Delivery of Effective E-government System: The Case of Oman - Literature review Example

? Delivery of Effective E-government System: The Case of Oman Contents 1 Significance of the Study 41.2 Objectives of the Study 5 2.0 Literature Review 6 2.1 The Concept of Democracy 6 2.2 The Concept of E-Democracy 8 2.2.1 Definition of E-democracy 8 2.2.2 Tools of E-democracy (E-tools) 8 2.2.3 Applications of E-democracy 9 2.2.4 Challenges and Opportunities of E-democracy 10 2.3 Case Studies 11 2.3.1 The Scottish Parliament 11 2.3.2 E-democracy in Canada 12 2.4 E-democracy in Oman 13 2.5 Recommendations for E-democracy in the Majlis A'Shura 15 Conclusion 16 Journal 19 Pitkin, H. F. (2004). Representation and democracy: Uneasy alliance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27 (3), 335-342. 19 Seaton, J. (2005). The Scottish parliament and e-democracy. Aslib Proceedings, 57 (4), 333 – 337. 19 Books 19 Websites 19 1.0 Introduction As the recent revolutions in several nations indicate, democratic governance is gaining a lot of importance around the world. Whereas autocracies are a recipe for civil disturbances and wars, democratic countries are comparatively peaceful although they may not be perfect. As a result, leaders around the world seek many ways to ensure their governance is democratic. One of the ways is through staying in touch with the will of the people through maintaining open communication. The technology revolution taking place alongside the developing information era offer an opportunity to maintain this crucial contact, leading to the concept of e-democracy. The current study provides a background on democracy and e-democracy through reviewing literature. This is followed by a discussion of how other countries have implemented e-democracies and what has been achieved in such cases. The study then narrows down to Oman, where the existence of e-democracy is analysed. 1.1 Significance of the Study In the modern world, leaders such as members of parliament wish to remain in contact with the people they represent. Understanding what the people need and want enables the leaders to create good policies and make the right changes, besides enabling democratic governance to take place. However, maintaining such contact with the people being represented is not easy due to geographical distances and the number of people. E-democracies allow leaders to conveniently maintain contact with their people, and thus the study is important in upholding democracy (Council of Europe, 2009). Studying the experience of other countries with their e-democracy efforts would help strengthen the efforts in Oman. The gains, challenges and opportunities achieved by such countries helps prepare Oman for the best e-democracy. Through reviewing e-democracy, this study provides a way through which democracy can be strengthened to avoid revolutions resulting from leaders and their people not having the same vision. 1.2 Objectives of the Study The following objectives will guide the study towards covering all the relevant areas: To study democracy and the importance of the democracy progress as a process. To study e-democracy and the use of e-tool to facilitate citizens interactions. To identify and analyse several cases of countries which have implemented good or bad parliament websites. To analyse what is currently happening in the case of Oman in terms of achievement, direction, challenges and benefits. 2.0 Literature Review This review of literature starts with a background on the concept of democracy and e-democracy. This is then followed by a look at the experience of other countries with e-democratic governance, where the Scotland and Canada are studied. The case of Oman is then reviewed, starting with a background on Omani governance and then e-democracy in Oman. The literature is obtained from recent and reliable sources to ensure the discussion is up-to-date, relevant and valid. As a result, the sources include academic books, scholarly articles and government websites among other reliable websites. 2.1 The Concept of Democracy A discussion of democracy helps place e-democracy into context. Although various perspectives are used in defining the concept of democracy, the underlying concept remains a political system in which the people control political power (Lansford, 2007). Tilly (2007) discusses the various ways in which the concept of democracy is viewed. He defines democracy from the perspective of procedural observers, where genuine, regular and competitive elective processes qualify a democracy. In such a case, the elective process helps the people to determine which policies will be implemented, besides also providing the people with a direct means to change the leadership personnel. According to Lansford (2007), democracy may be understood from a process-oriented perspective rather than the elective process. Here, a democratic country assures citizen’s control of the agenda, voting equality, effective participation, inclusion of adults, and enlightened understanding of policy. As the development of democracies unfolds, democracy develops as direct or representative. In the direct concept of democracies, all the citizens take part in decision making about the laws and policies of the country. This may be through meetings where people debate and vote on issues based on their opinions (Woolf and Rawcliffe, 2007). However, direct democracy is not practical in the modern world since most modern day countries have millions of citizens and may be geographically impossible to allow all citizens to take part. As a result, representative democracy arises, where citizens vote in individuals who represent their views on policies. Such elected officials represents the interests of the people and make decisions on behalf of the people (Lansford, 2007). Most modern nations are representative democracies, limiting direct democracies to past societies such as ancient Greece. Representation provides a practical way in which democracy can be practiced at a large-scale level (Pitkin, 2004). Since most modern democracies are representative, there is a need for the leaders to ensure they represent the views of the people who elect them. This may be in terms of change that the people are interested in, or taking a stand on given upcoming policies. As a result, leaders in representative democracies have to continuously seek the views of the people and understand and respond to their will and needs. The geographical challenges and big sizes of the population make it difficult to directly communicate with the people. For instance, people in remote areas or cities far from the capital may not get the chance to communicate with their leaders. One of the ways that is used to counter this challenge is the use of e-democracies to allow effective representation. 2.2 The Concept of E-Democracy 2.2.1 Definition of E-democracy According to Kubicek and Westholm (2003), e-democracy entails the use of ICT and computer-mediated technology to technologies) and CMC (computer mediated communication) to enhance the active participation of citizens, and also support collaboration among policy-making actors without the limitations of time, space and other physical conditions. This participation takes place through democratic communication among the actors within all stages of governance. The Council of Europe (2009) observes that one of the governing principles of e-democracy is electronic support for democracy. Here, e-democracy acts as one of many strategies that can be used to support democracy, democratic processes, democratic institutions and also support the spread democratic values. The Council also notes that e-democracy acts as an addition, complementary to, and interlinks with traditional democratic processes. Kubicek and Westholm (2003) further state that e-democracy consists of three components- provision of information, deliberation on issues and participation in decision-making. For instance, members of parliament may use ICT to provide governance information to the people they represent. ICT may also be used to collect the views of the people on major policy issues, which would allow the representative to make decisions based on the views of the people. 2.2.2 Tools of E-democracy (E-tools) Kubicek and Westholm (2003) categorise the various ICT applications used to enhance citizen participation according to functionality. As a result, three wide areas of application are observed; information, communication and active participation. In the information aspect, e-democracy involves the use of tools such as websites and portals to provide relevant information to people. Such website tools are equipped with functions including FAQs (frequently asked questions), newsletters and webcasts among others. The communication and consultation part involves tools that enable the representative to engage in two-way communication with the people represented. Such tools include chats, online fora, newsgroups, complaint management systems and petitions. The last category of e-democracy involves active participation where the citizens are involved in democratic governance through use of ICT in elections and in referendums (electronic voting). 2.2.3 Applications of E-democracy ICT can be used to promote democratic governance through several applications. One of these is the identifying of problems, where a representative or a politician needs to know the problems facing the population. Through electronic tools and the internet, natural, economic, social or political problems are easily accessed. For instance, the government may use geographical information systems to perceive and respond to natural problems. Poor provision of services by government offices may also be communicated through the use of ICT. For example, the UK government has an official Citizen Space portal, which the citizens may use to make complaints about public service. This portal has links to relevant government arms such as the parliament, cabinet and local government offices (Kubicek and Westholm, 2003). Besides problem identification, setting and determining agenda is another application of e-democratic tools. Here, electronic and web-based applications are used to involve the citizens in agenda setting. For instance, Scotland has a web-based application for petitions to parliament. The application allows citizens to create petitions, sign existing petitions and join discussion forums (The Scottish Parliament, 2012). Other important applications of e-democracy include policy formulation and decision-making. For example, the parliament of UK used online consultation with the citizens to help in creating a domestic violence policy (Kubicek and Westholm, 2003). In terms of decision-making, an example is the government of Estonia, which uses e-democracy to air cabinet meetings. As a result, the decision-making process is transparent, serving as a way to strengthen the democracy of the country (Kubicek and Westholm, 2003). E-democracy also finds use in evaluation, where the process of elections is undertaken through electronic voting. 2.2.4 Challenges and Opportunities of E-democracy According to the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2003), the digital divide is one of the main problems facing the implementation of e-democracy systems. In several nations, there is unequal access to technology and the internet. This leaves out sections of the society from taking part in the e-democracy tools, which is not democratic. For example, a petition which only involves an urban population with access to the internet does not show what the rest of the population in the rural areas feel. Another challenge is how to make people active in the use of e-democratic tools. OECD (2003) indicates that the sections of the population are becoming disillusioned in issues of governance, which makes it difficult to convince them of the benefits of political involvement. In case a government succeeds in e-engagement, the analysis and provision of feedback to the communication from large numbers of people may serve as another problem. OECD (2003) discusses the thread and content analysis methods that are procedures to help manage the information collected from the people. The high uptake and preference of the internet by the youth section of the community is an opportunity that may boost e-democracy. The youths are good internet-users making their engagement in the online world useful. Online community building through social media is also an opportunity through which e-democracy may be enhanced. E-democracy also provides an opportunity to boost adoption of the internet and solve the internet divide problem. The need to promote democracy through ICT influences nations to set up technologies such as electronic voting (OECD, 2003). 2.3 Case Studies 2.3.1 The Scottish Parliament The Scottish Parliament is an example of good implementation of e-democracy. The parliament has an official website through which the Scottish people are informed and engaged in the business of their parliamentarians. Openness is promoted through publishing committee reports within three days after meetings, while parliament agendas and papers are published in advance for public access (Seaton, 2005). Through the websites, the public can access webcasts of Chamber and Committee meetings. Further, the website provides access to past audio-visual content in the form of an archive, which also contains parliamentary papers from past meetings. The business and operations of parliament are easily accessible to individuals and organisations. For instance, the website allows the public to be in touch with parliament through communicating recess and opening dates alongside the full calendar for parliament. Motions, questions and fact sheets for research purposes on the Scottish parliament are also provided. The parliament has also embraced the use of social media as it has a Twitter account through which the public may interact with parliament (The Scottish Parliament, 2012). The Scottish parliament also has a full section set aside for involving members of the Scottish public. This Getting Involved section provides an opportunity to view and contribute to current parliamentary consultations with the public. The section also allows individuals to create, view, sign and discuss petitions, besides also having a sub-section to involve the youth in parliamentary business. The Getting Involved section also has a sub-section for community engagement through which the Scottish parliament communicates community conferences and partnerships to the public. In line with democratic representation, the Scottish Parliament also has a section with information on the members of parliament. Here, the citizens can interact with their representatives as the website provides their email addresses, biographies, links to their personal web pages, phone numbers, fax and correspondence addresses (The Scottish Parliament, 2012). It is therefore clear that the Scottish parliament has adopted effective e-democracy, allowing citizens to access and have a say in parliamentary business and communicate with all members of parliament. 2.3.2 E-democracy in Canada The parliament of Canada has also undertaken significant efforts in e-democracy. The business of both Houses of the Canadian parliament (Senate and House of Commons) are well detailed in the official website of the parliament. Here, aspects such as the latest debates and previous sittings, House and joint committees, the bills before parliament and order papers and notices are accessible to the public. Further, the website provides information on the calendars of both houses and legislative summaries and debates for public use. Webcasts for both houses and joint committees are also available as archives as well as inter-parliamentary activities at the international level. Further, the parliament website provides detailed information about the senators representing the people of Canada. For instance, the public may view current senators and their standings in the parliament of Canada. More information available includes the senate’s seating plan and links to the senators’ personal websites. Importantly, citizens can communicate to their senators since the website provides e-mail addresses and other contact details of the senator (Parliament of Canada, 2012). However, e-democracy as seen in the parliament of Canada concentrates on dissemination of information rather than engaging the public. For example, the parliament’s websites lacks aspects to gather views from the public and involve them. Unlike the Scottish e-parliament’s democracy, the one for Canada lacks sections to allow for petitioning and consultation. All the four political parties in Canada as represented in the Canadian parliament also have social media profiles alongside their official websites. According to Clarke (2010), the political parties have Facebook, My Space, Twitter and Flickr accounts and YouTube channels to enhance communication with the public. Several members of the four parties, including the party leaders, also have blogs through which they engage the public and stay in touch with the will of those they represent. The social media is also used to communicate party activities, platforms, e-volunteering and discussions on party issues, policies and political debates. This way, the political parties can consult, discuss and evaluate the opinion of the public on issues facing the country. 2.4 E-democracy in Oman The experience of e-democracy in the Omani parliament- the Majlis A'Shura, Sultanate of Oman- is still largely a work in progress. A close analysis reveals that the official website of the Majlis A'Shura is mostly informational to the public rather than participative. The website provides a broad overview of the Sultanate of Oman in terms of Laws and Regulations, the organisation of the Majlis and parliamentary tools. Through the site, the Omani people can understand their parliament, as information on the structure, committees, secretariat and chairmanship is well-detailed. The website also allows the public to evaluate the performance of the Sultanate through providing a section with work achievement, statistical indicators, committee reports and other Majlis publications. Ministerial reports and statements are also available through the Majlis website. Further information availed to members of the public about the Majlis includes their business with regional and international parliaments, such as in the Gulf Coast region and the Asian Parliamentary Association. Through an FAQ section, members of the public can learn a lot about the parliament, including the length of the Council’s term, nominees, conditions for electors, responsibilities for electors and calendar among other issues. The Sultanate’s website also provides a stream of the latest news involving parliamentary business and activities. In these informational aspects, e-democracy in Oman compares favourably with that of well-established countries such as Canada and Scotland. Evidence for this includes the detailed information about the organisation of parliament, the business of parliament and reports, publications and archives (Majlis A'Shura, 2010). The Majlis A'Shura website, however, does not provide for engaging of the people and communication with the representatives adequately. The website only offers the visitor a way to communicate with the site and not the members of parliament. Evidence that the website is under development in terms of promoting participation is available. For example, there is a section set aside for the Majlis contact directory. This is supposed to provide contacts for both the members of the Majlis and the employees of the Majlis. However, attempts to access the details are not fruitful since the site’s response is a coming soon message (Majlis A'Shura, 2010). As a result, the Omani parliament’s website does not provide for engagement with of the Omani with their representatives. This contrasts with the elaborate provision of members of parliament’s details in the Scottish and Canadian cases. As a result, Majlis A'Shura’s e-democracy cannot match the two comparisons in terms of enhancing the participation of the people and representativeness of parliamentarians. Other aspects of contrast between the Majlis A'Shura e-democracy and the Scottish and Canadian efforts are also visible. For example, the Majlis A'Shura site’s copyright is dated 2010, which may indicate a lack of regular updating, which should be an important aspect when engaging the citizens. When compared to the Scottish and Canadian parliaments, the Majlis A'Shura does not encourage the use of social media in enhancing e-democracy. There is no evidence of links to social media by the site, whereas the Scottish and Canadian parliaments have undertaken significant efforts to engage people within social media. Whereas the Scottish system encourages participation by the youths, the Majlis A'Shura also fails in this aspect, as it does not make provisions to for the youth. The lack of social media efforts further weakens the ability of the Majlis A'Shura to encourage the participation of the youth in parliamentary business. The Majlis A'Shura further contrast from the Scottish e-democracy at the parliament level in terms of providing for citizens’ engagement through petitions, consultations and discussions. 2.5 Recommendations for E-democracy in the Majlis A'Shura Following the detailed discussion on democracy, e-democracy and comparative case studies in e-democracy in Scotland and Canada, a number of recommendations can help strengthen e-democracy in Oman’s Majlis A'Shura. First, the site should be equipped with member contact details to allow the public to communicate with their members of parliament. The Majlis A'Shura should also include provisions for discussion and consultation fora to make sure the views of the Omani people are observed during policy formulation and decision-making. Adoption of social media and engaging the youth should also be an important aim for the Majlis A'Shura. Lastly, Majlis A'Shura’s site should be kept up-to-date to ensure the content provided there is relevant for the Omani people. Conclusion E-democracy provides an opportunity through which parliaments can pursue democratic governance in the modern world. Despite of challenges such as internet access inequality and penetration, e-democracy allows members of parliament to communicate with the people they represent and include them in policy-making. A comparative study of Oman’s Majlis A'Shura alongside Canada and Scotland indicates that Oman’s attempts at e-democracy only achieve information provision rather than engagement. The Majlis A'Shura lacks an elaborate means of contacting members, which hinders e-democracy. The Majlis A'Shura also fails in adopting social media, keeping up-to-date and engaging the youth. As a result, these areas are proposed as targets for improvement. References Clarke, A. (2010). Social media: Political uses and implications for representative democracy. Library of Parliament. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/bdp-lop/bp/2010-10-eng.pdf Council of Europe (2009). Electronic democracy (e-democracy). Council of Europe Publishing. Kubicek, H. & Westholm, H. (2003). E-democracy. Information Societies Technologies (IST) Programme. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.ifib.de/publikationsdateien/sg9democracy.pdf Lansford, T. (2008). Democracy. Marshall Cavendish, UK. Majlis A'Shura (2010). Sitemap. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.shura.om/en/Sitemap.asp Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy challenges of online citizen engagement. OECD. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf Parliament of Canada (2012). Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers.aspx?Language=E Pitkin, H. F. (2004). Representation and democracy: Uneasy alliance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27 (3), 335-342. Seaton, J. (2005). The Scottish parliament and e-democracy. Aslib Proceedings, 57 (4), 333 – 337. The Scottish Parliament (2012). Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge University Press, UK. Woolf, A. & Rawcliffe, J. M. (2007). Democracy. Evans Brothers, Australia. Appendix Journal Pitkin, H. F. (2004). Representation and democracy: Uneasy alliance. Scandinavian Political Studies, 27 (3), 335-342. Seaton, J. (2005). The Scottish parliament and e-democracy. Aslib Proceedings, 57 (4), 333 – 337. Books Council of Europe (2009). Electronic democracy (e-democracy). Council of Europe Publishing. Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge University Press, UK. Woolf, A. & Rawcliffe, J. M. (2007). Democracy. Evans Brothers, Australia. Lansford, T. (2008). Democracy. Marshall Cavendish, UK. Websites Clarke, A. (2010). Social media: Political uses and implications for representative democracy. Library of Parliament. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2010/bdp-lop/bp/2010-10-eng.pdf Kubicek, H. & Westholm, H. (2003). E-democracy. Information Societies Technologies (IST) Programme. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.ifib.de/publikationsdateien/sg9democracy.pdf Majlis A'Shura (2010). Sitemap. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.shura.om/en/Sitemap.asp Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (2003). Promise and problems of e-democracy challenges of online citizen engagement. OECD. Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf Parliament of Canada (2012). Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.parl.gc.ca/SenatorsMembers.aspx?Language=E The Scottish Parliament (2012). Retrieved 9 July 2012 from http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/ Read More