Clunk click: E-democracy is failing to make EU politics more transparent

Date: 24/04/03

By Geseth Todd

Imagine a one-stop democracy shop where users log on to vote, discuss, debate and consult politicians and fellow citizens on the issues that matter.

This online facility details how elected representatives have been spending their time: working hard to implement policies that benefit society - or doing as little as possible to maximise their bank balances by, for instance, claiming first-class fares for economy-class tickets?

Leaving aside such cynicism, the possibilities of boosting democracy via the online world appear limitless.

Imagine following key debates in the European Council via your mobile phone.

But, first of all, what is 'e-democracy'?

E-democracy involves citizens in all aspects of the democratic process by taking advantage of the internet and other forms of electronic communication (eg SMS text messaging): it connects citizens to the process of governance by facilitating dialogue, discussion and debate.

The general misconception is that democracy is simply exercising one's right to vote. While this is an important aspect, it does not account for the whole democratic process. Dialogue is required between pro-active citizens and conscientious governments.

Though still in its infancy, e-democracy is beginning to take shape in Europe, and is challenging the way governments and citizens think.

Transparency

The EU institutions have gone to great lengths, and expense, to inform the European population.

The 'Europa' portal is the EU's gateway to over a million pages of EU-related web content in the 11 official languages, and includes links to each member state's own government and political party sites.

Europa invites comments through online feedback and e-Vote, an initiative of the Greek presidency.

But does this really make the political process more transparent?

Critics might say that by largely dictating the e-democracy agenda, the EU can limit the amount of 'damage' that citizen's comments can inflict. Control means insurance.

Real transparency depends on independent sources of information, of which there are few.

It should not be measured by the staggering amount of online information available. Some online sources of EU information, for instance, seem content in the main to simply list links to other sources without bothering to actually explain or analyse what lies behind all the jargon.

So where do you go and whom do you trust?

As the online culture develops, and as search engines become more user-friendly, information from the most reputable sites (and you are reading one) will become more accessible.

Digital disenfranchisement

Access to information, however, remains a roadblock for democracy for many.

According to the 1 April 2003 e-Vote report, "136,000 people from all 15 EU countries have participated..." in the first three months alone. Though the figure reflects positively on the Greek experiment - an e-Vote spokesperson claims it is the fastest growing number of participants for any e-democracy initiative - it also reveals that less than 1 of the current EU population (370 million) has participated.

The Greek presidency recognises there is still a large electronic divide in Europe, but sees e-Vote as an "important step in the development of direct e-democracy, which is an essential element for enhancing the transparency, accountability, and democratic legitimacy of the EU".

Earlier this year, on 12 February, the eEurope 2002 final report revealed that in member states over "90 of schools and businesses are online, more than 50 of Europeans are regular internet users and 43 of European households are connected to the internet". The eEurope Action Plan was developed in 2000 to bring Europe online and the final report demonstrates how the plan is working.

While this is good news for member states, the US Central Intelligence Agency's World Factbook shows that the online populations of accession countries have a long way to go before they come into line with the current EU-15.

Statistics vary from country to country but figures for accession countries are nowhere near the levels of internet users in member states. For example, in 2001, approximately 16 of Poland's 39m population were internet users. The 2002 online figures for Turkey are alarmingly low with internet users making up less than 5 of the population.

If the digital divide problem is not bridged, e-democracy will be limited to Europeans with the means to pay for it, returning democratic participation to 19th century standards.

Even if the majority of the 470 million citizens of the enlarged Europe had internet access, how likely is it that they would participate in e-democracy?

Avoiding online apathy

Generally, European countries have good levels of voter turnout. The Maltese, as evident in their elections on 12 April, lead with an average of 96, but less than half of Poland's registered voters turn out on election day (International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance averages for 1990).

Online consumption has made users impatient and unforgiving. Some want easy-to-read information with clear facts and figures. Others want in-depth analysis and lots of background information without having to compromise on speed. The scope of the internet means that users have grown accustomed to getting what they want.

If the EU institutions fail to provide an e-democracy that suits all needs, and not just the needs of the institution, then users will get bored and log off: enter online apathy.

Satisfying the needs of 470 million people and their different cultures in 21 different languages will be the most difficult hurdle for the EU institutions to overcome.

But with action plans like eEurope and eEurope+ (targeting candidate countries), tackling the large disparity in online populations - and consequently the huge deficit in practicable e-democracy - participation levels should increase.

But without a level playing field, and significant participation, e-democracy in Europe risks being nothing more than a well-orchestrated opinion poll of 'connected' Europeans.

• Geseth Todd recently completed an internship at European Voice as part of a masters' course in online journalism run by the University of Central Lancashire, UK.