A Framework for Assessing eParticipation Projects and Tools
HICSS '07 Proceedings of the 40th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences
DoIT Right: Measuring Effectiveness of Different eConsultation Designs
ePart '09 Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Electronic Participation
A survey on participation at Geneva's constituent assembly
ePart'10 Proceedings of the 2nd IFIP WG 8.5 international conference on Electronic participation
Connecting egovernment to real government - the failure of the UN eparticipation index
EGOV'11 Proceedings of the 10th IFIP WG 8.5 international conference on Electronic government
ePart'11 Proceedings of the Third IFIP WG 8.5 international conference on Electronic participation
Talking about public service processes
ePart'11 Proceedings of the Third IFIP WG 8.5 international conference on Electronic participation
Supply of and demand for e-democracy: A study of the Swedish case
Information Polity
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
There exist several models to describe "progress" in eParticipation. Models are typically ladder type and share two assumptions; progress is equalled with more sophisticated use of technology, and direct democracy is seen as the most advanced democracy model. None of the assumptions are true, considering democratic theory, and neither is fruitful as the simplification disturbs analysis and hence obscures actual progress made. The models convey a false impression of progress, but neither the goal, nor the path or the stakeholders driving the development are clearly understood, presented or evidenced. This paper analyses commonly used models based on democratic theory and eParticipation practice, and concludes that all are biased and fail to distinguish between the three dimensions an eParticipation progress model must include; relevance to democracy by any definition, applicability to different processes, (capacity building as well as decision making), and measuring different levels of participation without direct democracy bias.