to
hold governments accountable. However, it has also created new
challenges, such as the potential for echo chambers, and the need for
governments to be responsive to citizen concerns.
The challenge for e-democracy, therefore, is to ensure that the digital
discourse contributes constructively to the functioning of the
government and the decision-making processes, rather than becoming an
echo chamber of opinions with little practical impact.
Mid to Late 21st Century
The mid-2000s ushered in the era of Web 2.0,
emphasizing user-generated content, interoperability, and
collaboration. This period witnessed the rise of social media platforms,
blogs, and other collaborative tools, further amplifying the potential
for e-democracy through increasing opportunities for public
participation and interaction. Concepts like crowdsourcing and open-source governance gained traction, advocating for broader and more direct public involvement in policymaking.
As of the 2020s, e-democracy's landscape continues to evolve alongside advancements in technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data.
These technologies promise to expand citizen participation further,
enhance transparency, and boost the overall efficiency and
responsiveness of democratic governance.
The history of e-democracy exhibits significant progress, but it
is also characterized by ongoing debates and challenges, such as the
digital divide, data privacy, cybersecurity, and the impact of
misinformation. As this journey continues, the emphasis remains on
leveraging technology to enhance democratic processes and ensure all
citizens' voices are heard and valued.
E-democracy promotes wider access to information, and its inherent decentralization challenges censorship practices. It embodies elements of the internet's origins, including strong libertarian support for freedom of speech, widespread sharing culture, and the National Science Foundation's commercial use prohibition. The internet's capacity for mass communication, evident in newsgroups, chat rooms, and MUDs, surpasses traditional boundaries associated with broadcast media like newspapers or radio, as well as personal media such as letters or landline telephones.
As the Internet represents a vast digital network supporting open
standards, achieving widespread, cost-effective access to a diverse
range of communication media and models is feasible.
Practical issues pertaining to e-democracy include managing the
agenda while encouraging meaningful participation and fostering
enlightened understanding. Furthermore, efforts are evaluated based on
their ability to ensure voting equality and promote inclusivity. The
success or failure of e-democracy largely depends on its capability to
accurately delineate each issue's relevant costs and benefits, identify
their likelihood and significance, and align votes with this analysis.
In addition, all internet forums, including Wikipedia, must address cybersecurity and protect sensitive data.
Originating in Spain and subsequently spreading to other European countries, the 15-M Movement gave rise to proposals by the Partido X (X Party) in Spain.
During the Arab Spring, uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East were spearheaded by online activists.
Initially, pro-democracy movements harnessed digital media to challenge
authoritarian regimes. These regimes, however, adapted and integrated
social media into their counter-insurgency strategies over time. Digital
media served as a critical tool in transforming localized and
individual dissent into structured movements with a shared awareness of
common grievances and opportunities for collective action.
The Egyptian Revolution began on 25 January 2011, prompted by mass protests in Cairo, Egypt, against the long reign of President Hosni Mubarak,
high unemployment, governmental corruption, poverty, and societal
oppression. The 18-day revolution gained momentum not through initial
acts of violence or protests, but via a single Facebook page, which
quickly attracted the attention of thousands and eventually millions of
Egyptians, evolving into a global phenomenon.
The Internet became a tool of empowerment for the protestors,
facilitating participation in their government's democratization
process. Protestors effectively utilized digital platforms to
communicate, organize, and collaborate, generating real-time impact.
In response to the regime's failed attempt to disrupt political
online discussions by severing all internet access, Google and Twitter
collaborated to create a system that allowed information to reach the
public without internet access.
The interactive nature of media during this revolution enhanced
civic participation and played a significant role in shaping the
political outcome of the revolution and the democratization of the
entire nation.
The Egyptian Revolution has been interpreted by some as a
paradigm shift from a group-controlled system to one characterized by
"networked individualism". This transformation is tied to the
post-"triple revolution" of technology, consisting of three key
developments. First, the shift towards social networks, second, the
widespread propagation of the instantaneous internet, and third, the
ubiquity of mobile phones.
These elements significantly impacted change through the
Internet, providing an alternative, unregulated sphere for idea
formation and protests. For instance, the "6 April Youth Movement" in
Egypt established their political group on Facebook and called for a
national strike. Despite the subsequent suppression of this event, the
Facebook group persisted, encouraging other activist groups to utilize
online media.
Moreover, the Internet served as a medium for building
international connections, amplifying the impact of the revolt. The
rapid transmission of information via Twitter hashtags, for example,
made the uprising globally known. In particular, over three million
tweets contained popular hashtags such as #Egypt and #sidibouzid,
further facilitating the spread of knowledge and fostering change in
Egypt.
The Kony 2012 video, released on 5 March 2012 by the non-profit
organization Invisible Children, launched an online grassroots campaign
aimed at locating and arresting Joseph Kony,
the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Central Africa. The
video's mission was to raise global awareness about Kony's activities,
with Jason Russell, a founder of Invisible Children, emphasizing the
necessity of public support to urge the government's continued search
for Kony. The organization leveraged the extensive reach of social media and contemporary technology to spotlight Kony's crimes.
In response to the campaign, on 21 March 2012, a resolution was
introduced by 33 Senators denouncing "the crimes against humanity"
perpetrated by Kony and the LRA. This resolution supported the US
government's ongoing efforts to boost the capabilities of regional
military forces for civilian protection and the pursuit of LRA
commanders. It also advocated for cross-border initiatives to augment
civilian protection and aid populations affected by the LRA. Co-sponsor
Senator Lindsey Graham
noted the significant impact of public attention driven by social
media, stating that the YouTube sensation would "help the Congress be
more aggressive and will do more to lead to his demise than all other
action combined".
India Against Corruption Movement (2011–2012)
The India Against Corruption
(IAC) movement was an influential anti-corruption crusade in India,
garnering substantial attention during the anti-corruption protests of
2011 and 2012. Its primary focus was the contention surrounding the
proposed Jan Lokpal bill. IAC sought to galvanize the populace in their
pursuit of a less corrupt Indian society. However, internal divisions
within the IAC's central committee led to the movement's split. Arvind
Kejriwal left to establish the Aam Aadmi Party, while Anna Hazare
created the Jantantra Morcha.
Long March Movement (Pakistan)
Long March is a socio-political movement in Pakistan initiated by Qadri after returning from a seven-year residence in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in December 2012. Qadri called for a "million-men" march in Islamabad to protest government corruption. The march commenced on 14 January 2013, with thousands pledging to participate in a sit-in until their demands were met. The march began in Lahore with about 25,000 participants.
During a rally in front of the parliament, Qadri critiqued the
legislators saying, "There is no Parliament; there is a group of
looters, thieves and dacoits [bandits] ... Our lawmakers are the
lawbreakers.".
After four days of sit-in, Qadri and the government reached an
agreement—termed the Islamabad Long March Declaration—which pledged
electoral reforms and enhanced political transparency.
Despite Qadri's call for a "million-men" march, the government
estimated the sit-in participants in Islamabad to number around 50,000.
The Five Star Movement
(M5S), a prominent political party in Italy, has been utilizing online
voting since 2012 to select its candidates for Italian and European
elections. These votes are conducted through a web-based application
called Rousseau, accessible to registered members of Beppe Grillo's blog.
Within this platform, M5S users are able to discuss, approve, or
reject legislative proposals. These proposals are then presented in
Parliament by the M5S group. For instance, the M5S's electoral law and the selection of its presidential candidate were determined via online voting. Notably, the decision to abolish a law against immigrants was made by
online voting among M5S members, in opposition to the views of Grillo
and Casaleggio.
When the Conte I Cabinet collapsed, a new coalition between the Democratic Party and M5S was endorsed after over 100,000 members voted online, with 79.3% supporting the new coalition.
COVID-19 Pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance and impact of e-democracy. In 2020, the advent of COVID-19
led countries worldwide to implement safety measures as recommended by
public health officials. This abrupt societal shift constrained social
movements, causing a temporary halt to certain political issues. Despite
these limitations, individuals leveraged digital platforms to express
their views, create visibility for social movements, and strive to
instigate change and raise awareness through democracy in social media.
As reported by news analysis firm The ASEAN Post, the
pandemic-induced limitations on traditional democratic spaces such as
public meetings have led Filipinos, among others, to resort to social
media, digital media, and collaborative platforms for engaging in public
affairs and practising "active citizenship" in the virtual domain.
This shift has enabled active participation in social, written, or
visual interaction and the rectification of misinformation in a virtual
setting.
Opportunities and challenges
Potential impacts of e-democracy
E-democracy
has the potential to inspire greater community involvement in political
processes and policy decisions, interlacing its growth with complex
internal aspects such as political norms and public pressure. The manner in which it is implemented is also closely connected to the specific model of democracy employed.
Consequently, e-democracy is profoundly influenced by a country's
internal dynamics as well as the external drivers defined by standard
innovation and diffusion theory.
In the current age, where the internet and social networking
dominate daily life, individuals are increasingly advocating for their
public representatives to adopt practices similar to those in other
states or countries concerning the online dissemination of government
information. By making government data easily accessible and providing
straightforward channels to communicate with government officials,
e-democracy addresses the needs of modern society.
E-democracy promotes more rapid and efficient dissemination of
political information, encourages public debate, and boosts
participation in decision-making processes.
Social media platforms have emerged as tools of empowerment,
particularly among younger individuals, stimulating their participation
in electoral processes. These platforms also afford politicians
opportunities for direct engagement with constituents. A notable example
is the 2016 United States presidential elections, in which Donald Trump
primarily used Twitter to communicate policy initiatives and goals.
Similar practices have been observed among various global leaders, such
as Justin Trudeau, Jair Bolsonaro, and Hassan Rouhani, who maintain
active Twitter accounts. Some observers
argue that the government's online publication of public information
enhances its transparency, enabling more extensive public scrutiny, and
consequently promoting a more equitable distribution of power within
society.
Jane Fountain, in her 2001 work Building the Virtual State,
delves into the expansive reach of e-democracy and its interaction with
traditional governmental structures. She offers a comprehensive model
to understand how pre-existing norms, procedures, and rules within
bureaucracies impact the adoption of new technological forms. Fountain
suggests that this form of e-government, in its most radical
manifestation, would necessitate a significant overhaul of the modern
administrative state, with routine electronic consultations involving
elected politicians, civil servants, pressure groups, and other
stakeholders becoming standard practice at all stages of policy
formulation.
States where legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party,
as well as those characterized by a high degree of legislative
professionalization and active professional networks, have shown a
greater propensity to embrace e-government and e-democracy.
E-democracy provides numerous benefits, contributing to a more
engaged public sphere. It encourages increased public participation by
offering platforms for citizens to express their opinions through
websites, emails, and other electronic communication channels,
influencing planning and decision-making processes.
This digital democracy model broadens the number and diversity of
individuals who exercise their democratic rights by conveying their
thoughts to decision-making bodies about various proposals and issues.
Moreover, it cultivates a virtual public space, fostering interaction,
discussion, and the exchange of ideas among citizens.
E-democracy also promotes convenience, allowing citizens to
participate at their own pace and comfort. Its digital nature enables it
to reach vast audiences with relative ease and minimal cost.
The system promotes interactive communication, encouraging
dialogue between authorities and citizens. It also serves as an
effective platform for disseminating large amounts of information,
maintaining clarity and minimizing distortion.
Challenges in e-democracy
While
e-democracy platforms, also known as digital democracy platforms, offer
enhanced opportunities for exercising voting rights, they are also
susceptible to disruption. Digital voting platforms, for example, have
faced attacks aimed at influencing election outcomes. As Dobrygowski
states, "cybersecurity threats to the integrity of both electoral
mechanisms and government institutions are, quite uncomfortably, more
intangible."
While traditional paper ballots are often considered the most secure
method for conducting elections, digital voting provides the convenience
of electronic participation. However, the successful implementation of
this system necessitates continual innovations and contributions from
third parties.
Ensuring Digital Inclusion
To
foster a robust digital democracy, it's imperative to promote digital
inclusion that ensures all citizens, regardless of income, education,
gender, religion, ethnicity, language, physical and mental health, have
equal opportunities to participate in public policy formulation. During
the 2020 elections, digital communications were utilized by various
communities to cultivate a sense of inclusivity.
Specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic saw a surge in online
political participation among the youth, demonstrated by the signing of
online petitions and participation in digital protests. Even as youth
participation in traditional politics dwindles, young people show
significant support for pressure groups mobilized through social media.
For instance, the Black Lives Matter movement gained widespread
recognition on social media, enabling many young people to participate
in meaningful ways, including online interactions and protests.
Requirements for e-democracy
E-Democracy
is facilitated by its significance in fostering participation,
promoting social inclusivity, displaying sensitivity to individual
perspectives, and offering flexible means of engagement. The Internet
endows a sense of relevance to participation by giving everyone a
platform for their voices to be heard and articulated. It also
facilitates a structure of social inclusivity through a broad array of
websites, groups, and social networks, each representing diverse
viewpoints and ideas. Individual needs are met by enabling the public
and rapid expression of personal opinions. Furthermore, the Internet
offers an exceptionally flexible environment for engagement; it is
cost-effective and widely accessible. Through these attributes,
e-democracy and the deployment of the Internet can play a pivotal role
in societal change.
The progression of e-democracy is impeded by the digital divide,
which separates those actively engaged in electronic communities from
those who do not participate. Proponents of e-democracy often recommend
governmental actions to bridge this digital gap. The divergence in e-governance and e-democracy between the developed and the developing world is largely due to the digital divide. Practical concerns include the digital divide that separates those with access from those without, and the opportunity cost
associated with investments in e-democracy innovations. There also
exists a degree of skepticism regarding the potential impact of online
participation.
The government has a responsibility to ensure that online
communications are both secure and respectful of individuals' privacy.
This aspect gains prominence when considering electronic voting.
The complexity of electronic voting systems surpasses other digital
transaction mechanisms, necessitating authentication measures that can
counter ballot manipulation or its potential threat. These measures may
encompass the use of smart cards, which authenticate a voter's identity
while maintaining the confidentiality of the cast vote. Electronic voting in Estonia
exemplifies a successful approach to addressing the privacy-identity
dilemma inherent in internet voting systems. However, the ultimate goal
should be to match the security and privacy standards of existing manual
systems.
Government Responsiveness
To
encourage citizens to engage in online consultations and discussions,
the government needs to be responsive and clearly demonstrate that
public engagement influences policy outcomes. It's crucial for citizens
to have the opportunity to contribute at a time and place that suits
them and when their viewpoints will make a difference. The government
should put structures in place to accommodate increased participation.
Considering the role that intermediaries and representative
organizations might play could be beneficial to ensure issues are
debated in a manner that is democratic, inclusive, tolerant, and
productive. To amplify the efficacy of existing legal rights allowing
public access to information held by public authorities, citizens ought
to be granted the right to productive public deliberation and
moderation.
Participation and engagement
Interaction modes in e-democracy
3D e-democracy roadmap: transcending the trade-offs
E-democracy presents an opportunity to reconcile the conventional
trade-off between the size of the group involved in democratic processes
and the depth of will expression (refer to the Figure). Historically,
broad group participation was facilitated via simple ballotvoting,
but the depth of will expression was confined to predefined options
(those on the ballot). Depth of will expression was obtained by limiting
participant numbers through representative democracy (refer to the Table). The social mediaWeb 2.0
revolution has demonstrated the possibility of achieving both large
group sizes and depth of will expression. However, expressions of will
in social media are unstructured, making their interpretation
challenging and often subjective (see Table). Novel information
processing methods, including big data analytics and the semantic web, suggest potential ways to exploit these capabilities for future e-democracy implementations. Currently, e-democracy processes are facilitated by technologies such as electronic mailing lists, peer-to-peer networks, collaborative software, and apps like GovernEye, Countable, VoteSpotter, wikis, internet forums, and blogs.
Forms of democracy trade-off table
The examination of e-democracy encompasses its various stages
including "information provision, deliberation, and participation in
decision-making." This assessment also takes into account the different hierarchical levels of governance such as local communities, states/regions, nations, and the global stage. Further, the scope of involvement is also considered, which includes the participation of citizens/voters, the media, elected officials, political organizations, and governments.
Therefore, e-democracy's evolution is influenced by such broad changes
as increased interdependency, technological multimediation, partnership
governance, and individualism.
Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and Blogspot, are increasingly significant in democratic dialogues. The role of social media in e-democracy is an emerging field of study, along with technological developments such as argument maps and the semantic web.
Another notable development is the combination of open social
networking communication with structured communication from closed
expert and/or policy-maker panels, such as through the modified Delphi method (HyperDelphi).
This approach seeks to balance distributed knowledge and
self-organized memories with critical control, responsibility, and
decision-making in electronic democracy. Social networking serves as an
entry point within the citizens' environment, engaging them on their
terms. Proponents of e-government believe this helps the government act
more in tune with its public. Examples of state usage include The
Official Commonwealth of Virginia Homepage, where citizens can find Google tools and open social forums, considered significant steps towards the maturity of e-democracy.
Civic engagement encompasses three key aspects: understanding public affairs (political knowledge),
trust in the political system (political trust), and involvement in
governmental decision-making processes (political participation). The internet enhances civic engagement by creating a new medium for interaction with government institutions.
Advocates of e-democracy propose that it can facilitate more active government engagement and inspire citizens to actively influence decisions that directly affect them.
Numerous studies indicate an increased use of the internet for
obtaining political information. From 1996 to 2002, the percentage of
adults claiming that the internet played a significant role in their
political choices rose from around 14 to 20 percent. In 2002, almost a quarter of the population stated that they had visited a website to research specific public policy issues.
Research has indicated that people are more likely to visit
websites that challenge their viewpoints rather than those that align
with their own beliefs.
Around 16 percent of the population has participated in online
political activities such as joining campaigns, volunteering time,
donating money, or participating in polls.
A survey conducted by Philip N. Howard revealed that nearly
two-thirds of the adult population in the United States has interacted
with online political news, information, or other content over the past
four election cycles.
People tend to reference the websites of special interest groups more
frequently than those of specific elected leaders, political candidates,
political parties, nonpartisan groups, and local community groups.
The vast informational capacity of the Internet empowers citizens
to gain a deeper understanding of governmental and political affairs,
while its interactive nature fosters new forms of communication with
elected officials and public servants. By providing access to contact
information, legislation, agendas, and policies, governments can enhance
transparency, thereby potentially facilitating more informed
participation both online and offline.
As articulated by Matt Leighninger, the internet bolsters
government by enhancing individual empowerment and reinforcing group
agency.
The internet avails vital information to citizens, empowering them to
influence public policy more effectively. The utilization of online
tools for organizing allows citizens to participate more easily in the
government's policy-making process, leading to a surge in public
engagement. Social media platforms foster networks of individuals whose
online activities can shape the political process, including prompting
politicians to intensify public appeal efforts in their campaigns.
E-democracy offers a digital platform for public dialogue,
enhancing the interaction between government and its residents. This
form of online engagement enables the government to concentrate on key
issues the community wishes to address. The underpinning philosophy is
that every citizen should have the potential to influence their local
governance. E-democracy aligns with local communities and provides an
opportunity for any willing citizen to make a contribution. The essence
of an effective e-democracy lies not just in citizen contribution to
government activities, but in promoting mutual communication and
collaboration among citizens for the improvement of their own
communities.
E-democracy utilizes information and communication technologies
(ICT) to bolster the democratic processes of decision-making. These
technologies play a pivotal role in informing and organizing citizens in
different avenues of civic participation. Moreover, ICTs enhance the
active engagement of citizens, and foster collaboration among
stakeholders for policy formation within political processes across all
stages of governance.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) identifies three key aspects regarding the role of ICTs in
fostering civic engagement. The first aspect is timing, with most civic
engagement activities occurring during the agenda-setting phase of a
cycle. The second factor is adaptation, which refers to how ICTs evolve
to facilitate increased civic participation. The final aspect is
integration, representing how emerging ICTs blend new and traditional
methods to maximize civic engagement.
ICT fosters the possibility of a government that is both more
democratic and better informed by facilitating open online
collaborations between professionals and the public. The responsibility
of collecting information and making decisions is shared between those
possessing technological expertise and the traditionally recognized
decision-makers. This broadened public involvement in the exchange of
ideas and policies results in more democratic decision-making.
Furthermore, ICT enhances the notion of pluralism within a democracy, introducing fresh issues and viewpoints.
Ordinary citizens have the opportunity to become creators of
political content and commentary, for instance, by establishing
individual blogs and websites. Collaborative efforts in the online
political sphere, similar to ABC News' Campaign Watchdog initiative,
allow citizens to report any rule violations committed by any political
party during elections.
In the 2000 United States presidential race, candidates
frequently utilized their websites to not only encourage their
supporters to vote but to motivate their friends to vote as well. This
dual-process approach—urging an individual to vote and then to prompt
their friends to vote—was just beginning to emerge during that time.
Today, political participation through various social media platforms is
typical, and civic involvement via online forums is common. Through the
use of ICTs, individuals interested in politics have the ability to
become more engaged.
In previous years, individuals belonging to Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z,
typically encompassing those aged 35 and below as of the mid-2000s,
have been noted for their relative disengagement from political
activities.
The implementation of electronic democracy has been proposed as a
potential solution to foster increased voter turnout, democratic
participation, and political literacy among these younger demographics.
Youth E-Citizenship: Balancing Management and Autonomy
Youth
e-citizenship presents a dichotomy between two predominant approaches:
management and autonomy. The strategy of "targeting" younger
individuals, prompting them to "play their part," can be interpreted as
either an incentive for youth activism or a mechanism to regulate it.
Autonomous e-citizens argue that despite their relative
inexperience, young people should have the right to voice their
perspectives on issues that they personally consider important.
Conversely, proponents of managed e-citizenship view youth as nascent
citizens transitioning from childhood to adulthood, and hence not yet
fully equipped to engage in political discourse without proper guidance.
Another significant concern is the role of the Internet, with advocates
of managed e-citizenship arguing that young people may be especially
susceptible to misinformation or manipulation online.
This discord manifests as two perspectives on democracy: one that
sees democracy as an established and reasonably just system, where
young people should be motivated to participate, and another that views
democracy as a political and cultural goal best achieved through
networks where young people interact. What might initially appear as
mere differences in communication styles ultimately reveals divergent
strategies for accessing and influencing power.
Case Study: Youth Engagement in Scotland
The
Highland Youth Voice, an initiative in Scotland, is an exemplar of
efforts to bolster democratic participation, particularly through
digital means.
Despite an increasing emphasis on the youth demographic in UK
governmental policy and issues, their engagement and interest have been
waning.
During the 2001 elections to the Westminster Parliament in the
UK, voter turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds was estimated to be a mere
40%. This contrasts starkly with the fact that over 80% of 16- to
24-year-olds have accessed the internet at some point.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
emphasizes the importance of educating young individuals as citizens of
their respective nations. It advocates for the promotion of active
political participation, which they can shape through robust debate and
communication.
The Highland Youth Voice strives to boost youth participation by
understanding their governmental needs, perspectives, experiences, and
aspirations. It provides young Scots, aged 14 to 18, an opportunity to
influence decision-makers in the Highlands.
This body, consisting of approximately 100 elected members,
represents youth voices. Elections occur biennially and candidates are
chosen directly from schools and youth forums. The Highland Youth Voice
website serves as a pivotal platform where members can discuss issues
pertinent to them, partake in online policy debates, and experience a
model of e-democracy through simplified online voting. Thus, the website
encompasses three key features, forming an online forum that enables
youth self-education, participation in policy discourse, and engagement
in the e-democracy process.
Civil society organizations have a pivotal role in democracies, as highlighted by theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville,
acting as platforms for citizens to gain knowledge about public affairs
and as sources of power beyond the state's reach. According to Hans Klein, a public policy researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology, there exist several obstacles to participation in these forums, including logistical challenges of physical meetings.
Klein's study of a civic association in the northeastern US revealed
that electronic communication significantly boosted the organization's
capacity to achieve its objectives. Given the relatively low cost of
exchanging information over the Internet and its potential for wide
reach, the medium has become an attractive venue for disseminating
political information, especially among interest groups and parties
operating on smaller budgets.'"
For example, environmental or social interest groups might
leverage the Internet as a cost-effective mechanism to raise awareness
around their causes. Unlike traditional media outlets, like television
or newspapers, which often necessitate substantial financial
investments, the Internet provides an affordable and extensive platform
for information dissemination. As such, the Internet could potentially
supplant certain traditional modes of political communication, such as
telephone, television, newspapers, and radio. Consequently, civil society has been increasingly integrating into the online realm.
Civic society encompasses various types of associations. The term interest group
is typically used to refer to formal organizations focused on specific
social groups, economic sectors like trade unions, business and
professional associations, or specific issues such as abortion, gun
control, or the environment.
Many of these traditional interest groups have well-established
organizational structures and formal membership rules, primarily
oriented towards influencing government and policy-making processes.
Transnational advocacy networks assemble loose coalitions of these
organizations under common umbrella organizations that cross national
borders.
Innovative tools are increasingly being developed to empower
bloggers, webmasters, and social media owners. These aim to transition
from the Internet's strictly informational use to its application as a
medium for social organization, independent of top-down initiatives. For
instance, the concept of Calls to action
is a novel approach that enables webmasters to inspire their audience
into action without the need for explicit leadership. This trend is
global, with countries like India cultivating an active blogosphere that encourages internet users to express their perspectives and opinions.
The Internet serves multifaceted roles for these organizations.
It functions as a platform for lobbying elected officials, public
representatives, and policy elites; networking with affiliated
associations and groups; mobilizing organizers, activists, and members
through action alerts, newsletters, and emails; raising funds and
recruiting support; and conveying their messages to the public via
traditional news media channels.
The Internet holds a pivotal role in deliberative democracy, a model that underscores dialogue, open discussion, and access to diverse perspectives in decision-making.
It provides an interactive platform and functions as a vital instrument
for research within the deliberative process. The Internet facilitates
the exchange of ideas through a myriad of platforms such as websites,
blogs, and social networking sites like Twitter, all of which champion
freedom of expression.[citation needed] It allows for easily accessible
and cost-effective information, paving the way for change. One of the
intrinsic attributes of the Internet is its unregulated nature, offering
a platform for all viewpoints, regardless of their accuracy. The
autonomy granted by the Internet can foster and advocate change, a
critical factor in e-democracy.
A notable development in the application of e-democracy in the deliberative process is the California Report Card. This tool was created by the Data and Democracy Initiative of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society at the University of California, Berkeley, in collaboration with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom. Launched in January 2014, the California Report Card is a web application optimized for mobile use, aimed at facilitating online deliberative democracy.
The application features a brief opinion poll on six pertinent issues,
after which participants are invited to join an online "café". In this
space, they are grouped with users sharing similar views through Principal Component Analysis,
and are encouraged to participate in the deliberative process by
suggesting new political issues and rating the suggestions of other
participants. The design of the California Report Card is intended to minimize the influence of private agendas on the discussion.
Openforum.com.au
also exemplifies eDemocracy. This non-profit Australian project
facilitates high-level policy discussions, drawing participants such as
politicians, senior public servants, academics, business professionals,
and other influential stakeholders.
The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act
(OPEN Act), presented as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA, garners the
support of major companies like Google and Facebook. Its website, Keep
The Web Open,
not only provides full access to the bill but also incorporates public
input—over 150 modifications have been made through user contributions.
The peer-to-patent
project allows public participation in the patent review process by
providing research and 'prior art' publications for patent examiners to
assess the novelty of an invention. In this process, the community
nominates ten pieces of prior art to be reviewed by the patent examiner.
This not only enables direct communication between the public and the
patent examiner but also creates a structured environment that prompts
participants to provide relevant information to aid in decision-making.
By allowing experts and the general public to collaborate in finding
solutions, the project aims to enhance the efficacy of the
decision-making process. It offers a platform for citizens to
participate and express their ideas beyond merely checking boxes that
limit their opinions to predefined options.
One significant challenge in implementing e-democracy is ensuring the
security of internet-voting systems. The potential interference from
viruses and malware, which could alter or inhibit citizens' votes on
critical issues, hinders the widespread adoption of e-democracy as long
as such cybersecurity threats persist.
E-voting presents several practical challenges that can affect
its legitimacy in elections. For instance, electronic voting machines
can be vulnerable to physical interference, as they are often left
unattended prior to elections, making them susceptible to tampering.
This issue led to a decision by the Netherlands in 2017 to count
election votes manually.
Furthermore, 'Direct Recording Electronic' (DRE) systems, used in
numerous US states, are quickly becoming outdated and prone to faults. A
study by USENIX discovered that certain DREs in New Jersey inaccurately
counted votes, potentially casting votes for unintended candidates
without voters' knowledge. The study found these inconsistencies to be
widespread with that specific machine.
Despite the potential of electronic voting to increase voter turnout,
the absence of a paper trail in DREs can lead to untraceable errors,
which could undermine its application in digital democracy.
Diminished participation in democracy may stem from the
proliferation of polls and surveys, potentially leading to a condition
known as survey fatigue.
Through Listserv's, RSS
feeds, mobile messaging, micro-blogging services and blogs, government
and its agencies can disseminate information to citizens who share
common interests and concerns. For instance, many government
representatives, including Rhode Island State Treasurer Frank T. Caprio, have begun to utilize Twitter as an easy medium for communication.
Several non-governmental websites, like transparent.gov.com, and USA.gov,
have developed cross-jurisdiction, customer-focused applications that
extract information from thousands of governmental organizations into a
unified system, making it easier for citizens to access information.
E-democracy has led to a simplified process and access to
government information for public-sector agencies and citizens. For
example, the Indiana
Bureau of Motor Vehicles simplified the process of certifying driver
records for admission in county court proceedings. Indiana became the
first state to allow government records to be digitally signed, legally
certified and delivered electronically using Electronic Postmark
technology.
The internet has increased government accessibility to news,
policies, and contacts in the 21st century. In 2000, only two percent of
government sites offered three or more services online; in 2007, that
figure was 58 percent. Also, in 2007, 89 percent of government sites
allowed the public to email a public official directly rather than
merely emailing the webmaster (West, 2007)"(Issuu).
Controversies and concern
Opposition to e-democracy
Information and communications technologies
can be utilized for both democratic and anti-democratic purposes. For
instance, digital technology can be used to promote both coercive
control and active participation. The vision of anti-democratic use of technology is exemplified in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four.
Critiques associated with direct democracy are also considered
applicable to e-democracy. This includes the potential for direct governance to cause the polarization of opinions, populism, and demagoguery.
Cybersecurity and e-democracy
The
current inability to protect internet traffic from interference and
manipulation has significantly limited the potential of e-democracy for
decision-making. As a result, most experts express opposition to the use
of the internet for widespread voting.
In countries with severe government censorship, the full potential of
e-democracy might not be realized. Internet clampdowns often occur
during extensive political protests. For instance, the series of
internet blackouts in the Middle East in 2011, termed as the "Arab Net
Crackdown", provides a significant example. Governments in Libya, Egypt,
Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and Yemen have all implemented total internet
censorship in response to the numerous pro-democracy demonstrations
within their respective nations.
These lockdowns were primarily instituted to prevent the dissemination
of cell phone videos that featured images of government violence against
protesters.
Joshua A. Tucker and his colleagues critique e-democracy, pointing
out that the adaptability and openness of social media may allow
political entities to manipulate it for their own ends.
They suggest that authorities could use social media to spread
authoritarian practices in several ways. Firstly, by intimidating
opponents, monitoring private conversations, and even jailing those who
voice undesirable opinions. Secondly, by flooding online spaces with
pro-regime messages, thereby diverting and occupying these platforms.
Thirdly, by disrupting signal access to hinder the flow of information.
Lastly, by banning globalized platforms and websites.
Populism concerns in e-democracy
A
study that interviewed elected officials in Austria's parliament
revealed a broad and strong opposition to e-democracy. These officials
held the view that citizens, generally uninformed, should limit their
political engagement to voting. The task of sharing opinions and ideas,
they contended, belonged solely to elected representatives.
Contrary to this view, theories of epistemic democracy
suggest that greater public engagement contributes to the aggregation
of knowledge and intelligence. This active participation, proponents
argue, enables democracies to better discern the truth.
Case study: stop online piracy act and e-democracy
The introduction of H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in the United States House of Representatives, was perceived by many internet users as an attack on internet democracy.
A contributor to the Huffington Post argued that defeating SOPA was
crucial for the preservation of democracy and freedom of speech.
Significantly, SOPA was indefinitely postponed following
widespread protests, which included a site blackout by popular websites
like Wikipedia on 18 January 2012.
A comparable event occurred in India towards the end of 2011, when the country's Communication and IT Minister Kapil Sibal
suggested pre-screening content for offensive material before its
publication on the internet, with no clear mechanism for appeal. Subsequent reports, however, quote Sibal as stating that there would be no restrictions on internet use.
A radical shift from a representative government to an internet-mediated direct democracy is not considered likely.
Nonetheless, proponents suggest that a "hybrid model" which leverages
the internet for enhanced governmental transparency and greater
community involvement in decision-making could be forthcoming.
The selection of committees, local town and city decisions, and other
people-centric decisions could be more readily facilitated through this
approach. This doesn't indicate a shift in the principles of democracy
but rather an adaptation in the tools utilized to uphold them.
E-democracy would not serve as a means to enact direct democracy, but
rather as a tool to enable a more participatory form of democracy as it
exists currently.
Supporters of e-democracy often foresee a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy, facilitated by technology, viewing this transition as an ultimate goal of e-democracy. In an electronic direct democracy (EDD) – also referred to as open source governance or collaborative e-democracy – citizens are directly involved in the legislative function through electronic means. They vote electronically on legislation, propose new legislation, and recall representatives, if any are retained.
Technology supporting electronic direct democracy
Technology to support electronic direct democracy (EDD) has been researched and developed at the Florida Institute of Technology, where it has been applied within student organizations. Many other software development projects are currently underway, along with numerous supportive and related projects.
Several of these projects are now collaborating on a cross-platform
architecture within the framework of the Meta-government project.
EDD as a system is not fully implemented in a political
government anywhere in the world, although several initiatives are
currently forming. Ross Perot was a prominent advocate of EDD when he advocated "electronic town halls" during his 1992 and 1996 Presidential campaigns in the United States. Switzerland, already partially governed by direct democracy, is making progress towards such a system.
Senator On-Line,
an Australian political party established in 2007, proposes to
institute an EDD system so that Australians can decide which way the
senators vote on each and every bill. A similar initiative was formed 2002 in Sweden where the party Direktdemokraterna, running for the Swedish parliament,
offers its members the power to decide the actions of the party over
all or some areas of decision, or to use a proxy with immediate recall
for one or several areas.
Liquid democracy, or direct democracy incorporating a delegable proxy,
enables citizens to appoint a proxy for voting on their behalf, while
retaining the ability to cast their own vote on legislation. This voting
and proxy assignment could be conducted electronically. Extending this
concept, proxies could establish proxy chains;
for instance, if citizen A appoints citizen B, and B appoints citizen
C, and only C votes on a proposed bill, C's vote will represent all
three of them. Citizens could also rank their proxies by preference,
meaning that if their primary proxy does not vote, their vote could be
cast by their second-choice proxy.
One form of e-democracy that has been proposed is "wikidemocracy",
where the codex of laws in a government legislature could be editable
via a wiki, similar to Wikipedia. In 2012, J Manuel Feliz-Teixeira
suggested that the resources necessary for implementing wikidemocracy
were already accessible. He envisages a system in which citizens can
participate in legislative, executive, and judiciary roles via a
wiki-system. Every citizen would have free access to this wiki and a
personal ID to make policy reforms continuously until the end of
December, when all votes would be tallied.
Perceived benefits of wikidemocracy include a cost-free system that
eliminates elections and the need for parliament or representatives, as
citizens would directly represent themselves, and the ease of expressing
one's opinion. However, there are several potential obstacles and
disagreements. The digital divide and educational inequality could
hinder the full potential of a wikidemocracy. Similarly, differing rates
of technological adoption mean that some people might readily accept
new methods, while others reject or are slow to adapt.
Security is also a concern; we would need to trust that the system
administrators would ensure a high level of integrity to safeguard votes
in the public domain. Peter Levine concurs that wikidemocracy could
increase discussion on political and moral issues but disagrees with
Feliz-Teixeira, arguing that representatives and formal governmental
structures would still be needed.
The term "wikidemocracy" is also used to refer to more specific
instances of e-democracy. For example, in August 2011 in Argentina, the
voting records from the presidential election were made available to the
public in an online format for scrutiny. More broadly, the term can refer to the democratic values and environments facilitated by wikis.
In 2011, a group in Finland
explored the concept of wikidemocracy by creating an online "shadow
government program". This initiative was essentially a compilation of
the political views and goals of various Finnish groups, assembled on a
wiki.
Egora
"Egora", also known as "intelligent democracy", is a free software developed for political opinion formation and decision-making. It is filed under the copyleft licensing system. The name "Egora" is a blend of "electronic" and "agora", a term from Ancient Greek denoting the central public space in city-states (polis). The ancient agora was the hub of public life, facilitating social interactions, business transactions, and discussions.
Drawing from this Ancient Greek concept, Egora aims to foster a
new, rational, efficient, and incorruptible form of democratic
organization. It allows users to form their own political philosophies
from diverse ideas, ascertain the most popular ideas among the public,
organize meetings to scrutinize and debate these ideas, and employ a
simple algorithm to identify true representatives of the public will.
E-democracy in popular media
The theme of e-democracy has frequently appeared in science fiction. Works such as David's Sling by Marc Stiegler and Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
notably predicted forms of the internet before it actually came into
existence. These early conceptualizations of the internet, and their
implications for democracy, served as major plot drivers in these
stories.
David's Sling
In David's Sling, Marc Stiegler
presents e-democracy as a strategy leveraged by a team of hackers to
construct a computer-controlled smart weapon. They utilize an online
debate platform, the Information Decision Duel, where two parties delve
deeply into the intricacies of their arguments, dissecting the pros and
cons before a neutral referee selects the more convincing side. This
fictional portrayal of an internet-like system for public discourse
echoes real-world aspirations for e-democracy, underscoring thorough
issue analysis, technological enablement, and transparency.
The book's dedication, "To those who never stop seeking the third
alternatives," epitomizes this emphasis on comprehensive issue scrutiny.
Ender's Game
Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game
also explores e-democracy, with the internet portrayed as a powerful
platform for political discourse and social change. Two of the
characters, siblings Valentine and Peter, use this platform to
anonymously share their political views, gaining considerable influence.
Their activities lead to a significant political shift, even though
they are just children posing as adults. This highlights the issue of
true identity within online participation and raises questions about the
potential for manipulation in e-democracy.
The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein:
A sentient computer assists Lunar colonists in their rebellion against
Earth, with significant decisions made through public electronic voting.
Distraction by Bruce Sterling:
The novel explores potential perils of e-democracy in a future United
States heavily influenced by the internet and electronic voting.
Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge:
The novel imagines societal changes due to technological advancements,
including more participatory democracy through continuous public polling
and consensus-building tools.
The Prefect by Alastair Reynolds: The narrative centers on a future society where an artificial intelligence, the Prefect, administers a democratic system.
These works provide varied perspectives on the potential benefits and challenges of e-democracy.
