E-democracy (“e-democracy”, “virtual democracy”) is a form of democracy characterized by the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) as the main means for collective thinking and administrative processes (informing, making joint decisions by electronic voting, monitoring the execution of decisions, etc.) etc.) at all levels - from the level of local self-government to international.
The concept of "e-democracy" means the widespread use of electronic procedures, the Internet and social networks in political and administrative processes with feedback. It is about direct and reverse interactive communication used to ensure both preparation and citizen participation in political governance.
E-democracy is related to democracy, understood in both broad and narrow senses.
In a broad sense, we are talking about the form of structure and functioning of any organization based on the principles of equality of its members, decision-making by a majority vote, periodic election and accountability of the governing bodies to the general meeting, conference, congress, organization with extensive use of interactive communication.
In a narrower sense in political science, e-democracy is understood as the effective use of interactive political communication in the work of state and especially non-state government bodies.
A distinction should be made between e-democracy and e-government. If the latter concept means an increase in the efficiency and convenience of access to services of the state from any place and at any time, the first one refers to the use of information technologies to empower every citizen. Some researchers use the term network democracy instead of the term e-democracy.
The sphere of e-democracy includes, first of all, the activities of the network Internet community for the discussion, promotion and updating of various political ideas and initiatives, information support and the organization of various political and non-political actions, as well as participation in various elections.
The platform for the implementation of electronic citizen participation is the Internet, which can be accessed through various channels (personal computers, mobile phones, interactive television, etc.). So, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the UN, there are three levels of electronic participation, reflecting the degree of citizen involvement: 1) information, 2) consultation, 3) active participation. They correspond to three main goals: a) increasing information accessibility and openness, b) wider involvement of citizens in discussions on various political and socially significant issues, c) empowering citizens in determining policy.
The first two goals (information and consultation) are implemented through top-down e-participation tools, allowing citizens to be informed about current political events, as well as to respond to government initiatives, while achieving the last goal relies on participation tools. based on the bottom-up principle, according to which citizens are not only consumers of public policy, but also its producers.
Following global trends, Russia is also making attempts to intensify the participation of citizens in solving various issues of state and public life through I CT. Among them is the approval of a program for the development of the information society, which prescribes the creation of electronic services to ensure public participation and control over the activities of government bodies.
Over the past few years, a number of normative legal acts have been adopted that form the legal basis for interaction between government bodies and citizens in electronic format. Among them should be called the development of the "Concept for the development of e-democracy mechanisms in the Russian Federation until 2020". An important rule is that the authorities will be obliged to consider proposals that have received the support of at least 100 thousand citizens within a certain period of time.
In accordance with this "Concept", e-democracy is understood as such a form of organizing the social and political activities of citizens, which, through the widespread use of information and communication technologies, provides a qualitatively new level of interaction of citizens with each other, with government bodies, local governments, public organizations. and commercial structures. E-democracy, along with e-government, is one of the basic foundations of the information society.
The most common among e-democracy mechanisms are:
- - e-voting (mobile phone voting, internet elections, etc.);
- - mechanisms of network communication of citizens and collective discussion of socially significant problems and issues of socio-political topics online;
- - mechanisms for the formation of online communities, including mechanisms for planning and implementing civic initiatives and collective action projects;
- - mechanisms of network communication of citizens with authorities, including tools to influence decision-making and civil control over the activities of authorities;
- - mechanisms of public online management at the municipal level.
According to the concept, it is proposed to ensure the development of e-democracy mechanisms until 2020 in three stages.
At the first stage in 2011-2013. it is planned, in particular: to test technical and software solutions when creating a prototype of a unified system of e-democracy (ESED); to introduce the ESED in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, including at the municipal level, by integrating it with regional and municipal portals of the authorities; develop and launch a mobile version of the ESED for use by citizens on mobile devices; ensure the integration of the ESED with popular social networks.
At the second stage in 2014-2016. it is planned to expand the scale of the ESED functioning to the federal level, to fully implement the principle of subordination, to ensure the integration of the ESED with federal portals of authorities, as well as with Internet portals of information agencies and the media, with most of the existing services of mass network communication of citizens (forums, social networks, blog hosting, multimedia hosting, etc.).
At the third stage in 2017-2020. the development and implementation of additional functional subsystems of the ESED is possible. In terms of organizing electronic interaction between civil society and government bodies, a promising direction for the development of the ESED can be a further increase in the level of interactivity through the use of online conference communication technologies, as well as video communication. ESED can be used as a convenient platform for planning and organizing online communication between officials and citizens, organizing online "direct lines" and Internet conferences.
According to the developers of the concept, a unified system of e-democracy should ensure the participation of citizens and organizations in public administration at the federal, regional and municipal levels, which should positively affect the quality of the provision of state and municipal services on the territory of the Russian Federation, ensure an increase in the efficiency of public administration, and increase satisfaction of citizens with the activities of state authorities and local governments.
Analysis of the attitude of Russians to electronic forms of participation in politics shows that up to half of the respondents express a desire to raise their own awareness by receiving electronic mailings with news on the activities of legislative and executive authorities; some of them are ready to take advantage of online nets.
Online chats with politicians and officials are also a popular tool for public participation among a number of respondents. Online protests, online debates and online rallies - attract the attention and participation of up to a quarter of those surveyed.
At the same time, a significant part of Russians would not use any of the proposed forms of electronic participation. Those people who do not participate in politics usually do not participate in active "electronic political life."
Political blogs play an important role in e-democracy processes. In Russia, blogs with a political orientation are not dominant in the blogosphere (only 10-12%), which, however, cannot be said about their importance, especially during electoral or politically acute periods of the country's development. The political sector of the Runet blogosphere is growing. The direct development of Runet and the arrival of broadband Internet in the Russian space expands and reformats the communicative space of the network, and in addition to the websites of political parties and the personal pages of politicians, in recent years, many bright political bloggers of various levels have appeared, and their importance in the sociocommunicative space is increasing. A political blog is becoming a powerful image-based PR-tool aimed primarily at the target audience of opinion leaders.
The introduction of e-democracy tools in general can increase the level of public participation and democratization of the communication sphere. At the same time, there is a danger of its restriction and privatization by opinion leaders on the Internet. In order to equalize the rights of participants in the blogosphere, in 2015 Russia adopted a law on the compulsory registration of bloggers (by analogy with the media), who register more than 3 thousand readers per day.
The nascent political activism in the Russian Internet space has already demonstrated its potential to influence the balance of political forces and access to power by placing public events on the political agenda and mobilizing part of the public to put pressure on those who are empowered to make political and administrative decisions. The Internet creates both new opportunities and can be a conduit of threats and restrictions for modern democracy.
UDC 321.7: 004.77
ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY: CONCEPT, PROBLEMS
O. V. Omelichkin
E-DEMOCRACY: CONCEPT AND PROBLEMS
O. V. Omelichkin
The article examines theoretical issues related to the use of new information technologies and the formation of e-democracy. The main problems and contradictions are analyzed. The prospects for the formation of electronic democracy in Russia are considered.
The paper studies some theoretical issues related to the application of new information technologies and the formation of e-democracy. It explores the major challenges and contradictions of the process. The perspectives on the e-democracy development in Russia are subject to a detailed analysis.
Key words: information technology, political communication, democracy, e-democracy, political participation.
Keywords: information technology, political communication, democracy, e-democracy, political participation.
In modern conditions, new information and communication technologies (ICT) have a great influence on political life. The Internet is gaining great importance as it forms a single global virtual space. At the same time, new forms of government are being formed in the form of “electronic government” activities. Systems of websites of state institutions, parties and public organizations are being created. Many countries are beginning to use various methods of “electronic voting”. As a result, politics is becoming more penetrating, public and staggering. New forms of political communication cannot but have a significant impact on the processes of democratization. They have led to the emergence of a new phenomenon called "e-democracy", "network democracy", etc. New opportunities for citizen participation in politics are opening up in it. In modern science, these processes have received a certain theoretical understanding.
The huge role of information in social development was written by J.-A. de Condorcet and other thinkers of the past. In the second half of the twentieth century, new communication theories appeared. M. McLuhan saw in new information technologies the most important factor in the historical process and argued that the dominant type of communication determines the type of society. After the pre-written stage of development of civilization and the stage of written culture, an “electronic society” (or “global village”) appears, which, using electronic means of communication (infocommunications), forms a new multidimensional picture of the world.
Ideas anticipating the arrival of e-democracy were expressed at different times by C. Cooley, R. Park, J. Gallup, G. Lasswell, and others. O. Toffler was one of the first to record a new political phenomenon. In his book Future Shock (1970), he wrote about the emergence of "anticipatory democracy." Its essence was that the authorities, when making political decisions, should listen to the opinion of people regarding the possible consequences of the proposed changes. At the same time, citizens themselves, through interest groups, on an initiative basis, can apply with a proposal
niyami and projects for the development of the country or any institution in government bodies. Initially, this form of democracy relied on traditional media, but with the advent of new technologies, its capabilities have grown significantly.
M. Castells notes the crisis of the existing liberal model of democracy. He notes the need for a transition from a hierarchical system of governance to a decentralized and network based on the development of local self-government and established horizontal ties between citizens and authorities, as well as the widespread use of electronic communications.
Already in the 70s. the first experiments in the creation of interactive telematic systems (in the form of "electronic city meetings") began in the USA. In 1993, the first official state website of the White House appeared. Since 1998, all federal authorities have started using e-mail. The first Internet elections were held in 2000 in Oregon. In Estonia, local elections using the Internet were held in 2005. Another voting option is related to the use of “electronic ballot boxes”, which can operate without being connected to the power grid and communication infrastructure. In Brazil, this system has been applied in municipal elections since 2000.
Estonia has created a portal that allows citizens to submit proposals for improving public administration and legislation, and to come up with new initiatives. In Iceland and New Zealand, major bills are discussed this way. Similar examples can be continued. It is no coincidence that in 2006 the Council of Europe created a special committee on e-democracy (SAIBE) - an intergovernmental body consisting of representatives from 47 member states of the Council of Europe, as well as other international organizations.
As a result of such innovations, direct and feedback links are established between the authorities and citizens, working in an online mode and allowing them to conduct a continuous dialogue. This facilitates prompt discussion of public
problems and allows you to seek support from the population for decisions. Thus, the nature of political governance is changing, taking on an increasingly democratic form.
The idea that the information society creates new forms and mechanisms of democratic participation is actively developed in the scientific literature. R. Dahl wrote that interactive telecommunication systems help to reduce the gap between the elite and the people, allow any citizen to ask questions and get easily accessible information about public problems in a form suitable for him. They "allow citizens to participate in discussions with experts, with political decision-makers and with ordinary compatriots." Such a democracy provides new channels of interaction for political actors, expands the political audience and opens up new opportunities for informing and self-organizing people.
We consider e-democracy as a form of interaction between the people and the government, in which the processes of informing and involving citizens in politics, voting, joint discussion and decision-making, control over their implementation, etc. are carried out on the basis of the latest information and communication technologies.
The concept of e-democracy is being actively developed in modern science. Specialists identify two areas in it - direct democracy (participatory democracy) and communitarian democracy. The first direction was presented by I. Masuda and B. Barber, who note the increased importance of direct participation of citizens in politics and the management of public affairs through new information channels. As a result, the political representation of professionals, officials and experts will gradually be overcome. Supporters of the communitarian approach (A. Etzioni, H. Reingold) note that various groups, associations, citizens interact in the electronic space, discussing and making decisions on a wide range of issues without the participation of professional mediators.
At the same time, some scholars speak of a qualitatively new stage in the development of democracy, indicating a kind of return to direct democracy with its absence of mediators in the person of elected representatives, political parties and other structures. The introduction of new information technologies leads to the onset of the third (earlier there were ancient and representative) era of democracy (L. Grossman).
It should be emphasized that the growing globalization of the modern world leaves a huge imprint on the democratic configuration of information networks. It weakens the control of nation-states over communication sources and promotes the wide and unhindered dissemination of political ideas and democratic experience.
However, many scientists believe that these changes affect only the technical possibilities of accelerating information processes and the provision of services, leaving the old social ties and relations. The nature of power and political administration does not change. The low level of political
culture and activity of citizens can devalue the full potential of the latest information technologies.
In this regard, experts note that new technologies have significant capabilities for manipulating public consciousness. Disinformation and lies penetrate any electronic network.
They express the interests of very different political forces controlling these channels. The latest technical means can also be used for anti-state terrorist activities.
This circumstance casts doubt on the democratic nature of the emerging information society. The Italian expert D. Zolo speaks of the utopian nature of the very idea of \u200b\u200be-democracy. The availability of new interactive communication technologies (teleconferencing, opinion polling systems, automated feedback programs, two-way cable television, etc.), allowing constant public consultation and instant referendums, has not led to the creation of true democracy. The fact is that professional communication agencies mostly work for profit and are guided by the interests of the ruling circles in the face of large companies and the state bureaucratic apparatus. Therefore, they consistently silence (or "blabber") the most controversial social problems and suppress political innovation. This is also hampered by the growing specialization of political functions and the extreme lack of time and attention inherent in modern society. The continuous increase in the volume (redundancy) of transmitted information and the uncontrollability of processes lead to disorientation and apathy in relation to traditional collective forms of political participation and, accordingly, to the withdrawal of individuals into the sphere of private life. The author calls this effect "intoxicating dysfunction," which replaces personal responsibility and participation.
Political practice shows that in a democratic society, political associations, organizations and other structures, usually acting as intermediaries, still enjoy great influence and actively use electronic means for their own purposes. In addition, the technological systems themselves are the same social structures as political institutions, and their activities are controlled and regulated by the state. The leading role in democracy continues to be played by the various social groups and individuals using them.
Therefore, state and public control over the mass media and the activities of the "invisible" political power is necessary. Only then can the Internet and other information technologies play an important role in shaping democratic mechanisms for political participation.
At the same time, in modern conditions, there is a noticeable reduction in direct forms of political participation. The number of political associations is declining. The activity of people in elections periodically decreases. At the same time, there is an increase in symbolic forms of participation through the media. People turn into interested
observers of political events, combining the need for knowledge and orientation in public politics with entertainment and the organization of their own leisure. Such participation can result in both new forms of information exchange and self-organization of citizens, and in imitation of democratic forums.
At the same time, it becomes obvious that, in general, ICTs contribute to an increase in the level of political activity of the masses, the involvement in politics of new social strata and groups (especially young people or the population of remote regions), their accelerated mobilization during political campaigns, equal participation of citizens in the discussion and adoption of responsible decisions. , collective control over state bodies. They expand the political space by virtualizing and doubling it.
At the same time, one should distinguish between the concepts of “e-democracy” and “e-government”. Following other specialists, we believe that the latter ensures efficiency and convenience in the provision of services to citizens by state institutions, informing them about the most important events. The democratic quality of the system is associated with additional opportunities for holding elections and personal participation of citizens in the discussion and adoption of political decisions. As a result, people get the opportunity not only to communicate their proposals and demands, but also to control and, in part, direct the activities of government bodies.
The basic principles of e-democracy are enshrined in such an important international document as the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CM / JES (2009) 1 on e-democracy. The Appendix to them defines the main directions and standards in its development.
In summary, they look like this.
The main goal of e-democracy is to support democracy and strengthen democratic institutions and processes.
It complements and interacts with traditional processes.
It is based on the democratic, human and cultural values \u200b\u200bof the society.
It is an electronic exercise of power and includes informal politics and non-governmental actors.
E-democracy realizes fundamental freedoms, including freedom of information and access to it, human and minority rights.
It expands political debate and improves the quality of decision-making at all levels of government.
It can be used in different types of democracy and at different stages of democratic development.
The goals and principles of e-democracy are transparency, accountability, responsibility, involvement, discussion, inclusiveness, accessibility, participation, sub-sidarity, trust, social cohesion.
The media and other open electronic platforms for public debate play a key role in it.
E-democracy is an integral part of the information society.
It is based on the following concepts: awareness, broad understanding of citizenship, participation, empowerment, inclusion, discussion.
It brings together decision-makers and citizens in policy making, promoting social inclusion and social stability.
E-democracy strengthens the international and global nature of politics, facilitates cross-border cooperation.
In general, e-democracy ensures that the opinions and proposals of the population and organizations are taken into account in the process of political decision-making and administration. It promotes the involvement of citizens in the political process in new, simpler and more accessible forms for them. The authorities directly interact with the people, their activities become open and efficient by accelerating all procedures for discussing and making managerial decisions and providing public services. The goal of such a democracy is to optimize the activities of political institutions by rejecting unnecessary intermediary structures and information barriers, as well as direct and active political participation of the people in public affairs.
As part of this process, social networks are created for free political communication and cooperation and the wide dissemination of any information and projects. On this basis, new social network political movements are being formed, which are gradually replacing traditional parties and public organizations in the eyes of the audience. For “implicit” communities and interest groups, such movements can become a convenient form of political organization and education, the coordination of collective actions that ensure the situational mobilization of citizens and the development of political goals that unite them. They are characterized by the presence of many leaders of public opinion and existing levels of information interaction. At the same time, all members of the network community remain independent and independent of any structures, voluntarily enter into political unions and take on any responsibility, guided by their own ideas and beliefs. Thus, the political configuration of society takes the form of a collection of autonomous agencies and associations.
Russia has all the prerequisites for the development of an electronic political space. Already now, in terms of the number of Internet users, the country ranks first in Europe and sixth in the world. The total number of users is about 70 million people. The Internet is becoming the second most important source of news about events in the country and in the world after television. According to VTsIOM (March 2013), the share of Internet users is 67% of the population, and 41% of them do it every day. Among those surveyed, 53% expressed confidence that the development of the Internet is beneficial to our society. It provides quick access to information and expands the possibilities for communication. However, 24% see more harm in this, because, in their opinion, this space is filled with “empty”, harmful information and negatively affects young people (“zombie”, dullness).
At the same time, the overwhelming majority of Russians agree that there are indeed many dangerous sites and materials on the Internet, in connection with which it is necessary to introduce censorship and restrict adolescents' access to it.
In July 2013, the Public Opinion Foundation conducted a survey to find out how widespread civic initiatives are on the Internet. It turned out that among those who visit the Internet at least once a month, 15% of the respondents showed civic activity. At the same time, over the past six months - a year, they had to do the following on the Internet: speak out on social and political issues in blogs, social networks, news sites - 6%, visit the sites of parties, public (non-profit) organizations, political leaders - 5%, donate money to charitable foundations, to strangers in need -4%, to participate in Internet voting on political issues - 2%, to post information about local problems on centralized services (for example, a garbage dump, a broken playground, etc.) -2% , join groups of parties / political leaders in social networks - 1%, disseminate information about social and political problems and events - 1%, join groups of public (non-profit) organizations, initiatives to solve public problems and help those in need of social
networks - 1%, to sign petitions, bills, applications on the Internet - 1%, to participate in public examination of draft laws - 1%. Among active users, these indicators are significantly higher. At the same time, 81% of respondents did not do any of the above.
It is obvious that political activity is still characteristic of a small part of Internet users. However, the study showed that people who are highly civic on the Internet are more willing to unite for joint actions than others, and tend to trust people from their environment. They are more likely to express their readiness to organize and take part in social events, as well as donate money to various social projects.
E-democracy ensures the provision of various public services and information about the activities of relevant institutions to the population, allows citizens to participate in the discussion of socially significant problems and the adoption of major decisions, in control over their implementation. Its main mechanisms are electronic voting, polls, online network communication, requests and proposals of citizens, the formation of communicative communities and the organization of their activities. All this should contribute to the development of self-government principles in public life and the implementation in new forms of basic civil rights and freedoms.
Electronic democracy. Principles for the introduction of technology into the democratic process
E-democracy
The world of the 21st century is electronic and mobile. At the end of the last century, tendencies towards the digitization of society were clearly visible. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that this digital trend should affect many other facets of life. The concepts of e-government, e-democracy and e-participation have been discussed and implemented in a variety of ways as there is an increasing demand for participation in the political decision-making process. Indeed, the Internet can be seen as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the governed and the governed. In a sense, institutions have been unable to take advantage of new technologies.
Today e-democracy is still in its infancy. It seems that sites with political information appeared only a few years ago. The same can be said for the development of the first e-democracy tools for e-forums and e-voting; the focus has been on the use of 20th century political methods alongside 21st century technology. Web 2.0 offers capabilities such as conflict resolution and other group decision-making tools and technologies that can be used to radically transform and expand democracy through technology. Perhaps most of the technology required to support the features that are included in the participation tools are already available.
It is not only a wide range of government agencies that place ICT prominently in their strategies for change: other organizations and groups are increasingly using the Internet for campaigning and debate. E-democracy can bring change for the better and is not always governed or controlled by the government.
One way to increase the impact of e-democracy on the democratic process is to identify the contexts in which many of its goals are achieved, and it is possible to get the missing details. These missing pieces are more likely to become grips than websites themselves: the web provided by the Internet is the most important engine of e-democracy. When it is recognized that different people and organizations also promote, create and control democracy, more Internet sites that support e-participation will gain recognition (even if the term is not mentioned there). The challenge will be how best to support them with quality information and communicate their experiences and results to politicians.
E-democracy does not lead to the emergence of a different type of democracy than the type that exists where it is introduced. From a principled point of view, e-democracy is not intended to change democracy or the type of democracy that exists in the place of its implementation. The methods of e-democracy and e-participation can be classified in different ways. In most cases, a three-tiered classification is used, for example, according to the degree of interaction and binding force of the result (information - communication - transfer), or according to the degree of participation (information - communication - participation). Some suggest a four-tiered classification (eg information - consultation - collaboration - joint decision / decision making, or more related to e-government: information - one-way response - two-way response - full electronic processing of the case). E-democracy does not promote any particular type of democracy. E-democracy, for example, is not intended to promote direct democracy. The purpose of e-democracy is to facilitate democratic processes, not to promote any particular type of democracy.
The main purpose of e-democracy is not to get people to use technology: it is to use technology to improve democratic governance and participation. E-democracy should be driven by the demands of democracy, not technology. Neither ICTs themselves, nor expanded or improved technologies by themselves, do not automatically contribute to the maintenance or strengthening of democracy, democratic institutions and processes. Agreed democratic and human values \u200b\u200band ethical considerations are inseparable from the technological dimensions of e-democracy. The choice of instruments reflects not only the policy course, but also the implementation of values \u200b\u200band ethical considerations. In addition to serving as the exchange and dissemination of information, ICTs also have the ability and calling to improve the realization of human rights.
There are several reasons for the introduction of technology into the democratic process: for example, a decrease in electoral turnout, a lack of interest in politics among young people, a decrease in the level of legitimacy, and a gap between politicians / public authorities and citizens. However, technology should never be the reason for introducing e-democracy. Technology can be used to address these current challenges faced by democracy. Electronic solutions to these problems include e-participation, e-parliament, e-petitions and e-consultations.
The Internet of the future will not be what it is today. Web 2.0 is currently widely used, but Web 3.0 is under development. The term "Web 2.0" is used to describe Internet applications designed to enhance creativity, information exchange and collaboration. New technologies and tools include user-generated content, social media, social e-commerce, semantic web-based capabilities, web-based employee engagement, personal publishing and community journalism. Some of the Web 2.0 applications have had great success (Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube). Wikipedia demonstrates how citizens can collaborate to create content and share knowledge through massive collaboration and employee engagement. An important question related to Web 2.0 is what e-government and e-democracy can learn from social media and how governments can embrace this new way of collaborating and sharing information.
E-democracy: world experience
The creation of new forms of interaction between the state and citizens using information and communication technologies (ICT) is not a new idea, known since the 1970s, when the possibilities of cable networks began to be used to increase the activity of citizens in elections. In the 1980s, a number of experiments were carried out on electronic voting and online discussion, but it was not until the early 2000s, with the development of the Internet, that there was significant interest in the use of ICTs in the development of democracy.
Estonia is considered one of the pioneers in the field of e-democracy, which in 2005 held the first local elections in the world using Internet voting. In 2007, electronic voting was already used in the elections to the Estonian parliament. And if in 2005 only about 2% of Estonian voters voted on the Internet, then in the 2011 parliamentary elections this figure reached 24%.
Another example from Estonia is the project “Today I Decide” (“Täna Otsustan Mina” (TOM), or “Today I Decide” (TID), initiated in 2001 (there is also a TID + project that accumulates the experience of the TID project). is to create a portal that provides citizens with the opportunity to openly express their proposals for improving public administration and the legislative system and discuss new initiatives affecting various spheres of society.According to the creators, the main task of the project should be more active participation of voters in shaping public policy and removing barriers between society and state.
The same ideas formed the basis of the Estonian E-Citizen project, within the framework of which two electronic resources were created: Information Portal and Citizen Portal. The portals operated by the Estonian State Information System Department open the door to the e-state, informing citizens about their rights and obligations and providing access to electronic services, databases, virtual office and so on.If in 2005 about 2% of Estonian voters voted on the Internet, then in the 2011 parliamentary elections this figure reached 24%
In Iceland, information and communication technologies are also used to widely discuss issues of public interest. According to the latest estimates, 97.8% of Iceland's residents use the Internet. One of the most informative examples from the experience of this country is the collective discussion of the draft Constitution on social networks: the website of the Constitutional Council received 3,600 comments and more than 300 official proposals. Taking them into account, the draft of the basic law of the state was presented to the parliament and the public.
Many ordinary citizens, seemingly far from state administration and lawmaking, have been active in discussing the draft Constitution. At the same time, some experts and representatives of higher education institutions turned out to be rather passive. According to one of the representatives of the Icelandic Constitutional Council, the main lesson of the experiment is that truly positive results can be expected only when the authorities listen to the opinions of citizens.
Another interesting example of the implementation of e-democracy mechanisms could be seen in New Zealand during the revision of the police law in force since 1958. In 2007, a wiki version of the new bill was presented to the public. As a result of the experiment, 234 proposals were received and taken into account, which formed the basis of the new document. According to experts, citizen participation has become one of the key aspects in the process of preparing the law.
The functioning of e-democracy is directly related to e-participation, which Professor Ann McIntosh defined as “using ICTs to increase political participation by enabling citizens to interact with each other as well as with elected representatives”. South Korea is one of the leaders in e-participation, according to a recent UN report, E-Government 2012: E-Government for the People. Since 1995, the country's Ministry of Information and Communications has devoted significant resources to the development of the Internet. In 2000, most South Koreans had access to the World Wide Web, and a number of politicians had their own web pages. New sites appeared rapidly and were instantly filled with political discussions. The consequence was a sharp increase in political activity on the Internet. The 2002 presidential election was a key moment in the development of e-democracy in South Korea: according to analysts, Ro Moo-hyun's victory was largely due to the support of the Internet community, organized by the candidate's supporters at www.nosamo.org and with about 47 thousand participants.
The revolution in the virtual world often has a serious impact on the real world: just remember the revolution in Tunisia, which led to the overthrow of President Ben Ali, who created a police state and suppressed any protests. Despite certain achievements of his regime in the economic sphere, a significant number of Tunisians opposed the authoritarian course, and social networks became the main platform for protest. It was they who allowed the opposition-minded citizens to convey to the world information about the events carefully concealed by the authorities. Facebook and Twitter have become platforms for the free exchange of views and coordination of the protest movement.
The Internet is often attacked by authoritarian regimes. For example, the Iranian authorities have repeatedly blocked access to Gmail e-mail (the last time this measure was presented as a "response" to the screening of the film "Innocence of Muslims"). According to official explanations, the e-mail service does not comply with the laws of the Islamic Republic. Currently, Iranian government agencies are actively developing their own analogue of the Internet.
Internet freedom is significantly limited in China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Vietnam. In the United Arab Emirates (UAE), a contradictory picture has developed: on the one hand, this country is considered one of the leaders in the development of e-government and has high indicators in the field of e-decision making (100% in the UN rating). The government website www.government.ae allows residents of the country to ask questions, participate in discussions and voice their opinions on a range of public issues. On the other hand, the mechanisms of e-democracy in the UAE successfully coexist with authoritarian tendencies: it is strange to hear, for example, about achievements in the field of e-democracy and, at the same time, about state interference in all spheres of public life, the closure of offices of foreign organizations, persecution and arrests of dissent.
It sets out recommendations, principles and guidelines on e-democracy, which are intended to apply in the context of e-democracy the principles of democracy and human rights established, inter alia, in Council of Europe and other international instruments. The recommendation has been complemented by a series of orientation guides offered as additional suggestions for possible action.
CM / REC (2009) 1 uses the terms “democracy”, “democratic institutions” and “democratic processes”. Democracy reflects two principles of democracy. The first is that all participants enjoy universally recognized freedoms. Democratic institutions, including NGOs, are essential because democracy is not limited to periodic elections; and therefore institutions are needed to support and protect democracy. Democratic processes consist in the ways of making decisions within the framework of these institutions and the protection of democratic rights.
E-democracy includes everything that is democracy and is not just about technology. Therefore, the evolution of e-democracy through improved technology should be taken as a basis and used in accordance with the principles of democratic governance and practice. E-democracy and its tools are presented in the Recommendation as additional opportunities for democracy; at the same time, there are no elements of their promotion or obstacles to their use
Recommendation CM / REC (2009) 1 on e-democracy is the first major international document to describe e-democracy in its entirety. Thus, this is only the first step taken by an international (intergovernmental) organization in introducing and describing e-democracy and setting appropriate standards. Further work is proposed in specific areas of e-democracy. The Council of Europe will, among other things, continue to work on legislative issues, consultation and bottom-up e-democracy, as these are areas in which the Council of Europe has particular expertise and interest.
Principles of e-democracy
The annex to Recommendation CM / Rec (2009) 1 states that when introducing e-democracy or taking measures to improve it, stakeholders should take into account the following principles of e-democracy:
P.1. As a support and strengthening of democratic institutions and processes using ICTs, e-democracy is primarily associated with democracy. Its main goal is to electronically support democracy.
P.2. E-democracy is one of several strategies to support democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes, and to spread democratic values. It complements and interconnects with traditional democratic processes. Each process has its own merits, and none of them is universally applicable.
P.3. E-democracy is based on the democratic, human, social, ethical and cultural values \u200b\u200bof the society in which it is implemented.
P.4. E-democracy is closely linked to good governance, which is an efficient, effective, collective, transparent and accountable way of exercising power electronically and includes informal politics and non-governmental actors.
P.5. E-democracy must respect and implement fundamental freedoms, human rights and minority rights, including freedom of information and access to it.
P.6. E-democracy is an opportunity to facilitate the provision of information and debate by increasing citizen activism to broaden political debate and to ensure that the quality and legitimacy of political decisions is improved.
P.7. E-democracy affects all sectors of democracy, all democratic institutions, all levels of government, and a wide range of others.
P.8. The stakeholders of e-democracy are all individuals and institutions that are involved in and benefit from democracy.
P.9. E-democracy, like democracy, involves many and different stakeholders and requires their participation. The participating States, public authorities and their representatives are only a few parties with a stake in e-democracy. Citizens, civil society and its institutions, the media and the business community are equally needed to develop and implement e-democracy.
P.11. Any type of participation can be achieved through e-democracy:
providing information;
communication, consultation, discussion;
interaction, empowered participation, joint development and decision making.
P.12. E-democracy can be implemented with varying degrees of difficulty, in different types of democracy and at different stages of democracy development. It is not associated with or leads to any particular type of democracy.
P.13. In particular, democracy can, through the use of new technologies, attract young people to democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes.
P.14. NGOs can both benefit from the introduction of e-democracy and provide a testing ground for e-democracy for citizens.
P.15. E-democracy can be especially useful for regions that cross state borders and cover territorial units from different countries. Institutions and citizens living in different countries with a common linguistic and cultural identity can also benefit. It can facilitate participation and decision-making processes in international institutions.
P.16. Public authorities can benefit from discussions and initiatives regarding e-democracy activities carried out by civil society, as well as cooperation in this area with civil society.
P.17. The goals of e-democracy, which are similar to those of good governance, are transparency, accountability, accountability, engagement, debate, inclusiveness, accessibility, participation, subsidiarity, trust in democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes, and social cohesion.
P.18. Trust is extremely important for any type of e-democracy at all stages and phases. It is closely related to accessibility, transparency and accountability.
P.19. E-democracy helps to increase the level of participation of individuals and groups, allows those whose voices are heard less often or less often to express their views, and also promotes equal participation. It can lead to more collective forms of decision-making and democracy.
P.20. E-democracy is about supporting and strengthening democratic participation; it encompasses sectors of e-democracy, where civil society and enterprises are involved in formal and informal programming and decision-making and decision-making.
P.21. E-democracy by itself does not cover the constitutional and other duties and responsibilities of decision-makers; it can provide them with additional benefits.
P.22. E-democracy requires information, dialogue, communication, debate, and the continuous creation of open public spaces where citizens can gather to defend their civic interests.
P.23. The media play a key role in e-democracy; among other things, they offer a platform where citizens can participate in public debate and defend their interests in the public sphere.
P.24. New media and e-service providers are improving the quality of access to information, thereby providing people with a better base to participate in democracy.
P.25. E-democracy is an integral part of the information society, bringing with it a number of traditional and innovative tools that can be successfully applied in democratic processes and institutions.
P.26. Access to a new information and communication environment can facilitate the process of realizing democratic rights and freedoms, in particular, for participation in public life and democratic processes.
P.27. If e-democracy is to be designed properly, it must be based on the following concepts:
proactively providing comprehensive, balanced and objective information to help the public understand the challenges, alternatives, opportunities and / or solutions to democratic problems; this concept is closely related to freedom of information and freedom of speech;
a broad understanding of citizenship, covering individuals and groups of individuals who permanently reside and are integrated into political reality, regardless of nationality;
civic participation - that is, the involvement of citizens and groups of citizens, such as interest groups, corporations, associations and non-profit organizations (NPOs) in public affairs so that they can influence and improve the quality and acceptability of the results of democratic processes;
empowerment - in particular, strategies and measures to uphold civic rights and provide resources for participation;
inclusion - that is, the political and technological armament of citizens regardless of age, gender, education, socioeconomic status, language, special needs and place of residence; such inclusion requires the ability to use electronic tools (knowledge, e-skills, e-readiness), available and accessible tools, and a combination of e-and non-e-approaches;
discussion - in particular, rational debate on an equal footing, where people publicly discuss, approve and criticize each other's points of view in the course of meaningful, polite discussion of the issue and the action required in relation to it.
P.28. E-democracy can lead to the creation of a form of democracy that all stakeholders can view and observe, access and interact with from anywhere.
P.29. E-democracy has the potential to bring decision-makers and citizens together in new forms of engagement and policy development. On the one hand, this can lead to a better understanding by the responsible persons of public opinion and the needs of the people, on the other, to a better understanding by the public of the tasks and difficulties faced by those in charge. This will provide citizens with a more effective definition of a democratic system and a higher level of respect and trust in democracy.
P.30. As e-democracy opens up new channels for information, communication, discussion and participation and enhances transparency and accountability, it has the potential to address gaps in democratic institutions and processes.
P.31. E-democracy has tremendous potential for community building, including building among and with minorities.
P.32. By offering means to limit the degree of exclusion, e-democracy has the potential to enhance social inclusion and social cohesion, thereby contributing to social stability.
P.33. E-democracy has the potential to further strengthen the European, international and global nature of politics and facilitate the cross-border cooperation that it entails.
P.34. E-democracy requires interdisciplinary and cross-border research.
Electronic democracy in Russia: the official version
At first glance, the development of the information society and e-democracy in Russia is proceeding very successfully: in terms of the number of Internet users, the country has come out on top in Europe and on sixth in the world. The Internet audience in Russia continues to grow and, according to the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation at the beginning of 2012, amounted to 70 million people. According to the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), 60% of Russians use the Internet today, and 40% go online every day.
In April 2012, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications published the project “ Concepts for the development of e-democracy mechanisms in the Russian Federation until 2020”, And already in May at the first federal congress on e-democracy, the ministry presented a new tool for Internet interaction between citizens and the state: the Unified portal of e-democracy of the Russian Federation. As conceived by the creators, the Single Portal will provide not only the government, but also individual citizens and organizations with the opportunity to “create, discuss, support and publicly post their appeals with their subsequent sending them to departments and governing bodies, inform the authorities about emerging problems, make proposals and initiatives ".
At the same time, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, represented by Deputy Minister Oleg Fomichev, made a proposal to create a portal "Russian Public Initiative". According to representatives of the department, the idea of \u200b\u200bthe project came about thanks to the very pre-election article of Putin. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, the portal will become “a unique specialized Internet resource for public promotion and discussion of civil legislative initiatives” and will serve to introduce mechanisms of e-democracy.
At the end of June 2012, the Administration for the Application of Information Technologies and the Development of Electronic Democracy was created in the structure of the Presidential Administration, headed by the former Minister of Communications and Mass Media Igor Shchegolev. His former deputy, Ilya Massukh, became the founder of the Information Democracy Foundation, whose main task is to translate the virtual communication of citizens with the authorities into real ones. “The fund was created to promote all that is good on the Internet, to support regional projects,” Massukh said at the first meeting of the expert club of the Information Democracy Fund. "We must show citizens how a click generates this or that action of the authorities." One of the Fund's key projects is the Russian Public Initiative, which is an alternative version of the project of the same name by the RF Ministry of Economic Development.
The abundance of official initiatives creates the impression that, despite some difficulties, Russian e-democracy under the strict guidance of the authorities will soon lead the country to the democratization of political life (for example, Ilya Massukh himself wrote about this). However, a closer look at the "purity of intentions" of the Russian authorities is questionable.
So, while still in the previous post of Minister of Communications and Mass Media, Shchegolev spoke about his vision of the “e-democracy” project as follows: “This is a rather promising project, because it works according to the outsourcing model. When we, with the help of analytical mechanisms, will be able to see which areas of work cause the greatest number of claims, then it will be possible to evaluate the work of individual departments, and individual bodies, and individual leaders. " In his words, it turns out that the main goal of e-democracy is not to expand the participation of citizens in the exercise of power, but their participation in the optimization of the state machine. The interests of citizens are a secondary matter.
ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY, BOTTOM VIEW
The term "electronic democracy" arose long before the ubiquity of the Internet. When interactive cable television appeared in the American state of Ohio in the 70s, citizens were able to follow the meetings of the local administration, as well as express their opinions through instant push-button voting (later Professor M. Castells would write: “The Internet can be used by citizens to watch their governments - rather than by governments to watch their citizens ").
Such an electronic citywide meeting showed that there was a technical tool for organizing remote social interactions, and even then gave rise to expectations that new communication technologies could ensure the implementation of the principles of freedom of speech. Tele-democracy technologies were widely used by Ross Perot during the election campaign in 1991, which forced his rival B. Clinton to follow this example. We will return to electoral technologies below.
The advent of Internet technologies has greatly increased the influence of society on political power. The mechanisms of e-democracy have long been used in the West. An example is the Pirate Party. Fighters for freedom of information and copyright have become a serious social and political movement, spread their activity to 40 countries and won two seats in the European Parliament. Another example is the Active Democracy Party, which has been operating in Sweden since 2002. Canada, Singapore, Holland, Finland, Norway, Australia and Estonia have achieved notable success in this area.
According to Wikipedia, e-democracy (e-democracy) is a form of direct democracy, characterized by the use of information and communication technologies as the main tool for collective thought and administrative processes (informing, joint decision-making, monitoring the execution of decisions, etc.) at all levels, starting from the level local government and ending with international. In a broad sense, this means taking into account opinions and involving citizens and organizations in political decisions and processes. The aim of e-democracy is to make citizen participation in public decision-making policy easier and simpler. E-democracy can help citizens become more involved in policy making, make decision-making more transparent, bring government closer to the people, and increase its political legitimacy.
Unlike e-government, created "from above" to serve the interests of the state, e-democracy is designed primarily to reflect the interests of citizens and, accordingly, to be created "from below".
In the previous material, it was shown that if the authorities report an intention to benefit the population, then the true motives of such initiatives are usually related to the implementation of laws, the development of funds, the implementation of plans, career considerations, etc. Only in rare cases do citizens get what really works and what they really need.
As a result, the influence of the virtual environment on the real life of the country is increasingly felt. People's activity increasingly manifests itself in a new, informal quality. The Internet is becoming not only an additional space for self-organization of citizens, but also a platform for defending their rights and freedoms. The most notable public initiatives of recent times - both protest activity and mutual assistance - were carried out using Internet communications. Social media in general and the blogosphere in particular are alternative media, in which the trust of the majority of Internet users is much higher than in the authorities and in traditional media (according to the Levada Center, only 16% of citizens trust local authorities, and this the level of trust decreases annually).
Government2.0 ideas are gaining more and more supporters. The number of projects that make the Internet a tool for solving society's problems is growing, their topics are expanding. Below we will look at some new public initiatives from different regions of the country, developing on the principles of e-democracy.
Let's start a brief overview of initiative projects of public monitoring of the authorities with the famous RosPil A. Navalny. This is a system of control over public procurement, which, according to the president, "a trillion a year is stolen." The site is dedicated to the fight against officials who use the public procurement system for personal gain. This is not just a collection of information about theft and collective indignation, but specific work on each competition with the involvement of experts. The wide popularity of the project made it possible to unite the Internet wallets of ordinary people to fight corruption: when the fundraising for the operation of the project was announced, 3 million rubles were received in the first week. The total amount of orders for which violations were suppressed exceeded 7.5 billion rubles.
Under the auspices of the Institute of Contemporary Development, I.Begtin's project RosGosZatraty, created for the analysis and monitoring of government spending in the Russian Federation and based on open and publicly available data, operates. Tracked information on government grants and government contracts (at the expense of the federal budget, regional budgets and the municipal level).
Information service on public procurement is offered by LLC Innovative Search Technologies. The IST-Budget website aggregates data on public and private tenders collected from five major electronic trading platforms. The task is to create a unified free information space for searching and primary processing of information about public procurements in the country.
A group of projects is dedicated to public monitoring of the promises of politicians. L. Volkov from Yekaterinburg maintains the site DalSlovo.ru. All content that appears in the project is entered there by the users themselves. The logical unit that the project operates is an objectively verifiable promise, an utterance of a public person, containing specific deadlines. In the current reality, politicians make such statements completely irresponsibly and as often as they like. On the website, such promises are recorded and tracked using a calendar of deadlines, while it is easy to get information about government officials who have appeared on the project website.
(The described service uses the collection and verification of information by an unlimited circle of people, this is a special case of the so-called crowdsourcing (from crowd - "crowd" and sourcing - "selection of resources", the term was introduced by D. Howie in 2006). However, about the joint actions of many people For the sake of a single goal without material motivation, it has been known much longer - back in 1714, the British government invited everyone to develop a simple method for accurately determining the coordinates of a ship. Recently, many wonderful projects have been implemented using crowdsourcing technology, the most famous of which is Wikipedia).
The experience of DalSlovo.Ru is used in other regions as well. Within the framework of the Ulyanovsk-City portal, the Word of Power project has been implemented, designed to bring the authorities closer to the residents of Ulyanovsk and the region, to make the government more open. As in Yekaterinburg, all portal users can add information about socially significant promises of officials and the progress of their implementation (with the obligatory indication of the source of information).
Another indicator of the truthfulness of the statements of famous personalities: politicians, economists, lawyers, artists and other public figures is the Pravdometr project. Based on the results of checking dozens of statements, verdicts are issued, a "rating of truth-tellers" and a "rating of deceptions" are drawn up.
In 2011, the Roskomvzyatka project appeared for the public fight against corruption. The amount of recorded bribes exceeded 100 million rubles. More than 750 episodes have been described in 20 cities. There is a classification of bribes by categories, the ability to sort messages.
The author of the next project is a 20-year-old student from Kazakhstan who has experienced various aspects of higher education. Based on his own and others' experience, he created a site Briotok.info, where you can complain about ransomware teachers. The user can leave a complaint against the teacher who demanded a bribe. All 40 universities of Kazakhstan are represented in this peculiar black list. All complaints are subject to mandatory pre-moderation, their text is hidden from site visitors in order to suppress libel against honest teachers. After verification, the names of the "heroes" become common property.
The latest action was launched on the initiative of E. Chirikova, widely known as the leader of the Ecological Defense of the Moscow Region and the Movement in Defense of the Khimki Forest. By the joint efforts of web users, a "black list" of government officials and business structures is drawn up, which act to the detriment of Russian citizens, lobby for anti-popular amendments to legislation, and develop natural resources in the interests of personal enrichment. The organizers write: “We want corruption to take on a face. The meaning of our activity is for unknown corrupt officials to see that they are weighed and recounted, that their actions are publicly known. Over 60 cities of Russia have expressed a desire to join this action. The “popular list of traitors to the public interest” is constantly growing.
The Internet provides convenient means for the implementation of projects of mutual assistance and charity, where both those who need help and those who are able to provide it can apply. Here are some examples.
The well-known charitable foundation "Fair Aid" of Dr. Lisa (E. Glinka) accumulates funds and donated items to provide specific targeted assistance, conducts charitable programs, including "Vokzal on Wednesdays", "Kiev Hospice", "Hospital for the Poor", etc. The Helping Hand charitable foundation is working in a similar direction.
The Gift of Life Foundation was created by actresses Ch. Khamatova and D. Korzun with the aim of helping children with oncological, hematological and other serious diseases. For incomplete 2011, children received over 450 million rubles.
The Internet Charitable Foundation Pomogi.Org (founder A. Nosik) unites the forces of Internet users in different countries to collect targeted donations for urgent social and medical needs (operations, expensive treatment, assistance to children's and medical institutions). The foundation's motto is: "From each donated ruble, 100 kopecks reaches the needy." The site contains a long list of those who received real help for treatment (most of them are children); in 2010, the amount of this assistance amounted to 55,897,364 rubles.
The Tugeza website (together) is, by its own definition, "a community of people who enjoy doing good and right things." Among these cases is the purchase of a special chair for a boy Timofey with cerebral palsy from Vyksa, repairs in the Kaluga nursing home and invalids, the purchase of operating equipment for the Kirov central regional hospital, equipping the Selizharovsky rehabilitation center for minors with computers, and much more.
Every day, Runet users throw away up to 10 tons of unnecessary things from old magazines to refrigerators and pianos. But these things can be very necessary for other users. Residents of 13 cities participate in the work of the portal Otdam Darom. The creators declare: "We want every thing to find its owner, so that some do not pay a lot of money to loaders to throw out old things, and others to hucksters in thrift stores." The portal allows not only giving away unnecessary things and finding the right things, but also getting advice from an experienced person, taking part in the development of charitable projects.
The non-profit organization CAF-Russia, the Russian representative office of the British Charities Aid Foundation, has launched an online project - an electronic magazine about charity "Philanthropist". The goal is to gather on one platform a community of professionals and simply caring people to discuss and promote ideas of philanthropy, to disseminate ideas and practices of charity. For this, in particular, it is planned to use the capabilities of social networks.
The principle of crowdfunding - collective donations, co-financing of new projects by Internet users - is implemented on the website “Along the Line”, the first open platform in Russia for public funding of creative projects. Each project publishes an application for the required amount and the period for which it is supposed to be collected. If it is not possible to find the entire amount within the specified time, then the collected money is returned to those who supported the project. Another attempt at crowdfunding in the form of collecting money for the implementation of an art and music project through the social platforms, the Naparapet service.
The next group of projects appeared thanks to G. Asmolov and his associates. In the memorable summer of 2010, the first project, "A map of assistance to victims of fires", appeared. This site has become a database, on the one hand, allowing everyone to provide information, and on the other hand, organize it according to relevance, time, place and type of message. On the Help Maps website, you can track fires, the facts of deforestation and environmental pollution, find out where and which of the fire victims need help, as well as find volunteers who are ready to independently restore the damage done to nature and people, without waiting for instructions from “above”. The project received the Runet Prize in the State and Society nomination. Later, to provide assistance to victims of frosts, the Cold Info service appeared, a map of operational monitoring of cold weather throughout Russia. Over time, these sites began to receive messages that were not related to the topics of fires, cold weather and man-made disasters. It became obvious that a single base is needed where a person can turn for help and advice. This is how the idea of \u200b\u200b"Virtual Rynda" was born to coordinate mutual assistance. The goal of the project is to realize the potential of the network community, to establish cooperation between Internet users and non-profit organizations, government agencies and businesses. The authors warn: “We are not a charitable foundation or organization. We do not provide any personal assistance and do not collect any funds. We act as a systematic database of requests and offers for help. Our task is to provide people with an effective means for coordinating mutual assistance, which, in fact, by its very existence stimulates it and raises the level of social responsibility of Runet users. "
After the tragedy in Japan, the same team created the "Radiation Map". Its purpose is to provide a platform for collecting all reports on radiation levels, especially in the Far East.
Search and rescue squad "Lisa Alert" unites volunteers who are ready at any time to go in search of lost and missing people. "Lisa Alert" does not accept financial assistance, but assistance in providing the squad with the equipment necessary for the search is welcome.
The KartaBed project (a map of criminal activity and a service of help from neighbors) has not yet gained wide popularity. The existing service allows users to independently map information about criminal incidents using a website and an Android application.
Another group of projects is aimed at creating public associations for solving local problems... Where the authorities, for one reason or another, do not fulfill their direct responsibilities, the citizens themselves take over.
An open Internet site “My Territory” has been created in Perm as a tool for interaction between city residents and representatives of government authorities, organizations and services responsible for ensuring order in a certain territory, in a city, in a district. The service allows any resident to report on various socially significant problems (open hatch, garbage dump, broken traffic light, hole in the road, beer stall near the school, etc.), monitor their condition and evaluate the work of the relevant services. Residents mark problem areas directly on the map of their city. Openness and publicity also compel the respective organizations to act promptly and more responsibly.
The project cooperates with regional authorities, in particular, an agreement has been concluded with the administration of Perm. Messages about problems from residents of the Perm Territory, registered on the site, are accumulated and sent to the document management system of the executive authorities. Samara has become one of the most active cities on "My territory" (perhaps because the mayor of the city began to actively use this project). The service is available in the web version and on the Android mobile platform. By July 2011, the site indicated 4,746 problems, of which 1,013 have already been resolved and closed.
The Fix Your Street website solves similar problems. It is an interactive information system for receiving and processing requests for urban problems. The system makes it possible to promptly respond to problems arising in the city and analyze the quality of work of service organizations. A somewhat awkward name, apparently, is explained by the presence of foreign analogues: English fixmystreet.com, Canadian fixmystreet.ca (as well as German gov20.de, Dutch verbeterdebuurt.nl, American SeeClickFix.com).
The site “Prosto Russians” is forming a community of active citizens who want to change the country for the better, create a system of mutual assistance for citizens to solve social and political problems associated with the action (or inaction) of state authorities. The site reminds that, according to the Constitution, “the only source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people,” and offers tools for coordinating the actions of activists from different parts of the country. The number of participants in the movement has reached 3 thousand. A selection of headings gives an idea of \u200b\u200bthe range of issues raised:
Lipetsk officials left 97-year-old veteran homeless
Stop the pollution of the Yauza and the Moskva rivers
Police arbitrariness in Altai
Victims of the raiders of the Krasnodar Territory
Corruption in the Chelyabinsk region
etc.
The site "IMHOnn Complaints Book in Nizhny Novgorod" is addressed to those who are not indifferent to the fate of Nizhny Novgorod and who want to change the situation in the city for the better. Headings: Organizations, Work, Transport, Persons, Shops, etc.
In various regions, citizens thanks to the Internet unite to fight against pedophiles using the "live bait" method. On dating sites, they post profiles on behalf of 10-13-year-old children, enter into a dialogue with adults and make an appointment. The videos are then posted online. In St. Petersburg there is a community called Rodcontrol, a group of proactive parents who patrol the Internet to keep their children safe. We will also name the associations "Duri.net" (Voronezh), "Group APF" (Yaroslavl), "Stop, bastards" (Tambov), "Hunters for pedophiles" (Novomoskovsk).
"Killed Roads of Pskov" Public movement of motorists in Pskov problems of bad roads, high prices for gasoline, traffic safety and the region for safety and order on the roads, which are united by driving culture. Information, facts, useful advice. It is worth noting that this Internet movement has gained solid authority, its leaders are invited to meetings with the regional governor.
The portal "Traffic from the window" carries out "people's video monitoring" of traffic by web cameras of Internet users. The result is clear and reliable information about traffic jams, parking situations, snow removal, road accidents, etc. The project invites network users to install web cameras in the windows of their apartments overlooking the road so that car owners can assess the congestion of a particular site at a given moment. The developed technology allows you to send information without overloading the user's Internet channel. If a person does not have a webcam, they can get one from the project team or their partner store. The project operates in Moscow and the Moscow region, with nearly two hundred cameras in service. The Moscow Center for Combating Traffic Jams, supported by the city government, is also trying to improve the transport situation in the capital. The essence of the proposed measures is to optimize the use of the existing infrastructure. There are many places in the city where even small changes can significantly improve the transport situation. The site contains proposals of motorists for eliminating traffic congestion (changing the operating mode of traffic lights, rearranging signs, eliminating unauthorized parking lots) according to the principle "minimum costs - maximum result".
Recently, the community of motorists, outraged by the ugly state of the roads and the boorish driving style (especially "servants of the people"), has become noticeably more active. Another project of A.Navalny RosYam is designed to unite citizens who have faced incompetence of road services. The user photographs the damage to the road surface (a hole in the road, protruding rails, a sewer well, etc.) and uploads the photo to the site with reference to the area map. After that, the text of the letter to the traffic police is automatically generated with the requirement to identify the perpetrators, to bring them to justice under Art. 12.34 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation and oblige to correct the damage. This letter must be printed and sent by mail or via the Internet using the services offered on the site. At the time of preparation of this text, 581 of the noted 5816 defects have been fixed - not a bad result at all.
The Avtochmo website (driver's shame board) is an interactive gallery that contains the most outspoken traffic offenders. Photos are added by the users themselves (the license plate must be visible on the photo).
In the same row and the "Society of Blue Buckets" is a social movement whose members oppose the illegal use of "flashing lights" (flashing lights) by officials. For more than a year, various actions have been held, organized according to the principles of a flash mob; the site contains photographs with descriptions of situations.
Project "Where is the casino?" is a map of illegal casinos. The information was collected according to the principle of people's monitoring. The project was highly appreciated by the country's leadership.
The information system "Demokrator", created at the expense of the entrepreneur A. Pavlov, offers, according to the project manager A. Bogdanov, a mechanism for the implementation of e-democracy in Russia. This is a website that allows citizens to unite around common socially significant problems, jointly edit the texts of collective official appeals to state and local authorities (a decision is made on a problem if it is supported by at least 50 people), and to track the status of work on appeals. “Demokrator” can offer useful services to the authorities, providing monitoring of problems and feedback (control and assessment of the quality of the work of officials) and, in general, stimulates constructive work to solve problems, rather than protest calls. The program "Information Society (2011-2020)" sets the tasks of developing services to simplify the procedures for interaction between society and the state using information technologies; increasing the openness of the activities of public authorities; creation of services to ensure public discussion and control of the activities of public authorities. "Demokrator" claims to implement these tasks, identify socially significant problems and timely solve them with the participation of citizens without bringing the situation to critical tension. However, there is another point of view: this project is beneficial to the authorities, which, allowing citizens to unite around allegedly "socially significant problems", uses it as a valve for "releasing steam." Minister I. Shchegolev assigns about the same role to public associations, arguing that "E-democracy ... this means that ... without leaving their homes, citizens will be able to celebrate some kind of disorder in small enterprises, on the roads." As you can see from the other examples given, social media allows a lot more.
Internet solutions to improve the quality of life.Interested citizens are well aware of what services they personally need (which means they can be useful for others). Therefore, these projects often become extremely successful and even commercially profitable. An example is the GLONASS / GPS-based urban transport monitoring system developed in Ryazan. After its installation, local buses, trolleybuses and trams began to follow with almost one hundred percent regularity, because the movement of each transport unit is immediately displayed on the city map. The technology used in the project for monitoring the movement of public transport equipped with GLONASS sensors has attracted the interest of a large company that plans to promote such systems.
Postgraduate students of Nizhny Novgorod University have created the DorogaTV project, which in 5 years has turned into a useful service for 150,000 users and has reached the interregional level. Agreements have been concluded with the largest data providers for building a traffic map, and our own video camera infrastructure has been created. Passengers receive information about public transport via the Internet and mobile phones. Among the useful functions is routing (according to the points of departure and destination marked on the map, the service will prompt bus routes, as well as travel time, taking into account traffic jams); sms-forecast of minibuses arrival at stops in Nizhny Novgorod; "Public transport on-line" (the software transmits in real time the coordinates and speed of movement directly to the screens of the phones of passengers waiting for transport).
The Skillper International Site is a community of users, a collection of helpful household tips and a great encyclopedia of experiences. Thanks to the mapping of user profiles, the exchange of life experience occurs between meaningfully similar people. One of the most important sections is the practical experience of citizens in interacting with government agencies.
A quid pro quo community was created to bring together people willing to exchange free services. Sometimes we do not have enough familiar car mechanics, dentists, lawyers, tailors, masseurs, nannies, translators, etc. On the site, you can acquire useful contacts and acquaintances, offer your services, just make friends. But the participants of the PIF-movement (from the title of K. Hyde's book “Pay It Forward”) do good deeds unselfishly, without expecting a reciprocal service. This movement (a kind of "chain reaction of kindness") has spread over the past decade. Key thought: You can change the world with just three good deeds. If each person helps three others, and they do the same, then the baton of good deeds will be passed on, increasing their number exponentially. The author of the idea is B. Franklin, who in 1784 suggested to the debtor, instead of returning the money, to “pay off” as follows: “When you meet another decent person in a similar difficulty, you must repay me by lending this amount to him, insisting that he pay off your duty in the same way. " And in Russia, many bloggers associate themselves with the PIF movement; perhaps their actions will soon become visible.
Surdoserver (an assistant in the study of sign language) is designed to help deaf and hard of hearing people, as well as everyone who wants to, in online access to the resources of the Russian sign language and sign languages \u200b\u200bof the world. The project is being created at the Institute of Control Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
The Internet project "Listen to the News" is a unique opportunity to listen to fresh (updated every hour) information from news feeds. A separate Internet portal for visually impaired people is being formed.
The social operator of the OP, according to a given schedule, makes calls to the number of your elderly relatives - landline or mobile. When connecting, the subscriber can listen to an interesting message, but if the phone is not answered, the system will send an emergency call to the number specified by the customer (paid service).
The project "Virtual Republic Alter Russia" was created as a democratic Internet platform for discussion and development of citizens' initiatives. Each registered user of the portal can propose his own legislative initiative or his own amendment to the existing laws of the Russian Federation ("if I were president ..."). All proposals accepted by the majority of votes of the user community are brought to the attention of officials, ministers, deputies and leaders of political parties of the Russian Federation.
Effektivno.rf (Kazan) - a comprehensive automated system for assessing the managerial competencies of government and commercial employees for the purpose of planning personal and group development using the "360 degrees" method. Each participant evaluates himself, his leader and subordinates. The system randomly selects people to cross-evaluate. At a presentation in May 2011 with the participation of the leadership of Tatarstan and Sberbank of the Russian Federation, it was noted that it is not inferior to the decisions of the largest Western companies in the field of personnel assessment, after which an agreement was reached on the application of the system in the largest bank in the country. Service Effectively.rf is able to conduct a comprehensive assessment of state and municipal employees with a minimum amount of time. Competency assessment allows you to draw up a personal development program for each employee, a group development program and form a talent pool.
The project of the Komi Expert Society (KomiExpo) is aimed at creating a communication Internet platform for interaction between government, business, science and society. Information flows are accumulated in three directions:
... news messages that provide information content to corporate, personal and government "decision-making systems";
... posts of the most active bloggers of the Komi Republic;
... scientific and methodological publications.
The project "Public Construction of the Image of a Russian School Graduate 2020" is being implemented by WikiVote! with the participation and support of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, the Forum analytical center and the Public Opinion Foundation. As a result of the project, it will be possible to find out what personality traits and practical skills a school graduate should have in 10 years, according to representatives of various strata of modern society.
Vyborov.net information resource about the elections in Russia. On the site you can get acquainted with party programs, election videos and TV debates, regions where elections are held with the latest news.
There are many online platforms for collective discussion of various issues. Public examination of current draft laws is implemented on the website of the Public Opinion Foundation, here again we are dealing with crowdsourcing. A number of Internet resources organize large communities of citizens united by similar views on the processes in society. Among them is the information and discussion portal "Hydepark". Its materials are formed by users, posting news and journalistic materials. In fact, Hydepark is the first social network for middle-aged people, created to discuss and solve various issues of life, receive exclusive information and direct communication with famous people. The site has 2.5 million registered members, the number of visits per day exceeds 280 thousand, visitors leave about 1200 blog entries and more than 20 thousand comments daily. Newsland, a news discussion portal, is roughly half.
Let us name several resources of an informational and reference nature. Reference legal system Pravo.Ru. Rusturn service for making an appointment at the Russian consular offices in Rome, Milan, Barcelona. On the map of the precinct in Moscow, you can find out the name and reception hours of your district police officer (although the information seems to be out of date).
The above list of projects does not claim to be complete, but it makes it possible to trace the diversity of their topics and the breadth of their geography.
A discussion of e-democracy issues would be incomplete without an analysis of electoral technologies. A huge number of votes and polls are constantly taking place on the Internet on various occasions: who will win a football match, whether President Obama will interrupt his vacation due to a hurricane, how many cars are in your family, etc. This allowed the optimists to see a direct connection between e-elections and e-democracy, to talk about a new stage in the ancient Greek agora or Novgorod veche. Indeed, each vote can be counted directly, without intermediaries in the form of deputies and delegates. On this occasion, there is also a suitable quote "from the president" (as before "from the classics of Marxism"): "I am absolutely sure that an era of return from representative democracy to direct, direct, using the Internet is coming." However, let's not forget that the requirements for serious voting and for Internet polls are noticeably different. First of all, questions arise about voter authentication and the elimination of falsifications. The mechanism exists for this electronic signature, but it is unclear how this corresponds to the principle of secret ballot. Some offer to receive special disposable cards at polling stations, but if you still have to go to the polling station, the main convenience is lost (in Kazakhstan there were attempts to send pin codes by mail, but this system did not work). According to the Estonians, they solved these technical problems; there, in October 2005, the world's first official Internet vote for local government elections took place. Electronic voting was carried out in parallel with the usual one; about 10 thousand people, or about 1% of the total number of voters, voted via the Internet. Moreover, Estonia has a law allowing, starting in 2011, to carry out elections of the supreme power not only via the Internet, but also from a personal mobile phone (it is no coincidence that proposals to rename the country to E-stonia appear :). There has been limited experimentation in online voting in elections in the United States, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology has issued a document that indicates that current technology is not capable of ensuring adequate security and integrity of elections over the Internet and telephone networks.
In Russian practice, attempts to automate certain aspects of the electoral process have not yet been crowned with noticeable success. The odious "GAS Vybory" is rightly called the All-Russian scam. In March 2009, an experiment was conducted on an electronic poll of voters. At 13 polling stations in five regions, they were asked, in addition to the usual paper voting, to express their will via the Internet and mobile communications. In the city of Raduzhny, Vladimir region, mobile phones were used for this purpose (they required downloading the necessary software). Voters of the city of Vologda, the Petrovsky farm in the Volgograd region and the village of Kargasok near Tomsk received a disc at the polling stations. In Nizhnevartovsk, the survey was conducted using an electronic social card. During a single voting day, there were 270,000 attempts to hack the system. The technical aspects of such experiments were discussed during a meeting between the chairman of the election commission and representatives of the Internet community (see transcript). However, even successful solution of technical problems will not be able to remove legal barriers to electoral technical progress: Russian legislation does not yet provide for the possibility of virtual elections.
In the summer of 2011, the deputy of the Yekaterinburg Regional Duma L. Volkov and the president of the Institute for the Development and Modernization of Public Relations F. Krasheninnikov presented their book (more precisely, a 64-page brochure) "Cloud Democracy". In our opinion, the main value of this text lies in the scathing criticism of the costly and ineffective modern representative democracy (chapters 2-6). This is already enough to recommend reading the book. But in its third part, the authors propose a model of future democracy. There are three main technical ideas. First, it is proposed to measure the will of voters more than once every 4 years, and more often - the Internet allows you to do this as needed. The second idea is the ability to delegate your vote to one or another representative, and not necessarily to one - you can different representatives on different issues in which they are experts (with the right to withdraw it at any time). The third idea, called “compulsory honesty,” is that the level of openness of information about applicants for some positions in the political system should increase more and more as the importance of the position for which they apply increases.
The biggest question is the second sentence. Delegating votes is likely to result in buying them. Rural old people, homeless people and some other categories of the population who do not have computers and are not going to use the right to vote will gladly sell this right, as in the days of voucher privatization. Doctors, teachers, militiamen, military, officials will voluntarily and compulsorily give the right to vote for themselves to their superiors. Factory workers will be forced to entrust votes to their owners. There is a danger of the final transformation of politics into business, and parliament into a political joint-stock company.
There are other controversial places in the book, but the authors themselves realize that in modern Russia it is impossible to quickly provide all citizens with means of authentication, to solve the problem of digital inequality and lack of access to the network for so many voters. Thus, the introduction of "cloud democracy" is not the task of the next decade in our country. You should not be upset about this, it is much more productive to develop and promote achievements in this area, at the same time tightening up the infrastructure and increasing the level of literacy of the population. It is already possible to try to make the elements of e-democracy available to those who are ready and would like to participate in it. And in the fall, the authors of the book presented the site "Democracy-2". This is a kind of electronic parliament, a system of distributed decision-making by a large group of people, combining the best features of direct and representative democracy and presupposing an absolutely transparent approach to the development and adoption of decisions on all pressing problems of political and public life in Russia. As B. Nemtsov points out, this is “a unique platform for Russia, where you can openly and without censorship discuss any issues from paid fishing to ethnic crime. At the same time, a voting mechanism has been proposed to determine which point of view enjoys the maximum support. In the absence of parliament and widespread public debate, this is obviously a breath of fresh air. Then everything will depend on the level of people's involvement in the project. If it turns out that there are hundreds of thousands in the electronic parliament, then even the most impudent government will not be able to ignore them. "
The Internet provides unique opportunities for citizens to unite to work together to achieve their rights. Social media allows you to discuss and organize any community. New electronic communications technologies open up such wide access to information and discussion to individuals and groups that it increasingly complicates the existence of authoritarian political regimes. At the same time, authoritarian regimes are trying to control the Internet, restricting access to it for citizens and creating their own versions of "electronic government". The ruling circles are not interested in introducing real e-democracy, as this limits its power. The authorities understand that technical means already allow society, independently of the ruling elite, to create elements of e-democracy, i.e. alternative sources of power in society. In these conditions, it is possible to restrain the activity of society only by seizing the initiative and putting the processes in the Internet space under the control of the authorities. Self-organization of youth also poses a threat to the authorities (and for the opposition it is an important resource). Therefore, pro-government youth projects are directed against politicized youth, or at their inclusion in the system of political governance.
Here one could recall Manezhnaya Square and the "Arab Spring", but we will not delve into the socio-political aspects of e-democratization and blame the Internet for the authorities' flaws. After all, people often unite, desperate to receive an adequate response from the state to their natural rights and requirements. In this regard, the magazine headline "Fuck with him, with the state!" in the material about the activities of the activists of the site "Tugeza".
The Internet creates a technological opportunity to take democracy to a higher level. Whether this historic chance will be realized, we all will soon find out.
* * *
The author devotes this cycle of two articles to the memory of Oleg Valerianovich Kedrovsky - a wise and principled person, an outstanding professional in the field of scientific and technical information, who created the magazine "Information Resources of Russia" 20 years ago and headed it until 2011.
Literature:
1. Polyak Yu.E. E-democracy, top view // Information resources of Russia. -2011. - No. 5. - S. 5-10.
2. Polyak Yu.E. Regions on the way to e-democracy. Report at the VII International Scientific and Practical Conference "Regions of Russia: Strategies and Mechanisms for Modernization, Innovation and Technological Development". - M., INION RAN, May 27, 2011
The transition to an information society leads to the transformation of the political institutions of democracy. As a result of the rapid development of modern information technology, the debate about the theory of democracy has intensified. Discussions centered on questions about the nature of the Internet's influence on democratic institutions and processes. There is no doubt that the development of the Internet is already affecting modern power relations. BUT, is it possible to say without a shadow of a doubt that "e-democracy" will become the democracy of the future, and what are the main problems it will face on its way to becoming? It is difficult to disagree with the statement of M.S. Vershinin, that the Internet generates both unique opportunities and threats to traditional democratic institutions and actions.
E-democracy is a form of democracy characterized by the use of information and communication technologies as the main tool for collective cognitive and administrative processes (informing, joint decision-making - electronic voting, monitoring the execution of decisions, etc.) at all levels - starting from the level of local government and ending with international.
A distinction should be made between e-democracy and e-government. Stephen Clift stresses: “e-democracy” and “e-government” are completely different concepts. If the latter means an increase in the efficiency and convenience of access to state services from any place and at any time, the former refers to the use of information technology to empower every citizen.
Electronic or Internet democracy is not just another stage in the global development of democratic institutions, and at the same time, it is not just a technical innovation that allows citizens to conveniently communicate with their government, and the latter - to promptly receive information about its citizens. Internet democracy is a way to raise the issue of democracy anew, to outline the key problems of any democratic system, to understand what dangers the mass digitalization of communications is preparing and what prospects are possible for the real democratization of mass politics.
Since the mid-90s of the last century, e-democracy (Internet democracy) has entered the path of its development, although this path is still very far from the end. The development began precisely with the organization of electronic governments of various kinds. Canada, Singapore, Holland, Finland, Norway, Australia and Estonia have made great strides in this area.
Gradually, with the realization by scientists of the possibilities of the Global Network, various theories of electronic or cloud democracy began to appear. There is a book of the same name by L. Volkov and F. Krasheninnikov, published in 2011 in Yekaterinburg. The authors propose to create an innovative Internet system in which every citizen can take part in the political processes of the country. Every politically active citizen, thanks to an individual electronic signature, will have the opportunity not only to vote for bills, but also to propose them himself. Also, this citizen will have the right to delegate his vote on a particular issue to a more competent person - an expert. Thus, in a certain sense, the people will become the creator and holder of power and law.
E-democracy is an increase in the participation of citizens in society through the use of the resources of the Network. That is, its not unimportant characteristic is its focus on the initiative “from below”. In order for such an initiative to exist, many obstacles will have to be overcome. First of all, of a technical nature. This is speed, coverage and cost of the Internet. Although the Internet in Russia is developing rapidly, in many regions of our large country there is still no access to it. However, according to the report of the Federal Agency for Press and Mass Communications “Internet in Russia. State, Trends and Prospects ”, while maintaining the current trends in the development and spread of the Internet by the end of 2014, the number of users will grow by about 30 million people. At the same time, more than half of Russians can be attributed to the most active part (daily audience) - 56%, or about 63 million people. Consequently, the technical possibility of establishing 100% Internet accessibility in Russia is there, one can only wait.
However, besides the technical difficulties of establishing e-democracy, there are others.
The Internet-driven increase in political participation has been accompanied by a decline in political responsibility. Information technology removes the social barriers that prevent previously unrepresented groups from taking part in political life. Such participation against the background of low political Internet culture can lead to dire consequences. How often do we see swearing on the Internet, not one iota that does not bring us closer to solving specific issues? For the transition to e-democracy, it is necessary that society is not only technically, but also psychologically ready for this step.
Electronic voting, in a sense, can exacerbate crisis trends in a democratic society. The desire to take into account the general will of the people on any political issue, that is, to transfer politics to the regime of a continuous referendum, threatens with total manipulation of voters. In addition, all theories of building e-democracy are based on "forced honesty", which leads to the elimination of the "secret ballot" procedure (and this is one of the basic principles of democratic elections). This fact has the potential to further weaken basic democratic institutions, reducing voting to polling or tracking consumer tastes. It is also important that if people know that their choice, at least potentially can be known to others and society as a whole (and the Internet just gives such opportunities), they will most likely vote differently or will not vote at all.
It is worth fearing the cluttering of political resources. In fact, the Internet is a worldwide fence. Pluralism of opinions is one thing, and streams of uncontrolled criticism and unsubstantiated proposals are quite another. In this context, the system is clearly not yet worked out. Separate concerns are caused by the process of delegation of powers. Based on the suggestions of Volkov and Krasheninnikov, each user will be able to delegate his vote on any problem (or several problems) to one or many competent people, be they economists or ecologists. But the electorate in our country for the most part is not active and, therefore, the question arises, will this not lead to buying votes in the wide practice? Or even to the emergence of an expertocracy? Not professionals in their field, but representatives of the marginal (or even deviant) Internet "elite" - radicals, nationalists, can become leading ranks through the expanded Internet voting.
These are the risks that need to be considered. At the moment, the political contingent is already represented on the Internet, politicians are blogging, parties are creating websites. There are also actors, organizations and movements that exist only on the Web. There are government service portals. Despite all this, I can hardly imagine that e-democracy will be formed in Russia in the coming years. The transition to it on the one hand is really inevitable. Society has long stepped over the informational line both in business and in education. But, on the other hand, for the transition to e-democracy, simple technical readiness, as it turns out, is not enough. Firstly, it is difficult for many people to develop trust in the Internet, but it is more a matter of time. Secondly, e-democracy should be based on a certain political and Internet culture. This is not yet the case in our country. The Internet gives a sense of anonymity and freedom, and people are used to it and behave accordingly. But such behavior also calls into question the possibility of developing e-democracy. Until certain foundations of a culture of political activity on the Web are formed, it seems unlikely that an effective system of network democracy will be formed. Thirdly, the factor of psychological readiness not only of members of society, but also of representatives of the authorities cannot be dismissed. At the moment, this readiness is not. Networked democracy presupposes open, unlimited communication between the government and society. How can such communication be established when a specially hired person writes for a politician on social networks and blogs, or, moreover, some kind of firm or office.
But all this does not mean that there is no need to make attempts to organize certain elements of e-democracy. There are several Internet portals that provide an opportunity to in some sense govern the country - this is "Democracy2", "Democrat". These projects are at varying degrees of efficiency, it is safe to say that they are popular with a certain circle of politically active users. So "Demokrator" works more precisely with citizens' appeals on some specific, everyday problems, has existed since February 2010 and, based on the internal data of the site, has about 400 thousand users. The site "Democracy 2" is positioned precisely as a pilot project of a large-scale institution of e-democracy, was created in 2011 and so far has about 7 thousand users.
In the past two years, we have been witnessing the release of representatives of the netocracy (political Internet activists) quite often. Quite often, they organize rallies and pickets, participate in regional elections. The elections to the Coordinating Council of the Russian Opposition were held relatively recently. All this is an example of the modern “going to the people”. After all, the very idea of \u200b\u200be-democracy has another, very significant problem. This problem is elitism. A certain circle of people knows that the Internet can become the main platform for political activity. An ordinary person who works around the clock and goes online to just talk to friends can only learn about some "famous" bloggers from the news. And then, only after this blogger is detained for participating in an unsanctioned rally.
E-democracy is a bottom-up initiative. And in order for it to be established and functioned, the entire population needs to know about the opportunities that the Internet provides for politically active people. Now this, alas, is not. And I doubt that I would be wrong if I say that the main problem of e-democracy in our country is lack of awareness and interest. And all the ideologues of this innovative process will have to fight this.
