Diffusion of E-Democracy
In a nation with heavy government censorship, e-democracy could not be utilized to its full extent. Austria has the components of an advanced internet system not unlike China's, but they do not have the political and social norms calling for citizens' opinions to be heard. In a study conducted that interviewed elected officials in Austria's parliament, opinions were widely and strongly against e-democracy. They believed that the citizens were "uninformed" and that their only way of expressing their opinions should be to vote; sharing opinions and ideas was strictly the job of the elected. Austria's officials have a contrasting idea of their roles than those in the US, where the citizens' opinions are respected and called for, and their power is up to the citizens. Citizens' opinions in the U.S. do not take away from politicians' influence. In Austria, on the other hand, the elected officials have no tolerance for their powers to be diminished in the slightest, including by allowing citizens to openly express ideas and opinions about politics, because it makes the people in power vulnerable to the citizens. Austria's blatant negative opinion on e-democracy shows that it is necessary for a nation to have openness in political thought from citizens for e-democracy to thrive.
Aside from hostile political environments, another great hurdle in implementing e-democracy is the matter of ensuring security in internet voting systems. Viruses and malware could be used to block or redirect citizens' votes on matters of great importance; as long as that threat remains, e-democracy will not be able to diffuse throughout society. Kevin Curran and Eric Nichols of the Internet Technologies Research Group noted in 2005 that "a secure internet voting system is theoretically possible, but it would be the first secure networked application ever created in the history of computers." Were a system of government to overcome these political and technological hurdles, it might see faster diffusion of effective e-democracy.
The radical shift from representative government to internet-mediated direct democracy is not likely. However, a "hybrid model" that uses the internet to allow for greater government transparency and community participation in decision-making is on the horizon. Committee selection, local town and city decisions, and otherwise people-centric decisions would be more easily facilitated. The principles of democracy are not changing so much as the tools used to uphold them. E-democracy would not be a means to implement direct democracy, but rather a tool to enable more participatory democracy as it exists now.
E-democracy is a theory that is being fast-spread at a high rate among the world especially in the United States. What is so appealing about e-democracy is that "E-democracy offers greater electronic community access to political processes and policy choices. E-democracy development is connected to complex internal factors, such as political norms and citizen pressures". People seem to love this new form of participating in government, because it seems to be the easiest way citizens can interact with their government officials. "e-democracy seems to be highly influenced by internal factors to a country and not by the external factors of standard innovation and diffusion theory"(chung). People are pressuring their public officials to adopt more policies that other states or countries have regarding information and news about their government online. " are reacting more to demands from internal users and to the values of their political culture"(Chung). People have all governmental information at their fingertips and easy access to contact their government officials. In this new generation where internet and networking rules everyone's daily lives, it is more convenient that people can be informed of the government and policies through this form of communication.
In Jane Fountain's (2001) Building the Virtual State, she describes how this widespread e-democracy is able to connect with so many people and correlates it to the government we had before.
"Fountain's framework provides a subtle and nuanced appreciation of the interplay of preexisting norms, procedures, and rules within bureaucracies and how these affect the introduction of new technological forms...In its most radical guise, this form of e- government would entail a radical overhaul of the modern administrative state as regular electronic consultations involving elected politicians, civil servants, pressure groups, and other affected interests become standard practice in all stages of the policy process"(Sage).
This new form of government reaching out to citizens is a generational breach that it taking off. It is the same policies and norms it is just displayed in a less traditional practice than before. This thought of all government information and attention online is what excites people about the form of E-democracy.
Statistics easily display the supply and demand effect of citizens wanting more government accessibility to news, policies, and contacts: "In 2000 only two percent of government sites offered three or more services online; in 2007 that figure was 58 percent. In 2000, 78 percent of the states offered no on-line services; in 2007 only 14 percent were without these services (West, 2007)"(Issuu). Even though networking might not seem very personal, people are also demanding that their government officials contact and communicate with them; "In 2007, 89 percent of government sites allowed the public e-mail a public official directly rather than simply e-mailing the webmaster (West, 2007)"(Issuu). The government is noticing the rapid demand for governmental information citizens want to be supplied with online and the government is following their requests. E-democracy is a practical and convenient way for people to connect, learn, and participate in their government by online sources, which is why this practice is growing at such a fast rate.
Over the years, there is an increasing disparity in national e-governance and e-democracy. These trends seem to be a predominantly Western phenomenon. There are significant differences between access to digital technology in developed and developing worlds. Countries in south and central Asia, Africa, and other developing regions fall behind due to inequalities in access to information and in government efficiency and infrastructure. This is referred to as the "global digital divide."
Cities in states with Republican-controlled legislatures, high legislative professionalization, and more active professional networks were more likely to embrace e-government and e-democracy.
The diffusion of E-Democracy is mostly influenced by internal factors to a country and not by the external factors of standard innovation and diffusion theory.
Read more about this topic: E-democracy