Figure 1 shows how electronic democracy activities require different managerial approaches, depending on (a) the sphere in which primary activity occurs (state-centric versus societal) and (b) the objectives of the programmatic response of government. While all of the activities indicated in this figure have fundamental democratic outcomes and objectives, the role of policy-development units (and staff) in some of these areas is limited.
While activities like public access terminal placement programs provide democratic outcomes, the relationship between these programs and policy development activities is generally one-way. Public sector managers wanting to open up the policy-making process to public participation should clearly distinguish between the broad area of eDemocracy and particular applications of electronic engagement such as service kiosks.
In the context of this guide, ‘Electronic Engagement’ (eEngagement) is defined as:
The use of Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) by the public sector to improve, enhance and expand the engagement of the public in policy-making processes.
This definition is at once broad and narrow in its scope. It is broad in that it:
- does not specifically relate to any particular methodology of engagement, such as direct decision-making or online consultation . These are methods that fall within its scope;
- focuses on the public sector (the bureaucracy) and its wide array of activities, needs and stakeholder groups; and
- includes an array of technologies, not simply the internet.
It is narrow in that it:
- does not include electoral processes and political campaigning (see Cornfield’s 2004 Politics Moves Online or Browning’s 2002 Electronic Democracy ); and
- excludes areas of public sector activity related to technological access (see Servon’s 2002 Bridging the Digital Divide ) or the development of an ‘information society’ (see Norris’s 2001 Digital Divide ).
Exhibit 8: ICTs Defined
'Information and communications technologies (ICTs) is a term which is currently used to denote a wide range of services, applications and technologies, using various types of equipment and software, often running over telecom networks.
'ICTs include well known telecom services such as telephone, mobile telephone and fax. Telecom services used together with computer hardware and software form the basis for a range of other services, including email, the transfer of files from one computer to another and, in particular, the Internet, which potentially allows all computers to be connected, thereby giving access to sources of knowledge and information stored on computers worldwide.
'Applications include videoconferencing, teleworking, distance learning, management information systems, stock taking; technologies can be said to include a broad array ranging from ‘old’ technologies such as radio and TV to ‘new’ ones such as cellular mobile communications; while networks may be comprised of copper or fibre optic cable, wireless or cellular mobile links and satellite links. Equipment includes telephone handsets, computers and network elements such as base stations for wireless service; while software programmes are the lifeblood of all these components, the sets of instructions behind everything from operating systems to the Internet.
Placed within the wider context of eDemocracy, electronic engagement can be represented as a subset of a wider range of activities occurring at the intersection of public policy and new communications technologies (Figure 2). A wider range of case examples which fit within this area of activity (including relevant strengths and weaknesses) is provided in detail in Appendix B: Catalogue of eEngagement Models.
In Figure 2 we see a distinct emphasis on community participation in established (or emerging) policy processes where specific outcomes (e.g. decisions or programmatic implementations) are emphasised.
The advantages of this focus are:
- the instrumental nature of eEngagement is of direct value to policy managers – the investment of public resources is married with the objective of quantifiable outcomes in terms of improved policy development and greater community participation in decision-making;
- eEngagement activities often provide clearer means of program evaluation than the more diffused areas of eDemocracy activity, which either lie largely outside of government, or have multiple policy impacts that are often difficult to enumerate or measure (such as the democratic value of community content development policies);
- the approach focuses on issues of participation and public trust in government, allowing public sector managers a dedicated space for addressing the issues of democratic renewal through targeted activities that match their specific areas of policy responsibility; and
- it allows for a clearer delineation between different approaches to managing wider eDemocracy activities. In particular, capacity development and active listening approaches tend to have distinctly different management requirements than project-driven eEngagement activities.