Deliberation has long been considered an essential component of genuine democracy.
Deliberation2 is careful thought and discussion about issues and decisions. Deliberation, therefore, is a process of consulting with others in a process of reaching a decision by ap- pealing to reasons or common interests that everybody could accept (Bohman, 1996, pp.
4-9). Democratic discourse is at the center of what has become known in recent years as public realm theory. Political theorists such as Arendt (1958) and Habermas (1989) have devoted considerable attention to the importance of public discourse in modern democracies.
In particular, the concept of the public sphere as discussed by Habermas (1984) and others includes several requirements for authenticity.
Generally, ICTs can create opportunities both for receiving important information and for participating in discussions. However, are ICTs conducive to deliberative governance? The issues raised by this question, however, are complex, abstract, and much more a question of judgment. There are two broad views of the impact of ICTs on deliberative governance.
Whereas some (Blanchard & Horan, 1998, pp. 293-307; Klein, 1999, pp. 213-220) are op- timistic, others (Kraut et al, 1998, pp. 1017-1031; Wilhelm, 1998, pp. 313-338) are not.
First, there are the technological optimists who see ICTs not only as easier and faster, but as qualitatively better — holding out new ways of existing, working, communicating, and participating in political life (Dutton, 1996, pp. 269-290; Negroponte, 1995; Ogden, 1994,
Rho
pp. 713-729). In his book, Democracy and Its Critics, Dahl (1989, p. 339) argues that “tele- communications can give every citizen the opportunity to place questions of their own on the public agenda and participate in discussions with experts, policy-makers and fellow citizens.”
In addition, Grossman (1995, p. 15) offers that “big losers in the present-day reshuffling and resurgence of public influence are the traditional institutions that have served as the main intermediaries between government and its citizens: the political parties, labor unions, civic associations, even the commentators and correspondents in the mainstream press.”
Cross (1998, pp. 139-143) discusses the relationship between ICTs and democracy, fo- cusing on such democratic norms as (1) informing voters, (2) representativeness, and (3) participation. With respect to dissemination of information, ICTs play an important role as a mechanism for dissemination of government information to citizens (Korac-Kakabadse
& Korac-Kakabadse, 1999, p. 216; Langelier, 1996, pp. 38-45; Lips, 1997). In addition, McConaghy (1996) argues that there would also be benefits to open government. By making more accessible the information which is used in the development of government policy, an information service would allow the citizen to be more fully involved in the democratic process. Also, in terms of representativeness, ICTs can enable policy makers to be aware of citizens’ needs and opinions on policy issues. Finally, with respect to participation, McLean (1989, pp. 108-110) points out that ICTs potentially make direct participation possible because they overcome the problem of large, dispersed populations. Moreover, Arterton (1987, p. 189) argues that more citizens can participate because many of the burdens of participation are lowered, and this in turn will increase equity in public decision making (Arterton, 1987, pp. 50-51; Barber, 1984). Further, ICTs can facilitate better communica- tion and information flows between citizens and policy makers and increase the number of voters who will participate in public decision making. This is closely related to the civil society model among four electronic democracy models suggested by Korac-Kakabadse and Korac-Kakabadse (1999, pp. 213-215).
The other view is less optimistic, maintaining that changing institutions and behavior patterns are a slow and problematic process. “It’s so easy to imagine a scenario in which technology is used to get instant judgments from people. If it is used that way, we haven’t seen anything yet when it comes to high-tech lynchings. … Real democracy is slow and deliberative” (Conte, 1995). Electronic newsgroups, unless carefully moderated, can get out of hand. Unmoderated groups often get quite abusive and wander off topic. Politicians and other community leaders with whom citizens wish to interact become reluctant to engage, especially at the beginning of a dialogue, for they fear being “flamed” or losing their ability to lead from behind. Then, there is the problem of dealing with the overload of undifferentiated and uncategorized information and data. In addition, in spite of the increasing amounts of information now available, the increasingly wide distribution it receives, and especially the speed with which it is transferred, there is no evidence that the quality of decision making has improved or that decisions are more democratic.
Dgtal Publc Sphere
Digital.Deliberation.in.Practice:.CitizenSpace
An exemplary practice of digital deliberation in government is CitizenSpace in the United Kingdom (http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/CitizenSpace/CitizenSpace/fs/en). In this section, the practice of digital deliberation on the CitizenSpace in 2003 is briefly discussed.
UK online is a national drive to help citizens in the United Kingdom make the most of the Internet. UK online aims to give every citizen access to the Internet by 2005, with all government departments fully online. UK online Web sites are run by the Office of the e- Envoy. In UK online Web sites, CitizenSpace is a place to enable citizens to play a role in consultations and forums, as in Figure 1.
Citizens who register can receive e-mail updates for consultation. Consultation, simply, is public involvement in the governmental process. For effective consultation, information dissemination is necessary through e-mail as well as on the Web sites.
Since September 1, 2001, 619 topics had been consulted and were closed as of May 2, 2003.
In addition, 174 topics remain open for consultation. Citizens can submit ideas or comments for consultation, related to a specific topic, by mail or through e-mail.
In terms of forums on CitizenSpace, five topics have been discussed. Table 1 summarizes citizen deliberation on the forum. As in Table 1, many citizens participated in a relatively short period. With regard to the forum on “Pensions Green Paper,” the forum was grouped into 4 categories and a total of 187 comments were communicated during the forum period.
Figure 1. CitizenSpace, UK Online (Available at http://www.ukonline.gov.uk/CitizenSpace/
CitizenSpace/fs/en)
0 Rho
In the forum on e-democracy, 427 messages were exchanged among participants during about 100 plus days of the forum period. On average, interactivity occurred among about 5 or so participants a day.
Citizens raised specific issues for deliberation. For instance, 20 deliberation issues were raised in the forum of “Pensions Green Paper: Better opportunities for older workers,” and 13 issues were raised for the discussion of “Pensions Green Paper: Building trust in the financial services industry.”
Figure 2 illustrates citizen deliberation on a specific issue, “Keep it simple,” in the forum on “e-democracy.” Fifteen messages by 7 participants were posted from August 27 to Oc- tober 30, 2002. Eight messages, however, were posted from August 27 to August 31 and 6 messages were posted from September 2 to September 9. Only 1 message was posted on October 30.
Digital.Deliberation.in.Korea
In 1998, the Korean National Government developed a digital policy forum to ensure citi- zen participation online on the Korean Government’s official Web portal as can be seen in Figure 3. On this Web portal, departments provide citizens with an opportunity to input their opinions on the policy issues. As of July 13, 2005, 411 policy issues have been discussed since September 18, 1998, about 60 policy issues a year. In this section, the practice of digital deliberation from 2001 to 2004 is analyzed.
In four years from 2001, 233 policy issues had been discussed online, about 60 issues a year.
There, however, is a little difference among 4 years as can be seen in Figure 4. In 2001, only 28 policy issues had been discussed online, the lowest number of issues in 4 years, but in Table 1. Citizen deliberation on the forum of CitizenSpace
Title Deliberation.Period Number.of.
Comments Pensions Green Paper: Better opportunities for
older workers March 6 - March 23, 2003 46
Pensions Green Paper: Building trust in the
financial services industry March 6 - March 23, 2003 34
Pensions Green Paper: Giving people the
information they need to save for retirement March 6 - March 23, 2003 41 Pensions Green Paper: Protection for members
of company pension schemes March 6 - March 23, 2003 65
E-democracy July 16 - October 31, 2002 427
Dgtal Publc Sphere
2002, 101 policy issues had been discussed online, the highest number of issues in 4 years.
Also, 63 policy issues in 2003 and 41 policy issues in 2004 had been discussed.
As of 2005, the Korean central government consisted of 18 ministries, 4 agencies, and 16 administrations. All ministries, agencies, and administrations can provide citizens with an opportunity for participating in online discussion. As can be seen in Table 2, while 22 policy issues in 2001 and 28 policy issues in 2002 had been posted, only 2 in 2003 and 4 in 2004 Figure 2. Pattern of digital deliberation on “keep it simple”
Figure 3. The R.O.K. Government’s official Web portal (Available at https://www.egov.
go.kr/default.html)
#8
#9 #10 #15
#11
#7
#6
#5
#3 #2 #4
#12 #13
#14
#1: Opening statement by participant 1
Participant 2 Participant 3
Participant 4
Participant 5 Participant 6 Participant 7
Rho
Figure 5. The number of policy issues discussed online from 2001 to 2004
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
The Number of Policy Issues Discussed Online
2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
Table 2. The number of policy issues provided for discussion by 18 ministries
2001 2002 2003 2004 Total
Ministry of Finance & Economy 0
Ministry of Education & Human Resources
Development 0
Ministry of Unification 0
Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade 3 4 7
Ministry of Justice 12 2 1 15
Ministry of National Defense 10 10
Ministry of Government Administration &
Home Affairs 3 3
Ministry of Science & Technology 0
Ministry of Culture & Tourism 0
Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry 0
Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy 9 9
Ministry of Information & Communication 0
Ministry of Health & Welfare 0
Ministry of Environment 0
Ministry of Labor 0
Ministry of Gender Equality & Family 0
Ministry of Construction & Transportation 0
Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries 12 12
Total 22 28 2 4 56
Dgtal Publc Sphere had been posted by ministries. Among 18 ministries, 6 ministries (Ministry of Foreign Af- fairs & Trade, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of National Defense, Ministry of Government Administration & Home Affairs, Ministry of Commerce, Industry & Energy, and Ministry of Maritime Affaires and Fisheries) had posed discussion issues in 4 years. None of these, however, had posted discussion issues every year. Only Ministry of Justice had posted dis- cussion issues in three consecutive years from 2002, while Ministry of National Defense (2001), Ministry of Government Administration & Home Affairs (2004), Ministry of Com- merce, Industry & Energy (2001), and Ministry of Maritime Affairs & Fisheries (2002) had an activity in only one year of those 4-year periods. Since not only this official Web portal but also each ministry Web site has provided citizens with policy discussion opportunities, every ministry has some difficulties to care for scattered Web sites for policy discussion. In addition, some policy issues have been discussed in the Web sites of Blue House. Integra- tion of digital deliberation is needed.
In terms of the number of participants in policy discussion every year, while 251 partici- pants in 2001 and 734 participants in 2002 had posted their opinions on the Web sites of digital policy forum, 605 in 2003 and 212 in 2004 had provided their opinions. Like the number of policy issues discussed on the Web sites, the number of participants every year had decreased.
With regard to the number of participant per discussion topic, about 9 citizens had partici- pated in policy discussion of each topic in 2001 and about 7 participants a topic in 2002, as can be seen in Figure 6. Also, in 2003, there were about 10 opinions per topic, while about 5 opinions in 2004. Since only a few opinions about policy issues had been posted in 4-year period, the problem of representativeness exists.
As can be seen in Figure 7, there is a problem of digital divide. In 4-year period, the sum of opinions posted was 1,802. Of those, 42.39% was posted by participants in the age of 30s.
Figure 6. The number of participants per topic
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
2001 2002 2003 2004
Year The Number of Participants per Discussion Topic
Rho
While 22.74% of opinions was posted by the age of 40s, 21.77% was posted by the age of 20s. Only 2.64% of opinions was posted by the age of more than 60. While the opinions of the age of 30s were overrepresented, the opinions of the age of more than 60 were less- represented.
In addition to the age group, with respect to gender, while 79.86% of opinions posted were by males, 20.14% were posted by females. While the opinions of males were overrepresented, the opinions of female were less-represented.