Oct 5, 2005 - agency. Democratic theories applied to e-democracy. Theories of .... and similar tools are used by individuals or small user groups in service consumption. .... 2005) and determined development of e-government (Im & Seo ...
기획논문
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호(2007. 3): 27~45
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko
본 논문에서는 민주적 전자 거버넌스의 전제 조건들에 대해 간략히 논하고자 하며 참여 민주주의 원리에 따라 디자인된 정부-시민간 상호 작용에 있어서 기술의 역할을 강조한다. e-governance, e-democracy and e-government 등 세가지 개념을 명확히 하고 상호 관 련성을 살펴보며 민주적 거버넌스의 개념과 시책을 재창조하는데 정보통신기술의 변화시키는 힘을 논의한다. 3개의 기본개념의 관계에 관하여 짧은 토론으로 시작하고자 한다: 전자정부, 전자 거버넌스 및 전 자민주주의. 전자정부와 전자거버넌스의 개념은 비슷한 의미를 사용하고 있으나 아래와 같이 구별될 수 있다. - 전자정부(e-government)는 정보통신기술이 이용되는 정부의 모든 정치-행정상 운영과 관련 된 것이다. - 공중 전자거버넌스(e-governance)로 공중 분야의 관점에서 이해하는 전자거버넌스 (e-governance)는 정보통신기술의 도움으로 여러 부문의 이해관계자의 조정과 운영을 말하며 정 부 개발의 기능, 서비스, 정책을 관리하는 목적을 가지고 있다. - 전자민주주의(e-democracy)는 민주적인 구조와 과정에 정보통신기술이 이용되는 것이다. 민주적 전자거버넌스란, 정치 기관이 민주적 통제를 효율적으로 행사할 수 있으며, 보다 중요하게 는 제도적으로 조직화되고 합법적인 형태의 참여를 통해 시민들이 관련주제에 대해 참여할 기회를 갖게 되고 효과적으로 영향력을 행사하게 되는 투명한 정책형성과 개발, 서비스 진행과정에 있어서, 기술적으로 중재된 상호작용이다 (Anttiroiko, 2004, 40-41). 최근 민주적 제도는 정부의 대의제도에 대부분 의존하고 있기 때문에, 민주적 전자거버넌스의 핵 심은 본질적으로 시민과 정치인, 행정부간의 상호작용에 대한 것이다. 이는 기관으로서의 정부는 민 주주의 체제 내부에서 운영되며, 시민은 정부가 후원하고 지지하는 공식적 민주주의 제도 안에서 민 주적 권리를 표현하고 결집하며 자신들의 이해를 추구한다는 사실을 내포한다. 하지만, 공식적 민주 제도와 참여 형태의 틀을 벗어나 사람들이 할 수 있는 것들이 많음에도 불구하고, 이러한 활동은 포 괄적으로 정의된 민주적 거버넌스의 일부만을 형성하고 있다. 예를 들면, 위키미디어(wikimedia)에 서부터 Youtube와 무선통신에 이르는 인터넷 및 웹 2.0과 관련된 쌍방향 애플리케이션과 포럼이 사회적, 정치적 생활에 얼마나 영향을 미치는 지에 대한 사례가 있다. 언급한 바와 같이, 이들은 공 식적 제도가 아니며, 무료 미디어와 함께 기능적 민주주의 전제조건인 시민활동 및 상호 작용의 한 형태를 대표한다. 이러한 시민단체와 공동체 네트워크, 전자공동체(e-communities)는 아래와 같은 역할에 따라,
27
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
민주주의 기초구성의 일부로서 강화될 필요가 있다(Anttiroiko, 2006). - 다원주의에 기여 - 정보 및 피드백 원천 - 정보 및 협의교환을 위한 기반제공 - 지식 및 자원봉사활동, 다른 참여형태의 풀 제공 - 공동체의 지역발전에 대한 확고한 의지 증대에 대한 협조. 전자민주주의는 민주주의에 대해 일반적인 수단 중심적 개념이고 전자민주주의 본질에 대한 이해 를 보다 잘 돕기 위해, 전통적 민주주의 이론과 연계시켜 볼 필요가 있다. 이를 통해 다양한 종류의 전자민주주의 이론이 있으며 민주주의를 위한 전자 도구와 관련한 다양한 아이디어가 있다는 사실을 알 수 있다. 대의 민주주의(Representative Democracy)는 선거에서의 전자투표 사용과 선거 및 정치과정에 있어서 새로운 미디어의 사용을 강조한다. 참여 민주주의(Participatory Democracy) 는 심의민주주의와 밀접한 연관이 있는데, 이는 전자협의, 전자 시민배심원, 전자청원, 전자주민회의 등과 같은 전자 참여수단의 사용을 강조하고 있다. 직접 민주주의(Direct Democracy)는 민주주의 의 '여과되지 않은' 급진적 형태로써, 전자국민투표를 전형적인 수단으로 강조하고 있다. 또한 중요 하게 고려해 볼만한 민주주의의 새로운 보조적 형태로서, 파트너십과 이해관계자 관계를 관리하는 데 사용되는 도구인 전자네트워크 및 전자상거래를 강조하는 associative democracy, 개인이나 서비 스를 소비하는 소규모 이용자 그룹이 사용하는 전자 상품권이나 이와 비슷한 수단을 강조하는 user democracy도 있다. 유비쿼터스 네트워크는 광역 네트워크를 이용할 수 있는 IT 사용법 환경으로 볼 수가 있다. 그러 므로 컴퓨터 사용은 작업실이나 사무실에서만 가능한 것이 아니라 다른 환경, 거실에서부터 공공장소 및 거리에서 이동하는 차 또는 기차까지 확장 되어있다. 그 외에 유비쿼터스 환경은 네트워크를 통해 거의 모든 것을 전달할 수 있다 (Cf. Murakami 2003, 7). 요즘에 나타나는 u-society의 가장 중요한 관점은 유비쿼터스 기술에 기초를 두고 네트워크 사용 과 적용을 가능한 언제 어디서나 만기가 되는 상호 작용과 거래의 새로운 방식이 되기를 기대한다 (Antirroiko 2005). 무선 네트워크 및 모바일 서비스는 새로운 패러다임으로 1990년도에 시작했 지만 근복적인 변화는 10~15년 안에 일어날 것으로 본다. 이런 발전은 민주주의에 새로운 도전과 기회를 줄 것으로 본다. 그러나 현재 u-democracy의 개념은 아직 개발이 되어있지 않고 앞으로도 충분히 개발하지 않을 것이지만 아마 조만간 세계적인 민주주의 개혁 아젠다에 명시될 것이다. 선진 U-society에 속한 대한민국이나, 싱가포르, 대만, 일본, 핀란드, 스웨덴이 어떻게 이런 기 회를 사용할지 궁금하다. 예를 들면, 대한민국이 아주 흥미 있는 케이스다. 민주적인 발전이 1980 년대 후반에 시작됐지만 이미 민주주주의 체계를 갖고 있는 국가다. 특히 수많은 대한민국 디지털 도 시와 u-city 사업계획이 u-democracy 시험사업의 플랫폼으로 디자인이 되면, 대한민국이 u-democracy의 주요한 혁신국가로 서게 될 것이다. 전세계적 파급경향에 따라, 다양한 형태의 민주적 거버넌스를 탄력적으로 아우를 혼합모델 방식으 로 민주적 체제를 발전시켜가도록 압력이 가해지고 있다. 증대하는 복잡성으로 인해 보다 복합적이면 서도 관리 가능한 민주적 제도가 필요하게 되었다. 일반적 수준에서, 수단 중심적 전자민주주의의 개 념은 민주적 거버넌스의 다양한 형태와 메카니즘을 통합하기에 유용하며, 이로 인해 정보네트워크 사 회에 대한 요건에 대응할 우리 능력에 도움이 되는 통합적 형태의 민주주의가 될 수 있다. 새로운 형태의 거버넌스는 네트워크 민주주의를 발생시킬 수 있으며, 기술 발전은 새로운 민주주 의 이론의 패러다임으로 수렴 가능한 유비쿼터스 민주주의 발전을 위한 비옥한 토양을 제공해줄 수
28 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
있을 것이다. 이러한 민주주의의 통합된 형태는 유비쿼터스 네트워크 민주주의로 특징지어질 수 있으 며, 이에 대한 민주주의 원리는 유비쿼터스 기술의 도움을 받아 탄력적이며 부분적으로 개인화된 네 트워크 기반의 다차원적 거버넌스로 확대될 수 있다. 전자민주주의, 전자거버넌스, 유비쿼터스
I. INTRODUCTION In this article I briefly discuss the preconditions of democratic e-governance, which in this context emphasises the role of technology in government-citizen interaction designed along the principles of participatory democracy. I will first provide some clarification to the terminology of this research field and outline the connections between the concepts of e-governance, e-government and e-democracy. The next section discusses structures and processes of democratic e-governance. Lastly, issues of e-participation as a core of democratic e-governance are outlined followed by a discussion of the development towards ubiquitous network democracy as a possible future direction of e-democracy. The main message of this presentation is to highlight the need to conceptual clarity of this field as well as a need to focus on transformative power of ICTs in reinventing our conceptions and practices of democratic governance.
Ⅱ. CONCEPTUAL FIELD OF DEMOCRATIC E-GOVERNANCE Let's start with a brief discussion about the relationships of the three basic concepts: e-government, e-governance and e-democracy. The concepts of e-government and e-governance are in many contexts used interchangeably. Some scholars and practitioners use
29
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
'governance' to describe the ways the government operates, whereas some others claim that the concept of governance has a specific meaning. For example, Finger and Langenberg (2007) define governance as the growing involvement of non-state actors in collective problem-solving. Some other scholars associate governance with the connection between government and its broader environment (Grnlund 2007). This terminological confusion emerged in the wake of the introduction of the term 'governance' in the early 1990s to describe non-hierarchical ways of organising public policies, service provision and development activities. As the concept of democracy has an inherent connection to certain aspects of government and governance, it has its place of this conceptual field as well. These concepts are schematically illustrated in Figure 1.
Two faces of broadly defined public governance.
Government as a co- Governance as the way of Stakeholders as volunteers, ordinating institution working with stakeholders partners and suppliers Democracy Political leadership
Democratic governance
Government
Public management
Managerial governance
Participation and empowerment
Stakeholders Contracting out and partnership
Technology brings a new element to this conceptual field. Let us start with concise operational definitions of the three core concepts with a view to utilisation of information and communication technologies (ICTs):
- e-Government is about all political-administrative operations of governments in which ICTs are utilised.
30 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
- e-Governance understood here in a public-sector context as public e-governance is about managing and steering multi-sectoral stakeholder relations with the help of ICTs the the purpose of taking care of policy, service and development functions of government. - e-Democracy refers to democratic structures and processes in which ICTs are utilised.
All these approaches can be used as conceptual frames when discussing democratic interaction in policy-making process and aspects of government-citizen interaction, such as e-participation, e-inclusion, access to information networks, knowledge sharing and communication. For example, if we study citizen participation from the point of view of e-government, we take the government's policies and active role as the starting point in conceptualising and promoting e-participation. Similarly, from the point of view of e-governance we may approach e-participation as an instance of democratic e-governance, for example as an expression of governance by citizens and communities with the help of ICTs. Lastly, the same topic can be addressed from the point of view of e-democracy as a set of operational forms of e-democracy or e-participation which are designed to guarantee our democratic rights as citizens or members of political community. The point is that all these approaches or inter-related research areas have historical backgrounds, theories and emphases of their own, as briefly outlined in Table 1, but at the same time their approaches to government-citizen interaction are fairly close to each other.
31
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
Comparison of e-government, e-democracy and e-governance. e-Government
e-Democracy Democracy= principles and arrangements that enable rule by the people democratic rights and responsiveness of
e-Governance Governance= processes or activities of managing stakeholder relationships in policy processes Utilisation of resources of a community by using power to initiate and to create partnerships
Conceptual core
Government= institutionalised public authority and its executive functions making, regulation and law and order
Role of government
Collective decision-making, regulation and law and order
To secure citizens' democratic rights and responsiveness of government
Basic theory arsenal
Theories of the state and of government agency
Democratic theories applied to e-democracy
Paradigmatic actors
Legislature, executive or government agency
Citizen and their representatives
Principal mode of organisation
Hierarchy within politicoadministrative system
Hierarchies within representative system of government
Approach to ICTs
Paradigmatic e-enabled practice
Facilitating government functions: administration, services, democracy, public governance Provision of government information and public services electronic
Theories of governance applied to public e-governance Stakeholders in different sectors(government, business, civil society) Networks, partnerships, quasimarkets and markets
Facilitating citizen-centred democratic processes and citizen participation
Using e-consultation and discussion forums to map out people's preferences on policy issues
e-Networking and e-commerce as tools of public governance
32 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
The rule of thumb is that the choice of concept must be based on the perspective on issues under discussion. The conceptual boundaries are and will inevitably be blurred, but the application of Table 1 and some related principles help to make at least a satisfactory demarcation between these fundamental concepts. Their inter-related nature is summarised in Figure 2.
Conceptual intersections of e-government, e-democracy and e-governance
- Stakeholder relationships - Networks and partnerships - Collaborative orientation - Citizens as partners
Democratic public e-governance
Democratic e-government
Democratic e-governance
e-Democracy - Democratic rule - Citizens’ democratic rights - Citizens as members of democratic polity
The current discussion about e-government focuses increasingly on e-governance rather than the traditional hierarchical and supply-side oriented conceptions of e-government or e-administration. Thus, most of the currently available literature on e-governance is rooted in ICT-driven government reform projects, which tend to blur the boundaries between e-government and e-governance (Finger & Langenberg 2007, 629; Grnlund 2007, 634). This is a result of increased attention to government's external relations, new forms of organisation, development orientation in public sector and the impact of pervasive contextual tendencies. One consequence is that e-government has often been defined in relational terms, using the basic governance relations as the constitutive elements of the concept of
33
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
e-government (cf. Song 2004, 11-12, 53-54). The concept of e-government defined by OECD (2007) serves as a good example of this: "E-government provides an opportunity to develop a new relationship between governments, citizens, service users and businesses, by using new ICTs which enable the dissemination and collection of information and services both within and outside of government (government to citizen; government to business; government to government) for the purposes of service delivery, decision making and accountability."
The OECD's relational approach has become probably the most widely used conception of e-government in the current literature. Such a relational perspective emphasises the ways ICTs can be utilised in interaction between governments and their customers and other stakeholders. This same shift has resulted in a fusion of e-government and e-democracy discussion, as one of the most important perspectives on public governance relates to democratic control, inclusiveness and forms of citizen participation with the help of ICTs. The concept of democratic e-governance can be used as an umbrella concept that combines these three perspectives. Let us take a closer look at this concept.
Ⅲ. ACTIVITIES IN DEMOCRATIC E-GOVERNANCE Democratic e-governance is a technologically mediated interaction in transparent policy-making, development and service processes in which political institutions can exercise effective democratic control and, more importantly, in which citizens have a chance to participate and effectively influence relevant issues through various institutionally organised and legitimate modes of participation. (Anttiroiko 2004, 40-41.) Because our current democratic system relies mainly on a representative system of
34 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
government, the core of democratic e-governance is essentially about interaction between citizens, politicians and administrations. This implies that government as an institution works within democratic framework and that citizens having their democratic rights express, aggregate and pursue their interests within a formal democratic system backed up and supported by government. Yet, there is a lot that people can do outside the formal democratic institutions and modes of participation, but these activities form a part of broadly defined democratic governance. For example, there are examples of how interactive applications and forums associated with the Internet and Web 2.0, from wikimedia to Youtube to mobile services, have affected societal and political life. As noted, these are not official arrangements, but represent a kind of civic activism and interaction that together with free media is a precondition of a functioning democracy. Such civic groups, community networks and e-communities need to be strengthened as a part of the fabric of democracy as they (Anttiroiko 2006):
- contribute to pluralism - are a source of information and feedback - provide a platform for the exchange of information and deliberation - provide a pool of knowledge, voluntary work, and other forms of engagement, and - help to increase the commitment of communities to local development.
To combine these elements we get a rough picture of how e-government, e-democracy and e-communities constitute the activities of democratic e-governance. This scheme is illustrated in Figure 3.
35
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
e-Government, e-democracy and e-communities(Cf. Walsh 2007)
Democratic e-governance
e-Government
e-Democracy
e-Communities
Government information, e-services and regulation
e-Voting, e-petition, online consultation etc.
Weblogs, ”my portals”, wikimedia, community networks etc.
Representative democracy
Participatory democracy
Associative democracy
Direct democracy
User democracy
GOVERNMENT
CITIZENS AND COMMUNITIES
Since the 1990s a need for the reconstruction of technology along more democratic lines has become apparent. New ICTs have a potential to restructure government and to strengthen democracy, and to create a closer relationship between public administration and citizens (Pardo, 2002, 95. See also Becker & Slaton 2000). It has even been said that new ICTs applied by government contribute to the emergence of a different type of democratic governance, i.e. more direct government, as concluded by Pardo (2002, 90-91). In this way ICTs carries with it a potential to contribute to participatory forms of democracy and to the overall democratisation of society (Barber 1984). e-Democracy is a generic tool-oriented conception of democracy. In order to better
36 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
understand the nature of e-democracy, we need to connect it to traditional democratic theories. This reveals that there are different kinds of theories of e-democracy and different ideas of the paradigmatic e-tools for democracy. Representative democracy emphasises the use of e-voting in elections and the use of new media in electoral and political processes. Participatory democracy, which has a close connection to deliberative democracy, emphasises the use of the tools of e-participation, such as e-consultation, e-citizens' juries, e-petitions, electronic town meetings and alike. Direct democracy is a radical 'unmediated' form of democracy, which emphasises the use of e-referenda as a paradigmatic tool. There are also new supplementary forms of democracy that are worth taking into the picture: associative democracy which emphasises the tools of e-networking and e-commerce used in managing partnerships and stakeholder relations and user democracy, in which e-vouchers and similar tools are used by individuals or small user groups in service consumption. These theories are included in Figure 3.
Ⅳ. STRUCTURES AND PROCESSES OF DEMOCRATIC E-GOVERNANCE e-Democracy combines two fundamental elements, technological mediation tools and institutional arrangements that can be said to be democratic (see Figure 4). One of the expected strengths of participatory e-democracy is its ability to combine a discursive public sphere with the decision-making sphere, and thus to eliminate hierarchical relations which characterise the contemporary representative systems of government. What this means in practice is better quality information, more direct communication, more transparent administration, and a better understanding of public affairs. Even if civic involvement in this process is very important, a large part of this potential can be realised only if local, regional and national governments and institutions of macro-regional and global governance are actively involved in this transformative process.
37
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
Institutional and technological mediation in democratic governance
Political-administrative system Public service personnel
Administrators and experts
Politicians
Forms of technological mediation E-mail Telephone
Mobile communications
Internet Videoconference
Mass media TV, radio
Forms of institutional mediation Individuals
Smaller groups
Larger groups
-
- Citizens' juries - Consensus conferences - Interactive panels - Community groups
- ETMs - Deliberative polls - Research panels - Referenda
Feedback systems Vouchers Citizen charters Consumer choice
USER DEMOCRACY
Customers
PARTICIPATORY / DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY
Inhabitants
Active citizens
ASSOCIATIVE DEMOCRACY
Members
REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
Voters
Citizens in different roles
Gross (2002, 250) summarises the basic requirements of e-democracy in the following way: citizens need to be able to access information, to discuss political issues, and to make decisions by voting electronically. Fairly similar logic is followed in the UNDESA e-Participation Framework including a. Increasing e-information to citizens; b. Enhancing e-consultation for deliberative and participatory processes; and c. Supporting e-decision
38 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
making (UNDESA 2005) and the scheme developed by Dr. Chan-Gon Kim (2005) in which four stages of digital democracy are identified: (1) information disclosure, (2) listening/feedback, (3) online deliberation, and (4) online decision-making. These schemes show in an illuminating way the key elements of e-democracy process, which also serve as the foundation of e-democracy maturity model. The basic elements of the e-democracy process moulded into a conventional management cycle is presented in Figure 5. Process view to e-democracy
Collective decision-making online referendums
Planning and preparation
e-consultation, e-citizens’ jury, ETM etc.
DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
e-vouchers e-feedback systems
Implementation/ service provision
information systems
Control and evaluation Source: Anttiroiko 2006.
Methods of democratic e-governance are based on the functions they serve in policy process. On the basis of the functions of institutional and technological mediation tools, the methods applicable in e-governance may serve such activities as information sharing, citizen consultation, deliberation and negotiation, planning and preparation, electioneering, decision making, implementation of public policies and evaluation. This means that the range of methods is very wide and that these methods need to be designed to serve selected aspects of the democracy process with a careful consideration of the context within which they are applied. (See Becker & Slaton 2000; Grnlund 2002; Gross 2002; Anttiroiko 2004.)
39
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
Ⅴ. CRITICAL ISSUES A challenge to democratic theory is to provide analytical tools for understanding new demands resulting from profound societal changes, and also to open new horizons to how to organise 'rule by the people' in the global information age (on contextual changes see e.g. Castells 1996). In a practical sense this translates into the following kinds of critical questions:
1) How do the contextual pressures and challenges condition democracy in practical terms? 2) How to improve the institutional mediation mechanisms of a democratic system? 3) How to develop and apply technological mediation tools in democratic governance? 4) How to take into account the varieties, scopes and levels of political issues in the design of a democratic system? 5) How should different phases of a democratic process be developed so that this process becomes comprehensive, smooth and inclusive?
The first task in the list above is to contextualise the field of citizen influence and participation. This means that changes in social structures, institutions and mentalities have to be identified and taken into account when assessing the processes and outcomes of democratic system. The second element, referred to here as institutional mediation mechanisms, determines how citizens can or may influence and control collective decisions. These mechanisms have a decisive role in operationalising different models of democracy. Thirdly, technological mediation tools as such are transforming the field of public governance and citizen influence. Contemporary societies rely heavily on many kinds of mediation tools and channels of influence, varying from letters to the editor to the use of cable TV, networked computers, and mobile and wireless applications. (Anttiroiko 2004.) The fourth task is to consider the scope and level of political issues, because many wicked problems must be discussed and decided at different institutional levels and also because multi-level governance is increasingly a reality that affects the functioning and credibility of
40 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
democratic institutions. Lastly, people should have their say in different phases of democratic process, from planning to decision making to implementation, and they should be able to construct a coherent view of such a process. To summarise, when introducing ICTs in participatory citizen-centred governance (e-participation in practical terms) for the purpose of facilitating information, communication and transaction processes, the following three key points should be addressed: (a) e-participation must be integrated into existing institutional structure to guarantee connection to decision sphere and administrative practices, (b) e-participation must allow true civic influence on issues of interest in order to make the processes meaningful and thus to avoid frustration, and (c) e-participation must be possible in different phases of the e-democracy process, following the special nature and requirements of each phase. (Anttiroiko 2003.)
Ⅵ. TOWARDS UBIQUITOUS FUTURE What may be in progress in advanced democracies is the formation of a mosaic-like democracy in which a considerable part of legitimate decision-making takes place in different public forums, within a third sector, in the realm of civil society, and occasionally even with the help of market mechanism. At the same time a formal political system may, provided the democratisation really affects the course of events, develop toward new participatory forms. (Anttiroiko 2003.) A technological trend that may have a deep long-term impact on the preconditions of democracy relates to ubiquity. Due to the Internet revolution and new developments in ubiquitous technology the perspective started to shift from ubiquity of computing capabilities to ubiquity of network access and connections. Such a transition widens the perspectives of original mobile computing towards a more diverse and flexible IT environment. (Rehrl et al. 2005; Murakami, 2003, 7-8; Sharma & Gupta 2004, 464; Anttiroiko 2005.) Around the early 2000s this development gave rise to the ideas of u-society and u-life and is slowly extending
41
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
to the realm of democracy as well. The ubiquitous network can be seen as an IT usage environment providing access to a broadband network from literally anywhere. Thus, it extends the use of a computer in a workroom or an office to other terminals and to other usage situations, from living rooms to public space and from streets to moving cars or trains. In addition, a ubiquitous network environment makes it possible to transmit almost anything via the network. (Cf. Murakami 2003, 7.) The most important aspect of the emerging u-society is expected to be the new forms of interaction and transaction that are possible anywhere and at any time due to the utilisation of networks and applications based on ubiquitous technologies (Anttiroiko 2005). Wireless networks and mobile services started to pave way for this new paradigm in the 1990s, but a more radical transformation is likely to occur within the next ten to fifteen years. This development can legitimately be seen to pose a challenge and also to provide new opportunities to democracy. How should democratic structures and processes be changed in a society in which opportunities for interaction become possible at any place and at any time? u-Democracy is still and will for a long time be an underdeveloped concept, but it will most likely be brought to the global democracy reform agenda sooner or later. It would be interesting to see how the most developed u-societies, such as South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Finland, Sweden and some others will utilise this opportunity. For example, South Korea is particularly interesting because its determined development of democracy got started as late as in the late 1980s, but the country has already built a functioning democratic system. Moreover, due to South Korea's phenomenal development in broadband connections and ubiquitous communication systems (ITU 2005; Licalzi O'Connell 2005) and determined development of e-government (Im & Seo 2005; Song 2004), the preconditions for building u-community networks, u-participation forums, u-feedback channels and u-consultation systems are already in place (see e.g. Kim, H.-K. 2005). Especially if numerous Korean digital city and u-city projects are designed to serve as platforms of u-democracy pilot projects, South Korea may become a leading innovator in u-democracy (e.g. Kim, T.-G. 2006). A good indication of this is that Seoul was ranked number one in the world
42 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
in a recent global ranking of municipal websites (Holzer & Kim 2005).
Ⅶ. CONCLUSION Due to pervasive global trends there are pressures to develop democratic systems towards hybrid models which flexibly combine various aspects of democratic governance. Increased complexity requires more complex, yet manageable democratic arrangements. At a general level the tool-oriented conception of e-democracy may become an integrative form of democracy that helps to integrate different forms and mechanisms of democratic governance, thus contributing to our ability to cope with the requirements of informational network society. New forms of governance may give rise to network democracy and technological development may provide fruitful soil for the development of ubiquitous democracy, which may converge into a new paradigm in democratic theory. Such a hybrid form of democracy may be characterised as ubiquitous network democracy, in which democratic principles are extended to flexible and partly personalised network-based multi-level governance with the help of ubiquitous technologies.
REFERENCES Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko.(2003). Building Strong e-Democracy. The role of technology in developing democracy for the information age. Communications of the ACM. 46(9). Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko.(2004). Introduction to Democratic e-Governance. In Matti Mlki, Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko and Reijo Savolainen (eds.) eTransformation in Governance. Hershey: Idea Group Publishing. 22-49. Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko.(2005). Towards Ubiquitous Government: The Case of Finland. e-Service Journal. 4(1): 65-99. Anttiroiko, Ari-Veikko.(2006). Contextualising Local e-Democracy. In:Marie Virapatirin & Tiago
43
｢한국지역정보화학회지｣ 제10권 제1호
Peixoto (eds.) E-AGORA. Le Livre Blanc de la e-dmocratie locale:.Rflexions et Perspectives.e-AGORA: pp. 265-278 Barber, Benjamin.(1984). Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press. Becker, Ted & Slaton, Christa Daryl.(2000). The Future of Teledemocracy. Westport. Connecticut: Praeger. Castells, Manuel.(1996). The Information Age. Economy, Society and Culture. Vol. I The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Blackwell. Finger, Matthias & Langenberg, Thomas.(2007). Electronic Governance. In. Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Vol. II .Idea Group Reference: pp 629-633. Gross, Tom.(2002) .e-Democracy and Community Networks: Political Visions, Technological Opportunities and Social Reality.In ke Grnlund (ed.) Electronic Government.Design. Applications & Management. PA. Hershey. IDEA Group Publishing: pp. 249-266. Grnlund, ke (ed.).(2002). Electronic Government. Design, Applications & Management. London: Idea Group Publishing. Grnlund, ke.(2007). Electronic Government. In. Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Idea Group Reference Vol. II: pp. 634-642. Holzer, Marc & Kim, Seang-Tae.(2005). Digital Governance in Municipalities Worldwide 2005.A Longitudinal Assessment of Municipal Websites Throughout the World.Retrieved February 23, 2006, from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/ASPA/UNPAN02283 9.pdf Im, J.H. & Seo, J.-W.(2005). E-government in South Korea. planning and implementation. Electronic Government. 2(2): 188-204. ITU.(2005).Ubiquitous Network Societies. The Case of Korea, International Telecommunication Union (ITU), Document UNS/08. 6 April 2005. Retrieved October 10, 2005, from http://www.itu.int /osg/spu/ni/ubiquitous/Papers/UNSKoreacasestudy.pdf Kim, Chan-Gon.(2005). Public Administrators' Acceptance of the Practices of Digital Democracy. A Model Explaining the Utilization of Online Policy Forums in South Korea. Ph.D. Dissertation, Rutgers University-Newark. Kim, Hyeon-Kon.(2005). Ubiquitous Government. Dreams and Issues. Powerpoint presentation in the 39th ICA Conference, Salzburg,.13 September 2005. Downloaded August 22, 2006, from http://www.ica-it.org/conf39/ Kim, Tae-Gyu.(2006).KOREA.KT plans to build 60 ubiquitous cities by 2015. U-Cities to feature high-speed networks and high technology. Korea Times. Friday, July 28, 2006. Retrieved
44 │ Journal of Korean Association for Regional Information Society
Democratic E-Governance: Basic Concepts, Issues and Future Trends
August 22, 2006, from http://www.asiamedia.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=49984 Licalzi O'Connell, Pamela.(2005). Korea's High-Tech Utopia. Where Everything Is Observed.The New York Times. Technology. Published October 5, 2005. Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/technology/techspecial/05oconnell.html?ex=1286164800 &en=4a368c49e8f30bd2&ei=5088 Murakami, Teruyasu.(2003). Establishing the Ubiquitous Network Environment in Japan.From e-Japan to u-Japan. NRI Papers. No. 66, July 1. 2003. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from http://www.nri.co.jp/english/opinion/papers/2003/pdf/np200366.pdf OECD.(2007). Public Governance and Management. Definitions and Concepts. E-government. Retrieved March 1, 2007, from http://www.oecd.org/document/29/0,2340,en_2649_34129_ 1830941_1_1_1_1,00.html Pardo, M. d. C.(2002). New Information and Management Technologies for the 21st Centrury Public Administration. Workshop Report of Twenty-fifith International Congress of Administrative Sciences. Governance and Public Administration in the 21st Century.New Trends and New Techniques.Athens, July 2001.Proceedings. Brussels. IIAS:pp. 83-99. Rehrl, K. & Bortenschlager, M. & Reich, S. & Rieser, H. & Westenthaler, R.(2005). Towards a Service-Oriented Architecture for Mobile Information Systems.In E. Lawrence & B. Pernici & J. Krogstie (Eds.) Mobile Information Systems.New York Springer:pp. 37-50. Sharma, S. K. & Gupta, J.N.D.(2004). Web services architecture for m-government. issues and challenges. Electronic Government.Vol. 1. No. 4. 2004.: pp. 462-474. Song, Hee Joon.(2004). Building E-Governance through Reform. Governance Research Series 2. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press. UNDESA.(2005). UN Global E-government Readiness Report 2005.From E-government to E-inclusion. UNPAN/2005/14. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Division for Public Administration and Development Management. United Nations. Retrieved February 23, 2007. from http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/un/unpan021888.pdf Walsh, Lucas.(2007). Extending E-Government and Citizen Participation in Australia through the Internet. In Encyclopedia of Digital Government. Vol. II.Idea Group Reference:pp. 812-818. 1)
Ari-Veikko Anttiroiko: 핀란드 University of Tampere에서 행정학 박사 학위를 취득하고 현재 핀란 드 탐페레 대학교의 지역학 부교수로 재직 중이다. 주요 관심분야는 지방정부, 정보사회, 세계화 및 도 시관리이다([email protected]).
