skip to main content
10.1145/3047273.3047375acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesicegovConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Role of Information and Communications Technology (ICT) in Participatory Democracy: a Forerunner to an Egalitarian Society

Published: 07 March 2017 Publication History

Abstract

Governance is being intensely impacted by Information and Communications Technology (ICT) with respect to bolstering government operations, drawing in body politic, provision of public goods and rendering key government services. Commensurate with the objectives of participatory democracy, an extensive variety of electronic correspondence vehicles, for example, the Internet and email are being deployed to improve citizen engagement. The present study intends to explore the factors involved in e-participation as well as the expanse of e-governance in India. By drawing out variables from extant literature, the study proceeds toward identifying people's participation in e-governance, the circumstances that bolster such participation, factors responsible for reduced involvement, and steps that may be initiated for enhanced involvement and engagement in future. It is understood that people's participation in electronic democracy is contingent upon several factors such as privacy, technical support, accessibility, integrity, open access to every stakeholder, clarity in agenda of discussion, perceived risk of identity, as well as awareness and popularity of electronic media. In a nutshell, the study contributes towards building a bond between the trio -technology, governance and individuals.

References

[1]
Alsaghier, H., Ford, M., Nguyen, A., &Hexel, R. (2011). Conceptualising citizen's trust in e-government: Application of Q methodology. Leading Issues in E-Government, 1, 204.
[2]
Anthopoulos, L. G., Siozos, P., & Tsoukalas, I. A. (2007). Applying participatory design and collaboration in digital public services for discovering and re-designing e-Government services. Government Information Quarterly, 24(2), 353--376.
[3]
Aulich, C. (2011). It's not ownership that matters: it's publicness. Policy Studies, 32(3), 199--213.
[4]
Bale, T. Why don't people vote? You asked Google -- here's the answer | Tim Bale. The Guardian. Retrieved 2 October 2016, from https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/27/why-dont-people-vote-google
[5]
Bali, V. A. (2007). Terror and elections: Lessons from Spain. Electoral Studies, 26(3), 669--687.
[6]
Banducci, S. A., Donovan, T., & Karp, J. A. (2004). Minority Representation, Empowerment, and Participation. The Journal of Politics, 66(2), 534--556.
[7]
Basu, S. (2004). E-government and developing countries: an overview. International Review of Law, Computers & Technology, 18(1), 109--132.
[8]
Berrebi, C. and Klor, E.F. (2008), "Are voters sensitive to terrorism? Direct evidence from the Israeli electorate", American Political Science Review, 102(3), pp. 279--301.
[9]
Borge, R., & Cardenal, A. S. (2011). Surfing the Net: A Pathway to Participation for the Politically Uninterested? Policy & Internet, 3(1), 34--62.
[10]
Boyd, O.P. (2008), "Differences in eDemocracy parties' eParticipation systems", Information Polity, 13(3/4), pp. 167--188.
[11]
Carter, L., &Bééélanger, F. (2005). The utilization of e-government services: citizen trust, innovation and acceptance factors. Information Systems Journal, 15(1), 5--25.
[12]
Chandra, K., & Potter, A. (2016). Do Urban Voters in India Vote Less?. Economic & Political Weekly, 51(39), 59.
[13]
Daglio, M., Brandt-Hansen, S., & Nilsson, E. (2005). Norway. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
[14]
Davis, T. L. (1997). The evolution of selection activities for electronic resources.
[15]
Denny, K., & Doyle, O. (2008). Political Interest, Cognitive Ability and Personality: Determinants of Voter Turnout in Britain. British Journal of Political Science, 38(02).
[16]
Deutsch, M., 1962. Cooperation and trust: some theoretical notes. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation 10, 275--318.
[17]
Dubuis, E., Fischli, S., Haenni, R., Serdült, U. and Spycher, O. (2011), "Selectio Helvetica: a verifiable internet voting system" in Parycek, P. Kripp, M.J. and Edelmann, N. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Danube University Krems, pp. 301--312.
[18]
Edelmann, N. and Cruickshank, P. (2012), "Introducing psychological factors into e--participation research", in Manoharan, A. and Holzer, M. (Eds), E-Governance and Civic Engagement: Factors and Determinants of E-Democracy, IGI Global Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp. 338-361.
[19]
Foster, C. B. (1983). The Performance of Rational Voter Models in Recent Presidential Elections. American Political Science Review, 78(03), 678--690.
[20]
Freelon, D. G. (2010). Analyzing online political discussion using three models of democratic communication. New Media & Society, 12(7), 1172--1190.
[21]
Garrett, R.K. (2006), Protest in an Information Society: a review of literature on social movements and new ICTs. Information, Communication & Society, 9(2), 202--224.
[22]
Hacker, K. L., & Van Dijk, J. (2000). What is Digital Democracy? Digital Democracy: Issues of Theory and Practice, 2--9.
[23]
Hair, J. F., Wolfinbarger, M. F., Ortinau, D. J., & Bush, R. P. (2008). Essentials of marketing research. McGraw-Hill/Higher Education.
[24]
Hayes, A. F., Scheufele, D. A., & Huge, M. E. (2006). Nonparticipation as Self-Censorship: Publicly Observable Political Activity in a Polarized Opinion Climate. Political Behavior, 28(3), 259--283.
[25]
Hooghe, M., Vissers, S., Stolle, D., &Mahéééo, V. (2010). The Potential of Internet Mobilization: An Experimental Study on the Effect of Internet and Face-to-Face Mobilization Efforts. Political Communication, 27(4), 406--431.
[26]
Howard, P.N. (2010), "The lasting impact of digital media on civil society", eJournalUSA, 25(1), pp. 10--12.
[27]
Hurwitz, R. (1999). Who Needs Politics? Who Needs People? The Ironies of Democracy in Cyberspace. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 655.
[28]
Kassen, M. Understanding systems of E-government.
[29]
Krejcie, R. V., & Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities. EducPsychol Meas.
[30]
Kumaraguru, P. and Cranor, L. (2005), "Privacy in India: attitudes and awareness", in Danezis, G. and Martin, D. (Eds), Proceedings of the 2005 Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Cavtat, Croatia, 3856, pp. 243--258.
[31]
Lambrinoudakis, C., Gritzalis, S., Dridi, F., &Pernul, G. (2003). Security requirements for e-government services: a methodological approach for developing a common PKI-based security policy. Computer Communications, 26(16), 1873--1883.
[32]
Layne, K., & Lee, J. (2001). Developing fully functional E-government: A four stage model. Government Information Quarterly, 18(2), 122--136.
[33]
Lupu, N., & Stokes, S. (2010). Democracy, interrupted: Regime change and partisanship in twentieth-century Argentina. Electoral Studies, 29(1), 91--104.
[34]
Macintosh, A. (2004). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2004. Proceedings of the.
[35]
Macintosh, A. and Malina, A. (2002), "Digital democracy through electronic petitioning", in McIver, W. and Elmagarmid, A.K. (Eds), Advances in Digital Government: Technology, Human Factors, and Policy, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Norwell, MA, pp. 137--148.
[36]
Macintosh, A., Coleman, S., &Schneeberger, A. (2009). eParticipation: The Research Gaps. Electronic Participation, 1--11.
[37]
Mou, Y., Atkin, D., & Fu, H. (2011). Predicting Political Discussion in a Censored Virtual Environment. Political Communication, 28(3), 341--356.
[38]
Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends. New York: Warner Books.
[39]
Nam, T. (2012). Dual effects of the internet on political activism: Reinforcing and mobilizing. Government Information Quarterly, 29, S90-S97.
[40]
Nchise, A., Ngwa, O. and Mbarika, V. (2011), "Towards a sustainable e-participation model in Sub Saharan Africa", in Parycek, P., Kripp, M.J. and Edelmann, N. (Eds), Proceedings of the International Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government, Danube University Krems, pp. 171--175.
[41]
OECD (2003), "Promise and problems of e-democracy, challenges of online citizen engagement", available at: www.oecd.org/dataoecd/9/11/35176328.pdf (accessed 8 June 2012).
[42]
Reddick, C. G. (2011). Citizen interaction and e-government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 5(2), 167--184.
[43]
Rogers, E. M. (2003). Elements of diffusion. Diffusion of innovations, 5, 1--38.
[44]
Saxena, K. (2005). Towards excellence in e-governance. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 18(6), 498--513.
[45]
Shareef, M. A., Kumar, V., Kumar, U., & Dwivedi, Y. K. (2011). e-Government Adoption Model (GAM): Differing service maturity levels. Government Information Quarterly, 28(1), 17--35.
[46]
Sharma, G., Bao, X., &Qian, W. (2012). Empirical Investigation on Adoption of E-governance Services in Developing Countries and Ethical Issues. International Journal Of Advanced Research In Computer Science And Software Engineering, 2(12). Retrieved from https://www.ijarcsse.com/docs/papers/12_December2012/Volume_2_issue_12_December2012/V2I11-0108.pdf
[47]
Subramanian, R. (2006). India and Information Technology: A Historical & Critical Perspective. Journal of Global Information Technology Management, 9(4), 28--46.
[48]
Sæbø, Ø., Rose, J., & Skiftenes Flak, L. (2008). The shape of eParticipation: Characterizing an emerging research area. Government Information Quarterly, 25(3), 400--428.
[49]
Sørensen, E., &Torfing, J. (2009). Making Governance Networks Effective And Democratic Through Metagovernance. Public Administration, 87(2), 234--258.
[50]
Telford, H. (2001), "Counter-insurgency in India: observations from Punjab and Kashmir", The Journal of Conflict Studies, 21(1), pp. 73--100.
[51]
Thomas, J. C. (2005). E-Democracy, E-Commerce, and E-Research: Examining the Electronic Ties between Citizens and Governments. Administration & Society, 37(3), 259--280.
[52]
Thomas, J. J., &Parayil, G. (2008). Bridging the Social and Digital Divides in Andhra Pradesh and Kerala: A Capabilities Approach. Development and Change, 39(3), 409--435.
[53]
Toffler, A. (1984). The Third Wave, Bantam
[54]
Warkentin, M., Gefen, D., Pavlou, P. A., & Rose, G. M. (2002). Encouraging Citizen Adoption of e-Government by Building Trust. Electronic Markets, 12(3), 157--162.
[55]
Watson, A., &Cordonnier, V. (2002). Voting in the New Millennium: eVoting Holds the Promise to Expand Citizen Choice. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 234--239.
[56]
Whitmore, A., & Choi, N. (2010). Reducing the Perceived Risk of E-Government Implementations. International Journal of Electronic Government Research, 6(1), 1--8.
[57]
Xenakis, A., & Macintosh, A. (2004). Levels of Difficulty in Introducing e-Voting. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 116--121.
[58]
Zelić, B., & Stahl, B. C. (2005). Does Ontology Influence Technological Projects? The Case of Irish Electronic Voting. Professional Knowledge Management, 657--667.
[59]
Zhong, M. Better governance for development in the Middle East and North Africa: enhancing inclusiveness and accountability-overview.

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)For the few and under specific conditions. Participatory budgeting in Milan: evidence from an online survey on PB participants in Italy’s second largest cityContemporary Italian Politics10.1080/23248823.2022.204342614:3(352-369)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2022
  • (2018)The Role of ICT in Corruption Elimination: A Holistic Approach2018 IEEE 9th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON)10.1109/IEMCON.2018.8614890(859-864)Online publication date: Nov-2018

Recommendations

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Other conferences
ICEGOV '17: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance
March 2017
657 pages
ISBN:9781450348256
DOI:10.1145/3047273
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

In-Cooperation

  • UNESCO

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 07 March 2017

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Check for updates

Author Tags

  1. India
  2. Information and Communication Technology
  3. e-participation
  4. enablers
  5. multiple regression

Qualifiers

  • Research-article
  • Research
  • Refereed limited

Conference

ICEGOV '17

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 350 of 865 submissions, 40%

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)10
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
Reflects downloads up to 13 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2022)For the few and under specific conditions. Participatory budgeting in Milan: evidence from an online survey on PB participants in Italy’s second largest cityContemporary Italian Politics10.1080/23248823.2022.204342614:3(352-369)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2022
  • (2018)The Role of ICT in Corruption Elimination: A Holistic Approach2018 IEEE 9th Annual Information Technology, Electronics and Mobile Communication Conference (IEMCON)10.1109/IEMCON.2018.8614890(859-864)Online publication date: Nov-2018

View Options

Login options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Figures

Tables

Media

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media