A report released by the Organisation of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) cited five main barriers for implementing eDemocracy and fostering greater civic engagement. These challenges were: the problem of scale – deliberative experiments in particular have worked more effectively in smaller groups; cultivating an expanded conception of citizenship based upon participation; maintaining coherence and credibility in policy-formulation processes; accurately gauging the costs and benefits of expanding consultation and engagement; and maintaining government commitment to eDemocracy. This is an accurate list, yet there are two other factors that will prove to be problematic for the introduction of eDemocracy: the digital divide, and design and implementation.
The Internet and the Digital Divide
While the video below is specifically dealing with American society, it provides great insight into what is meant by the term 'digital divide.'
Put simply, the digital divide is the disparity between those groups in society that are capable of adopting current technology and easily adapting to new developments as they arrive, and those that are incapable. Capacity in this area is determined largely by socioeconomic status, but age and education are also significant factors, and in a number of nations, there have also been correlations with race. The digital divide is also closely related to issues surrounding the rise of the ‘new’ or ‘knowledge’ economy, where employment prospects and socioeconomic class are strongly associated with information technology skills.
The fact that eDemocracy is, by definition, reliant upon high levels of internet connectivity and a degree of technological savvy means that the digital divide within society is a significant concern. Not only could it prevent many citizens fully benefitting from the expansion of democracy via the internet, but also exacerbate extant inequalities in society; those on the disadvantaged side of the digital divide are often already disenfranchised in the offline world. It is for this reason that critics have suggested that eDemocracy would be a perpetuation, or perhaps intensification, of the status quo, where the interests of the underprivileged are trampled by well-resourced special interests and wealthy or highly-educated citizens. Similarly, critics have also claimed that eDemocracy will favour heavy internet users, but empirical evidence suggests this particular theory is false.
While the digital divide must be addressed, it is not a valid argument against developing eDemocracy. Rather, it is a case for greater investment in skills, education, and innovative social policy that is directly aimed at heightening levels of broadband connectivity and digital literacy.
Design and Implementation
Given the inherent online nature of eDemocracy initiatives, the design and implementation of the software and ICTs utilised is critical. Platforms for eDemocracy must be functional as well as aesthetically appealing, free from ‘bugs’ and design flaws, be easily accessible and comprehensible, utilise a variety of media, be based upon the principles and standards of Web 2.0 and 3.0, maintain enduring appeal, and provide citizens with genuine reasons to make use of them. Fulfilling these criteria is certainly not easy; indeed, many eGovernment and eDemocracy initiatives have failed because of shortcomings in these areas. The fate of previous internet giants such as MySpace, Bebo, AltaVista, and so on also demonstrates the difficulty of maintaining a userbase in such a dynamic field.
Yet besides the standards of software design and attracting users, eDemocracy initiators must also be mindful of the way in which structure and platform influence the type of engagement or deliberation solicited from citizens. Just as discussion within a university tutorial differs from that which occurs in a pub, selecting – for instance – an asynchronous web forum over live ‘virtual town hall’ meetings will cultivate different responses. Online discussions that are firmly structured but more lenient on deliberative standards facilitate more active participation. This follows a general trend demonstrating that more casual methods of participation and engagement are most popular amongst citizens. Moreover, numerous studies have demonstrated that asynchronous forums of engagement tend to generate higher quality deliberation. This is likely due to the lower intensity of asynchronous engagement which permits greater control over how and when to engage, increased time for thought and reflection, and generally does not obligate participants to be online at specific times.
Moreover, consultation and interaction with citizens should be made a priority at all stages of the formulation, design and implementation processes. Once implemented, the appraisal of results should not be made in relation to achievements in the area of face-to-face deliberation; online and ‘real world’ engagement are vastly different, each necessitating unique criteria upon which to judge performance.