Most people will agree that the value, even the essence, of Democracy was the idea of giving citizens the right to vote for their representation. In recent decades we have more or less ignored our right to vote. This becomes a big problem when people feel under-represented, and feel that democracy has turned on them (even though much of the blame is on the complaintants). The first important change that technology has provided was the idea of voting electronically. I personally think the idea of actual votes taking place electronically to be dangerous because all of technology is notoriously unreliable, and you dont want there to be any doubt when discussing the future of a country. The fact that the voting systems can be hacked in under a minute attests to the unpredictable nature of using technology to vote. These problems are correctable; security can be increased, software can be improved, and so on. I believe that the most important thing gained though is not the method of voting but rather the increase of voter awareness. Britains usage of bluetooth to "advertise" voting and 676% increase in voter turnout in Arizona shows that technology has gotten more people to utilize their right to vote, something that is integral to democracy.
Even more importantly then voting (which I felt compelled to mention first because it is the cornerstone of democracy) is the idea that technology has given citizens more involvement in the legislative aspect of society. No one wants their government to feel opressive, nor would they want to submit to rules they feel they do not agree with. Systems like the LEX-IS project in the EU will greatly reduce the feeling of alienation that is very prevelant in a representative type democracy. By being involved and viewing the legislative process, concered citizens will finally have the ability to feel as if they are part of the round table discussion that democracy hopes to provide. Citizens will have the ability to push legislation that perhaps the parliament members have not felt is an important issue as well as protest legislation in a more personal manner than in the past. The LEGESE project is also a great stride in the development of Egovernance as it helps get citizens involved in the implementation of legislation. Often times people will not know when legislation has been passed, or what the details and nuances of the new legislation means in a practical manner. LEGESE will help give citizens the feeling that they are collectively helping carry out the law, a feeling that every proud citizen should desire. Although both of these projects are in their infant stages and there is a prevailing critisism that most people remain unaware of the technology, the fact remains that these methods are being developed. People cannot expect the program to flourish immediately, and we should realize that the government even suggesting an idea like this is a huge step itself. One final example when this type of innovation was utilized was in Britain when citizens could vote on where they wanted 10 grants of 400,000 pounds (in aid for rennovation of parks) to go. A common complaint in democracy is that as citizens we must pay taxes, yet are never provided with the ability to decide where our money goes. This is a clear example of taxpayers collectively deciding on where their money was headed, if situations like these become more prevelant I can only imagine it would feel less like paying taxes and more like public donation.
The final aspect of EGovernance I would like to address is the idea of transparency and accountability provided by information technology. What struck me the most in regards to this particular aspect was the youtube channel belonging to the Queen of Jordan. Sure she may just be a figurehead, but that type of direct connection to the citizens is something that has never been done. Everyone can imagine the Queen of England riding through the streets waving, and it reeks of aristocracy, but when you tune into the Queens channel on YouTube, it feels almost personal. Not only was the channel done in a very comedic manner, but many viewers of the channel probably have channels of their own; both of these aspects lead to adoration as well as a connection to what is essentially a distant government member in a manner we use to connect to our peers. The blogs of politicians may not be genuine, or honest, and it could be that they are there to push a political agenda, but anyone reading the blogs should realize this just as one must read news articles and view television segments with the notion that there will be a bias. The fact that we have politicians attempting to embrace the people rather then create a politically active elite is what pure democracy is all about. It goes passed a personal level as well. The US government implementation of websites such as relief.gov (where any individual can view, analyze, and comment on the allocation of funds towards relief) has a profound affect on the power structure of the country. Although this power may just be false perception, initiatives such as relief.gov give citizens the mentality that they are the watchdogs of the government, and not the other way around as it has been in the past. This flipping of the power structure not only makes citizens feel more content, but if done properly it will also promote a more politically active nation. While we are all accustomed to feeling distant from the internal workings of our respective governments, as the become more transparent through information technology we begin to feel that we may actually be able to have an impact.
I have already addressed critisisms of eGovernance in a brief manner, and I feel that this is all that is necessary. It is too early in the stages of eGovernance to try to poke holes in it, and I believe that any step taken to reduce the gap between politicians and the population must be a positive one. Democracy has always been about putting the government in the hands of the people, and now we might finally have the ability to do so.
No comments:
Post a Comment