The Development of E-democracy Models in Australia - Report Example

THE ROLE OF THE INTERNET IN RELATION TO DEMOCRACY Name Course Professor (Tutor) Institution Date Introduction Democracy refers to the free will on the people to express their views either directly or indirectly through their elected representatives; it is the basis of nationhood in modern day world (Backhouse, 2007). On the other hand, nationhood refers to the state of being one nation often defined in the perspective of common language, culture, ethnicity or geographical region (Nyirenda & Cropf, 2010 p. 34). In this case, a nation is seen in the context of a community of persons made up of such elements like a similar belief and shared commitment to the same belief under mutual obligations. It, therefore, follows that people of a particular nation are morally obliged to not only share a geographical territory but also work together in pursuit of common goals. For instance, in light of the terrorist attack on the New York based World Trade Centre in September 11, 2001 the American Citizens reportedly forged rare unity in nursing the aftermath of the tragedy (Kalm 2011, p. 1). The American people cast aside their differences and displayed a great sense of patriotism at the time of adversity and immense national struggle. The Development of E-democracy Models in Australia World over, democratic governments are known to adopt certain decision making cycles that consist of setting of a common agenda followed by comprehensive analysis in creating and implementing policies (Şendağ & Serkan, 2010 p. 1689). This cycle has been indispensable in designing e-democracy models sine the extent and role of public participation is dependent on the democratic category and the particular stage in the process of decision making. Depending on the classification of democracy, thin or strong, public involvement in both policy creation and monitoring cannot be wished away. Backhouse (2007, p. 111) explains the various aspects of national democracy that may comfortably be addressed under e-democracy: anticipatory democracy that informs and guides future decisions; deliberative democracy that analyses and debates potential policy decisions; grassroots democracy that focuses on small and localized initiatives in addition to world democracy that informs international perspectives. It is for this reason that several authors and researchers argue that e-democracy is an advanced form of e-government. Owing to its multi-dimensional nature, institutional, technological and agency dimensions come into play and accordingly affect the implementation of e-democracy. The technological aspect takes care of access to information and the capacity to partake online discussions (Mittal & Mohania, 2014 p. 21). Australia stands out as one of the few countries where the model of e-democracy has successfully been developed amidst a myriad of teething challenges (Backhouse 2007, p. 107). The development and growth in e-democracy in Australia is closely linked to the emergence of online resources that were initially meant to support e-business initiatives. The creation of e-government platforms late in the twentieth century gave the Australians the coveted chance to participate actively in promoting democracy in their country. In fact, so transformative was the e-business initiative, that even the political culture and landscape underwent complete revolution. Nowadays, the various initiatives in different countries towards the augmentation of e-democracy have recorded varying degrees of success; Australia being one of them (Mittal & Mohania, 2014 p. 19). However, it is important to appreciate the fact that the euphoria that characterized the introduction of e-democracy is quite a far cry from the unparralled excitement that greeted the launch of e-commerce. Admittedly, most of the e-democracy plans have miserably failed to meet the threshold expectations of their very proponents. This could be linked to the fact that democratic processes are seen more in the context of national arena rather than in the global space. To comprehensively grasp the concept of e-democracy in Australia as well as its successes and failures, it would be prudent for us to examine a number of aspects: The Political Environment in Australia Australia, as a nation, is made up of a federation that consists two territories and six states whose political climate is largely conservative and fairly stable (Kalm 2011, p. 5). Besides, the Australian government comes in three tiers: federal territory or state in addition to the local level. Quite often, in a good number of federal states or the territory authorities, there exists two major and dominant parties meaning that the structure will hardly ever allow for a representative of a minor party or even an independent to clinch a single elective seat in either the lower houses or in the main legislative chambers in Australia. Being a representative democracy, Australians influence their directions indirectly meaning that major decisions remain a preserve of the executive. It is against this background of strong party discipline that parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp of the executive rather than an independent deliberative body. This leaves the individual citizens with few options other than expressing their views through trade unions, lobby groups and other organized groupings. Occasionally appeals are passed through International Labour Organizations and the United Nations courtesy of globalization. Further, politicians also get to hear the views of the electorate via polling organizations and media outlets; this coupled with short parliamentary terms goes a long way in keeping politicians on their toes (Backhouse 2007, p. 108). Channels of Access to the Government As Backhouse (2007, p. 108) argues, more points of access to the government of the day as well as key policy makers translates to better flexibility among citizens on the best way to interact with their representatives in government. However, more often than not, the success of campaigns by activists calls for a careful blend of a number of strategies that comprise of the traditional street matches as well as online facilitation. The quest to increase citizen participation and engagement remains an uphill task because the viable and reliable consultation facilities are pegged on the government websites that are in turn politically controlled; administrators and politicians may not be willing to support such initiatives that tend to usurp their powers and impose more workloads (Mittal & Mohania, 2014 p. 20). A considerable number of surveys have proved, beyond reasonable doubt that most public offices have deep-seated negative attitudes towards any form of citizen engagement especially in matters policy drafting processes (Kevin & Eric, 2013 p.18). Moreover, most of these bureaucrats doubt the capacity of ordinary citizens to competently contribute to policy making activities as such the former tend to edge the latter out in mere pursuit of myopic and narrow interests that betray the common good of a nation. Consequently, there is absolute need to carefully design any ICT tools meant to promote e-democracy if the ordinary citizens are to be motivated and sufficiently equipped to give their views objectively and with open minds. By so doing, the range of e-participants to be included in the loop of e-democracy will be significantly increased and hence the desired results guaranteed (Sagun & Robert, 2010). Possible Technological Disruptions According to Kalm (2011, p. 34), just in the same way the internet has spurred revolutions across the world of business, chances are high the same disturbance might be felt across the political and by extension the democratic divide. This is because the internet will literally do away with the existing geographical boundaries and effectively facilitate the filtration of views coming from like-minded parties. In such an event, there will be increased possibility of generation and subscription to extremist views from minor groups that may not have coherent agenda other than quick links and access to political power (Kevin & Eric, 2013 p. 17) Furthermore, such eventualities would erode the ideal public cum political space thereby killing the stable basis on which participatory democracy is anchored. In the long run, the unavailability of a platform on which sober debates can be waged and disagreements ironed out would be lost and precipitate unprecedented national crisis. Resources to Sustain E-democracy Despite of the availability of the necessary expertise in managing the e-democracy initiative, the expectations among the citizenry might be quite hard to meet. Whereas the citizens might expect sophisticated websites and associated applications in terms of functionality, appeal and assurance to privacy which is good, chances are, governments will be taken to task to justify the use of colossal amounts of money in promoting e-democracy and related products; returns from such initiatives will largely be viewed as qualitative (Backhouse 2007, p. 108). On the other hand, in cases where e-democracy sites were to be set up and maintained by various interest groups the ugly heads of retaining volunteer staff and managing financial stress will be a deterrent in itself – maintenance of e-democracy sites as permanent features is characterized by prohibitive costs. It is, therefore, likely that e-democracy sites would remain a preserve of the few elite – this would mean entrenchment of the access to the traditional political players (big political parties and lobby groups) rather than bringing on board new players into the system (Lee & Chang, 2011 p. 444). Emergence of Disintermediation Further, the continued use of internet platforms to promote e-democracy projects may result in political intermediaries especially among activists where uncanny organizations would make use of ICT infrastructure to incite citizens into developing electronic solutions that later serve as springboards for political candidates supporting unrealistic ideals (Backhouse 2007, p. 110). Most likely, this would disrupt the existing models of government and citizen relationships as intermediaries infiltrate the process. As Curran & Nichols (2005, p. 16) observe, ordinary citizens would eventually turn to such intermediaries to package or facilitate the access to information. Other Challenges facing the implementation of E-democracy in Australia The Australian government has made several initiatives, at both state and federal levels, in its quest to develop and even sustain the concept of e-democracy by ensuring online availability of transactional services as well as government information (Backhouse 2007, p. 113). Nevertheless, the implementation process has not been without challenges as e-democracy requires more than mere information and delivery of services to the populace; deliberations on key government policy proposals requires a consultative platform where ordinary people can widely be engaged in the decision making processes. Notably, compared to other developed countries, the Australian government has remained relatively slow in developing internet infrastructure and this has kept costs of internet access high (Kalm 2011, p. 42). The situation is dire in remote rural areas where population density is quite low. It is this digital divide that has to be overcome if e-democracy technological support base is to be enhanced. Secondly, there is increased apathy among the Australian electorate which has resulted in political disengagement. This is widely attributed to a fall in membership of trade unions and political parties across Australia. Moreover, there is glaring failure on part of the government and political parties to augment the countries democratic processes through ICT platforms (Garrett & Michael, 2011 pp. 180-185) Further, available websites are preferably used by the political elite for information provision rather than constructive engagement of the citizens on critical policy issues thereby lending credence to the view that technological developments may not necessarily support expansion of democratic space. Conclusion All in all, there is no doubt that the growth of information and computing technology will have a major bearing on the development of democratic space across Australia and the globe at large (Dadashzadeh, 2010 p. 82). This has already been evident with the introduction of e-democracy models and, therefore, the best we can do is to deliberate on the best ways through which such projects can be used to advance rather than suppress the quest for democracy. Rather than view e-democracy as a potential threat to the very existence of representative democracy, it should be explored as a healthier basis for consultative engagement to enhance relationships between citizens and their respective governments. Through such initiatives, the world would surely be a better place to inhabit! Consequently, a number of initiatives will have to be incorporated in the quest to foster and sustain democracy: Enhancement of capacity for continued engagement through civic educations. By so doing, it will be easier to bridge the gap between real-life accomplishments and democratic aspirations of individual citizens. Enrichment of relationships among different participants with a view to increasing the number of meaningful connections among e-democracy proponents. Investment in secure and robust infrastructure to support the concept of e- government. Nurture political goodwill towards e-democracy among the country’s senior –most executive. References Backhouse, J. 2007, E-Democracy in Australia: the Challenge of Evolving a Successful Model, School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, UNSW@ADFA, Canberra, Australia. Curran, K & Nichols, E 2005, ‘E-Democracy could give us a true democracy’ Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.1 (1), p.16 Dadashzadeh, M 2010, ‘Social Media In Government: From E-Government To E-Governance’ Journal of Business & Economics Research, Vol.8(11), pp.81-86 Garrett, R & Michael, J 2011, ‘Information, Communication & Society: E-democracy the new public voice in the emerging digital age?’ Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.14(2), p.177-197 Kalm, N. 2011, The influence of Don Bradman on contributing to an Australian sense of nationalism during times of hardship, New South Wales University Press, Kensington. Kevin, C & Eric N, 2013, ‘International ICST Conference on E-Democracy’ Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.1 (1), pp.16-18 Lee, C & Chang, K 2011, ‘Public Administration Review, Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.71 (3), p.444 Sagun, B & Robert, A 2010, ‘E-Governance for Municipal Development in the Philippines’ Communications Magazine,Vol.48(9), p.S1(2) Mittal, K & Mohania, M 2014, ‘A framework for E-Governance Solutions’ IBM Journal of Research and Development, Vol.48(5/6), pp.717-733 Nyirenda, J & Cropf, R 2010, ‘International Journal of Electronic Government Research’ (IJEGR), Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.6 (1), pp.23-45 Şendağ & Serkan, 2010, ‘Computers & Education; Technology and Democracy: Validity in measurements of E-democracy’ Journal of Social Sciences, Vol.55(4), pp.1684-1693 Read More

Being a representative democracy, Australians influence their directions indirectly meaning that major decisions remain a preserve of the executive. It is against this background of strong party discipline that parliament is reduced to a rubber stamp of the executive rather than an independent deliberative body. This leaves the individual citizens with few options other than expressing their views through trade unions, lobby groups and other organized groupings. Occasionally appeals are passed through International Labour Organizations and the United Nations courtesy of globalization.

Further, politicians also get to hear the views of the electorate via polling organizations and media outlets; this coupled with short parliamentary terms goes a long way in keeping politicians on their toes (Backhouse 2007, p. 108). Channels of Access to the Government As Backhouse (2007, p. 108) argues, more points of access to the government of the day as well as key policy makers translates to better flexibility among citizens on the best way to interact with their representatives in government.

However, more often than not, the success of campaigns by activists calls for a careful blend of a number of strategies that comprise of the traditional street matches as well as online facilitation. The quest to increase citizen participation and engagement remains an uphill task because the viable and reliable consultation facilities are pegged on the government websites that are in turn politically controlled; administrators and politicians may not be willing to support such initiatives that tend to usurp their powers and impose more workloads (Mittal & Mohania, 2014 p. 20). A considerable number of surveys have proved, beyond reasonable doubt that most public offices have deep-seated negative attitudes towards any form of citizen engagement especially in matters policy drafting processes (Kevin & Eric, 2013 p.18). Moreover, most of these bureaucrats doubt the capacity of ordinary citizens to competently contribute to policy making activities as such the former tend to edge the latter out in mere pursuit of myopic and narrow interests that betray the common good of a nation.

Consequently, there is absolute need to carefully design any ICT tools meant to promote e-democracy if the ordinary citizens are to be motivated and sufficiently equipped to give their views objectively and with open minds. By so doing, the range of e-participants to be included in the loop of e-democracy will be significantly increased and hence the desired results guaranteed (Sagun & Robert, 2010). Possible Technological Disruptions According to Kalm (2011, p. 34), just in the same way the internet has spurred revolutions across the world of business, chances are high the same disturbance might be felt across the political and by extension the democratic divide.

This is because the internet will literally do away with the existing geographical boundaries and effectively facilitate the filtration of views coming from like-minded parties. In such an event, there will be increased possibility of generation and subscription to extremist views from minor groups that may not have coherent agenda other than quick links and access to political power (Kevin & Eric, 2013 p. 17) Furthermore, such eventualities would erode the ideal public cum political space thereby killing the stable basis on which participatory democracy is anchored.

In the long run, the unavailability of a platform on which sober debates can be waged and disagreements ironed out would be lost and precipitate unprecedented national crisis. Resources to Sustain E-democracy Despite of the availability of the necessary expertise in managing the e-democracy initiative, the expectations among the citizenry might be quite hard to meet. Whereas the citizens might expect sophisticated websites and associated applications in terms of functionality, appeal and assurance to privacy which is good, chances are, governments will be taken to task to justify the use of colossal amounts of money in promoting e-democracy and related products; returns from such initiatives will largely be viewed as qualitative (Backhouse 2007, p. 108).

Read More