E-Democracy Post

I would make a change to the post "E-Democracy, E-Governance and Public Net-Work."  Instead of a one-way progression, I would turn it into a circle, with the public work and policy (at least theoretically) flowing back to the populace, in the form of laws they must follow and services they receive.

"As our one-way broadcast world becomes increasingly two-way, will the governance process gain the ability to listen and respond more effectively?"  Government is different from broadcast media.  Broadcast media have power only because they have an audience.  The sharing of information might devalue the services provided by the traditional media.  Government officials have power as the result of an election in which they are chosen to make decisions on behalf of the people.  The easier sharing of information does not inherently change the power structures of legislative, executive, or judicial branches of government.  "Policy leaders can reach out and develop closer relationships with citizens and stakeholders," but it is still the policy holders who have the authority to make their own decisions.  Online information sharing gives interest groups a new tool, but because most (competing) interest groups have access to this tool, it is a relatively weak force.

The online world certainly provides new ways for the governed to communicated with, and get information from the government.  The ease of sending an e-mail may prompt some Congressional staffers to reduce their value, in comparison to phone calls or letters on paper, sent through the mail.  In the end, the elected representative still makes the final decision.

I think Clift likes his E-Democracy Conceptual Model.  He made it look like a flower!