1. Four Models of eDemocracy Associate Professor Øystein Sæbø, CAHDE 2nd plenary, Strasbourg, October 07

2. Why this paper? eDemocracy successes vary unpredictable results missing knowledge on the link between democracy and the use of ICT Starting point: we need to better understand the context we need to understand the link between technology and democracy (context) eDemocracy models explain variations in the democratic context try to explain how technology may show usefulness for various context Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 072

3. Models of eDemocracy Based on: inclusion in decisions to what degree are all citizens invited to participate? control of the agenda who decides what to be discussed? Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 073

4. Four Models of eDemocracy Citizens set the agenda PartisanDirect Governments set the agenda LiberalDeliberative Citizens implicitly included in decision-making Citizens explicitly included in decision-making Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 074

5. Liberal eDemocracy No changes in distribution of power politicians/governments in charge of decision making and agenda citizens mainly inform/ being informed eDemocracy: main focus: information exchange increase citizens’ opportunity to control and evaluate increase their opportunity to choose between candidates ICT applications (examples) discussion forum (focus on information exchange) feedback mechanisms distribution of candidates/parties viewpoints archive/ dissemination of information Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 075

6. Deliberative eDemocracy Citizens involved in decision making processes and agenda setting requires: politicians’ will to include citizens citizens’ will to participate real eDemocracy? real dialogue influence on agenda setting citizens could expect influence by participate ICT applications (examples) discussion forums (real discussions) control mechanisms quality of information exchange (two-ways) citizens panels Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 076

7. Direct eDemocracy radical alternative citizens are in charge no use for representatives ICT could help to coordinate, without middlemen currently: very few examples eDemocracy voting/ decision making agenda setting coordination mechanism ICT applications (examples) voting mechanism agenda setting mechanism Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 077

8. Partisan eDemocracy independent from traditional decision makings mechanisms citizens’ initiatives by using ICT opportunity to mass- communicate keep control of the agenda eDemocracy increase public debate? could not be led by government “speakers corner” ICT applications (examples) discussion forums (uninterrupted by government/politicians) blogs social networking activities Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 078

9. Why discuss eDemocracy models? eDemocracy initiatives need to understand context deliberation without politicians’ will to be influenced, or citizens’ will to participate successful projects may not be easily transferred design and management of ICT applications vary e.g. discussion forums should be designed according to objectives do not promise too much! if citizens are asked to influence, the should expect some influence! if they are asked “only” to inform, they should now.. Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 079

10. Implications for practice Consider context before technology technology is “easy” knowledge on how to utilise eDemocracy initiatives is difficult Involve major stakeholders in the development process citizens, politicians and government officials should discuss needs technological competence less important in the initial phase focus also on politicians very often taken for granted why should they be interested in more deliberation? the four models: only archetypes starting point for a discussion on democratic context and link to technology Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0710

11. eDemocracy tools Øystein Sæbø, CAHDE 2nd plenary, Strasbourg, October 07

12. Background Based on a DemoNet report “Current ICT to enable eParticipation” editors: Asta Thorleifsdottir and Maria Wimmer eDemocracy = rapidly developing report on tools are immediately out-dated thus: focus on framework on how to analyse may show importance also in the future opportunity to compare why tools, not technology? eDemocracy mainly based on generic technologies tools: applications developed to achieve some tasks eDemocracy: tools based on “known” technologies Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0712

13. eDemocracy areas communication needs and decision making mechanisms tools are developed to support eDemocracy areas more sustainable than tools Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0713

14. eDemocracy areas Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0714

15. Template to identify eDemocracy tools template to describe existing and future eDemocracy tools allows for comparison could be used to dynamically develop a “library” of various opportunities Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0715

16. Template to identify eDemocracy tools 1. general description 2. overall objectives 1. could be based on eDemocracy models 3. which area to support? 4. what are the major stakeholders’ views? 5. support which stages in the policy life cycle? 6. level of participation? 1. e.g. information exchange, deliberation, direct decision making? 7. security and privacy 8. accessibillity 9. channel availability 10. technologies used 11. evaluation Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0716

17. Template to identify eDemocracy tools Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0717

18. Overview core eDemocracy tools Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0718

19. Overview (generic) ICT tools extensively used in eDemocracy Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0719

20. Overview basic ICT tools needed in eDemocracy Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0720

21. Practical implications all tools are described in detail by the DemoNet project please let me know if you like the full report introduces a strategy on how to identify and compare eDemocracy tools could be used to develop libraries of tools for various purposes there no such thing as generic eDemocracy tools dependent on the purpose more knowledge is still needed on eDemocracy technologies what will happen when social networking technologies and web 2.0 is introduced? e.g how will Facebook, YouTube, MySpace and similar applications influence how will that change citizens’ expectations? Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0721

22. Øystein Sæbø: Four Models of eDemocracy, CAHDE 2nd plenary meeting, Strasbourg October 0722 Thank you for your attention! Questions? Comments? Main references: tools: http://www.demo-net.org/demo models: Models of E-Democracy, (2006) Päivärinta Tero and Sæbø Øystein; Communication of AIS, vol 17, pp. 818- 840. Models of E-Democracy Contact information: Øystein Sæbø (Oystein Sabo) University of Agder Department of Information systems Service box 422 4604 Kristiansand, Norway E-mail:Oystein.Sabo@uia.no Phone: +47 38 14 16 26, + 47 90 20 73 52 http://home.hia.no/~oysteisa