Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
63
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.70.10.6
How to Cite:
Storozhenko, L., Ignatenko, O., Yaroshovets, T., Antypenko, I., & Vlasenko, V. (2023). E-democracy in the context of the
information society: prospects, challenges and opportunities. Amazonia Investiga, 12(70), 63-77.
https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2023.70.10.6
E-democracy in the context of the information society: prospects,
challenges and opportunities
Електронна демократія в контексті інформаційного суспільства: перспективи,
виклики та можливості
Received: August 1, 2023 Accepted: September 24, 2023
Written by:
Lina Storozhenko1
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2766-3712
Oleksandr Ignatenko2
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9088-5794
Tetiana Yaroshovets3
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3690-416X
Iryna Antypenko4
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9520-4353
Vadym Vlasenko5
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-5914
Abstract
Many factors mark contemporary political
processes. The peculiarities of the political
system and regime largely determine them. The
type of political process, which is characterized
by social and political activity of persons and
social groups, is democratic. The establishment
of such a regime is characterized by gradual steps
to introduce democratic principles into the
political system, societal institutions, culture, and
lifestyle. Such a peaceful transition to a
democratic regime can be called
democratization. In contemporary public policy,
representatives of governing structures seek
ways to develop forms of societal participation in
decision-making processes. Meanwhile,
interested groups, in turn, strive to enhance the
quality and legitimacy of the policies enacted.
Electronic democracy tools are not a
reincarnation of former means of political
1
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Associate Professor, Doctoral Student of the Department of Public Management and
Administration, Educational and Scientific Institute of Information Protection, State University of Information and Communication
Technologies, Kyiv, Ukraine.
2
Doctor of Sciences in Public Administration, Associate Professor, Professor of the Department of Public Management and
Administration, Educational and Scientific Institute of Information Protection, State University of Information and Communication
Technologies, Kyiv, Ukraine.
3
Candidate of Philosophical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Public Management and Administration, Educational and
Scientific Institute of Information Protection, State University of Information and Communication Technologies, Kyiv, Ukraine.
4
Doctor of Public Administration, Professor of the Department of Public Management and Administration, Educational and Scientific
Institute of Information Protection, State University of Information and Communication Technologies, Kyiv, Ukraine.
5
Candidate of Technical Sciences, Associate Professor, Department of Public Management and Administration, Educational and
Scientific Institute of Information Protection, State University of Information and Communication Technologies, Kyiv, Ukraine.
64
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
communication. In such cases, it concerns
democratization and the neoliberal ideology
within civil society. In the virtual environment,
electronic participation addresses the issue of
societal involvement in political processes and
the role of innovations as a whole. Political
participation can be seen as a tool for
democratization and authoritarian control,
including influencing the electorate. The study
aims to determine the role of e-democracy in
contemporary post-industrial society and the
degree of its practical technological
implementation. The paper describes the content
and role of e-democracy in post-industrial
society. The authors analyzed the impact of
information and communication technologies on
the processes of electronic democratization. It
has been shown that an active application of
information technologies in everyday social life
to form electronic democracy has led to both
positive societal trends and negative social
consequences.
Keywords: netocracy, e-democracy,
e-government, information society,
digitalization.
Introduction
In the XXI century, the active utilization of
digital technologies has continued across various
sectors of the economy. An essential factor for
economic growth is the quality of public
governance, which has a direct impact on
economic development. Government policy
must create favorable conditions for economic
development by effectively providing public
services and protecting citizens and businesses.
A more transparent and flexible regulatory
system implemented by the government
stimulates competition and fosters the
development of innovative potential within the
country.
The use of digital technologies in public
administration has led to the emergence of
electronic democracy and e-government. The
challenges of the modern era demand solutions to
various issues caused by political and social
changes, which have posed a crisis for
democracy in its classical model. Several
theoretical concepts have been formed to
overcome this challenge. These concepts
formulate the peculiarities of post-industrial
society's development based on information and
communication technologies. First, these
concepts include the theory of post-industrialism,
the idea of "informationalism," and the theory of
transitology.
For the first time, Bell (1976) proposed the
theory of post-industrial society to understand
the essence of the information sphere within a
community. It has emerged as the primary factor
in transitioning to a new form of democracy. The
principles he outlined for the functioning of the
information society remain relevant today.
Toffler's (1984; 1990) wave theory also
emphasized the role of information and
communication technologies in transforming
modern society's politics, economics, and
culture. The concept of "informational
capitalism" by Castells (2000) is based on a large
amount of empirical material representing the
information development of many countries. A
broad evidence base allowed the author to
formulate a thesis on the emergence of an
information-based development mode. This
model is closely linked to the spread of global
information networks. Castells highlighted the
problems of the existing liberal model of
democracy. Furthermore, he suggested that the
hierarchical system of governance should be
Storozhenko, L., Ignatenko, O., Yaroshovets, T., Antypenko, I., Vlasenko, V. / Volume 12 - Issue 70: 63-77 / October, 2023
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
65
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
replaced by a decentralized and networked one.
According to him, the proposed changes should
be implemented by developing local self-
government based on building horizontal links
between citizens and authorities and intensifying
the introduction of e-communications.
Huntington's (1991) theory of democratization
waves complement the concept of the
"information society." This theory accounts for
the main factors such as globalization,
informatization, and democratization, as well as
their impact on the democracy level.
E-democracy is a phenomenon generated by the
rapid development of information and
communication technologies. At the same time,
it is an advanced system of democratic political
decision-making procedures with the broadest
possible participation of civil society. It includes
opportunities to combine elements of direct and
representative democracy flexibly. The latter was
not technically possible before.
Literature review
The mid-70s of the XX century marked the
digital revolution. At that time, the famous
Japanese sociologist Masuda (1980) predicted
that the development of information society
institutions in the post-industrial era was
inevitable. However, initially, it was unknown
which social structures would shape the direction
of sustainable development.
Not all efforts to create electronic democracy
necessarily strengthen liberal democratic
politics. They can also be directed toward
legitimizing illiberal political practices through
electronic democracy. Technologies do not mean
value-neutral artifacts. They are rather social
practices where values and meaning become
central elements (Johnson, 2007). In terms of
axiology, contemporary information society is
paradoxical. On the one hand, it promotes
individualism as a social standard and
encourages people to pursue prosperity and
selfishness. On the other hand, the government
seeks to foster patriotism, compassion, and
positive political responsibility in people's
political and legal consciousness.
Digital technologies have not led to a greater
democratization of life in post-industrial society.
The British scholars Moss and Coleman (2014)
note that, along with some success stories,
e-democracy experiments "have been
disappointing, especially when compared to the
ambitious rhetoric that surrounded the strategy of
using the Internet to support democracy."
The success of e-democracy projects, therefore,
is possible only under two conditions: first, by
focusing on the protection of human rights, and
second, by focusing on sustainable development.
Digital technologies of electronic democracy are
differently accessible to social groups and
classes. The issue of the digital gap concerns
more than just the availability of information
infrastructure. It also reflects differences in
cultural capital between political and social
institutions. As a result of digital inequality,
many hypotheses and assumptions have been
formed around e-democracy. They cannot be
verified on a general level and are taken as
axioms within social structures with similar
cultural capital.
In this context, a study by South Korean scholars
on the impact of the Internet on democracy is
quite illustrative. It shows that despite the global
network's diversity, newspaper readers use
online resources, preferring to read them
"offline" (Hong & Kim, 2018). American society
has a slightly different habit of believing in the
"basic human freedoms" that U.S. President
Franklin Delano Roosevelt hoped to instill
worldwide. However, for Americans, these
values were closely linked to the abstract concept
of "technological progress" (Lieberman, 2015).
Lindner and Aichholzer (2020) analyzed the
extent to which Web 2.0 and social media can
support the basic democratic functions of public
communication, namely public critique,
legitimation, and integration, examining the
impact of social media use on the quality of
discussion, political activism, and political
behaviour.
Currently, scientific studies into the categories of
the "information society," "electronic
democracy," and "e-government" are ongoing. In
particular, this means building a digital state and,
accordingly, a digital democracy. For example, if
a state becomes transparent to society
(e-government), it creates opportunities for more
involvement of the latter in the political process.
This, with a high level of civil society activity,
will lead to greater democratization and the
emergence of new forms of political participation
of citizens (e-democracy).
Aims
The risks of e-democracy and its development
opportunities require further study and analysis,
even though many studies define this concept. As
66
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
of today, there are only a few such studies since
most of its authors consider only general aspects
of e-democracy. They analyze the content of the
"digital democracy" concept in light of modern
society's digitalization.
This study aims to determine the role of
e-democracy in the modern post-industrial
society and the extent of its practical
technological implementation.
Achieving this aim is only possible after solving
the following tasks:
− to study the content of the "e-democracy"
theoretical concept;
− to learn the difference between e-democracy
and e-government and to describe the latter;
− to forecast the prospects of e-democracy in
the context of a controversial society's
development.
Methods
Such general scientific approaches as
comparative analysis, system analysis, and
dialectical method form the methodological and
theoretical basis of this study. When analyzing
the phenomenon of e-democracy, the authors
relied on the theories of democracy, information
society, and communication theory.
The dialectical method was used as the basis for
considering the theoretical foundations that
reflect the formation of a post-industrial society.
The comparative analysis was used to consider
approaches for classifying models of
e-government development. The system analysis
method was used to interpret the risks of
e-democracy.
Figure 1 presents the research plan in a
generalized form. Given that e-democracy is
global, 181 countries in North America, Europe,
Africa, South America and Asia were chosen as
the object of the study. This approach will make
it possible to comprehensively study the outlined
issues, in particular, to assess the readiness of
governments to implement artificial intelligence
in the provision of public services. The main
indicators for analysis are 39 indicators in 10
dimensions, which make up 3 pillars:
government, technology sector, data and
infrastructure.
Figure 1. Design of the research abstract.
Source: calculated and built by the authors.
Results
The definition of "electronic democracy"
("e-democracy," "virtual democracy") can be
seen as a form of social relations. Within these
relations, citizens and organizations are involved
in state-building and public administration
processes. They are also involved in local self-
government through the widespread use of
information and communication technologies.
This concept is defined alongside the following
ones: e-economy, e-commerce, e-services,
e-culture, e-education, and e-medicine.
In fact, the content of the term "e-democracy"
includes:
− Electronic form of receiving state and
municipal services.
− Interagency electronic interaction of public
authorities using information technologies.
− Providing citizens with additional
opportunities for participation and rule-
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
67
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
making activities using information
technologies (public discussion of draft laws
and bylaws).
− Participation in the development of solutions
and informing the authorities about the
problems and shortcomings of governance at
all levels of state power (including
"e-government").
Mistrust can be overcome by empowering each
citizen in the socio-political sphere by using
information technologies. Currently, there is
widespread "participatory democracy," where
public authorities use the virtual space to adhere
to principles of openness, transparency, and
accountability. They also use this space to
enhance the efficiency of their work and for open
communication with the public in general, as
well as with each citizen individually.
An essential milestone within the political
framework of electronic democracy is the
Recommendations of the Council of Europe's
Committee of Ministers to member states on
electronic democracy (e-democracy). These
Recommendations consist of 12 guidelines on
electronic democracy issues, establishing its
fundamental principles, as well as directions and
standards for its development (in the Annex).
Electronic democracy aims to support
democratic institutions and processes of
democratization in society. Its role also lies in
complementing traditional processes and
interactions to preserve democratic, human, and
cultural values in society.
While implementing fundamental freedoms, the
concept of participatory democracy places high
demands on the authorities and voters. They are
obliged to discuss issues and come to a consensus
with their opponents. Electronic democracy is
divided into sectors: e-parliament, e-legislation,
e-voting, e-justice, e-mediation, e-ecology,
e-elections, e-referendum, e-consultations,
e-petitions, e-political campaigns, and e-surveys.
Therefore, electronic democracy involves the
participation of citizens at all levels of public
governance (from state authorities and local self-
government to grassroots self-organization)
through information and communication means
and technologies. At the same time, e-democracy
cannot be seen as a separate policy outside the
policy of democratization as such. In other
words, the existence of electronic democracy is
only possible in the presence of democracy.
E-democracy is based on the following
components:
− active presentation of comprehensive,
balanced, unbiased information to outline
the range and content of social problems,
alternatives, opportunities, and decisions in
public policy;
− understanding of citizenship, which clearly
defines the signs of its establishment;
− participation of citizens and involvement of
persons and stakeholder groups (including
the business community) in solving social
problems;
− empowerment – providing citizens with the
necessary resources and powers to
participate in public policy;
− discussions.
Informatization and digitization play a
significant role in ensuring democracy where it
exists and creating conditions for a digital
dictatorship when access restrictions are applied
and digital control tools are established without
the goals of democratic transformation.
Therefore, electronic democracy is an integral
part of the information society, and we
understand it as the practice of democracy
supported by digital media in political
communication and participation. Electronic
participation encompasses all forms of political
engagement using digital media, including
official institutional mechanisms and informal
public participation. Advocates of participatory
democracy emphasize the intrinsic value of
political involvement and its significant role in
the social integration of liberal societies.
The sphere of electronic democracy is quite
broad, ranging from more passive forms of
engagement (social media or online monitoring
for information on societal events, ensuring
accessibility and transparency of decision-
making processes and essential documents) to
more active and cooperative modes (engaging
citizens in decision-making through online
voting procedures, as well as online spaces for
public consultations, debates on critical political
issues, and collaborative drafting of political
documents).
Many researchers point out that electronic
democracy is more advanced than its classical
form. In the context of electronic democracy,
citizens establish forms of self-control and
interaction that become more significant than
citizenship in territorially delimited states. The
internet and associated information and
communication technologies (ICTs) provide an
unlimited, time- and territory-neutral platform
where anyone can express their democratic
views.
68
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The following factors limit the conditions for the
effectiveness of electronic democracy:
1. The level of trust citizens have in the state.
Mechanisms of electronic democracy
require the highest level of trust in the
owners of electronic algorithms. Any doubts
about the honesty and functionality of these
algorithms will lead to a reluctance to
participate in the processes and,
consequently, to further manipulation and
falsifications.
2. A high level of transparency in democratic
procedures and the activities of political
leaders is required. The state should have a
special information policy based on the
principles of openness and accessibility,
providing citizens with information about
the activities of public authorities and the
people who represent them.
3. The highest level of motivation of the
political class to consider and support this
form of decision-making.
4. Peaceful times, as war conditions
significantly limit democracy, including
electronic ones.
The development of digital technologies brings
openness and freedom. However, it gradually
becomes a fertile ground for authoritarian
regimes. The phenomenon of digital
authoritarianism emerges, not so much based on
mass violence but on manipulating information
with the use of artificial intelligence elements.
Therefore, institutions such as a responsible
government, parliament, elected president, and
an independent judiciary are essential. Only
under such conditions can the Internet and other
information tools/technologies play a significant
role in shaping the democratization of political
participation.
Democratic models should be characterized not
by the direction of political communication (top-
down or bottom-up democracy), cyber-
optimism, or cyber-pessimism. Instead, they
should focus on citizens rather than institutions
that digitally instrumentalize their processes to
legitimize their procedures. The key element of
e-democracy is e-government, which is being
formed evolutionarily through the transformation
of the functions of providing administrative
services to the population. The legitimacy of e-
government is ensured by an actual increase in
the effectiveness of public administration, the
improvement in the quality of services provided
by the state, and the implementation of solid
social policies. Electronic democracy differs
from e-government since it is broader than the
digital administration of public services.
The practical application of digital technologies
for providing government services in different
countries worldwide has led to the formation of
various e-government models, each with its own
distinctions. Factors influencing the formation of
these models include:
− differences in goals;
− the specificity of traditional public
administration, cultural, socio-economic,
and political specifics of countries,
− the level of dissemination and use of
information and communication
technologies in the country,
− financial capabilities, etc.
Based on these features, Anglo-American,
European, and Asian models can be
distinguished.
The ratings of the United Nations (UN), the
International Telecommunication Union (ITU),
the World Economic Forum (WEF), and the
World Bank (WB) are used to determine the level
of information and communication technologies
development and maturity of e-government tools
in different world countries. Let us consider the
United Nations' E-Government Development
Index (EGDI). It is compiled once every two
years, assessing the level of e-government
development in 193 UN member countries. This
rating comprises assessments of three aspects,
namely:
− electronic services and services provided by
public authorities;
− information and communication
infrastructure;
− the development of human potential.
The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a kind of
litmus test for governments worldwide. It has
compelled governments to reevaluate the state's
role and has forced them to develop digital
solutions to ensure the continuity of public
service delivery and societal stability. The
pandemic often pushed them beyond existing
policies and regulations. This extraordinary
event has tested governments for their agility,
flexibility, and digital resilience. It helped to
open up new opportunities to strengthen multi-
level governance in regional and local
jurisdictions, as well as expand communicative
relationships for all segments of society, ensuring
that no one is left behind in the hybrid digital
society.
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
69
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
According to the United Nations (2022) data, the
global average EGDI has slightly increased from
0.5988 in 2020 to 0.6102 in 2022, mainly due to
progress in strengthening telecommunications
infrastructure. Europe remains the leader in
e-government development (EGDI 0.8305),
followed by Asia (0.6493), America (0.6438),
Oceania (0.5081), and Africa (0.4054). A
comprehensive digital transformation in the
public sector has yet to occur. Besides, in most
countries, health, education, and social
protection remain the top priorities for e-
government in online services. The most
significant increase was in the number of
countries that offer services for users to apply for
social protection programs and benefits. These
programs include maternity benefits, child
benefits, pensions, and housing and food
allowances.
Furthermore, the United Nations reports that an
increasing number of countries are strengthening
their institutional and legal frameworks for
e-government development (national
e-government or digital government strategy,
cybersecurity legislation, personal data
protection, national data policy, open
government data, and e-participation, as well as
online platforms). However, the pandemic has
exacerbated the digital gap. Currently, over 3
billion people live in countries with EGDI values
below the global average. Most of these countries
are concentrated in Africa, Asia, and Oceania.
Only 4 out of 54 African countries have EGDI
values above the world average (0.6102).
Meanwhile, other countries have EGDI values
that are sometimes significantly lower.
At the same time, it should be noted that the 15
countries with the highest (VH) rating class in the
group with very high EGDI are the leading
countries in the 2022 survey. Their values range
from 0.8943 to 0.9717 (Denmark, Finland,
Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Sweden,
Iceland, Australia, Estonia, the Netherlands, the
United States, the United Kingdom, Singapore,
the United Arab Emirates, Japan, and Malta).
These countries share their experiences about the
following aspects:
− Inclusion of citizens' voices in policy-
making, with specific e-participation
measures for vulnerable groups.
− Empowerment of their citizens through
investments in digital literacy and
competencies.
− How the promotion of inclusive practices by
setting standards for how government and
public, private, and voluntary sector partners
should maximize the accessibility of digital
services.
Despite significant advances in e-government
over the past two decades, inclusive design has
generally yet to be given sufficient attention.
Those groups that have been the easiest to reach
have generally benefited the most from the
marked progress in e-government. At the same
time, many of the poorest and most vulnerable
groups have been left behind.
The signing of the "Charter of the Global
Information Society" in Okinawa on July 22,
2000, by leaders of the "Group of Eight" (G8)
countries played an important role in
disseminating the ideas and concepts of
e-government on an international scale. This
document recognized the state's leading role in
developing and implementing information and
communication technologies in the political
sphere. Therefore, the national governments of
the signatory states have committed themselves
to making efforts toward creating an
information-driven society in their country.
Moreover, e-government is a key
telecommunications structure of the information
society.
There are several approaches to classifying
models of e-government development. The first
approach, the evolutionary one, is based on the
assumption of gradual e-government
development. The most popular evolutionary
model is the classification proposed by the
United Nations, which includes the following
stages. Other versions of evolutionary
e-government models are generally similar in
criteria and development steps. Despite its
popularity, the drawbacks of this approach
include linearity of development and the
universalization of the concept.
The second approach, the geographical one, is
based on the assumption that "e-government"
develops under specific historical, cultural, and
socio-political conditions. For example, there are
two main models, namely:
− Western (USA, Canada), which places great
emphasis on the development of
mechanisms for democratic citizen
participation.
− Eastern (Singapore), where the focus is on
the development of intra-agency interactions
and the provision of services to businesses
and the population.
70
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Continental European, Anglo-American, Asian,
and other models are also distinguished.
The Government AI Readiness Index is used to
define the readiness of governments for artificial
intelligence globally. Over 180 countries were
analyzed based on 39 indicators. Table 1 shows
that according to the Government's AI Readiness
Index, the United States has the highest rating as
of 2022.
The development of "e-government" is
influenced by specific factors of the regional
environment.
The third approach, a combined one, involves the
following three models:
1) The model of public demand (initiative
comes from "bottom-up," a marketing
approach to service delivery, e.g., the USA).
2) The model of administrative demand
(initiative comes "top-down," with a primary
focus on internal bureaucratic processes and
combating corruption, strengthening
"feedback," e.g., China).
3) The "chasing the leader" model (the lack of
public and internal demand, inconsistency in
innovation implementation, its symbolic
nature).
Table 1.
The Government AI Readiness Index
Country
Global
Position
Total
Score
Government
Pillar
Technology
Sector Pillar
Data and
Infrastructure
Pillar
United States
of America
1
85.72
86.21
81.67
89.28
Singapore
2
84.12
89.68
68.50
94.17
United
Kingdom
3
78.54
81.81
65.57
88.24
Finland
4
77.59
87.80
58.71
86.27
Canada
5
77.39
84.11
64.41
83.65
Source: (Government AI Readiness Index, 2022).
At the same time, it is worth noting that these
variants contain a generalized classification
based on the source and nature of the request to
implement e-government, but there is no block
related to e-citizenship. Not only is there an
untapped potential for more online activity when
it comes to elections (among EU member states,
online voting is only possible in Estonia), but
also for public administration services (Grazian
& Nahr, 2020).
This gap is partially addressed by the
classification proposed by Chadwick & May
(2003). This classification is based on the
interactions between the state and society. The
authors identify three types of e-government
development:
1) Managerial, in which the citizen is a client of
the "service state," with a primary focus on
providing government services.
2) Consultative, where the state interacts with
citizens through "feedback mechanisms."
3) Participatory, where e-government is an
expression of deliberative democracy and
networked governance.
In an attempt to integrate these approaches,
researchers assume that the criteria for modeling
e-government should directly reflect its structure.
In other words, there are internal
(e-administration) and external (e-service,
e-participation) components. In the first case, it
involves the level of penetration of information
and communication technologies into the system
of public administration. Meanwhile, the second
case concerns the status of citizen participation in
the functioning of "e-government."
From this perspective, the following
classification of models of interactive
communication between government authorities
and citizens emerges:
1) Administrative-Managerial. Here, more
attention is paid to internal informatization.
With a relatively high level of participation,
the provision of government services
through information and communication
technologies is possible. A managerial-
"service" model is a borderline between
administrative and consultative.
2) Consultative-Participatory. It is marked by a
high level of ICT channel development for
interacting with citizens in decision-making.
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
71
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
3) Limited Participation. In this model,
opportunities for citizen participation exist,
but due to a low level of e-administration, its
potential is limited, and administrative
delays and barriers persist.
4) Limited and Imitative. According to the UN,
such models can include the initial and
extended stages of presence, the "chasing the
leader" model.
In this case, e-government is limited either by a
low degree of informatization or by the
"pretended" nature of the innovation. The most
significant issues that hinder the achievement of
the highest possible results of e-government and
the provision of public services to the population
via electronic means include:
− the issue of popularizing the use of services
for the provision of state and municipal
services digitally;
− the lack of funding for the implementation of
the state policy on the provision of public
e-services;
− the challenge of "digital inequality" as a
barrier to achieving effective and prompt
provision of digital services to the public;
− a rather complicated mechanism for the
provision of electronic services in terms of
legal and regulatory framework and
administrative regulations.
Instead, new issues which threaten the existence
of e-democracy in the future have emerged.
In today's society, any citizen should be able to
implement basic skills in the use of information
and communication technologies. While fewer
obstacles exist for the younger generation, people
of retirement age may face serious difficulties.
For example, many older people need help to
acquire the skills to work on the Internet or
simply with a computer.
Every citizen should have access to information
and communication technologies that enable
electronic democracy. This access can include
personal computers, public access terminals, or
something else.
Let us focus on the issues of citizens' equality in
this area, primarily the issues of access to the
Internet. The constitutional principle of citizens'
equality and the duty of public authorities to
provide access to legal information to all citizens
of the country in the mechanisms of its
implementation have a specific set of goal-
oriented norms.
Ensuring equal opportunities for using the
information and telecommunication network, the
Internet, to access open information involves not
only the material availability and free access to it
but also the ability to use a computer, software,
and possession of specific knowledge in this
field. Undoubtedly, the presence of these factors
in all country residents is a program for the
future. However, its implementation is being
actualized in connection with the creation of
forms of citizens' participation in solving topical
issues of state and public life based on the
information and telecommunications system of
the Internet.
However, it is quite evident that nowadays, the
distribution of new technologies' users is uneven.
The highest density of such users resides in large
cities. Another uneven pattern is in the
informatization of local authorities, especially
local self-government. Thus, although the forms
of public participation in carrying out public
administration are enshrined, there are no open
mechanisms for their implementation.
The information society has created a new type
of social inequality - digital inequality. The
concept of the "digital divide" or "digital gap"
embodies the limitations in the use of the
Internet, television, and mobile communication
due to the lack of access to modern means of
communication. When it comes to the
information world, data should be seen as one of
the main resources for balanced human
development. Moreover, all people should have
access to it. Acquisition of knowledge and
information is becoming a value and a new
criterion that divides society (as well as societies
of different countries) into social groups and
classes that are unequal to each other.
Digital inequality manifests itself at different
levels of the social hierarchy: between states,
between cities and rural settlements, between
young and older people, the healthy ones, and
persons with specific disabilities. It is caused by
generational and age-specific features of
socialism in the level of network technologies
development ("digital migrants" and "digital
natives") (Carr, Hoechsmann & Thésée, 2018).
Other features that cause digital inequality
include:
− regional differences in the economy
digitalization;
− growth of Internet infrastructure;
− online inclusion of authorities and civil
society;
72
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
− the digital culture of citizens;
− people with disabilities.
In the authors' opinion, the establishment of a
single form of exercising a particular type of
personal rights limits the exercise of citizens'
rights due to the lack of opportunities to use this
procedure. It would be advisable to establish
additional procedures for sending an expression
of will, notification, request, etc. (which contain
the necessary data) to the website owners for
further data entry into the electronic resource.
Alternatively, public authorities should be
obliged to organize free access and provide
organizational and technical assistance for those
wishing to register.
Another issue is related to the unified
identification and authentication of citizens, as
well as the protection and security of personal
data when using information technologies. In this
case, it is necessary to create a legislative and
regulatory framework aimed directly at solving
the problem. Attention should be paid to
"electronic attacks" and massive "information
dumping" during e-democracy procedures.
During the discussion of an important issue,
"spam" messages are thrown, and as a result,
quarrels occur between participants in
discussions and members of online communities.
Hence, new technologies offer significant
opportunities for manipulating public
consciousness, including:
− digital disinformation, fakes, computerized
propaganda;
− manipulation of preferences using big data
and microtargeting;
− Internet trolling, etc.
Innovations in informatization pose a risk to the
state, as they can be used not only for
e-democracy but also for anti-state terrorist
activities. This circumstance raises doubts about
the democratic nature of the emerging
information society. In this case, the only way to
solve the problem is to involve moderators and
controllers who will monitor the atmosphere in
this network community and "block" unwanted
guests when necessary. Besides, in the context of
global informatization, active work should be
done to develop preventive measures against
external interference.
There is a shortage of specialists in the field of
electronic democracy and Internet
communications among government officials at
both regional and municipal levels. In this case,
it is proposed to develop and conduct an
examination of specialized educational
programs, taking into account national standards
and local peculiarities (considering the specifics
of each region separately).
It is suggested to enhance the mechanisms of
public administration with the active
implementation of the electronic democracy
system. In this case, it is proposed to create
unified tools for public control over the
performance of government and municipal
officials. It should be based on electronic
democracy systems. Such systems should be
open resources where citizens can evaluate the
performance of specific government officials. In
this case, the higher management must respond
to the feedback received.
The active introduction of new information
technologies into our daily lives can significantly
strengthen public control over the government.
The state can more easily disseminate
information intended for society and manipulate
public opinion by using information and
communication technologies (for example,
through advertising, movies, television shows,
computer games, etc.).
At the end of the XX century, a new type of
political elite emerged - the information elite or
netocracy. This elite controls the sources and
channels of information transmission, as well as
the technologies for its processing. The power
over the rest of the participants in a given society
(country, state, or community) is ensured by full
access to reliable information and the ability to
manipulate it. Such an information and financial
oligarchy determines the direction of the
prevailing volume of data and financial flows
globally.
The concept of netocracy was presented by Bard
and Soderqvist (2002) in their book "Netocracy:
The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism."
In this book, the authors argued for a forecast of
changes in the form of societal governance due
to the growing influence of information. The
emergence of this concept is symptomatic
because the permanent transformation of social
relations through the impact of mass media is a
global trend of the new century.
The authors use the term "netocracy" to describe
a new ruling class that dominates the networked
society, replacing the bourgeoisie. Netocrats
control access to networks and rely on exclusive
use of prestigious networks. In their work, Bard
and Soderqvist (2002) use the term "virtual
world," but the content is more about the
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
73
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
networked society. The book's authors repeatedly
refer readers to online communication
experience but do not directly link the concept of
"netocracy" to cyberspace specificity.
Netocrats regulate access to more significant
networks, leaving the possibility of their
exclusive use. It distinguishes netocrats from
those who seek profit. By providing access,
netocrats invest, and preserving access to
exclusive networks guarantees their power.
Finally, information technologies can
significantly exacerbate the dangerous gap
between the poor and the rich. They transform it
into the so-called confrontation between the
"information-rich" and the "information-poor."
In this case, it is about the democracy of the
global information society. Thus, the potential of
information and communication technologies
can be used both for the benefit of democracy and
against it.
Creating an effective electronic democracy
system requires the implementation of
appropriate legal norms regulating the use of
information and communication technologies
while ensuring that all participants in electronic
interaction have the relevant rights and
responsibilities.
Electronic democracy allows citizens to
participate in the work of government
institutions. Meanwhile, the latter can respond
more quickly and sensitively to the needs of
society. This concept includes using an electronic
platform for political information in civil society.
One of the legal challenges in using electronic
mechanisms in democracy implementation is the
insufficiently fixed legal status of the virtual
space. There is also a need for more legal
regulation of campaigning activities and
electronic voting in the election and referendum
processes carried out via the Internet.
Today, the problems of material, organizational,
technical support, and educational barriers, as
well as the issue of psychological preparation of
citizens, are relevant for applying electronic
mechanisms and achievements of the scientific
and technological process in implementing
democracy.
There are also risks associated with the
implementation of electronic democracy itself,
such as:
− Delay in administrative reform.
− Deterioration of the socio-economic
situation of the population.
− Lack of political consensus on the priority of
electronic democracy.
− Reduced citizen engagement at the national
level and limited opportunities for
implementing electronic democracy
projects.
− Inadequate strategy preparation.
− Disparity in the implementation process of
electronic democracy projects at regional
and local levels, as well as at the national
level.
− Limited budget resources and international
aid.
The development of digital technologies brings
both openness and freedom but gradually
becomes a nurturing environment for
authoritarian regimes. The phenomenon of
digital authoritarianism is emerging. It is based
less on mass violence than on manipulating
information by applying elements of artificial
intelligence.
From the citizens' perspective, as the main
subjects of electronic democracy, there are
expectations that ICT (Information and
Communication Technologies) can improve
democratic processes, particularly citizen
participation in shaping public policies.
However, there are significant social, economic,
and technical barriers to the implementation of
electronic democracy, including:
− A lack of information and knowledge about
the essence and possibilities of electronic
democracy among Internet users.
− Insufficient government utilization of
interaction based on social networks, which
are currently popular among internet users.
− Limited participation opportunities in
electronic democracy for people with
inclusive needs and residents with a low
level of digital literacy.
In addition, we should not forget about such
problems as the danger of manipulating voting
data caused by insufficient security and the threat
of digital division between those who have
information and those who have not. Another
issue is the oppression of the principle of
electoral democracy and the influence of
extremist groups on voters, particularly among
young voters. In this way, the formation of
e-democracy directly depends on the degree of
citizens' participation and their number in the
governance process, on their needs, motives,
74
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
interests, and the possibility of moving to forms
of direct democracy.
A key tool of e-democracy is political
crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing is a term that
combines the concepts of "crowd" and
"outsourcing." It involves a large group of people
coming up with an idea or a solution to a
problem. Some companies use this process to
rely on the knowledge and opinions of a wide
range of Internet users, as well as to create better
products and marketing plans or solve other
problems. In contrast to outsourcing, which
essentially means "hiring," crowdsourcing aims
to engage people. Typically, these people are not
financially interested in a collaborative and open-
ended creative process.
Crowdsourcing projects are developed primarily
based on social networks. By their nature, these
networks provide quick and widespread
participation in any business. However, the main
disadvantage of such projects is often their
advantage - an unorganized and unprofessional
community of people. Yet, this drawback is
hardly decisive, as the primary goal of
crowdsourcing is to get feedback from as many
people as possible, not just from experts. It is
worth recognizing that the main success of such
projects for the state in identifying public opinion
is ensured by the activity and personal interest of
the population.
At present, the development of the electronic
democracy system is utilizing Web 2.0
technology. It allows users to interact, organize
themselves, exchange, and further process
information (blogs, social networks, citizen
journalism, etc.). The Web 2.0 technology
platform is being replaced by a third one, the
Web 3.0 (Semantic Web). This platform allows
average users to participate in the creation of
information content alongside experts and
become experts.
In some academic sources, synonyms for
electronic democracy also include the following
concepts:
− "Network democracy" (broad participation
of civil society in the decision-making
process via the Internet).
− "Democracy 3.0" (using the Web 3.0
platform).
− "Wiki-democracy" (the principle of citizens
working together on decisions, similar to
Wikipedia, and general voting on all
contentious issues, as in direct democracy).
− The "Liquid democracy" (participants can
take part in decision-making).
Blockchain technology continues to be actively
researched and applied in e-democracy. One of
the promising areas of this technology
application is the development of transparent
e-voting and decision-making systems on its
basis. Blockchain is considered to be a pivotal
technology in the development of the Estonian e-
state due to its undeniable advantages and
potential. From a technical perspective,
blockchain technology improves the efficiency,
security, and transparency of data transmission.
Data transparency aims to ensure equality of
public access to information while ensuring
clarity, consistency, and reliability of the data
provided. In the context of democratic countries,
transparency and accountability often take
precedence over data protection. However,
prioritizing privacy while ensuring transparency
requires sophisticated security protocols.
Therefore, it complicates the working process.
Discussion
Citizens' access to information through the use of
ICT and their ability to analyze it and make
decisions is a process of shaping democratic
public opinion. It creates virtual communities
that can overcome the hierarchy of real power. In
Ukrainian studies, scholars focus on information
and communication technologies and study their
impact on the process of e-democracy.
There are other views on the formation of
e-democracy. For instance, some foreign experts
believe that e-democracy technologies are
basically unviable because they are based on the
ideology of technological determinism. Other
scientists focus their attention on the
extraordinary capabilities of information
technologies. These capabilities make it possible
to target the user's personality, allowing for
highly fine-tuned public opinion processing.
In disputes, the supporters of different opinions
do not consider the fact that ICT is basically an
"ambiguous technology" that can both help solve
many of the problems existing in society and
create new ones." In other words, when
discussing the impact of ICT on electronic
democratization, it is necessary to consider that
the active integration of information technologies
into everyday social life carries positive societal
trends and negative social consequences.
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
75
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
The spread of new information technologies and
their incorporation into public life create
technological prerequisites for the development
of civil society by ensuring the realization of
citizens' rights and duties through free and
prompt access to informational resources to
advance electronic democracy.
The arguments in favor of electronic democracy
are quite evident. However, upon closer
examination, they do not withstand criticism.
The hypothesis that the Internet can
automatically ensure the democratization of
authoritarian regimes has not been confirmed
(Thornton, 2001). German researchers Keohane
& Nye (1998) have confirmed that "authoritarian
states face great difficulties in attempting to
control their citizens' access to the global
network." Nevertheless, an authoritarian country
like China effectively circumvents
democratization by using administrative and
technical means through the application of the
Internet (Chase & Mulvenon, 2002).
Furthermore, the assertion regarding reducing
the role of socio-political organizations in civil
society is also unsubstantiated. On the contrary,
in democratic countries, there is a well-
developed network of civil society intermediaries
(including political parties, civil organizations,
media outlets, and other civil society structures)
that are interested in increasing their influence.
They actively use the Internet during elections,
political communication, and in their daily
activities.
We agree with the opinion of Davis (1999), who
noted that "traditional stakeholder groups will
remain major players in political life during the
Internet era." The importance of political
intermediaries will remain the same in the face of
a tremendous increase in the amount of political
information. They will become authoritative
experts whose opinions are respected by the
public (Davis, 1999).
The same is confirmed by the German political
scientist Jarren. He emphasizes that communities
formed on a virtual basis cannot be a solid basis
for social interaction. People perceive
information and its analysis differently and
depend heavily on the social context. Thus, the
process of receiving information is both
individual and social. People want to form a
community and seek mutual understanding
during political communication.
For this reason, they have to limit their
aspirations for individualization, including self-
organization. Therefore, the state has to shape the
socialization of its citizens. According to Jarren
& Donges (2006), Internet communications can
support effective interaction in real
organizations. However, transitioning from a
virtual community to a real one is tricky.
Therefore, online communities are not enough to
create communicative democracies.
From institutionalism's perspective, the very idea
of creating "e-democracy" as a form of direct
democracy based on new information
technologies has been criticized quite
reasonably. In particular, the American professor
Sclove (1995) noted that since all technologies
are social structures like social institutions, it is
advisable to consider their impact on the
democratic form of the political system. Local
communities hosting discussions on socially
essential issues become the basis of democracy.
In fact, the active political role of the vast
majority of citizens defines participation in
democracy. However, the political activity of
citizens is currently declining.
1) Thus, the concepts of "e-democracy" contain
significant contradictions and are subject to
justified criticism. E-democracy has a great
potential for development in democratic
countries, but it also carries certain risks for
states. For this reason, the concept of
"e-government" dominates, and it is
currently the basis for reforms in the field of
public administration based on electronic
communications.
Conclusions
The implementation of information and
communication technologies in the public sector
occurs in various directions. It appears both
within public authorities and in the sphere of
interaction among public policy actors. It is
expedient to distinguish three directions:
e-government, e-services, and e-participation.
From the perspective of electronic democracy,
establishing e-government is paramount. It
provides public access to state-critical
information, thereby contributing to government
transparency and creating a system of public
oversight over its activities via the Internet.
However, there are several practical challenges
and discrepancies between the theoretical model
and actual political practice. In this way, we can
identify the following risks related to the
practical implementation of e-democracy
principles:
76
www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
1) Information technologies disrupt established
mechanisms of societal relations, which may
lead to increased tension and chaos in the
political system.
2) New technologies provide extensive
opportunities for the dissemination of
various forms of destructive and extremist
information, as well as manipulation of
public opinion.
3) The presence of information inequality can
exclude a significant portion of the
population from the process of making
political decisions.
4) The development of information
technologies can transform real political
participation into a virtual simulation,
reducing society's influence on government.
5) The issue of protecting information from
unauthorized access remains unresolved,
which is crucial for developing electronic
democracy. Reliable data protection is a
mandatory requirement for the functioning
of government structures.
Therefore, regardless of the level of
technological development, the democratic
potential of electronic technologies depends on
the presence of the political will to implement it.
Bibliographic references
Bard, Al., & Soderqvist, J. (2002). Netocracy:
The New Power Elite and Life After
Capitalism. Pearson Education, 288 p.
ISBN 13: 978-1903684290
Bell, D. (1976). The Coming of Post-Industrial
Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting.
Paperback, July 21. Published
by Penguin ISBN 13: 9780140551150
Carr, P. R., Hoechsmann, & M., & Thésée, G.
(eds.) (2018). Democracy 2.0: Media,
political literacy and critical engagement.
Rotterdam.
https://doi.org/10.1163/9789463512305
Castells, M. (2000). End of Millennium, The
Information Age: Economy, Society and
Culture Vol. III. Malden, MA. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell. Wiley-Blackwell; ISBN-13 978-
0631221395
Chadwick, A., & May, C. (2003). Interaction
between states and citizens in the age of the
Internet: "e-government" in the United States,
Britain, and the European Union.
Governance-an International Journal of
Policy and Administration, 16(2), 271-300.
Chase, M. S., & Mulvenon, J. C. (2002). You've
Got Dissent! Chinese Dissident Use of the
Internet and Beijing's Counter-Strategies.
Santa Monica: Rand Corporation. ISBN:
0833031791
Davis, R. (1999). The Web of Politics. The
Internet’s Impact on the American Political
System. New York and Oxford: Oxford
University Press. ISBN-13: 978-0195114850
Grazian, F., & Nahr, H. (2020). Next level
participation: Citizen-Driven e-Democracy
Tools. Brussels: European Liberal Forum.
Available at: https://acortar.link/1gLYZv
Hong, S., & Kim, N. (2018). Will the Internet
Promote Democracy? Search Engines,
Concentration of Online News Readership,
and E-democracy. Journal of Information
Technology & Politics, 15(4), 388-399.
Huntington, S. P. (1991). The Third Wave:
Democratization in the Late Twentieth
Century. Norman: University of Oklahoma
Press. ISBN-13: 9780806125169
Jarren, O., & Donges, P. (2006). Political
communication in media society. Wiesbaden:
Publishing House for Social
Sciences. Publisher: Westdeutscher Verlag
ISBN-13: 9783531333731
Johnson, J. A. (2007). The Illiberal Culture of
E-Democracy. Journal of E-Government,
3(4), 85-112.
Keohane, R. O., & Nye, J. S. (1998). Power and
Interdependence in the Information
Age. Foreign Affairs, 77(5), 81-94.
https://doi.org/10.2307/20049052
Lieberman, J. L. (2015). Ralph Ellison's
Technological Humanism MELUS Vol. 40, No.
4, Technology, the Posthuman, and Aesthetics
in Multi-Ethnic Literature. (WINTER 2015),
8-27
Lindner, R., & Aichholzer, G. (2020).
E-Democracy: Conceptual Foundations and
Recent Trends, in Leonhard Hennen et al.
(eds.), European E-Democracy in Practice,
Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-
3-030-27184-8_2
Masuda, Y. (1980). The Information Society as
Post-industrial Society. Institute for the
Information Society. Tokyo, 158 p. ISBN-
13:978-0930242152
Moss, G., & Coleman, S. (2014). Deliberative
Manoeuvres in the Digital Darkness:
e-Democracy Policy in the UK. The British
Journal of Politics & International Relations,
16(3), 410-427.
Sclove, R. E. (1995). Democracy and
Technology. N. Y.: The Guilford Press.
https://acortar.link/22tGox
Thornton, A. L. (2001). Does the Internet create
democracy? Ecquid Novi: African
Journalism Studies, 22(2), 126-147,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02560054.2001.9665
885
Volume 12 - Issue 70
/ October 2023
77
http:// www.amazoniainvestiga.info ISSN 2322- 6307
Toffler's, A. (1984). The Third Wave Mass.
Market Paperback, May 1, 560 p.
Toffler's, A. (1990). Powersoft, Wealth and
Violence at the Edge the 21st Century. New
York. Random House Publishing, 2022,
640 p. ISBN-13: 9780593159774
United Nations E-government Survey (2022).
The Future of Digital Government 2022.
Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
UNITED NATIONS, New York, 2022.