the emergence of digital governance

3
december2008 176 The emergence of digital The emergence of digital governance governance The need for digital governance There is certainly no question that a large pro- portion of western society is drifting away from political activity. The US presidential election that has just sent Barack Obama to the White House may prove a welcome contra-indication of that, with a big increase in the numbers register- ing to vote; but, in general, activities such as voting in elections and joining political parties are in steep decline. This growing apathy to- wards formal political processes does nothing to change current political policies but it does risk undermining representative democracy. Our cur- rent model of democracy is required to provide a fundamental legitimacy to political decision making and policy formation. However, when that representation is through people elected by only a minority of the electorate, this brings the very legitimacy of decision making into ques- tion. In a number of European countries where vot- ing is not obligatory, there has been a growing decline in the number of people willing to turn out and vote in local, national and European- level elections. The European Parliament was directly elected for the first time in 1979 and at each election since then the voter turnout has fallen across Europe by, on average, 2–3% every 5 years. The turnout in the 2004 elections followed a similar downward trend with the aver- age turnout in Portugal approximately 38.6%; in Slovakia it was even lower at 16.96% (for addi- tional figures see www.europarl.europa.eu/ elections2004/ep-election/sites/en/ results1306/turnout_ep/index.html). We can only wait and see what happens in the 2009 election but, certainly, MEPs are concerned and many are already considering how digital tech- nologies could support their campaign and sub- sequent re-election. I am currently undertaking a study (www.european-eparticipation. eu/) commissioned by the European Commission to produce recommendations that will be able to assist the European Parliament and the European Commission harness the benefits of information technology to enable better legislation and bet- ter decision making at all levels of government as well as promoting public participation in such processes. At the national level, in the UK’s 2001 par- liamentary general election, voter turnout fell to 59.4%, its lowest level since the election of 1918 and down from 71.6% in 1997. The situation is similar in other liberal democratic countries. Turnout at elections is not the only indicator of apathy and dissatisfaction. Figures from a 2005 YouGov online polling survey of UK citizens showed that the bond between voters and their representatives is very weak indeed: 72% of the sample surveyed reported feeling “disconnected” from Parliament, of whom 46% felt “very discon- nected”. A 2006 survey on political engagement undertaken in the UK by the Electoral Commis- sion in conjunction with the Hansard Society indicated that most adults do not feel they know much about politics, with only 14% saying that they are politically active. It is clear from the increasingly low turnout at elections, and similar indicators, that traditional democratic processes do not effectively engage people. The situation has reached such levels that there is a serious democratic deficit across Europe. The core princi- ple of representative democracy is the participa- tion of citizens as demonstrated by their voting in elections. The most commonly quoted reason for not voting is that politicians do not listen. This is leading to a situation where citizens feel a loss of ownership in the democratic process and where the “representativeness” of elected assemblies is put into question. In the USA, the decline in civic participation has been explored by Robert Putnam from Har- vard in his influential work Bowling Alone 1 . He argues that there is a need for citizens to come face to face to discuss issues; such meetings, he says, help individuals learn the necessary negotiation skills and appreciate the viewpoints of others—skills that are essential for a thriving democracy. However, with the introduction of home-based technologies such as the television, the public are staying at home and not going out to join civil societies; social capital, therefore, is decreasing. James Fishkin from Stanford Univer- sity argues the need for “mass” deliberation by citizens instead of “elite” deliberation by elected representatives (see http://cdd.stanford. edu/polls/docs/summary/). Instant reac- tions, as canvassed by opinion polls, telephone surveys and television call-ins, are no substitute. They do not allow time to think through issues and hear the competing arguments of others. “A major part of the problem of democratic reform is how to promote mass deliberation,” says Fishkin, “how to bring people into the process under conditions where they can be engaged to think seriously and fully about public issues.” There are two important consequences of public disengagement from politics. One is that Barack Obama won the American Election in a campaign in which Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were key elements and the internet was used as never before. But after the election, what next? Can digital technologies help citizens to participate in government as well as to elect it? Ann Macintosh examines the future of digital governance.

Upload: ann-macintosh

Post on 23-Jul-2016

226 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: The emergence of digital governance

december2008176

T h e e m e r g e n c e o f d i g i t a l T h e e m e r g e n c e o f d i g i t a l g o v e r n a n c eg o v e r n a n c e

The need for digital governance

There is certainly no question that a large pro-portion of western society is drifting away from political activity. The US presidential election that has just sent Barack Obama to the White House may prove a welcome contra-indication of that, with a big increase in the numbers register-ing to vote; but, in general, activities such as voting in elections and joining political parties are in steep decline. This growing apathy to-wards formal political processes does nothing to change current political policies but it does risk undermining representative democracy. Our cur-rent model of democracy is required to provide a fundamental legitimacy to political decision making and policy formation. However, when that representation is through people elected by only a minority of the electorate, this brings the very legitimacy of decision making into ques-tion.

In a number of European countries where vot-ing is not obligatory, there has been a growing decline in the number of people willing to turn out and vote in local, national and European-level elections. The European Parliament was directly elected for the fi rst time in 1979 and at each election since then the voter turnout has fallen across Europe by, on average, 2–3% every 5 years. The turnout in the 2004 elections followed a similar downward trend with the aver-age turnout in Portugal approximately 38.6%; in Slovakia it was even lower at 16.96% (for addi-tional fi gures see www.europarl.europa.eu/ elections2004/ep-election/sites/en/results1306/turnout_ep/index.html). We can only wait and see what happens in the 2009 election but, certainly, MEPs are concerned and many are already considering how digital tech-nologies could support their campaign and sub-sequent re-election. I am currently undertaking a study (www.european-eparticipation.eu/) commissioned by the European Commission to produce recommendations that will be able to assist the European Parliament and the European Commission harness the benefi ts of information technology to enable better legislation and bet-ter decision making at all levels of government as well as promoting public participation in such processes.

At the national level, in the UK’s 2001 par-liamentary general election, voter turnout fell to 59.4%, its lowest level since the election of 1918 and down from 71.6% in 1997. The situation is similar in other liberal democratic countries. Turnout at elections is not the only indicator of apathy and dissatisfaction. Figures from a 2005 YouGov online polling survey of UK citizens showed that the bond between voters and their representatives is very weak indeed: 72% of the sample surveyed reported feeling “disconnected” from Parliament, of whom 46% felt “very discon-nected”. A 2006 survey on political engagement undertaken in the UK by the Electoral Commis-sion in conjunction with the Hansard Society

indicated that most adults do not feel they know much about politics, with only 14% saying that they are politically active. It is clear from the increasingly low turnout at elections, and similar indicators, that traditional democratic processes do not effectively engage people. The situation has reached such levels that there is a serious democratic defi cit across Europe. The core princi-ple of representative democracy is the participa-tion of citizens as demonstrated by their voting in elections. The most commonly quoted reason for not voting is that politicians do not listen. This is leading to a situation where citizens feel a loss of ownership in the democratic process and where the “representativeness” of elected assemblies is put into question.

In the USA, the decline in civic participation has been explored by Robert Putnam from Har-vard in his infl uential work Bowling Alone1. He argues that there is a need for citizens to come face to face to discuss issues; such meetings, he says, help individuals learn the necessary negotiation skills and appreciate the viewpoints of others—skills that are essential for a thriving democracy. However, with the introduction of home-based technologies such as the television, the public are staying at home and not going out to join civil societies; social capital, therefore, is decreasing. James Fishkin from Stanford Univer-sity argues the need for “mass” deliberation by citizens instead of “elite” deliberation by elected representatives (see http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/). Instant reac-tions, as canvassed by opinion polls, telephone surveys and television call-ins, are no substitute. They do not allow time to think through issues and hear the competing arguments of others. “A major part of the problem of democratic reform is how to promote mass deliberation,” says Fishkin, “how to bring people into the process under conditions where they can be engaged to think seriously and fully about public issues.”

There are two important consequences of public disengagement from politics. One is that

Barack Obama won the American Election in a campaign in which Facebook, YouTube and Twitter were key elements

and the internet was used as never before. But after the election, what next? Can digital technologies help citizens

to participate in government as well as to elect it? Ann Macintosh examines the future of digital governance.

Page 2: The emergence of digital governance

december2008 177

the interests of those whose needs are the most acute in society are not upheld by the minority who participate—the poor, in other words, get left out. The second is that government loses out as well: it loses the benefi ts of participation. With its contributors limited to a small pool, it loses the extension of its sources of “expert” ad-vice, and the feeling of collective responsibility that leads to greater respect for the law. It loses the belief that the law is drawn up with the full-est possible regard for the health of society.

On the other hand it has also been recog-nised that not everyone will actually participate and that there are many reasons why not all people are equal to this effort. However, until a way is found to ease this task the government is in a dilemma: either it must accept only a partial section of participants, and thereby create policy formed by a minority of people, or it must accept indiscriminately, from all, and thereby create policy that is infected by unreasoned judge-ment.

The technology for digital governance

Although democratic outcomes are not always certain, there is little doubt that new technol-ogy offers possibilities to strengthen participa-tory discussion. It can create virtual meetings that are independent of time, place or physical presence. Busy men and women do not have to take time off from work, family or home to join in and voice their views; nor do they have to travel.

This potential for technology to enhance de-mocracy by increasing political participation has been the subject of academic debate for a number of years. The arrival of more sophisticated digital technologies has produced a growing community of research and practice, which is investigating the use of such technology to re-engage people with the democratic process. Its aim is to make decision making more transparent, inclusive and accessible.

Governments have every reason to encourage people to participate but the hope must be that contributions will be based upon refl ection and a familiarity with the issue under consideration rather than on snap judgements and ignorance. Yet even the most diligent citizen would baulk at the task of uncovering and deliberating upon the wealth of material generally associated with political issues. Not only has the government to convince the population that it is worthwhile taking an active interest in policy creation, but also it has to fi nd innovative ways of presenting the continually accumulating amounts of mate-rial, without reference to which any contribution is likely to be of limited use.

Nowadays a large range of technologies are available to form the basis for digital governance initiatives. To support public engagement these tools need to facilitate:

• access to and analysis of factual informa-tion, which implies catering for the diverse technical and communication skills of peo-ple;

• preference formation, and expressing this opinion to others;

• community building, which helps foster trust and supports acceptance of emerging decisions.

Until relatively recently digital governance initiatives typically made use of generic group-ware systems such as discussion forums. Howev-er, it is now well recognised that these systems, when used in isolation, do not provide specifi c support for public engagement. An alternative is available. So-called “social networking” software already exists on the internet, in forms such as MySpace and Facebook. Unlike discussion forums they attract large numbers of users. They sustain a great deal of interaction, content generation and the development of loosely coupled commu-nities. They provide the forum for much discus-sion and interaction and they have some kind of informal structure to them. Key to all of them is that they are primarily user-driven.

Both sides in the 2008 American presidential elections found sites such as Facebook of huge importance. Candidates’ television blunders were widely re-posted, and re-visited, on YouTube. And the ability to exploit the internet seemed to bring rewards.

According to the Pew Research Centre, Obama’s campaign website consistently attracted about three times the traffi c of the website of his oppo-nent, John McCain. On Facebook, Obama had 2.2 million “friends” compared with McCain’s 745,000. On MySpace, Obama had 588,000 friends; McCain had 188,000. Obama’s web team included Chris Hughes, the 24-year-old co-founder of Facebook; they succeeded in integrating online activities with real world actions, and reached out to sup-porters through a multitude of platforms—from emails to SMS messages, and from viral videos to posts on the new medium of the moment,

the Twitter cellphone network. Obama took out advertisements embedded in video games, urging voters to head early for the polls. In contrast, although McCain used internet advertising to his advantage, his use of the net seemed to analysts to be almost an afterthought, and old-fashioned, not designed to appeal to the vital young voting demographic but, perhaps, to their parents.

These web media proved good for representa-tive government, in that they gave a voice to ordinary people at election time and may have encouraged more people to vote. But Facebook, YouTube and the rest are informal systems. The question they addressed in the election was, es-sentially, a simple one of two choices: to vote for Obama or for McCain. And there was a cut-off date—4th November, 2008: election day.

Most problems faced by government are not as straightforward as a two-choice vote. They are what Rittel and Webber2 described in the 1970s as “wicked” problems (see box). Wicked problems do not have a simple yes or no answer; they do not have a cut-off date but develop through time. They do not have “right” or “wrong” an-swers; responses may be better or worse, or lead to differing consequences that pose wicked prob-lems in themselves. Examples of such “wicked” problems are “How do you tackle urban depri-vation?”, “How do you end international drugs traffi cking?”, “What do you do about climate change?”. The voicing of an opinion about them is of limited use unless the arguments that have led to that opinion are also stated and can be read, followed through and debated. Facebook, YouTube and the other social network sites may have helped in electing a President. How useful can they be in helping to decide the policy of a government once it has been elected?

Previous digital governance research has analysed the quality of contributions and in-teractions from online consultations. These are different from social networking sites. They are formal mechanisms: consultation exercises that elicit opinion on key public issues in order to guide the decisions of policy makers.

Wicked problems

Wicked problems were described in the 1970s by Horst Rittel and Melvin Webber2 of the Uni-versity of California, Berkeley as “messy”, “circular” and “aggressive”. They contrasted them to “tame” problems such as those of mathematics or chess, which have clear solutions. Wicked problems on the other hand:• cannot be usefully defi ned in a way that everyone can agree upon (a classic “wicked”

problem is “How do you solve terrorism?”—where even the words “solve” and “terrorism” are open to debate);

• have no clear place to stop; • have no right and wrong solutions, only better and worse ones; • have no objective measure of success;• have to be tackled by discussion rather than logical analysis.

They abound in engineering, economics, law and politics. “How can peace be achieved in the Middle East?”, “How can climate change be tackled?” and “What should we do about under-age drinking?” are all wicked problems.

As is “What form of democracy is best?”.

Page 3: The emergence of digital governance

december2008178

Such research has ignored the existence of the community-based networking sites, but it is now recognised that a great amount of con-sultation on policy issues is taken up by the public sphere social software sites. On Facebook, YouTube and the rest we see civil society discuss-ing policy issues independently of government. As researchers we need to understand this spon-taneous citizen participation on the internet and the ways in which these new social networking opportunities form opinion and shape political agendas. We are studying how effectively online consultations are inter-connected with social network sites discussing the same public policy issues. We are also looking for evidence of how the discussion and opinions fl ow in and across these sites.

As noted earlier, discussion forums do not provide an effective or effi cient environment to allow users to become informed, or to refl ect on and share views on complex public issues—the “wicked” problems. We need to consider more innovative technologies. Here at the Centre for Digital Citizenship in Leeds we are exploring the use of computer-supported argumentation sys-tems. Such systems already exist outside the po-litical domain and have been used successfully, mainly in the domains of Law and Education3. They have been developed in response to a need for innovative and effective ways of teaching critical thinking, presenting and defending a point of view and providing complex information in an organised and easily accessible fashion. Their function, essentially, is to enable people to appreciate practical problems in their entirety and then articulate a reasoned solution.

They impose structure on a problem. They do it typically by using visualisation techniques, as well as supporting communication and interac-tion between users of the system. The goal of participation is to engage citizens in dialogues with government; to give them not only an opportunity to offer suggestions about policy, plans or legislation, but also to support these suggestions with arguments. The potential of ar-gumentation systems here should be readily ap-parent. Such systems support and facilitate the making of practical decisions, ensuring that the decision-making process is effi cient, transparent, open, fair and rational. Not surprisingly, these issues have much in common with the goals of good (digital) governance.

A collection of geographical maps represent-ing different aspects such as population distribu-tion, physical relief and meteorological conditions increases a person’s appreciation of that region. Similarly, a series of argument maps, or argument visualisations, covering the evolution of a partic-ular policy can fl esh out the viewer’s understand-ing of what is taking place. Such maps need to represent and contain parliamentary committee debates, statements from experts, consultations and other material that forms the evidence-base for the policy development.

I describe this collection of argument maps as a “memory”4; involving the citizen in policy creation can be achieved by providing them with a policy record to which they can refer in checking for consistency of stance as well as for comprehensiveness of coverage. It should also provide a means by which the citizen can trace the impact of their contribution and encourage the government to publicise the input received along with their response to it. Doing so will overcome one of the main barriers to citizen participation, which is that citizens believe poli-ticians are indifferent to their contributions. As such, the “memory” is designed with the general public in mind—a public that may lack a special-ist’s knowledge of policy development, but which may have an interest in following a particular bill through its various stages and want to lobby their representative should the bill appear to be defi cient. The “memory” is also intended to be

of use to more sophisticated users, such as non-governmental organisations, who may want to monitor the direction policy takes in its progress through parliament.

The concept of a “policy memory” is seen as comprising all the relevant data, information and knowledge, including expert-statements, consultation contributions and parliamentary debates for example, all presented as a number of visualisation maps. These maps are directly supported by links with the source documents upon which they are based. Taken as a whole, these maps should provide all the information a person needs to be informed about their rep-resentative, the views canvassed in the debate, the strength of the arguments and where oppor-tunities lie to contribute to the policy creation. This needs to be more than a simple “I agree/disagree” affair—it needs to fulfi l the expecta-tion that the citizen has something to contribute to the policy.

Social networking software and argumenta-tion systems are just two examples of ongoing research in this important area of digital govern-ance. Other areas are concerned with collective intelligence methods, to enable aggregation of dispersed information and individual prefer-ences to generate a solution to a problem. This solution can be more optimal than an individual could have provided. Several collective intelli-gence mechanisms have emerged, of which one of the most prominent is Information Aggrega-tion Markets (IAMs). IAMs rest on the concept of bringing a group of participants together via the internet and allowing them to trade shares of virtual stocks. The effi cient markets’ hypoth-esis states that when such a market reaches

equilibrium, it encompasses all the available information. Research has shown than IAMs can increase user participation in innovation management processes in corporate environ-ments. Recent work by Hanson5 in the USA has considered the use of such an approach in dig-ital governance and public policy. It would be interesting to investigate whether information aggregation mechanisms, such as IAMs, have the potential to complement argument-mapping techniques and to overcome common problems encountered by user groups such as polarisa-tion in one’s beliefs and diffi culties in reaching consensus.

Conclusions

Digital governance raises many research challeng-es from a number of perspectives. There is a clear need for inter-disciplinary research, to appreci-ate better how to design, deploy and evaluate digital governance from technical, cultural and organisational perspectives that take account of the social and political complexities involved. European research in digital governance has suffered from being fragmented, disparate and unfocused, with researchers often unaware of developments in different academic disciplines. Therefore in 2006 the European Commission launched “DEMO-net” (www.demo-net.org), a network of excellence for such researchers. The aim is to bring together key researchers from a variety of countries and academic disciplines in order to consolidate and build upon existing technical and socio-technical research in digital governance. The network of excellence is centred at the University of Leeds and its membership comprises 18 research establishments across Europe.

References1. Putnam, R. D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The

Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

2. Rittel, H. W. J and Webber, M. M. (1973) Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.

3. Kirschner, Paul A., Buckingham Shum, S. J. and Carr, C. S. (2003) Visualizing Argumentation. Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. London, Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.

4. Renton, A. and Macintosh, A. (2007) Computer Supported Argument Maps as a Policy Memory. The Information Society Journal, 23, 125–133.

5. Hanson, R. (2006) Decision markets for policy advice. In Promoting the General Welfare: New Perspectives on Government Performance (eds A. S. Gerber and E. M. Patashnik), pp. 157–173. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

Ann Macintosh is Professor of Digital Governance at the Centre for Digital Citizenship, The Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds.

On Facebook, people discuss policy independently of

government.