Politics in Information Systems and Technologies - Essay Example

Politics in Information Systems and Technologies Information systems and technologies are political. This ment is commonly practical in the field of information and technology. Since the introduction of computers to the current period of increased internet participation and social media marketing, politics have always played significant roles in enhancing the usage and success of information systems and technologies. Information and technology does not only contribute to efficiency and productivity, but also embodies significant sets of authority and power. In other words, information systems and technology are highly influenced by politics. This essay uses two concepts to explain the role of politics in information systems and technologies. The two concepts are e-government and social versus technological determinism. The internet is a technology and source of information that is under the control of government and is highly influenced by power and authority in the society. E-government involves the use of information systems and technology in by the government to enhance the extraction and use of information in the public sector. The use of information systems and technologies also raise the question of bureaucracy (Brivot 2011). Other authors suggest that information and technology eliminate red tape and bureaucracy while others suggest that information and technology reproduce rather than eliminating bureaucracy. Social and technological determinism play an important role in explaining the role of politics in technology and information systems. Politics is a source and exercise of power and authority. There are two sources of power: authoritarian and democratic. Authoritarian type is system-centered and very powerful, but highly unstable. The democratic system is man-centered and less powerful, but resourceful and durable. These sources of power are both associated with the use of technology and information. Technology in the democratic system has social equity, cultural pluralism and freedom. Just as factory systems, telephony, television, automobile, and radio have been considered at one time as democratizing; so is information systems and technology. According to Winner (1988), information systems are interconnected with the modern politics. The author argues that information systems and technologies such as computers do not determine political courses, but they are used by political actors to mould the society to fit into their patterns. In terms of social determinism, technical designs are manipulated by political actors to achieve a desired social order. A design, invention or arrangement of a technical system (e.g. computer system) can be used by political actors as a way of settling issues in a given community. This point was hammered by Winner (1988) who suggests that certain artifacts are often designed to achieve a given social end. Similarly, information systems and technology are used to make designs need for the achievement of a specific social effect. Politicians use information systems to achieve a given social pattern that supports their interests. Winner (1988) gives an example of Robert Moses, who developed great technologies as a result of his dealings with political forces such as mayors, presidents and governors. He achieved his technological end by manipulating banks, the press, labour unions and legislators. This is one of the proofs that technology is used to achieve a given social pattern or effect in the society (Brown & Duguid, 2000). Technological advances, architecture, and public works are also physical proofs of political influence on information systems and technologies. Therefore, technologies and information systems are used by governments to achieve political purposes. In terms of technological determinism, technologies are considered to be political in nature. In order to come up with a given technology, certain conditions for human relationships with political cast are required (Winner, 1988). For example, some technical systems require a centralized political system while other technical systems require decentralized political systems. One technological system can be used to achieve different political consequences because technologies are flexible in design and arrangements, and variable in their consequences. Therefore, people may choose a particular technology to achieve a given political end. Adoption of a given technological system or design requires the development and use of a particular set of social conditions within the operating environment of that technological system. Just as an automobile requires wheels to move, technology requires a particular structuring of social environments to operate in a particular way (Winner 1988). Political influence is therefore needed to achieve a given structure of social environments of technological systems in order to enable it to work successfully. Specific kinds of technologies are highly compatible with, though it does not necessarily require particular stripes of social and political relationships. For instance, solar energy technologies are compatible with democratic political systems more than technological energy systems based on coal and oil because solar energy is decentralized in both technical and political terms. E-government also explains how politics influences information systems and technology. E-government involves the use of information and communication technologies in the internal and external functions of the government. In the internal environment of the organisation, ICT is used within the organisational structure, processes, management of information, collaboration and work practices. In the external environment, ICT is used in government interactions with citizens and businesses. The use of technology in by the government is also influenced by technology because it influences the level of engagement and satisfaction of citizens with politics. For instance, citizens use e-voting to make appropriate decisions of leadership and web-based information to and technological designs to engage with the government in key decision making. Information and communication technology can also be used to eliminate red-tape and bureaucracy within government institutions (Brivot 2011). For political purposes, government leaders also use information systems and technology to enhance transparency and accountability by using technologies and information systems to store and pass information concerning the government undertakings to the public. Yildiz (2007) argues that technology is constrained within continuing political and social processes. In this case, an open systems theory of technology suggests that government organisations interact continuously with their internal and external environments using information and technology systems. The power of political actors and groups is also reinforced by computing, which is one of the main elements of information systems and technology. In this case, political actors in the government with the most power and resources use computers in policy making and communication to reinforce their power. Another aspect of political influence on IT is the use of technologies to initiate and implement government report. This is achieved because government officials may use technology to enhance rationalization of government processes (Pollock et al 2003). This is considered as a political process aimed at achieving political end because government reforms serve to portray a good image of the incumbent political groups running the government. Policy-making processes within complex political environments also necessitate the use of information systems and technology. Politics and administration also interconnect to determine the type of technology used for e-government purposes. In this case, the elected officials dominate the process of e-government development in order to promote their political interests and maintain their power and authority of administration (Yildiz 2007). The fact that elected officials dominate the e-government development process means that the information and technology systems are indeed politically-driven. One of the political roles of e-government is information provision. The implication of this is that the government uses technology and information systems to broadcast information so that it may win the trust and loyalty of its citizens. The use of technology in e-government is also to enhanced interaction between government and the citizens (G2C), government and businesses (G2B), and government and other governments (G2G). The government does this to promote its political, economic and social goals of the nation (Yildiz 2007). Technology also enhances exchange within the internal and external environment of the government. This increases the performance of the government and improves the political image of the political group in government. Governments also use information systems and technology to enhance integration that brings together different government departments. Some governments have utilized the internet and the web to communicate effectively within and outside the government institutions. Decisions based on social, political, and economic situations are also made as a result of information obtained by the government through the internet (Yildiz 2007). Some governments have in fact developed government portals to enhance collaboration in the internal and external environment of the government. The internet started as non-inclusive technology within government’s control. The internet plays both political and governmental purposes even as technology expands. Nowadays, the internet is one of the largest public spheres that encourage plurality and diversity of voices (Yildiz 2007). Therefore, it is used by politicians as one of the leading platforms to encourage democracy in political environments of various countries. Since the internet lacks intermediaries, it is widely used by different people across the world. As a result, politicians are the major sponsors and developers of internet platforms to sell their political agendas. The idea of democracy in the current world resulted from technological advancements as suggested by Winner (1988). This is supported by the idea that internet encourages open information, transparency and accountability which are key elements of a democratic society. Political democracy is also enhanced by the internet because it transcends economic, racial, national and geographical boundaries. For instance, political leaders may use the internet to pass information to its citizens which will enable them to have geographical access to vital infrastructure. The internet also breaks language barriers and encourages political access by breaking the political regime that regulates political access. As citizens of various countries push for reforms, political classes rush to promote technologies for their political gains. The Economist (2013) suggests that innovators nowadays have powerful patrons. This indicates that innovators are sponsored by powerful politicians to develop their innovative designs using technologies, and in return the politicians gain the political support of the innovators. In fact some politicians are succeeding through online campaigning. For example, Five Star Movement of Italy used the online campaign successfully. Online platforms have also been formed to allow citizens to draft e-petitions for better political and government reforms. Business Process Reengineering is also an important aspect of information systems and technology which is affected by politics. Countries use incremental and less radical approaches to BPR due to political reasons. Grint and Willcocks (1995) suggest that radical increases in productivity are encouraged through uprooting organisational norms and traditions. This results in the development of re-engineering process that promotes novel forms of management practices. To encourage conflict-free zone, politics within the corporation is uprooted in order to facilitate a successful implementation of a BPR. Therefore, the development of BPR is politically motivated because it involves the elimination of bureaucracies and conflicts, and replaces them with democracy and rationality. Re-engineering is often about management rather than production processes. This means it is targeting politics. Historically, management is a political activity. This means that the re-engineering of management is motivated by political reforms. The implication of this analysis is that information and technology is seen as an important aspect influencing and being influenced by politics in organisations and governments. As people seek political power and authority within organisations and governments, the use of information systems and technology becomes relevant. Companies use politics to influence the processes and decisions made in the favour of the company or in their own favour. The government also utilizes technologies such as the internet to encourage collaboration, communication and reforms in order to earn trust and loyalty from the citizens. Political leaders in countries also influence the introduction of technology and information systems. In this case, they sponsor innovators and design systems that can be used to boost their political interests. In conclusion, it is clear that information systems and technology are indeed political. In terms of social and technological determinism, it has been established that technological designs are developed to produce certain social effects. Politics play a crucial role in manipulating technological and information systems to meet their desired social ends. In terms of e-government, governments use politics to meet their needs by supporting information systems and technology in certain democratic ends such as transparency and accountability, justice and social reforms. Lastly, politics plays a crucial role in BPR because political classes use this technology to eliminate bureaucracies and conflicts, and promote democracy. References list Brivot, M. 2011. Controls of Knowledge Production, Sharing and Use in Bureaucratized Professional Service Firms”, Organization Studies, 32 (4), pp.489 -508. Brown, S. & Duguid, P. 2000. The Social Life of Information. Harvard Business School. Grint, K. & Willcocks, L. 1995. “Business process re-engineering in theory and practice: business paradise regained?” New Technology, Work and Employment, vol.10, no.2, pp.99-109. Pollock, N. et al 2003. “Fitting standard software packages to non-standard organisations: the biography of an ‘enterprise-wide’ system”, Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, vol.15, no.3, pp.317-332. The Economist. 2013. “Participatory Politics: Processing Power,” The Economist. Winner, L. 1988. The Whale and the Reactor, Chicago University Press, Chicago. Yildiz, M. 2007. “E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward”, Government Information Quarterly, 24, 646–665. Read More