The concept of democracy is essential to the debate on electronic democracy. While it may seem quite straightforward, there is in fact a number of varying definitions of democracy. Though the semantic meaning of the word—government by the people—is undisputed, there are great diversities in interpretations of who should be regarded as the people and how they technically should govern.
In order to outline a basic framework, three models representing three different democratic ideals are presented here, each providing different views of the techniques and institutional settings assumed to make the principles work in practice [6, 8].
The literature contains innumerable classifications, categorizations, typologies, and models describing variations of democracy: radical democracy, liberal democracy, participatory democracy, elitist democracy, protective democracy, pluralistic democracy, to mention a few (for examples, see [5, 6, 8]). The conceptual richness of the literature gives reason to try to find a few broad categories that simplify the picture. The three models used here—quick, strong, and thin democracy—are based on Premfors’ [10] complementary to Barber’s [2] strong and thin categories. These models are rooted in traditional democratic discourse and are useful as a link between democratic theory in a deeper sense and its electronic manifestations. Of course, the brief discussion here does not attempt to cover every aspect of the democratic discourse, but will hopefully function as a framework for the articles in this section. Table 1 summarizes some key aspects of democracy that differentiate the three models.
Quick democracy. One common point of view in the debate on e-democracy is the recommendation of citizens’ direct participation in political decision-making. In this view, all citizens are assumed to have at least the same amount of wisdom as the elite. Thus, it is of utmost importance that the will of the majority is allowed to directly influence decisions in all areas of society. The representative model is seen as a practical necessity in some situations, but is generally regarded as a necessary evil that could and should be avoided in different ways.
The most important participatory activity for many citizens has been casting a vote into the ballot box.
Use of information and communication technology (ICT) is seen as one such way. One of the major obstacles for direct citizen participation in decision-making is a technical one: frequent manual public referendums would require loads of staff during an extended period of time, amounting to huge costs. ICT has been brought forward as a technical remedy to this problem [4].
Radical proponents of this model see ICT as the decisive means by which direct democracy Athenian style can be implemented in today’s society. In their proposed model professional politicians and political parties become more or less redundant. Instead, a new kind of public rule will emerge. Through computer networks, individuals’ views and opinions can be solicited, registered, stored, and communicated, so direct democracy can be implemented not only at a local level but nationally and even internationally. Representative democracy is then substituted by independent cybercitizens who act in a responsible manner at the electronic agora, without any politician acting as an intermediary and guardian [7].
Less radical proponents do not want to abolish the representative system altogether, but combine it—revitalize it—with direct elements. Some envision a type of direct democracy in which there is still a party-based government chosen by elections. This government would put important bills and other political decisions to popular votes, just as it does with legislative votes under representative democracy [4]. Others suggest a more frequent use of advisory opinion polls, by way of ICT, making sure the parliament really knows what the people want.
Strong democracy. The most important participatory activity for many citizens has been casting a vote into the ballot box. In recent years, however, more attention has been given to public debate as a political tool. According to the strong view of democracy, real democracy is more than the sum of its parts. Political decisions are considered legitimate if and only if they are made through certain procedural circumstances. The source of legitimacy is not the predetermined will of individuals, but rather the process of its formation—deliberation.
Just as quick democracy, strong democracy wants, and indeed requires, active citizens. Real democracy is realized only to the extent that ordinary people are given opportunities to carry on a dialogue about, and act on, matters of common interest. Unlike quick democracy that wants to increase the speed of decision-making processes, strong democracy wants to slow them down by involving people in discussion and deliberation processes, something that can be achieved to a large extent in various electronic forums [2].
Proponents of strong democracy are often positive to an increased use of direct democratic elements. Unlike the quick interpretation of democracy, however, this is combined with a certain amount of skepticism toward the raw public opinion. It is an illusion to believe that qualified standpoints in complex societal issues are automatically “out there” and can easily be caught in polls or referendas in accordance with the principle of majority. Quick democracy is seen as resting on a misinterpretation of the nature of government by the people [9]. Voting and polling should be deliberative, and citizens informed by information, discussion, and debate.
In the strong model of democracy participation is seen not only as a means to giving people power, but also as providing education leading to increased understanding about society. Today, much attention is paid to the benefits of horizontal communication among citizens (see Schuler’s article in this section): when people discuss societal issues, a platform is created for respect, confidence, tolerance, and openness. These are the crucial ingredients of a strong democracy.
Thin democracy. Unlike the other two models, the thin model does not consider it important to increase the level of citizen participation. This is because the ordinary citizen is perceived as uninterested in politics and unqualified to participate. Instead, the basic idea is to have the elite competing for the citizens’ votes. Elections are about choosing leaders based on a general account of their programs. The elite must then have a sufficient room to maneuver, to revise and detail their political programs. The ground for legitimacy is the accountability of the elite—that the public in free elections can tell who they want to govern their common affairs.
Thin democracy derives from a utilitarian or protective conception of democracy [8]. While there is no need for general participation, there is a strong claim to information about entitlements to public services by all citizens. This leads to another information strategy than suggested by the other two models. Since citizens are seen as consumers, it is not necessary to provide them with information on which collective decisions are based, not beforehand, not afterward. Instead public information can be restricted to public services. Proponents of thin democracy are often skeptical of the view that democracy demands transparence, that “the house of power be a house of glass” [12]. The visibility element may improve but also distort behavior. For instance, visibility distorts when it imposes “image selling” to the detriment of responsible behavior. Furthermore, visibility can well enhance, if not create, conflict to the degree that removal from visibility is the most practiced and practical way of lessening tensions.
There are at least three ways in which ICT use can help implement this model of democracy. First, political organizations can use ICT to gather support and disseminate information. Online communications are an inexpensive means of reaching many people and targeting particular segments of the population, making these networks well-suited to contemporary political activity [11]. Second, ICTs can support the elected representatives and improve their leadership; they can access experts, information from their home base, from their workplace, and their constituents. Third, the citizen can be strengthened in the role as customer to public service and ICTs can add value to public services by enhancing customer inquiry and feedback facilities [3].
Join the Discussion (0)
Become a Member or Sign In to Post a Comment