The Information Society and its Implications

The Information Society and its Implications
Prev	Chapter 1. Introduction: An Information Age Democracy?	Next

As we move into an era characterised by an abundance of information and communications channels, the growth of new information technologies has challenged many traditional assumptions about the relationship between government and citizens. The ubiquity of information technology in developed societies acts to reduce the public sector’s significant control over on policy-related information and the interactive nature of these technologies empowers citizens to form coalitions, mobilise opinion and engage with decision-makers.

This may lead to the emergence of ‘electronically-facilitated democracies’: political jurisdictions where the political process is conducted through a variety of electronic systems. These developments also have a number of implications. First, public sector managers need to understand that the community has the capacity to be far better educated and informed than in any other period of time. This move towards an information society means that:

members of the public are less willing to accept government decisions based on appeals to authority alone, transparency of decision-making is needed;
they have greater means to challenge the analysis and decision-making of government through their own expertise and information — participation is often demanded; and
communities of interest (stakeholder groups, interest groups) need not be geographically-defined, can arise spontaneously and can play active roles in facilitating (or preventing) implementation.

Exhibit 4: The Information Society – Definition

A society characterised by a high level of information intensity in the everyday life of most citizens, in most organisations and workplaces; by the use of common or compatible technology for a wide range of personal, social, educational and business activities; and by the ability to transmit and receive digital data rapidly between places irrespective of distance.

IBM Community Development Foundation, 1997

Second, it must be recognised that the technological environment in which government operates is more complex and diverse. This can be seen in:

a new emphasis on multi-channel service delivery: single-channel communications strategies are increasingly ineffective in reaching broad target audiences. Members of the public increasingly expect a flexible interface with government and they expect to be offered a choice of technologies through which to access services. This is particularly true of younger people who have grown up with internet technologies and mobile telephones;
the low cost of electronic communication is significant. It increases the speed of information distribution, stimulates ‘virtual’ interest groups and provides an array of channels by which the public can communicate with elected representatives and public servants. The advent of email, in particular, has seen a growth in the correspondence received and generated by government. This is also manifest in ‘information overload’ and issues associated with the correct storage, presentation and indexing of information; ^[4] and
new technologies break down boundaries between organisations and jurisdictions. Public interest groups are more engaged with ‘sister’ organisations around the world – sharing information and strategies, while public servants are using these technologies to increase policy-learning and professional networking.

While some governments have developed specific ‘electronic democracy’ policy agendas (e.g. Queensland), it is important to recognise that the development of Australia and New Zealand as electronically-facilitated democracies is both deliberate and organic in character: governments can elect to use Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) instrumentally for consensus-building and policy development, but will also be subject to a range of demands from new groups in the community who have used these tools to mobilise politically.

The implications for effective and orderly public administration in information societies will be profound, requiring:

public sector organisations that are responsive to their changing technological and social environment. This requires appropriate structures, skills and resources within these organisations;
appropriate policy frameworks to foster and support the active role of the public in policy development and implementation;
appropriately developed, managed and targeted electronic democracy initiatives to address issues of public disenchantment with government;
learning organisations that recognise the highly fluid and largely unknown nature of the relationship between new technologies and policy processes; and
clear recognition of the value of traditional forms of community consultation and engagement. New methods are introduced within the context of parliamentary democracy and many members of our community will continue to rely on ‘conventional’ media and participatory forms.

Being responsive to the communities’ expectation of government communications will require an awareness of technological developments and community norms and expectations.

Exhibit 5: eDemocracy as an ‘Evolving Concept’

'I think we often speak as if there is a completed project called "democracy" and there is another completed project called "the internet" and we ask "what will this thing called the internet do to this thing called democracy?". Both of these are in a state of evolution. We haven’t got a completed democracy; we haven’t got a completed internet. Both are up for grabs. So the question we need to ask is whether the internet is likely to reinforce traditional ways of doing politics, which has tended to be rather remote from the public. Or whether the internet, as an interactive medium, can enable the public to get into a more collaborative and conversational style of politics which makes it more meaningful to them.'

Professor Stephen Coleman, Oxford Internet Institute, 2004

Prev	Up	Next
The Challenges of Engagement	Home	Chapter 2. Definitions, Distinctions and Approaches to eEngagement