vitalizing democracy through e-participation
DESCRIPTION
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: An Austrian and Eastern European PerspectiveTRANSCRIPT
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Daniel Medimorec
Peter Parycek
Judith Schossböck
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 2 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Kontakt:
Frank Frick
Director
Programm Zukunft der Beschäftigung/Good Governance
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Telefon +49 5241 81-81253
Fax +49 5241 81-681253
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Christina Tillmann
Project Manager
Programm Zukunft der Beschäftigung/Good Governance
Bertelsmann Stiftung
Telefon +49 5241 81-81335
Fax +49 5241 81-681335
www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 3 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Inhalt
Abstract 4
1. The value of democracy in Austria and Eastern Europe 4
2. E-democracy and e-participation as democratic enhancements? Classification and potential 6
2.1. Definitions 7
2.2. Classification of e-participation initiatives 8
2.3. E-participation’s potential 8
2.4. Democratization through the Internet? 9
2.5. Unexploited potential for e-participation and standardized information 12
3. Policies and Strategies 13
3.1. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE, 2006-2008) 14
3.2. Project group e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM) 14
3.3. Further PG-EDEM contributions 16
4. Promising approaches in the enhancement of democracy 17
4.1. Transparency 17
4.1.1. Information 17
4.1.2. Open Data 19
4.1.3. Bottom-up initiatives 20
4.2. Participation and collaboration 22
4.2.1. Innovation communities for policy-making 22
4.2.2. Innovation mall for legislative and administrative procedures 23
4.2.3. Impetus of third parties or borders becoming blurred 24
4.2.4. Key drivers and obstacles 24
4.3. Outlook: Empowering citizens through transparency and collaboration 25
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 4 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Abstract
This paper deals with the potential held by electronic forms of participation for re-enhancing
democracy based on experiences in Austria and Eastern Europe. The value of democracy in this
region as well as prospects for e-democracy will be discussed. An additional focus addresses open
government and collaboration as promising strategies in the revitalization of democracy and
governance in these countries. While countries including the United Kingdom, the United States,
Australia and the countries of Northern Europe have already included this approach in their policies
in a top-down manner, in Austria and Eastern Europe such concepts are based mainly on bottom-
up initiatives.
1. The value of democracy in Austria and Eastern Europe
The effort to revitalize democracy in Central and Eastern Europe begins from a challenging starting
point. While officials emphasize the urgent need for (re-)democratization initiatives, the low value
attributed to democracy by the population has been reflected in continuously falling election turnout
rates during the last decade. Although one has to be careful in equating low turnout rates with a
general disenchantment with politics (in times of a crisis, for instance, voter participation can also
increase, and in any case represents just one factor of political participation1), longitudinal
comparative studies on nations’ values2 show that mistrust of politics in general and political
parties in particular is increasing. In addition, a strong tendency toward a substantial loss of faith in
democracy itself is evident.
In Western European democracies, the voter turnout rate averaged 83 percent between 1945 and
1980. In the following years, a constant decrease in the percentage of active voters can be seen.3
However, as 100 percent participation in any project or election is an impossible goal, we must
address not just short-term low levels of participation in general, but rather the long-term tendency
of citizens to withdraw from elections.4 The role of turnout in the participatory system of democracy
can be observed within the member states of the European Union. In all regions, a majority of the
population has voted in the general elections. Northwestern, Central, and Southern Europe all
displayed participation rates of over 80 percent between 2001 and 2006, in comparison to an
average of 60 percent in Western Europe and the post-communist countries. The obligation to vote
does not correspond with high participation rates in this case. In Eastern Europe, turnout rates are
significantly lower than in the rest of Europe.5 Poland is the only country in Europe in which a
minority of the eligible population participates in elections. The tendency toward decreasing
participation is even significantly higher when looking at other forms of participation (such as
memberships in or work for parties). The post-communist democracies in particular (with the
1 Peter Filzmaier, “Was ist politische Beteiligung?” http://austria-
lexikon.at/af/Wissenssammlungen/Essays/Politik/Was_ist_politische_Beteiligung_ (accessed July 31, 2010). 2 Christian Friesl et al., Die ÖsterreicherInnen. Wertewandel 1990-2008 (Vienna: Czernin-Verlag, 2009).
3 http://www.politischebildung.com/pdfs/27_wahlbet.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)
4 Andy Williamson, “Distribution and Empowerment: Embedding Citizens at the Heart of Democracy,”
Keynote Speech at the Conference for Electronic Democracy, Danube-University Krems, 2010. 5 Oscar Gabriel and Kerstin Völkl, “Politische und soziale Partizipation.” In: Oscar Gabriel and Sabine Kropp
(eds), Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Stukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte. (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008): 280
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 5 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
exception of Hungary) have had to deal with a significant decline in turnout. The grounds for this
tendency in the current period can only be evaluated empirically.6
Austrians appear to be retreating from the political system and its institutions.7 According to a study
of Austrian values, the level of trust in institutions is decreasing (between 1999 and 2008 from 39%
to 28% for the parliament and from 17% to 14% for political parties). While this might represent a
reaction to the country’s specific political culture, it can also point to a lack of real participation
opportunities, political education or democratic self-conception. In 2008, only half of the population
in Austria was satisfied with democracy, compared to 73 percent in 1999. When looking at the data
for 2008, a problem is that long-term political studies are always limited insofar as they convey the
values and attitudes of a certain point in time. Moreover, 2008 was marked by a struggle between
the two opposition parties. However, the following trends are visible: Low political interest
(democracy as a value is questioned), criticism of the political practice/system, and strong
individualism (leading to disaffection in certain portions of the population). Given the existing
criticism, we can conclude that changing these tendencies will most definitely have to be
accompanied by a fundamental change in the system itself.
On a side note, interest in politics strongly correlates with the level of education – a connection
particularly visible in young people. A study of 14-year-olds conducted by the Danube University
Krems in 2010 furthermore showed that when young people are willing to participate, they are
most likely to focus on non-traditional, electronic forms of political activity.8 This legitimates a
strong focus on e-participation projects for young people in an educational environment.
When asked about their satisfaction with democracy, half of the population in Austria claimed to be
satisfied (but only 4% were very satisfied). It is remarkable that this figure has declined by a third
since 1999, and that the number of unsatisfied citizens has doubled (to 46%). It is hard to make out
the exact reasons for dissatisfaction in this context. However, certain groups can be identified: The
people least satisfied with democracy were those who defined themselves as politically right-wing
or unsatisfied with their quality of life – this population’s satisfaction decreased by almost half.9 In
criticisms of democracy, the following arguments often appear: Democracies are too hesitant, and
there are too many controversies. Half the population looks favorably upon decisions made by
experts (as opposed to officials); but society in general is also viewed as a source of enriched
political decision-making. According to a survey performed by the Federal Data Center (BRZ10) and
the Danube University Krems, 64 percent of participants believed that collaboration with society
and “Government 2.0” services would increase.11 Many think of these developments as an
explosive political mixture, especially as traditional politicians and administrators seek to bury their
head in the sand of obsolete authority structures or of a system based on constraints.
6 Oscar Gabriel and Kerstin Völkl, “Politische und soziale Partizipation” In: Oscar Gabriel and Sabine Kropp
(eds), Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Stukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte. (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008): 286 7 Oscar Gabriel and Kerstin Völkl, “Politische und soziale Partizipation” In: Oscar Gabriel and Sabine Kropp
(eds), Die EU-Staaten im Vergleich. Stukturen, Prozesse, Politikinhalte. (Wiesbaden: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 2008): 302 8 Peter Parycek, Ursula Maier-Rabler and Gertraud Diendorfer, Internetkompetenz von SchülerInnen.
Themeninteressen, Aktivitätsstufen und Rechercheverhalten in der 8. Schulstufe in Österreich. Studienbericht. Vienna/Salzburg/Krems, (June 2010): p. 121 9 Christian Friesl, et al., Die ÖsterreicherInnen. Wertewandel 1990-2008, (Vienna: Czernin-Verlag, 2009):
220 10
http://www.brz.gv.at (accessed July 31, 2010) 11
Only 3% think collaboration will decrease.
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 6 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Against this tendency towards disenchantment with politics stands a tremendous amount of
Internet-based bottom-up political initiatives such as thematic blogs, informal political networking
and new organizational forms for political activities. One example of an extremely fast organization
via open source systems and social media networks in Austria is represented by the student
protests of 2009. Starting from the University of Vienna and spreading out across Germany, they
occupied the auditorium of the university for more than two months and received a lot of attention
in the Austrian media as “Generation 09.” Aside from the fast organization and flexibility of the
group process,12 it is remarkable that the protests were not organized by their student union
(“ÖH”), as had been typical of large-scale demonstrations, but by the students themselves. In
summary, it may be noted that while new forms of mobilization and crowd self-organization
definitely worked, the initiative itself couldn’t agree on a common political position. Thus, it did not
succeed in achieving its goals. The question remains as to whether the crowd will learn from its
mistakes in order to achieve political influence through future initiatives.
In reaction to these tendencies, governments have sought to set up initiatives to vitalize democracy
in the field of e-participation. We will come back to these characteristics and prospects in more
detail later. We still need to evaluate the theory that we can meet tendencies toward
disenchantment and individualization by focusing on new forms of governance, creating awareness
of collaboration opportunities, and offering real participation opportunities.
2. E-democracy and e-participation as democratic enhancements? Classification and potential
Do information and communications technology (ICT) factors or electronic forms of participation
and democracy enhance democratization? In this chapter we will define the terms e-democracy
and e-participation, and sum up the current state of research in these fields.
Looking at the ICT development of the last 50 years and the future, we are now, according to “The
Seeds of the Next Big Thing” report prepared by Forrester Research,13 in the time of “IT
everywhere.” With Internet penetration above 70 percent in Austria,14 electronic communication is
now mainstream. The regions of Central and Eastern Europe generally enjoy high Internet levels
penetration: In 2009, 70 percent of this area’s population was online. Other regional leaders
include Slovenia, Estonia, Austria and the additional Baltic states (Lithuania and Latvia).15 The
Visegrád four (Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia) showed penetration above 50
percent. And often, Internet penetration does not directly correlate to its usage frequency, that is,
the frequency with which individual users go online. For instance, in Romania and Bulgaria, where
current penetration is under the regional average, a substantially higher percentage of users go
online every day than in Austria or the Czech Republic. Mobility in Europe is on the rise, and social
networks show an unforeseen growth (e.g., with Facebook gaining about 300,000 new user
profiles per day, or the significance of Web 2.0 technologies slowly being recognized by decision
12
Andreas Leef: “Leben im Schwarm. Ein neues Leitbild transformiert Gesellschaft und Märkte,” http://www.changex.de/Article/article_924 (accessed July 31, 2010) 13
Forrester Research, “The Seeds of the Next Big Thing” (June 24, 2005). 14
Austrian Internet Monitor, 1. Quartal 2010, http://mediaresearch.orf.at/index2.htm?Internet/Internet_aim.htm (accessed July 31, 2010) 15
GfK Slowakia, “Internet penetration in the CEE on the rise,” http://www.gfk.at/imperia/md/content/gfkaustria/data/press/2009/2009-02-24_Internet_penetration_in_cee.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 7 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
makers). The Barack Obama campaign’s successful use of social media and participation
strategies lead to a high public interest and media attention, but the boom we can observe in
national and international e-participation initiatives is taking place for broader reasons.
2.1. Definitions
There are a number of ways to define e-democracy and e-participation. Although these definitions
are necessary, a too-rigid separation between e-government, e-participation and e-democracy is
considered to be impracticable, as these terms often overlap. However, one can differentiate
between the various roles of citizens as customers, participators and creators, and even as
sovereigns.
In the narrowest sense, e-democracy refers to the digitalization of decision-making processes
regulated by law. In the broader sense it aims to strengthen constitutional principles, elements of
”direct” – that is, non-representative – democracy, and citizen engagement, primarily in the form of
opinion shaping and self-organizing processes. E-democracy is not only a way of using ICTs to
support democratic processes and institutions necessary in lawmaking, jurisdiction and
administration, but is also a way of enhancing and facilitating democracy itself. It is not meant to
replace traditional forms of representative democracy, but is about modernization and
endorsement of an interactive democracy.16
It is a fundamental principle of democracy that participation includes engagement in acts of
representative democracy. According to the broad definition offered by Macintosh, e-participation is
the usage of ICT in order to enhance and deepen the political participation of citizens.17 The use of
electronic technology in all public activities and societal processes, including participation in
political opinion shaping, decision-making and the provision of public services (“e-services”) is able
to strengthen constitutional principles and public engagement by individual citizens as well as
interest groups. Ideally, this increased level of interaction between citizens and politicians can
strengthen democracy. Online participation is also possible in other non-governmental areas
including socio-political commitments, citizen-to-business (C2B) and citizen-to-citizen (C2C)
activities, and non-governmental organization (NGO) activities. ICT can support and encourage
democratic change particularly in this latter sector, for example in its internal communication.
Digital networks allow for new forms of collaboration and ways of working together in public
administrations and political environments. Feedback encourages the transformation from a
monolithic state to a pluralistic network, and in the future, cooperative networks (so-called
governance webs, a term coined by Don Tapscott18) will provide public services and influence
political processes.
16
Noella Edelmann and Peter Parycek: “E-participation and E-democracy in Austria: Projects and Tenets for an E-democracy Strategy.” In A. Kaplan et al. (eds.), Advances in eGovernment & eGovernance, Proceedings 1st International Conference on eGovernment & eGovernance, March 12-13, 2009, Ankara-Turkey: 2 17
A. Macintosh, “eParticipation in policy-making: the research and the challenges,” In P. Cunningham and M. Cunningham (eds), Exploiting the Knowledge Economy: Issues, Applications and Case Studies (Amsterdam: IOS Press, 2006): 364-369 18
D. Tapscott, E-Government in the 21st century. Moving from industrial to digital government. (New
Paradigm Learning Corporation, 2004), http://www.sap.com/industries/publicsector/pdf/Misc_EGov_WhitePaper.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010)
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 8 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
2.2. Classification of e-participation initiatives
E-participation as electronic civic participation can come in two different types: formal (i.e., with a
legal basis, such as an environmental impact assessment stemming from an EU directive making
citizen participation compulsory. Such processes are often found in the area of urban
development) and informal (participation based on the voluntary decisions of administrators or
politicians, in an opinion-making).19 20 In Austria, the “standards of public participation” of the
Council of Ministers provide practical advice on this matter.21 Another factor is whether projects are
bottom-up or top-down. Bottom-up participation is usually informal, initiated and/or carried out by
individuals, temporary citizens' action groups or organizations such as NGOs, trade unions or
religious communities. However, the public administration can engage with grassroots movements
or take up suggestions from the population (for instance via complaint management), and
implement an informal participation process. One model evaluating the depth of participation looks
at the levels of intensity of e-participation. Participation can be roughly divided into four stages;
with e-participation in the narrowest sense focusing on the cooperative elements of steps three and
four. Information is the essential foundation for participation, providing the basis on which
continuing activity can evolve. Transparency increased through the use of ICT forms an
indispensable basis for informed decision-making, citizen engagement and new forms of public
private partnerships. Consultation enables the involved parties (citizens, companies, NGOs) to
express their opinion on questions posed, or to make proposals or official statements on submitted
drafts. Cooperation between the state and civil society allows participants to discuss issues with
decision makers and actively collaborate with the state. High impact in this regard requires intense,
electronically supported communication between all stakeholders, including the persons
responsible for planning and the public. Participation can finally culminate in codetermination,
when citizens make a decision, typically in conjunction with the politicians in charge.
2.3. E-participation’s potential
Using ICT in the course of democratic participation is particularly attractive to a number of target
users, including citizens living abroad, younger generations, and companies and organizations
which would otherwise not be able to participate. But ICT also offer a number of other advantages.
One of the main benefits of e-participation is the flexibility it offers in terms of time and location, as
well as the choices made available to the participants. This flexibility can be geographical – in this
sense, electronic participation combines the advantages of centralization and decentralization –
but flexibility can also be understood in terms of time. Online services can be set up quickly, can
easily be adapted to different needs and are more up to date than offline tools.
The use of ICT in participation can also offer different forms and levels of information, allowing
users themselves to decide which services to use, how to access them and what depth of
information they wish to have. Personalization allows the users to modularize, customize and
personalize their profiles, thus increasing the usability of online services and applications. Certain
19
Neubauer Kirsten and Peter Kühnberger, E-Partizipation. Bürger erfolgreich über das Internet einbinden (Vienna: Neu&kuehn, 2010) 20
PG EDEM, Whitepaper. Positionspapier zu E-Democracy und E-Participation in Österreich (Vienna: 2008): 7 21
Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft, Bundeskanzleramt and Kerstin Arbter, Praxisleitfaden zu den Standards der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (Vienna: March 2009).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 9 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
target groups can be reached more easily online,22 including citizens living abroad, so-called digital
natives (tech-savvy young people), and companies and groups with low financial or time budgets.
Interactivity is another major advantage: Today there are a number of ways users can give
feedback using non-linear features such as maps, construction documents, Web 2.0 modules or
computer-supported cooperative work (CSCW). Interactivity also improves the services offered by
public administration, as it allows quick reactions and the ability to provide further information when
required, thus improving the relationship with users.
Modern and interactive ICTs offer a number of opportunities to communicate synchronously as well
as asynchronously at the individual or mass level. The Internet’s particular strengths are its many-
to-many communication, hypertext linking and networking. The user is not restricted to the
recipient role, but is able to coproduce and broadcast information. Thus, the utilization of several
communication channels can strengthen a (democratic) discussion; while transparent discussions,
comments and feedback allow for user evaluation and control, which in turn can increase trust and
acceptance. Finally, the cost-benefit ratio is relatively favorable. High-quality services can be
provided, which, though themselves costly, allow for citizen participation and the (free) contribution
of relevant information, while reducing costs for customer support, telephone-based services and
printed documentation.
2.4. Democratization through the Internet?
When talking about initiatives to vitalize democracy, the role of ICT and the Internet is much
debated, yet undeniably crucial. Fora.tv23 recently published a debate on the question: “Does the
Internet and its unchecked nature of information threaten democracy?”24 Among the benefits, the
discussion participants noted the spread of information around the world, improved access to
information and the ability to mobilize demonstrators. Beyond these factors, the Internet can foster
deep and neutral analysis, the propagation of free information with greater transparency, and more
free speech with lower barriers of entry. People can also select news sources to reinforce their
views, although depending on the topic and form of discussion, they might still stay within their
original discursive boundaries. According to Jimmy Wales, “democracy is about deciding,” and the
Internet is very much a function of that. People engage in deep analysis online that is impossible to
find in a traditional newspaper. His theory is that democracy is enriched by the flow of information.
What is new is that although we can now all participate, the overall effects of opening up decision
processes are not yet known. By contrast, Andrew Keen argued that the “continuing and obsessive
questioning of authority” taking place in the course of Internet discussions is not democracy. In his
opinion, the Internet can reflect serious, authoritative value, but the absence of a center on the
Internet could lead democracy to suffer.25 In his controversial book “The Cult of the Amateur,”26
Keen does not focus on the productive side of user contributions as quality content, but argues that
22
PG EDEM, Whitepaper. Positionspapier zu E-Democracy und E-Participation in Österreich (Vienna: 2008): 16 23
http://fora.tv/ (accessed July 31, 2010) 24
“Does the Internet threaten democracy? A debate with Jimmy Wales, Andrew Keen, Farhad Manjoo and Micah L. Sifry.” http://fora.tv/2010/05/18/Debate_The_Internet_and_Democracy (accessed July 31, 2010). Jimmy Wales is founder of Wikipedia, Andrew Keen author of “The Cult of the Amateur,” Farhad Manjoo author of “True Enough” and Micah L. Sifry editor of the “Personal Democracy Forum.” 25
“Does the Internet threaten democracy? A debate with Jimmy Wales, Andrew Keen, Farhad Manjoo and Micah L. Sifry,” http://fora.tv/2010/05/18/Debate_The_Internet_and_Democracy (accessed July 31, 2010). 26
Andrew Keen, The Cult of the Amateur: How Today's Internet Is Killing Our Culture and Assaulting Our Economy (London: 2007).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 10 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
amateur content is threatening our values, economy, innovation and creativity. However, this
argument is now, three years later, put even more into perspective with the vast majority of people
participating in online discussions, social networks or other forms of online communication. To
exclude amateur content from the Internet could lead to a misjudgment of its value or even
discrimination, and is not a realistic option. In innovation processes, a heterogeneous crowd is
more productive than closed systems. As a recent article in Harvard Business Review on open
innovation showed, crowd-produced content and outsiders’ contributions enable enterprises to
create offerings that outstrip their own internal capabilities.27 Open innovation breaking down
traditional corporate boundaries, carried out by economies for about 10 years, allows intellectual
property, ideas and people to flow freely both into and out of an organization. One can also argue
against Keen’s thesis that the distinction between professional and amateur content is becoming
harder to draw. Moreover, the quality of a contribution is not per se related to whether its creator
was paid. When comparing a typical amateur content portal, Wikipedia, with the traditional
Encyclopedia Britannica (using a sample of articles on a wide range of subjects and based on
reviews from a field of 42 experts), a study performed by Nature concluded that Wikipedia and
Britannica were largely comparable when assessed in terms of accuracy and reliability. Eight
serious errors were discovered – four from each encyclopedia. In Wikipedia, moreover, factual
errors can be corrected instantly through the power of crowdsourcing.28 In addition, many amateur
media-like blogs already function as quality control for traditional media.
Nevertheless, with the bulk of people now participating in some way, we run the risk of measuring
the quality of political discourse by hits and clicks rather than by the quality of the content.29
Furthermore, misinformation and the egoistic behavior of a few users can jeopardize the success
of ICT tools for democratic purposes. As Sunstein points out in his book “Infotopia,” polarization
effects skew the results of joint decisions in group discussions.30 He cites an experiment with 60
American citizens discussing political topics in groups of five to seven people. After the discussion,
participants did not moderate their opinions; rather, positions even became more radical, with the
gap between liberals and conservatives increasing. Therefore, online discussions can also be a
bad instrument for aggregating information, and political groups can become even more radical
when confronted with each other. The difference between information pooling and discussions thus
needs to be considered.31 Umar Haque also argues in his “social media bubble”32 theory that the
social web in particular fuels hate against people or subjects, and that people self-organize into
very homogeneous groups, sometimes with rather narrow common interests. The former political
public has turned into a collection of target-group-specific “echo chambers.” Cass Sunstein argues
that these chambers represent one of the Internet’s most significant dangers, leading to political
communication in which people listen and talk only to like-minded individuals. According to him,
27
Henry W. Chesbrough and Andrew R. Garman, “How Open Innovation Can Help You Cope in Lean Times,” Harvard Business Review, December 2009: 68-80. 28 Matthew Fraser and Soumitra Dutta,Throwing Sheep in the Boardroom. How Online Social Networking Will Transform Your Life, Work and World, (Chichester, 2008): 221. 29
J. Jessen, “Das Netz trügt,” http://www.zeit.de/2009/24/Internetdebatte (accessed July 31, 2010). 30
C. R.: Sunstein, Infotopia. How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford: University Press, 2008). 31
Ralf Grötker, “Willkommen im Schwarm!” http://www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/23/23822/1.html (accessed July 31, 2010) 32
Urmair Haque, “The Social Media Bubble,” http://blogs.hbr.org/haque/2010/03/the_social_media_bubble.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+harvardbusiness+%28HBR.org%29 (accessed July 31, 2010)
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 11 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
citizens have a tendency to look only to reinforce their own pre-existing opinions on the Internet,
weaving themselves into “information cocoons.”33
However, most conversations around government 2.0 are based on the values of social networking
and on the assumption that networking enabled by technology will fundamentally change the way
citizens relate both to institutions and to each other.34
The question as to whether the Internet will democratize our society is one of “Crowds and Power,”
but also of the nature of the problem. Decisions borne by as many people as possible do not
necessarily have to be better. The failure or success of a decision process is rather based form of
problems themselves. As Surowiecky argues in “The Wisdom of Crowds,”35 cognitive problems can
be solved easily by a mass of individuals; however, making policy in a democracy is not cognition,
but rather a coordination problem with less than definitive answers.
Another problem is posed by the digital divide between different age groups, most notably between
groups of different social status, migration background or gender. Andy Williamson points out that
“the Internet does not of itself change an individual’s motivation to become engaged. Hansard
Society research has shown that a minority of citizens now want to be involved in decision-making
(43% nationally and 48% locally). In the United Kingdom, 57 percent of citizens do not wish to
become involved in national decision-making processes, 40 percent because of a lack of time.
Eighty-five percent feel that they exert little or no influence over decision-making at the national
level.
What the Internet does do is reduce the number of barriers to engagement, hence lowering the
motivational threshold at which citizens choose to engage.36 However, the current tendency of
strongly promoting the use of digital media as a tool in citizen engagement also includes the risk
that those people who best know how to use the Internet as a tool for information gathering and
engagement will become the new digital elite, although the general elite may also be broadened.
Experts on the digital divide, such as Ismael Peña-Lopez, point out that technological literacy in
Europe is still limited, as European citizens are not proficient or comfortable using computers and
the Internet.37 This constraint is particularly keen when abilities rather than technical access are the
subject of focus. Insufficient or varying levels of e-literacy are thus amongst the biggest barriers to
a new e-democracy.
Based on British surveys,38 the typical Internet user in the United Kingdom is of above-average
income and education, in the 25-45 age cohort, male, and educated. Late adopters often do not
see sufficient value in being online, or do not feel motivated enough to acquire the necessary skills.
Knowing that the digital divide still exists, we need to take steps not to exclude those who are
already marginalized. Otherwise, citizens with no Internet access will become further discriminated
against, and excluded from social and political activities.
Regarding the digital gap in Austria, the situation has improved since the 1990s, and at least with
regard to technical access, no significant differences can today be identified. However, differences
33
Cass Sunstein, Echo Chambers (Oxford: 2001); Miriam Meckel, “Gefangen in der Echokammer,” http://www.miriammeckel.de/2010/01/18/gefangen-in-der-echokammer/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 34
A. DiMaio, “Government 2.0 and the Social Media Bubble,” March 25, 2010 http://blogs.gartner.com/andrea_dimaio/2010/03/25/government-2-0-and-the-social-media-bubble/ (accessed July 31, 2010) 35
J. Surowiecki, The Wisdom of Crowds (New York: Doubleday, 2004) 36
Andy Williamson, “Distribution and Empowerment: Embedding Citizens at the Heart of Democracy,” EDem2010. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-Democracy (Vienna: 2010): 61. 37
Ismael Peña-Lopez, “Goverati: E-aristocrats or the delusion of e-democracy,” EDem2010. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on E-Democracy. (Vienna: 2010): 28. 38
Oxford Internet Institute, The Internet in Britain (Oxford: University of Oxford, 2007).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 12 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
can still be observed when combining usage patterns with socio-demographic data. Education and
school type are still a main criterion for access to information and knowledge through ICT. The
youth participation study performed by Maier-Rabler and Hartwig in Austria showed a permanent
structural disadvantage for pupils in a Hauptschule-type school as compared to those attending a
more prestigious Gymnasium.39 We can currently observe that the digital gap between certain
segments of society is increasing rather than decreasing, and that substantial differences
concerning patterns of usage can be identified. Therefore, the digital divide has to be described
with regard to different capabilities as opposed to access to technical infrastructure. Some experts
even see a divide based on “religious” and moral aspects of Internet use. Peter Kruse investigated
a group of heavy Internet users and identified different moral concepts responsible for the digital
gap. Whereas one group experiences online communication as a major part of their socialization,
others see it only as an instrument. Because of these different belief systems, discussions about
the relevance of the Internet often find little common ground.40
Among the other limits of technology include the fact that the Internet can still be blocked by
authorities or used by totalitarian governments to promote their ideologies. Iran runs one of the
world’s most extensive technical filtering systems,41 while China has mandated the installation of
content control software (Green Dam) on every computer sold in the country, and runs the so-
called Great Firewall of China, which blocks IP addresses and proxy servers or operates through
DNS cache poisoning. Even though the Internet provides generally various opportunities to
participate, it is also a space where anti-democratic ideas are published, attracting adherents and
becoming popular the easy way.
Despite all positive and negative effects of engagement via the Internet, 100 percent participation
is not the goal. But we can draw on the potential of the Internet to strengthen democracy through
transparency to achieve better decisions as a result of a more knowledgeable society.
Governments wanting to address the current democratic deficit need to understand that – as Mica
F. Sifry put it42 – the Internet is the “dial tone” of our time and that they act as a repository for a
tremendous amount of data. They need to move into the 21st century, stop hoarding information
and stop using “18th century metrics.”
2.5. Unexploited potential for e-participation and standardized information
From the legal perspective, participatory elements can be found at all three state levels in Austria:
legislative, administrative and juridical. In the judiciary system, (offline) participation is manifested
in the form of juries and lay judges. Generally, electronic information, communication and
transactions are quite common in Austria. Far fewer projects are planned in the area of e-
39
U. Maier-Rabler, and C. Hartwig, “e-Partizipation. Eine aktive Jugend durch neue Medien? Das aktive IKT-Nutzerverhalten von Salzburger Jugendlichen – mit besonderer Berücksichtigung von (politisch) partizipativen Formen von Internet und mobiler technischer Kommunikation,” ICT&S Research Report, (Salzburg, 2007), http://www.icts.sbg.ac.at/content.php?id=1447&m_id=1011&ch_id=1444 (accessed May 15, 2010) 40
See the talk by Peter Kruse: “What’s next?,” re:publica conference 2010, Berlin, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbD3bCijS4 (accessed July 31, 2010). 41
OPENNET Initiative, “Internet Filtering in Iran in 2006-2007,” http://opennet.net/studies/iran2007 (accessed July 31, 2010) 42
“Does the Internet threaten democracy? A debate with Jimmy Wales, Andrew Keen, Farhad Manjoo and Micah L. Sifry,” http://fora.tv/2010/05/18/Debate_The_Internet_and_Democracy (accessed July 31, 2010)
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 13 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
participation, although substantial potential exists for digital development in the areas of public
services and co-determination.43
A recent Austrian study by e-participation consultants and project developers neu&kühn (Neubauer
and Kühnberger44) dealt with the potential of e-participation by examining and analyzing 30
e-participation projects. As the consultants argued, e-participation can strengthen a local sense of
belonging, increase the efficiency of administrative actions and improve the image of a
municipality. Unfortunately, no examination of the technical dissemination of e-participation in
Austria currently exists. However, one can extrapolate from the general interest in online
participation opportunities in Germany. Successful e-participation projects focus on issues relevant
to citizens’ lives, either on a regional level (e.g., urban development) or with regard to content
(budget planning). Whereas Germany has many participation projects in this area, initiatives such
as participatory budgets are currently lacking in Austria, where the focus is decidedly not on
consultation. However, a number of bottom-up initiatives have sought to promote the collaboration
of governments with society (with a new focus on concepts such as open government and open
data), and official working groups have attempted to convey the importance of e-participation and
collaborative projects in Austria.
The reference countries for participation projects of this kind can be found in the Anglo-American
and Scandinavian countries. In these countries, both local and national initiatives can be found,
whereas the German-speaking countries have tended to focus on regional topics. While a broad
range of online information panels and platforms can be found in Austria, the process of
establishing Internet-based interaction and direct decisions remains in the early stages.45 Whereas
Germany boasts 67 cities with participatory budgeting procedures, Austria is still in the planning
process. However, the Austrian e-government strategy has been awarded a top ranking in the
Capgemini benchmarking process since 2006. As already pointed out, there is a comprehensive
body of information available (the RIS (legal information system), the Austrian one-stop-shop e-
government portal (help.gv.at), information from the parliament and the federal environmental
agency, and much more). However, there remains much unexploited potential for e-participation,
new forms of interactive software and citizen involvement.46 Governments must include e-
participation as a part of the political decision-making process in order to make use of this
potential.
3. Policies and Strategies
In Austria, strong cooperation between various stakeholders has been established in order to
extend the potential of e-participation and vitalize democracy. The Danube University Krems is
cooperating on the national and international level with all three sectors (public, private and NGOs)
and with the Austrian Federal Chancellery in policy-making and research. The research interests of
43
PG EDEM, Whitepaper. Positionspapier zu E-Democracy und E-Participation in Österreich, (Vienna, 2008). 44
Kirsten Neubauer and Peter Kühnberger, E-Partizipation. Bürger erfolgreich über das Internet einbinden, (Vienna: Neu&kuehn, March 2010). 45
UN E-Government Survey 2008, http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/UN/UNPAN028607.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010) 46
Peter Parycek and Judith Schossböck, “Neue Entscheidungskulturen in Politik und Verwaltung. E-Demokratie, E-Partizipation und deren Potenziale für Österreich.” In: GlobArt Academy 2009 (eds), Demokratie neu erfinden (Vienna: 2010): 146-151
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 14 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
the Center for E-Government at the Danube University Krems focus on the field of e-democracy
and e-participation on the national and international level. The following chapter gives an overview
of the main e-participation activities, initiatives, policies and strategies on the international level,
including the Ad Hoc Committee on E-democracy (CAHDE) of the Council of Europe and the
Austrian project group for e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM).
3.1. Ad hoc Committee on e-democracy (CAHDE, 2006-2008)
One of the starting points for national research in this area was the contribution of experts from the
Center for E-Government at the Danube University Krems and the Austrian federal administration
to the activities of the Council of Europe in the field of e-democracy. From 2006 to 2008, the Ad
Hoc Committee on E-democracy (CAHDE) developed the CM/Rec(2009)1 recommendations.47
These can be seen as the first international legal instrument aimed at setting standards in the field
of e-democracy, emphasizing among other things that:
• the principles of individual freedom, political liberty, human rights and the rule of law form the
basis of all genuine democratic systems;
• the application of democratic values, effective democratic processes, good governance and the
engagement and involvement of citizens and civil society are essential for preventing conflicts,
promoting stability and facilitating economic and social progress and cohesion at all levels;
• the acknowledgement that, while democracy is the only mode of government ensuring lasting
solutions to the political, economic, social and cultural problems facing Europe’s societies, it can
take different forms in different countries, depending on the political and constitutional traditions
and political and legal culture of each member state;
• the importance of maintaining and improving democratic institutions and processes in the
context of the new opportunities and challenges arising from the information society; and
• the recognition that information and communication technology (ICT) is progressively facilitating
the dissemination of political information and the discussion of political issues; is encouraging
wider democratic participation by individuals and groups; is enabling greater transparency and
accountability in democratic institutions and processes; and is serving citizens in other ways
that benefit democracy and society.48
3.2. Project group e-democracy and e-participation (PG-EDEM)
Additionally, Austria’s Project Group E-democracy and E-participation (PG-EDEM), an
interministerial group of external experts lead by the Center for E-Government at the Danube
University Krems by order of the Federal Chancellery, is working on these topics. The working
group on e-democracy has been active since 2006, and the significance of e-democracy,
e-participation and Web 2.0 technologies are now recognized by decision-makers. The main
objectives of this group are to strengthen and enhance democracy though the incorporation of
47
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/CAHDE/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recommendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010) 48
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/cahde/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recommendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 15 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
citizen participation and citizen knowledge, and to improve processes and results in politics,
administration and society, particularly through the usage of interactive media.
The group has been working on the preparation of a recommendation for Austria’s e-democracy
strategy since 2008, based on the Austrian Council of Ministers’ Standards for Public Participation
(Standards der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung49) and the Council of Europe’s recommendations on
electronic democracy (e-democracy). The Austrian set of standards50 provides political
recommendations and practical advice in the field of e-participation (project lead: Federal Ministry
of Agriculture, Forestry and Environment). The document includes various checklists and tips for
running e-participation projects, such the need to engage groups.
The Austrian e-democracy strategy is one important part of the overall effort to successfully
implement e-democracy and e-participation in Austria, and is strongly linked to the results of the
Council of Europe’s work with CAHDE. It is the main building block in Austria’s long-term approach
to e-democracy. Apart from this strategy, the overall approach to e-democracy includes a definition
of e-democracy principles, an overview of e-democracy and e-participation instruments with
concrete examples, a test case illuminating potential e-participation processes, as well as e-
participation building blocks such as registration, identification, data protection and voting.
The Austrian e-democracy strategy defines goals, principles, measures and projects in order to
strengthen existing democracy, democratic institutions and processes through the use of ICT. The
main goals defined include: an increase in transparency and accountability, improvement in equity
and opportunities for communication, development of new forms of participation, a more effective
implementation of participation-focused projects, and the connection of citizens with politics and
political administration by means of online platforms. This strategy is intended to serve as an
orientation point in the field of transparent information and communication in politics and
administration. As previously mentioned, one of the results of the strategy’s development was the
definition of e-democracy principles: transparency and sustainability, free access to information,
data security, digital inclusion, usability, joint responsibility, decision and feedback. The following
measures were developed as means for promotion of e-democracy values: evaluation of e-
democracy projects, interdisciplinary research, promotion of intermediates (organized civil society)
and continuing education (digital literacy).
The work group also published a position paper on e-democracy and e-participation in Austria in
2008. This paper was the basis for the development of further participation guidelines, and serves
as an introduction to administration experts and stakeholders as well as a starting point for further
activities such as collecting and classifying e-participation projects.
Furthermore, the annual conference for e-democracy (CEDEM)51 has established itself as a well-
known and international conference in the fields of e-democracy and open government.
The document offers all European governments and other stakeholders guidelines and principles
to consider when engaging in e-democracy activities. Included, for example, are recommendations
that the member states:52
49
The Standards der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung were produced by an interministerial working group and a cooperation of NGOs, external experts and chambers within the frame of a project by order of the Federal Chancellery and the Federal Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, Environment and Water Management. 50
Bundesministerium für Land- und Forstwirtschaft, Umwelt und Wasserwirtschaft and Bundeskanzleramt and Kerstin Arbter, Praxisleitfaden zu den Standards der Öffentlichkeitsbeteiligung (Vienna: March 2009). 51
http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/cedem (accessed July 31, 2010). 52
Of the Council of Europe and other international institutions such as the United Nations, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), and the European Union.
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 16 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
• make use of the opportunities afforded by e-democracy to strengthen democracy, democratic
institutions and democratic processes;
• consider and implement e-democracy as a support and enhancement of democracy, democratic
institutions and democratic processes by means of ICT, linked to the engagement and re-
engagement of citizens in democracy; and
• introduce, develop or review e-democracy policies and practices, and where it is deemed
appropriate, introduce legislation guided by the light of these principles and the guidelines
appended to, and constituting an integral part of, this recommendation.53
CAHDE also developed further recommendations for the Committee of Ministers intended to guide
future actions in the field of e-democracy within the framework of the Council of Europe’s agenda
on strengthening democracy and good governance.54
3.3. Further PG-EDEM contributions
Project Group E-democracy (PG-EDEM) is also working on “Beamte 2.0,” a guideline for the usage
of Web 2.0 tools aimed at public officers and administrative employees, to be published in the
second half of 2010. Since 2006, with reference to the results of previous projects, the group has
also been working on the “E-Government Visions 2020” policy statement. The recommendations in
this document include the enhancement of transparency and trust (e.g., active data protection),
diversity in e-government (e.g., low entry barriers and free access for everyone) and the
establishment of one-stop applications.
The abovementioned papers describe the current state of research in the field of e-participation
with reference to the topic’s definition and potential, varying states of participation, critical success
factors and opportunities for implementation. Future challenges include the following:
• Participation projects must be implemented as a part of the decision-making process in order to
avoid “pseudo-participation.”
• Who decides when to include the public? In many cases, informal (legal) decisions have already
been made before the public is officially consulted.
• Problem as to the outcome: Are the results binding or even relevant? Citizens have to believe in
the advantages of participation.
• How can citizens identify themselves in the process? The quality of identification needs to be
questioned (citizen ID card, Facebook Connect, etc.).
• Another challenge is the balance between quantity and quality (mass participation vs. elites).
Beyond these activities, PG EDEM’s Visions for 2020 project has sought to encompass new forms
of governance such as open government, or collaboration for innovation. These have already been
implemented in the business sector, where crowdsourcing and collaborative innovation as a
principle have been put to good use. The biggest challenge is to include these new principles in
53
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/activities/ggis/cahde/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/Recommendation%20CM_Rec_2009_1E_FINAL_PDF.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010). 54
http://www.coe.int/t/dgap/democracy/Activities/GGIS/CAHDE/2009/RecCM2009_1_and_Accomp_Docs/6647-0-ID8289-Recommendation%20on%20electronic%20democracy.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 17 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
top-down initiatives, as at the moment, most initiatives are being driven from the bottom up.
Furthermore, both fear of change and ignorance of the potential prevent these approaches from
being utilized in government strategies.
4. Promising approaches in the enhancement of democracy
One of the most promising approaches to the vitalization of democracy is the open government
strategy. Among its origins are the Obama administration’s three-pillar White House policy
emphasizing transparency, participation and collaboration.55 Similarly, the U.S. administration’s
Open Government Directive, part of a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and
Agencies, conveyed the importance of publishing government information online in order to create
a culture of open government.56 Keywords like openness and transparency were also part of the
Obama brand during the last presidential election in the United States.57 Discussion on the issues
of transparency and open information in America is not new, and these topics have been
discussed within the open access and open source movements for at least the last 10 years. But
apart from being addressed in the Council of Europe it is only now that these concepts are being
broadly discussed at the level of governance. For the first time, these principles and strategies
have been defined at the highest governance level with the aim of strengthening democracy,
especially in the United States and Australia.
4.1. Transparency
Transparency is one of the fundamental pillars of a democratic constitutional state. There can be
different levels of transparency, related to a system’s historical background.
Depending on the aspect of democracy being promoted, e-democracy can also employ different
techniques: tools can be variously used for increasing transparency, for enhancing citizen
participation, or for improving the quality of opinion formation by opening new sources of
information.58 In this section, emphasis will be put on transparency, with a focus on information and
open data. We will also present further initiatives addressing these concepts before summing up
current tendencies and changes in the outlook.
4.1.1. Information
One of the principles of open government is the provision of information to citizens. In the open
government idea, the state commits all government agencies and service providers to supply all
relevant information in an appropriate manner. Open information is the basis for open government,
given that only free and easy information access can facilitate participation and collaboration.
55
Barack Obama, “Transparency and Open Government,” The White House, 2009, http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government (accessed July 31, 2010). 56
“Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies: Open Government Directive,” 2009. 57
Peter P Swire, “It’s Not the Campaign Any More. How the White House is using Web 2.0 technology so far,” http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2009/06/pdf/web2.0_memo.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010). 58
http://www.edemocracyblog.com/edemocracy-blog/edemocracy-and-the-lessons-of-iraq/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 18 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Transparency based on correct information allows citizens to take democratic decisions that have
not been corrupted by a powerful elite.59
The hurdles placed in front of conventional information access are closely tied to a country’s
prevailing information culture. Within the European Union, the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act
of 1766 was an early milestone in the state’s obligation to provide the public with information. It
stated that “anyone is entitled to contact a public authority or agency in Sweden and request
access to an official document, such as a decision it has made. An individual who makes such a
request does not need to give his name or specify the purpose of his request.”60 However, while in
certain countries the publishing of free information takes place with reference to a legal framework,
the situation in Austria and Eastern Europe is more complex. In contrast to many other European
countries, the right to information does not lead to the right of citizens to access records. Unique
within the EU, official secrecy is also a part of the constitution act. Whereas in many countries, the
electronic discovery of data implies an obligation to deliver, in Austria we refer to the term “right to
information” or “access right.” The freedom of information law is called the “Auskunftsrecht,” which
means that there is a right to ask for information, but no obligation to publish it proactively (in
addition, there is a catalogue of exceptions such as “Amtsverschwiegenheit,” or official secrecy). In
an ideal world, authorities would deliver information without reference to any particular occasion. In
Australia, for instance, the obligation to publish is set as the default condition, and the Anglo-Saxon
countries have traditionally restricted information access to a relatively lesser extent. The
Bertelsmann Stiftung conducted an international comparison of freedom of information rights
based on the Banisar Study,61 comparing processing periods and administrative fees among other
things.62 Sweden holds the top position when it comes to the processing period, followed by
Hungary with a period of eight days and the United States with a 20-day processing period. Austria
is well toward the rear, showing an eight-week delay.
In Austria, there is no constitutional freedom of information right that would force the state to
continuously and actively publish information. However, in the environmental area, due to the
national implementation of the regulation 2007/2/EG, which mandated the creation of a national
environmental data portal, the offering of standardized information by the state is expected to
expand, as Austria is working on a central environmental data portal.63 As for standardized
information, this situation also applies to Eastern European countries. To date, there have been no
initiatives leading to a legal obligation to publish standardized information in these states. However,
for the new EU member states, as well as for the candidate countries, this will change in the near
future, as they too will be obliged to implement the compulsory EU national environmental data
portal.
59
Parycek and Sachs, “Open Government. Information Flow in Web 2.0,” ePractice Journal 2010, http://www.epractice.eu/en/document/313345 (accessed July 31, 2010). 60
Sveriges Riksdag, “The Freedom of the Press Act 2009,” http://www.riksdagen.se/templates/R_Page____8908.aspx (accessed January 27, 2010). 61
David Banisar, “The www.freedominfo.org Global Survey, Freedom of Information and Access to government record laws around the World,” http://www.freedominfo.org/survey.htm (accessed September 28, 2003). 62
Thomas Hart and Carolin Welzel, Informationsfreiheit und der transparente Staat (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2003). 63
for implementation reports see http://www.ref.gv.at/uploads/media/Austria_on_the_way_to_a_European_Shared_Environmental_Information_System.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 19 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
On the one hand, freedom of information is an important factor in re-democratization, and is closely
tied to open government and the transparent state,64 as citizens are more motivated to participate
in a culture defined by transparency. By embracing the principles of open government,
governments of the world could become more effective, transparent and relevant to citizens’ lives.
This could lead to changing concepts of governance, a change driven by information technology
and the changing role of the citizen.65 On the other hand, changing information hierarchies and
new forms of governance can also lead to strong conflicts. We need to think critically about where
and when transparency works. As Lessing points out, management transparency, which is
designed to make the performance of government agencies more measurable, will improve how
governments work, while making government data available to others has historically produced
enormous value.66 But according to Lessig, we need to see what comparisons the acts of
transparency will enable, and whether they are in fact meaningful. In addition, acting on the
Internet always relinquishes a certain kind of control.
Another problem in the context of open information is, again, the digital divide. How to access and
interpret governmental information and data sets is not yet well known beyond an information elite.
As documents published by public authorities are often written in sophisticated language, the
average citizen might encounter difficulties understanding the content in detail. However, projects
to enhance democracy do not always have to cater to the masses – they can also be targeted at
an elite or at intermediates who in turn make the data broadly accessible for the “average” citizen.
4.1.2. Open Data
Transparency can be put into practice with reference to two different pillars: general information
and data. Whereas the publishing of information has a longer history of discussion (often related to
a country’s information policy history) and is targeted at a broader audience, the concept of
publishing raw data, as in the open data philosophy, aims at a certain elite. While open data does
draw on open government principles, it is most remarkable that with open data the state not only
commits itself to publish information, but to publish standardized raw data. On this basis, new
intermediates can create services and applications to make data understandable for the mass. The
consequence is the formation of a broader elite that knows how to access and edit information, and
can support the cause of transparency and free information for a wider audience.
Open data requires that data be freely available to everyone, without restrictions associated with
copyright or other mechanisms of control. This means the provision of public and non-personalized
data (i.e., non-textual material) offered freely for use, ideally in a central portal. Open data
advocates have already developed a set of principles guiding this practice.67
The surplus of open data can be applied to many different contexts. The scientific community, by
publishing raw data from empirical studies for use by other scientists (a concept sometimes
defined as part of an open science policy), could put open data to good use. And as for democratic
64
Thomas Hart and Carolin Welzel, Informationsfreiheit und der transparente Staat. Eine Analyse der Bertelsmann-Stiftung. (Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Stiftung, 2003). 65
For describing the changes in information hierarchies, Mayer-Schönberger and Lazer use the term “iGovernment” (Information Government). iGovernment is concerned with analyzing the flow of information within a country and society. Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and David Lazer, “From Electronic Government to Information Government.” In: Viktor Mayer-Schönberger and David Lazer (eds), Governance and Information Technology (Cambridge & London: MIT Press, 2007): 1-14. 66
Lawrence Lessig: “Against Transparency. The perils of openness in government,” http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0 (accessed July 31, 2010). 67
http://wiki.opengovdata.org/index.php?title=OpenDataPrinciples (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 20 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
value, the innovative strength of society has been calculated in the contest “apps for democracy.”68
This contest, held in Washington D.C. in 2009, invited software developers to compete to create
the best new applications designed to make D.C. government data more accessible and useful for
the public. The competition asked developers to create mashup applications for District data using
popular consumer technologies such as the iPhone, Facebook, Google Maps and others. The
entries were judged by an appointed jury based on criteria including usefulness to citizens,
usefulness to government and originality. The contest carried a prize value of $20,000 and
generated 47 applications for the Internet, iPhone and Facebook. The project’s return on
investment was calculated at $2.3 million.
Open data principles involve the provision of raw data, ideally via open APIs (application
programming interfaces), which enable externally developed mashup services developed either for
profit or nonprofit applications. One such example is the central data portal of the U.S. government
(http://www.data.gov). There are other examples of transparency and cooperation at federal
level69, but bigger cities too are planning to provide access to raw data from numerous
administrative databases. Another city offering new data sets on an ongoing basis is San
Francisco (http://datasf.org).70 Based on this data, several websites and iPhone applications have
been developed by external programmers.71 Australia’s government offers another central data
portal (http://data.australia.gov.au), enabling outside programmers to use the data in creating new
services and applications. For each data set, there are licenses defining what users can and
cannot do with the data.
Open data can offer great benefit to society, but also bears certain risks, as shown in the
visualization of existing data on hazardous waste sites on maps by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),72 which resulted in an immediate adjustment of real
estate prices. Houses situated near hazardous waste sites were subjected to an extreme loss in
value, leading to immense financial losses by individuals. In Austria, data on hazardous waste sites
is also open information, but is available only in print form. How to access this data is not well
known; consequently only an information elite – such as professional estate agents – knows how
to access and process the information. The efficiency of this example is beyond dispute, but it
raises the question of whether a society is always willing to accept the results.
Both open government and open data are the basis of a self-concept of a government grounded in
the obligation to publically provide information for which citizens have paid through taxes. The
concepts provide the opportunity to benefit from citizen involvement and knowledge, by providing
platforms where collaboration among citizens or between citizens and the state can take place.
4.1.3. Bottom-up initiatives
If governments do not reinforce open information and the development of data portals, it is very
likely that society will do so on its own. Two examples of bottom-up open data initiatives are the
Open Data Network,73 which fosters access to data, open government, transparency and
participation, and the Offene Daten74 portal in Germany, which aims to make open data in
68
http://www.appsfordemocracy.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 69
http://opendata.gov/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 70
http://datasf.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 71
http://datasf.org/showcase/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 72
http://www.epa.gov/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 73
http://opendata-network.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 74
http://offenedaten.de/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 21 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Germany more traceable and usable, and includes data from politics, public administration,
libraries, science and research institutions.
Likewise, and as opposed to the government-initiated portals in the United Kingdom, the United
States, Australia or New Zealand (top-down approaches), most initiatives in Austria are driven from
the bottom up, started by civil society elements such as semantic web enthusiasts or interested
non-governmental parties.75 Activists seek to convey the importance of open data via non-
governmental initiatives. However, transparency, raw data and mashups are included in the
Visions for 2020 project defined by Federal Chancellery’s Digital Austria platform.
For prospective or flagship projects, potential data sets need to be identified. At the Open
Government Data Meeting in May 2010, participants initially defined the following areas as
promising and potential sources of data: geolocation, public promotions and sponsorship services,
infrastructure, the environment, security and health. Based on a community ranking, data on
infrastructure and the environment has the biggest evident potential. From an Austrian perspective,
the publication of financial data does not appear to have a big potential. It was argued that this will
take much more time, as this form of data is “untouchable” for Central and Eastern European
countries at the moment.
As an example of an initiative in Eastern Europe striving for more transparency, the Open Society
Institute76 has teamed up with mySociety77 – a community of volunteers and open-source
programmers – to help people in Central and Eastern Europe build transparency and democracy
websites suited to the needs and realities of their local political environments. In the United
Kingdom, mySociety runs a variety of sites such as TheyWorkForYou.com, FixMyStreet.com, and
the freedom of information website WhatDoTheyKnow.com. As there are many people outside the
United Kingdom longing to build similar sites that help increase transparency and accountability in
their own government institutions, a call for proposals for participants in Central and Eastern
Europe has been launched. Through this effort, mySociety is looking for projects that – either
because of a lack of funds or appropriate skills – cannot be started by citizens. The group is
particularly interested in projects aiming at providing increased transparency in government
spending, and collaboration with civil society is an important factor. They argue that “in this area …
it’s not enough to simply build some fancy reports on currently existing data (useful as that might
be). To meet our criteria, it’s important to build something that can run with minimal human
involvement: regularly spidering official data sources, converting them into usable formats, and
updating the site with the results.”78 One of the shortlisted projects, (“Don’t vote blindly”79) offers an
answer to several problems: a need to spread knowledge about elections and candidates who are
running for local government positions, a need for information about self-government institutions,
and a need to promote the active participation of citizens in public life. According to research
carried out by the Public Opinion Research Center in 2006, the statement “I don’t know who to vote
for” is the most common reason for voter abstention. To address this problem, project leaders want
to create a mechanism of communication between candidates and voters, which will motivate
candidates to increase their engagement in campaigns, and encourage voters to become more
aware and proactive while deciding who to vote for.
75
http://gov.opendata.at/site/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 76
http://www.soros.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 77
The project page is http://cee.mysociety.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 78
http://cee.mysociety.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 79
http://cee.mysociety.org/cfp/2009/11/don%E2%80%99t-vote-blindly-kandydaci2010-pl-%E2%80%93-civic-monitoring-of-candidates-running-in-local-elections/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 22 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
4.2. Participation and collaboration
In the context of “Government 2.0,” public value no longer needs to be provided by the government
alone, but can be provided by any combination of public agencies, the private sector, community
groups or citizens.80 The biggest current challenge for many governments is a lack of money
available to deliver services and to establish a framework in which the government itself takes the
lead in defining these new institutional governance roles, while still effectively using the innovative
capacity of the society. The closed, hierarchal model of government is becoming increasingly
untenable, but the public administration has not yet found its new role in this virtualized
environment. The informal, non-hierarchical nature of mass collaboration, facilitated by electronic
communication technology, has not yet been fully endorsed by public administrations. The
traditional organizational structure of public administration is that of a hierarchical, closed entity. As
mentioned in the previous section examples of peer production in public administration exist, either
triggered by the administrations themselves or as bottom-up approaches. With free collaborative
tools at hand, citizens can engage on a self-directed basis, and create the services that the public
administration has failed to provide.
As a starting point, participation and mass collaboration can be compared. Any collaboration model
requires a certain degree of transparency. Participation in this sense can be seen as a traditional
form of participation in a joint activity, seeking common solutions for problems and challenges that
are affecting a number of people or the society as a whole. The Austrian Standards for Public
Participation introduced in section three should serve as a useful document in the solution of these
problems.
On the one hand, new media enables government administrations to use new instruments of mass
collaboration to find solutions to outstanding problems. On the other hand, high numbers of
participants in collaborative work do not necessarily produce high-quality results.
According to Pisano et al,81 different models of collaboration can support innovation, depending on
governance structure (flat vs. hierarchical) and forms of participation (closed vs. open). The
advantage of these forms of collaboration is that the community produces new ideas, which are
often beyond the traditional scope of organizational thinking.82
We would suggest another model focusing on the two forms of state processes in reference to
Tapscott, and on Pisano’s open innovation approach. First, the innovation mall and innovation
community are concepts (Pisano) defined either by a flat or relatively more governed community.
In a second step, we can distinguish projects and initiatives along two separate dimensions:
administration and policies. The Center for E-government is currently focusing strongly on the
research field of open concepts, innovation communities and innovation malls.
4.2.1. Innovation communities for policy-making
Innovation is the driving force behind economic growth and wealth in society. The concept of an
innovation community generally addresses all people who are willing to provide solutions for
change in many fields. The advantage of open participation is that new ideas, which extend well
beyond the scope of traditional organizational thinking, might be surfaced by the community. The
80
D.Tapscott, A.D. Williams and D. Herman, Government 2.0: Transforming government and governance for the twenty-first century (New Paradigm, 2007): 5 81
Pisano et al. “Which kind of collaboration is right for you?”, HBR, December 2008. 82
The challenging part is incorporating these new ideas in actual problem solutions.
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 23 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
challenging part is determining whether these new ideas can actually be incorporated in effective
problem-solving. This is especially true for hierarchical decision structures, where the public
administration reserves the right to decide which ideas to capture and which to reject. However, if
too many ideas for solutions and changes are rejected, it is very likely that the community will be
distracted.
This concept was used by the U.S. administration during the Open Government Dialogue.83 The
goal of this project was to solicit suggestions from citizens for improvement of the federal
government and its agencies. The discussion allowed everyone’s free opinion to be expressed as
long as it was legally and morally appropriate. In May 2009, the Obama administration started this
participatory initiative, which gave citizens the opportunity to submit their ideas, discuss and refine
others' ideas, and vote for the best ones. Less than 1 percent of U.S. citizens actively used the
participation platform (O’Dell, 2009). Nevertheless the U.S. administration continues to promote the
use of information and communication technology to include citizens in democratic processes,
given that several notable suggestions were discussed thoroughly.
Given the strong innovative potential of these methods, they offer the chance to integrate
collaboration concepts and the potential latent within the informed mass (i.e., the citizens) into the
administrative reform process now facing a majority of states. Again, this could successfully be
implemented with the help of innovation communities.
4.2.2. Innovation mall for legislative and administrative procedures
One example of collaboration during a legislative process is offered by New Zealand’s police act
review. Dating back to 1958, New Zealand’s police act was known for being hard to comprehend
from the public point of view, and was ultimately a poor public relations tool. A wiki version of the
act was launched in September 2007 as an innovative way to capture public views on what a new
police act might look like. This project produced a strong example of the utilization of collaborative
technologies in the writing of laws. In total, 234 opinions were collected.84 The review was
completed on September 5, 2008, and become effective October 1, 2008. The Wiki Act received
nearly 26,000 visits,85 with the vast majority of hits coming as referrals from links in online news
stories.
The outcome of the process showed that the involvement of the public was of high quality even if
only a very small amount of visitors became active. This approach helps to strengthen the trust of
citizens in the government and the administration in general, and in this case in the New Zealand
police force in particular, but in a narrow sense it cannot be seen as a direct contribution to the
strengthening of democracy.
An example of collaborative production in administrative procedures is the Peer To Patent project
in the United States.86 In 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USTPO) was
confronted with a backlog of about 800,000 patent applications. With these numbers in mind, and
the rate at which patents were granted, it would have taken years to obtain a patent grant. Thus,
Peer to Patent was focused on helping patent officers perform high-quality examinations of
pending patent applications by enlisting the public to help find and explain prior art, accelerating
the process overall. In this example, the knowledge of the crowd is incorporated into a decision
processes which requires very specific, in-depth knowledge, through the establishment of an open 83
http://opengov.ideascale.com/ (accessed July 31, 2010). 84
http://www.policeact.govt.nz/pdf/public-views-on-policing.pdf (accessed July 31, 2010). 85
http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/gazette/vol70n1/fea-ved1-eng.htmv (accessed July 31, 2010). 86
http://www.peertopatent.org/ (accessed July 31, 2010).
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 24 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
collaboration portal. The governance model is flat in that all participants have equal power in
making comments and suggestions; however, their voices represent mere recommendations to the
patent office clerk, who has the final say as to the relevance of the prior art submitted. This is an
example of a self-service society application, in which through collaboration, the citizen helps the
administration to improve services and the quality of procedures.
4.2.3. Impetus of third parties or borders becoming blurred
With the rise of ICT, the access barrier for coordination in mass collaboration has dropped. But in
the same time, the amount of available information, meaningful or not, has drastically increased:
More people have easier access to an ever-increasing amount of information, and have tools to
creatively combine, reshape and re-purpose this information. At a certain point, the people’s voice
can no longer be ignored, either by the government (representing their electoral vote) or the state
administration (in its role carrying out public policies). One excellent example of the potential held
by citizen-driven bottom-up movements is shown by Folkets Ting (Danish for “Peoples Parliament,”
found at http://www.folketsting.dk). Founded by reboot.dk, a community event focused on digital
change and culture, the project started reposting laws and speeches from the Danish Parliament
website on its own website, allowing visitors to debate and vote on the issues themselves. At one
point, the website became so successful that the administration could no longer ignore it. The input
in the blogs and comments on bills was valued enough by government representatives that they
approached reboot.dk and asked for changes which would be helpful for the government.
Ironically, the website was awarded a prize for accessible and citizen-centric content, a prize
previously reserved for government websites.87
4.2.4. Key drivers and obstacles
As users typically use their spare time to focus the talents necessary for high quality collaboration,
collaborative platforms must give credit to contributors. Collaborators must realize that their
contributions are valued, and that their work has recognizable impact on the public administration
that runs the collaboration platform. Even though users may not be academic experts, many will
have in-depth knowledge on the issues they decide to contribute to. Exchanging knowledge and
ideas enhances the knowledge base of the whole collaborative community. A diversity of users is
desirable, as innovation is triggered by merging different opinions, standpoints and ideas. Factors
that drive users to participate voluntarily and actively in a collaborative production system might
include the following motivations, among others:
• to join a community of peers and establish new contacts;
• to gain respect from peers and good reputation for qualitative contributions;
• to contribute in fields that are of major interest to collaborators (private and business);
• to gain insights into latest developments in a certain field; and
• an altruistic attitude and the wish to improve society.
Ideally, a good mixture of motivating factors and key drivers will lead to successful projects, as
different users have different needs.
87
J. Gøtze and C.B. Pedersen (eds.), State of the eUnion (Copenhagen: 2009): 196-205.
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 25 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
Another critical factor in success is the number and quality of contributions. Collaborative
production systems in e-government can attract input from external collaborators and produce
output from the result. In public administration circles, this can be applied to policy-making as well
as service delivery. Collaboration does not need mass participation; indeed, even the most
successful collaboration systems, such as Wikipedia or Linux, are based on high-quality
contributions by a minority of users. The collaborative production processes for Wikipedia and
Linux were based on already-existing content, when it became crucial to initiate a collaborative
momentum within these projects. A critical mass of participants is needed to run collaborative
processes and to create a momentum within the processes.
One of the main obstacles is that government officials work in hierarchical structures, and have to
adapt their working guidelines to network structures within these communities. But all users of a
collaborative production system must be empowered equally if they collaborate to any substantial
extent. This is valid for official agents and private-sector or business collaborators.
Collaborative production must be taken seriously by high-level officials and spokespersons. Even if
collaboration platforms are not successful in their early days, a long-term perspective must be
utilized.
4.3. Outlook: Empowering citizens through transparency and collaboration
As outlined above, the progressive enablement of citizens and social innovation is based on the
availability of authorized, broad-ranging information. Transparency and participation are motivating
factors that could lead to a re-democratization of our society. But to make this happen, and to
make use of the knowledge of citizens, governments need to implement open government and
open data principles in order to adapt to changing values of governance, and to include society-
held knowledge in policy-making and administrative processes. Creating awareness of open
government, open data and collaborative governance ideas and initiatives is an important part of
this course change.
The first step – enabling citizens by offering them the ability to build opinions on the basis of
secure/authorized and broad-ranging information – will require a radical change in roles, and a new
mindset on the part of officials within Central and Eastern European government administrations.
For instance, citizens should not need to argue why they deserve access to information. At the
moment, governments and administration are fighting against the loss of administrative
sovereignty. This is especially true in Eastern European countries, due to the government and
administrative traditions left over from the former communist systems. “Getting naked” is harder for
governments than it might seem. Though transparency is desirable when discussing the use of
social media tools in a governmental context, it remains debatable whether governments in Central
and Eastern Europe will accept this change. Christina Gagnier raises the question of whether the
“Government 2.0 demand for websites and tweets” has swept the general idea of radical
transparency aside by focusing too much on the use of social media.88 It is clear that creating
upgraded websites and social media solutions alone (sometimes as a form of reputation
management) will not lead to a change in the perception of the political and administrative system.
As for enhancing democracy, it is a combination of participation, engagement, collaboration and
cooperation that we should be aiming for.
88
Christina Gagnier, “Government 2.0. Getting Naked is Harder Than It Seems,” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina-gagnier/government-20-getting-nak_b_542415.html (accessed July 31, 2010)
Vitalizing Democracy through E-Participation and Open Government: | Page 26 An Austrian and Eastern European Perspective
As services alone do not lead to democratization, governments have to make sure to integrate
citizens’ knowledge by fostering a culture of collaborative production, even in a traditionally
hierarchical environment. The potential of the informed mass (the citizens) lies in what they know,
what they create, how they rate solutions, and how they use their money (in the form of micro-
loans89). A flat governance model is likely to encourage user contributions, while open models offer
more potential for innovation. For now, neither Austria nor the Eastern European states have a flat
governance structure that would facilitate stronger contributions by their citizens.
In terms of reaching the goal of enabling citizens through information and collaboration, legislative
amendments and policies are necessary. The state has to provide a basic set of information, data
and applications. Additionally, society should define limits and enhance the ethics discourse in the
context of open government and open data flow. A culture of open information as the basis for
collaboration and participative decision-making could then transform our current political and
administrative system and fight political disenchantment’s root cause: A lack of real participation
opportunities in today’s non-transparent system.
89
J. Howe, Crowdsourcing: Why the Power of the Crowd Is Driving the Future of Business (Three Rivers Press, 2009):146-258