Online engagement: Opportunities rather than constraints
Governments are recognizing the important role of information and communication technology (ICTs) in enhancing citizen engagement. “Engaging citizens in policy-making is a sound investment in the design and delivery of better public policies and a core element of good governance.” (OECD, 2004, p. 9). ICT tools can offer assistance in engaging citizens through access to information as a basic precondition, consultation as central to policy-making, and public participation as a relationship based on partnership. As a result, ICT has the ability to expand the scope, breadth and depth of government consultations with citizens and other key stakeholders during policy-making.
Yet, the unprecedented degree of interactivity offered by ICT can often pose significant challenges for achieving effective online engagement. These challenges however, can be seen as opportunities for effective online engagement, rather than constraints.
1. Digital Divide
The objectives of an effective online engagement are to enable reaching and engaging with a wider audience however, the continuing presence of digital divide brings consequences of unequal access and excluding many, particularly those in already disadvantaged groups, from the perceived benefits of the Information Society. Consequently, digital divide becomes a concern when the objective is to reach a wide target audience.
Where the lack of access also accompanies with lack of technology skills thus, widening the digital gap, one should think of it as digital diversity and opportunity rather than digital divide. The solution to the problem of digital exclusion therefore, does not lie in abandoning the internet as a tool for democratic engagement and consultation, but rather creating new opportunities for citizens who would not usually participate in an online event, who feel unconfident, less literate, politically alienated or socially marginalised. This, for example, include the creation of facilities such as cyber-cafes and community centers, or making use of television and other digital platforms for connecting citizens without home access to the internet. ‘Active education’ should also be considered to motivate young people to engage and participate in policy formulation.
These wider aspects of usability should be widely considered in order to account for digital inclusion participation of an inclusive sample of citizens in an online engagement.
2. Problem of scale
When government achieves the objective of reaching a wider audience, the challenge then becomes the ability to manage and cope with the problem of scale. This means, government find it challenging to respond to and listen to every individual while on the other hand, individuals find it challenging to have their points of view heard.
Faced with the increasing information overload, the solution therefore is to develop a ‘rule-based framework’ for discussion. Individuals are more reluctant to engage freely online when they are aware of transparent rules of the debate, with an outset ‘postings per day rule’ and a ‘maximum message length rule’. It is also ideal to note that a detailed feedback warrants detailed analysis and reporting.
3. Citizen participation
Some individuals believe that their views or expertise have very little influence on government. This can create barriers to greater online citizen engagement. Overcoming these challenges requires greater efforts to practice deliberative exercises which requires two extra directional flows, that is, citizens to government and citizen to citizen. As a result, participating individuals can in turn ask questions of those asking them to deliberate. In addition, participants can exchange views with one another thus, encouraging active citizen participation in an online engagement.
Policies and projects are usually initiated by the government. Therefore, giving more agenda-setting power to citizens means individuals become the best judges on issues pertaining to their ‘real concerns, knowledge, and relevant experiences’. Online platforms offer great opportunity for channeling this.
Cultural differences can also have an impact on participant satisfaction. However, differences between participants are more likely to enhance the process of deliberation and provide richer experimental input. Efforts should therefore focus on ensuring prejudices based upon status do not diminish the value of any individual contributions, and that issues of class, gender, or ethnicity are not allowed to distort the validity of these contributions.
Conclusion
Much of the challenges and constraints for achieving effective online engagement require the development of frameworks to support the acceptance of e-engagement systems. There is the opportunity for governments to learn and build on the experience of others in the field of online citizen engagement, and take advantage of the benefits it offers.
References
Coleman, S. and Gøtze, J. (2001). Bowling Together. Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation. Hansard Society. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.508.6503&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Edwards, A. (2002). Bowling Together. Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberation, by Stephen Coleman and John Gøtze. Information Polity, (7), 247–252. DOI: 10.3233/IP-2002–0021.
OECD, Organisation. (2004). Promise and Problems of E-Democracy: Challenges of Online Citizen Engagement. DOI: 10.1787/9789264019492-en.
