Mediaboss Marketing

The Internet has brought about opportunities for citizens to get involved in democracy and policymaking. Is there real appetite for e-democracy and online participation, or is it outweighed by reluctance or apathy, Jan Malinowski asks.

Jan Malinowski is the head of the information society department at the Council of Europe. This opinion represents the authors personal views on the subject.

Participation in decision-shaping and making in respect of the Internet has been at the heart of Internet governance debates. It come back on stage in the wake of Edward Snowdens revelations about mass surveillance and, more recently, following the decision a few weeks ago of the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to initiate a handover process in respect of the oversight of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the multi-stakeholder community.

There is now unprecedented activity around Internet governance: NetMundial (in Sao Paulo this week), Freedom Online Coalition (FOC, Tallinn next week), High-Level Panel on Global Internet Cooperation and Governance Mechanisms sponsored by ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (HLP, Dubai in May), Global Commission on Internet Governance (GCIG, Chaired by Carl Bildt), European Dialogue on Internet Governance (EuroDIG, Berlin in June), Internet Governance Forum (IGF, Istanbul in September), and much more.

Thousands of keen participants in these events hope to influence the future of decision making in respect of the Internet. They include representatives of civil society, business, governments and international organisations. This interest is understandable given the Internets public service value and the importance it has in peoples everyday lives. Governance on the Internet is as important as governance of the Internet.

There are many examples of opportunities for participation brought about by the Internet: Arab springs and Internet-enabled expression of dissent; increased transparency and accountability in public and private sectors; crowd-inspired and crowd-sourced activities; collaborative creation and new commons.

However, there are many unanswered questions and doubts about a global village, new orders and whether we are on a path to improved democracy and participation. Global could be the result of aggregating distinct constituencies and bringing participation to people. There is growing appetite for transparency and accountability at both local and global levels, Internet governance being just one among many areas of legitimate interest.

Fundamental to this discussion are threats and obstacles. Is there real appetite for democracy and participation, or is it outweighed by reluctance or apathy? Are human rights eroded by a shift away from governments, which nevertheless remain responsible for human rights under international law? Are all players prepared to undergo public scrutiny? Some support tools, platforms and applications designed to bring to account other governments and administrations, but themselves resist scrutiny.

What about the new power brokers? The fourth estatethe mediais a known good-evil, but there may be a fifth estate in the form of the new technology superpowers and big data controllers. Increased power comes with greater responsibility. Will big data, dragnet, predictive analysis be tamed for democracy or will decision makers play into the hands of new (or old) despots?

There is a need to learn from the past in order to overcome current turbulence. The raison dtre of human rights, and of the emergence of democracy, was to challenge absolute power by asserting individual rights. The goal was to gain the right to participate in public affairs and matters of general interest. There are also lessons to draw from man-made crises and catastrophes stemming from poor governance or bad management, and from failed uprisings and transitions that regressed to illiberal regimes.

Read more here:
What's next for e-democracy?