In recent years, parliaments around the world have taken into its sphere of action advanced information and communication technologies, whose right application can offers an opportunity to ensure transparency, access to information and citizen participation in public decisions, leading to both a strengthening of the democratic framework.
Unfortunately, theoretical studies on the application of e-democracy within the context of Parliament, namely the e-parliament, is still somewhat limited, given that this is an area yet to be explored in large part. From the conceptual point of view it is useful to reflect the precise definition of implementation of e-democracy within the framework proposed by the Parliamentary Zittel (2008):
The concept of e-democracy in the first place suggests that the Internet will be able to increase the amount and the quality of communication between Parliament and the components within a given institutional framework, and second-democracy suggests that electronic communication will affect the Parliament as an institution, and third-democracy suggests that a more responsive and transparent Finally, the parliamentary process will lead to increased political engagement of citizens.
In this report, we believe that thanks to ICT can be an active interaction between parliamentarians and citizens. In fact, in my opinion the new technologies have already shown how they can be an ideal vehicle to create modern institutions, transparent and accountable.
However, doing a little research, I noticed that the current literature, as was the case for e-democracy, has seen the emergence of very critical positions. In fact, although there are some intellectuals who announces the ICT as a tool by the strong democratic potential, seeing them as a way to restart or reconnect voters with their representatives, and improve the health of modern democracies (Francioli, 2008), on the contrary, others believe that the Internet is already being used by MPs to preserve and, at most, increase its power. Missing according to this second scenario, a responsible testing of alternative channels of communication in order to create more sophisticated forms of democracy. Politicians would once again engaged in a process of adaptation aimed to use the Internet as a tool to achieve the same goal as they tried to get through other mechanisms of public communication. Among these objectives include the re-election and the approval of the general public (Davis 1999). The instruments of communication and information would be used by MPs to advertise its image and its activities in order to seize electoral consensus, and would be given little weight to the moments of dialogue with voters, avoiding the opportunity to exchange information. In addition, the thought of Thomas Zittel as researchers point out that as there is no evidence that parliaments disclose in Web sites more than they did previously. Faced with a critical
so still, unfortunately, supported by real factors, the position of Parliament who appears to hinder rather than promote electronic democracy. The fear of abduction power feared by some members of parliament can only be overcome if you put more attention to the positive contributions that new technologies are able to provide their work.
From my standpoint, I believe that having a look too apocalyptic, leaving no room for the inherent potential or already explicit in some cases it may be limited to study the real effects of the network, the fact is that the computer applications have already entered in most contexts parliamentarians. Moreover, while it is true that many parliaments are using Internet hesitantly, that is, only as a means to facilitate access to public information and increase transparency within the institutional framework, on the other hand is useful to look at those projects seeking to go beyond this limit. Overall, only analyzing the different institutional contexts, we can better understand the extent to which technologies have led to differences in practice meeting, and understand the different ways in which parliaments have used the Internet.
parliaments in different places have all the information online about the institution, work done in committees, as well as the proposals being considered in many cases, complete reports can be downloaded. Some offer audio and video so that the public can watch the procedure on-line, and most offer contact information for parliamentary or technicians. (Leston-Bandeira et al. 2008).
Other modernization efforts have been geared to improving working conditions and access of parliamentarians. In Canada, for example, the House of Commons has been wired so that every Member had a power source and a wireless Intranet and Internet. In some countries such as Finland was introduced electronic voting. So many changes in the way in which individual representatives carry out their activities in which new commitments are paid, how to respond to emails coming from people who expect to receive a response within a short time considering the speed of the vehicle. It should however be said that the work is facilitated by the same portals as information-rich on-line help to staff members of parliament often find answers to questions in a relatively short time.
Returning to the more specific area of \u200b\u200be-democracy, some parliaments have embraced the idea of \u200b\u200bgreater involvement of citizens in public decisions, and at least initially experienced online consultations, e-petitions and blogs. A good example of this is the British Parliament which has developed in recent years, several projects to create a deep interaction with citizens. From 1998 to 2005 there has been a first draft on-line consultations, however, that some criticize as it is not institutionally embedded interactivity, which is a kind of experiment, not a new stable parliamentary service. In fact, ask people's opinions on certain issues and then ignore them may involve the risk of yet another general distrust. Hence perhaps the criticism of Coleman and Götze (2001): "Governments should not offer the online consultation as a gimmick, but they must be committed to supplement the evidence gathered in the political process and be responsive." Still on English landscape, another step is represented by a forum established to enable citizens to organize in the form of a discussion guide was then provided to the Committee for the bill. The project was attended by nearly 2,000 visits per day. In the United Kingdom from the website of the Prime Minister, any person may sign a petition. Although there is no supporting documentation or room for discussion, this initiative since its inception in November 2006, attracted over two million subscriptions (E-petitions).
In conclusion, we can say that, although there are still institutions that seek so far limited their sites within the forms of political participation, such as mobilization or even public education, we must look with confidence to those organizations that have adopted measures contrary to the democratic approach of the new civil rights. It is remarkable that this is leading Western nations, such as the United Kingdom with their reforms, they can drag into the vortex reformer those who need to keep pace with the times.
Unfortunately, theoretical studies on the application of e-democracy within the context of Parliament, namely the e-parliament, is still somewhat limited, given that this is an area yet to be explored in large part. From the conceptual point of view it is useful to reflect the precise definition of implementation of e-democracy within the framework proposed by the Parliamentary Zittel (2008):
The concept of e-democracy in the first place suggests that the Internet will be able to increase the amount and the quality of communication between Parliament and the components within a given institutional framework, and second-democracy suggests that electronic communication will affect the Parliament as an institution, and third-democracy suggests that a more responsive and transparent Finally, the parliamentary process will lead to increased political engagement of citizens.
In this report, we believe that thanks to ICT can be an active interaction between parliamentarians and citizens. In fact, in my opinion the new technologies have already shown how they can be an ideal vehicle to create modern institutions, transparent and accountable.
However, doing a little research, I noticed that the current literature, as was the case for e-democracy, has seen the emergence of very critical positions. In fact, although there are some intellectuals who announces the ICT as a tool by the strong democratic potential, seeing them as a way to restart or reconnect voters with their representatives, and improve the health of modern democracies (Francioli, 2008), on the contrary, others believe that the Internet is already being used by MPs to preserve and, at most, increase its power. Missing according to this second scenario, a responsible testing of alternative channels of communication in order to create more sophisticated forms of democracy. Politicians would once again engaged in a process of adaptation aimed to use the Internet as a tool to achieve the same goal as they tried to get through other mechanisms of public communication. Among these objectives include the re-election and the approval of the general public (Davis 1999). The instruments of communication and information would be used by MPs to advertise its image and its activities in order to seize electoral consensus, and would be given little weight to the moments of dialogue with voters, avoiding the opportunity to exchange information. In addition, the thought of Thomas Zittel as researchers point out that as there is no evidence that parliaments disclose in Web sites more than they did previously. Faced with a critical
so still, unfortunately, supported by real factors, the position of Parliament who appears to hinder rather than promote electronic democracy. The fear of abduction power feared by some members of parliament can only be overcome if you put more attention to the positive contributions that new technologies are able to provide their work.
From my standpoint, I believe that having a look too apocalyptic, leaving no room for the inherent potential or already explicit in some cases it may be limited to study the real effects of the network, the fact is that the computer applications have already entered in most contexts parliamentarians. Moreover, while it is true that many parliaments are using Internet hesitantly, that is, only as a means to facilitate access to public information and increase transparency within the institutional framework, on the other hand is useful to look at those projects seeking to go beyond this limit. Overall, only analyzing the different institutional contexts, we can better understand the extent to which technologies have led to differences in practice meeting, and understand the different ways in which parliaments have used the Internet.
parliaments in different places have all the information online about the institution, work done in committees, as well as the proposals being considered in many cases, complete reports can be downloaded. Some offer audio and video so that the public can watch the procedure on-line, and most offer contact information for parliamentary or technicians. (Leston-Bandeira et al. 2008).
Other modernization efforts have been geared to improving working conditions and access of parliamentarians. In Canada, for example, the House of Commons has been wired so that every Member had a power source and a wireless Intranet and Internet. In some countries such as Finland was introduced electronic voting. So many changes in the way in which individual representatives carry out their activities in which new commitments are paid, how to respond to emails coming from people who expect to receive a response within a short time considering the speed of the vehicle. It should however be said that the work is facilitated by the same portals as information-rich on-line help to staff members of parliament often find answers to questions in a relatively short time.
Returning to the more specific area of \u200b\u200be-democracy, some parliaments have embraced the idea of \u200b\u200bgreater involvement of citizens in public decisions, and at least initially experienced online consultations, e-petitions and blogs. A good example of this is the British Parliament which has developed in recent years, several projects to create a deep interaction with citizens. From 1998 to 2005 there has been a first draft on-line consultations, however, that some criticize as it is not institutionally embedded interactivity, which is a kind of experiment, not a new stable parliamentary service. In fact, ask people's opinions on certain issues and then ignore them may involve the risk of yet another general distrust. Hence perhaps the criticism of Coleman and Götze (2001): "Governments should not offer the online consultation as a gimmick, but they must be committed to supplement the evidence gathered in the political process and be responsive." Still on English landscape, another step is represented by a forum established to enable citizens to organize in the form of a discussion guide was then provided to the Committee for the bill. The project was attended by nearly 2,000 visits per day. In the United Kingdom from the website of the Prime Minister, any person may sign a petition. Although there is no supporting documentation or room for discussion, this initiative since its inception in November 2006, attracted over two million subscriptions (E-petitions).
In conclusion, we can say that, although there are still institutions that seek so far limited their sites within the forms of political participation, such as mobilization or even public education, we must look with confidence to those organizations that have adopted measures contrary to the democratic approach of the new civil rights. It is remarkable that this is leading Western nations, such as the United Kingdom with their reforms, they can drag into the vortex reformer those who need to keep pace with the times.
0 comments:
Post a Comment