Datasets:

burgerbee

/

social_studies_wiki

like 0

E-democracy

E-democracy (a blend of the terms electronic and democracy), also known as digital democracy or Internet democracy, uses information and communication technology (ICT) in political and governance processes. The term is credited to digital activist Steven Clift. By using 21st-century ICT, e-democracy seeks to enhance democracy, including aspects like civic technology and E-government. Proponents argue that by promoting transparency in decision-making processes, e-democracy can empower all citizens to observe and understand the proceedings. Also, if they possess overlooked data, perspectives, or opinions, they can contribute meaningfully. This contribution extends beyond mere informal disconnected debate; it facilitates citizen engagement in the proposal, development, and actual creation of a country's laws. In this way, e-democracy has the potential to incorporate crowdsourced analysis more directly into the policy-making process. Electronic democracy incorporates a diverse range of tools that use both existing and emerging information sources. These tools provide a platform for the public to express their concerns, interests, and perspectives, and to contribute evidence that may influence decision-making processes at the community, national, or global level. E-democracy leverages both traditional broadcast technologies such as television and radio, as well as newer interactive internet-enabled devices and applications, including polling systems. These emerging technologies have become popular means of public participation, allowing a broad range of stakeholders to access information and contribute directly via the internet. Moreover, large groups can offer real-time input at public meetings using electronic polling devices. Utilizing information and communication technology (ICT), e-democracy bolsters political self-determination. It collects social, economic, and cultural data to enhance democratic engagement. As a concept that encompasses various applications within differing democratic structures, e-democracy has substantial impacts on political norms and public engagement. It emerges from theoretical explorations of democracy and practical initiatives to address societal challenges through technology. The extent and manner of its implementation often depend on the specific form of democracy adopted by a society, thus shaped by both internal dynamics and external technological developments. When designed to present both supporting and opposing evidence and arguments for each issue, apply conflict resolution and Cost–benefit analysis techniques, and actively address confirmation bias and other cognitive biases, E-Democracy could potentially foster a more informed citizenry. However, the development of such a system poses significant challenges. These include designing sophisticated platforms to achieve these aims, navigating the dynamics of populism while acknowledging that not everyone has the time or resources for full-time policy analysis and debate, promoting inclusive participation, and addressing cybersecurity and privacy concerns. Despite these hurdles, some envision e-democracy as a potential facilitator of more participatory governance, a countermeasure to excessive partisan dogmatism, a problem-solving tool, a means for evaluating the validity of pro/con arguments, and a method for balancing power distribution within society. Throughout history, social movements have adapted to use the prevailing technologies as part of their civic engagement and social change efforts. This trend persists in the digital era, illustrating how technology shapes democratic processes. As technology evolves, it inevitably impacts all aspects of society, including governmental operations. This ongoing technological advancement brings new opportunities for public participation and policy-making while presenting challenges such as cybersecurity threats, issues related to the digital divide, and privacy concerns. Society is actively grappling with these complexities, striving to balance leveraging technology for democratic enhancement and managing its associated risks. Considerations E-democracy incorporates elements of both representative and direct democracy. In representative democracies, which characterize most modern systems, responsibilities such as law-making, policy formation, and regulation enforcement are entrusted to elected officials. This differs from direct democracies, where citizens undertake these duties themselves. Motivations for e-democracy reforms are diverse and reflect the desired outcomes of its advocates. Some aim to align government actions more closely with the public's interest, akin to populism, diminish the influence of media, political parties, and lobbyists, or use public input to assess potential costs and benefits of each policy. E-democracy, in its unstructured form, emphasizes direct participation and has the potential to redistribute political power from elected officials to individuals or groups. However, reforms aimed at maximizing benefits and minimizing costs might require structures that mimic a form of representation, conceivable if the public had the capacity to debate and analyze issues full-time. Given the design of electronic forums that can accommodate extensive debate, e-democracy has the potential to mimic aspects of representation on a much larger scale. These structures could involve public education initiatives or systems that permit citizens to contribute based on their interests or expertise. From this standpoint, e-democracy appears less concerned with what the public believes to be true and more focused on the evidence the public can demonstrate as true. This view reveals a tension within e-democratic reforms between populism and an evidence-based approach akin to the scientific method or the Enlightenment principles. A key indicator of the effectiveness of a democratic system is the successful implementation of policy. To facilitate this, voters must comprehend the implications of each policy approach, evaluate its costs and benefits, and consider historical precedents for policy effectiveness. Some proponents of e-democracy argue that technology can enable citizens to perform these tasks as effectively, if not more so, than traditional political parties within representative democracies. By harnessing technological advancements, e-democracy has the potential to foster more informed decision-making and enhance citizen involvement in the democratic process. History E-democracy traces back to the development of information and communication technology (ICT) and the evolution of democratic structures. It encompasses initiatives from governments to interact with citizens through digital means and grassroots activities using electronic platforms to influence governmental practices. Early developments The inception of e-democracy corresponds with the rise of the Internet in the late 20th century. The diffusion of personal computers and the Internet during the 1990s led to the initiation of electronic government initiatives. Digital platforms, such as forums, chat rooms, and email lists, were pivotal in fostering public discourse, thereby encouraging informal civic engagement online. These platforms provided an accessible medium for individuals to discuss ideas and issues, and they were utilized by both governments and citizens to promote dialogue, advocate for change, and involve the public in decision-making processes. Concept and approach The structure of the Internet, which currently embodies characteristics such as decentralization, open standards, and universal access, has been observed to align with principles often associated with democracy. These democratic principles have their roots in federalism and Enlightenment values like openness and individual liberty. Steven Clift, a notable proponent of e-democracy, suggests that the Internet should be utilized to enhance democratic processes and provide increased opportunities for interaction between individuals, communities, and the government. He emphasizes the importance of structuring citizen-to-citizen discussions online within existing power structures and maintaining significant reach within the community for these discussions to hold agenda-setting potential. The concept involves endorsing individuals or policies committed to leveraging internet technologies to amplify public engagement without modifying or substituting existing constitutions. The approach includes data collection, analysis of advantages and disadvantages, evaluation of interests, and facilitating discussions around potential outcomes. Late 20th century to early 21st century In the late 20th century and early into the 21st century, e-democracy started to become more structured as governments worldwide started to explore its potential. One major development was the rise of e-government initiatives, which aimed to provide public services online. One of the first instances of such an initiative was the establishment of the Government Information Locator Service (GILS) by the United States government in 1994. GILS was a searchable database of government information accessible to citizens and businesses, and it served as a tool to improve agency electronic records management practices. Along with the rise of e-government services, government websites started to spring up, aiming to improve communication with citizens, increase transparency, and make administrative tasks easier to accomplish online. The mid-2000s ushered in the era of Web 2.0, emphasizing user-generated content, interoperability, and collaboration. This period witnessed the rise of social media platforms, blogs, and other collaborative tools, further amplifying the potential for e-democracy through increasing opportunities for public participation and interaction. Concepts like crowdsourcing and open-source governance gained traction, advocating for broader and more direct public involvement in policymaking. As the digital age progressed, so too did the interaction between governments and citizens. The advent and rapid adoption of the internet globally catalyzed this transformation. With high internet penetration in many regions, politics have increasingly relied on the internet as a primary source of information for numerous people. This digital shift has been supported by the rise in online advertising among political candidates and groups actively trying to sway public opinion or directly influence legislators. This trend is especially noticeable among younger voters, who often regard the internet as their primary source of information due to its convenience and ability to streamline their information-gathering process. The user-friendly nature of search engines like Google and social networks encourages increased citizen engagement in political research and discourse. Social networks, for instance, offer platforms where individuals can voice their opinions on governmental issues without fear of judgement. The vast scale and decentralized structure of the internet enable anyone to create viral content and influence a wide audience. The Internet facilitates citizens in accessing and disseminating information about politicians while simultaneously providing politicians with insights from a broader citizen base. This collaborative approach to decision-making and problem-solving empowers citizens. It accelerates decision-making processes by politicians, thereby fostering a more efficient society. Gathering citizen feedback and perspectives is essential to a politician's role. The Internet functions as a conduit for effective engagement with a larger audience. Consequently, this enhanced communication with the public strengthens the capability and effectiveness of the American government as a democracy. The 2016 U.S. presidential election is an example of social media integration in political campaigns, where both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton actively utilized Twitter as a communication tool. These platforms allow candidates to shape public perceptions while also humanizing their personas, suggesting that political figures are as approachable and relatable as ordinary individuals. Through resources such as Google, the Internet enables every citizen to readily research political topics. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram encourage political engagement, allowing users to share their political views and connect with like-minded individuals. Generation X's disillusionment with political processes, epitomized by large-scale public protests such as the U.K. miners' strike of 1984-1985 that appeared to fail, predated the widespread availability of information technology to individual citizens. There is a perception that e-democracy could address some of these concerns by offering a counter to the insularity, power concentration, and post-election accountability deficit often associated with traditional democratic processes organized primarily around political parties. Tom Watson, the Deputy Leader of the U.K. Labour Party, once stated: Despite the benefits of the digital shift, one of the challenges of e-democracy is the potential disconnect between politics and actual government implementation. While the internet provides a platform for robust political discourse, translating these discussions into effective government action can be complex. This gap can often be exacerbated by the rapid pace of digital dialogue, which may outpace the slower, more deliberative processes of policy-making. The rise of digital media has created new opportunities for citizens to participate in politics and to hold governments accountable. However, it has also created new challenges, such as the potential for echo chambers, and the need for governments to be responsive to citizen concerns. The challenge for e-democracy, therefore, is to ensure that the digital discourse contributes constructively to the functioning of the government and the decision-making processes, rather than becoming an echo chamber of opinions with little practical impact. As of the 2020s, e-democracy's landscape continues to evolve alongside advancements in technologies such as artificial intelligence, blockchain, and big data. These technologies promise to expand citizen participation further, enhance transparency, and boost the overall efficiency and responsiveness of democratic governance. The history of e-democracy exhibits significant progress, but it is also characterized by ongoing debates and challenges, such as the digital divide, data privacy, cybersecurity, and the impact of misinformation. As this journey continues, the emphasis remains on leveraging technology to enhance democratic processes and ensure all citizens' voices are heard and valued. E-democracy promotes wider access to information, and its inherent decentralization challenges censorship practices. It embodies elements of the internet's origins, including strong libertarian support for freedom of speech, widespread sharing culture, and the National Science Foundation's commercial use prohibition. The internet's capacity for mass communication, evident in newsgroups, chat rooms, and MUDs, surpasses traditional boundaries associated with broadcast media like newspapers or radio, as well as personal media such as letters or landline telephones. As the Internet represents a vast digital network supporting open standards, achieving widespread, cost-effective access to a diverse range of communication media and models is feasible. Practical issues pertaining to e-democracy include managing the agenda while encouraging meaningful participation and fostering enlightened understanding. Furthermore, efforts are evaluated based on their ability to ensure voting equality and promote inclusivity. The success or failure of e-democracy largely depends on its capability to accurately delineate each issue's relevant costs and benefits, identify their likelihood and significance, and align votes with this analysis. In addition, all internet forums, including Wikipedia, must address cybersecurity and protect sensitive data. Digital mobilization in social movements Occupy movement The Occupy movement, which proposed various demonstrations in response to the financial crisis of 2007–08, extensively utilized social networks. 15-M Movement Originating in Spain and subsequently spreading to other European countries, the 15-M Movement gave rise to proposals by the Partido X (X Party) in Spain. In 2016 and 2017, citizens involved in the movement together with the City Council of Barcelona developed a combined online and offline e-democracy project called Decidim, that self-describes as a "technopolitical network for participatory democracy", with the aim of implementing the hopes of participatory democracy raised by the movement. The project combines a free and open-source software (FOSS) software package together with a participatory political project and an organising community, "Metadecidim". Decidim participants refer to the software, political and organising components of the project as "technical", "political" and "technopolitical" levels, respectively. By 2023, Decidim estimated that 400 city and regional governments and civil society institutions were running Decidim instances. Arab Spring During the Arab Spring, uprisings across North Africa and the Middle East were spearheaded by online activists. Initially, pro-democracy movements harnessed digital media to challenge authoritarian regimes. These regimes, however, adapted and integrated social media into their counter-insurgency strategies over time. Digital media served as a critical tool in transforming localized and individual dissent into structured movements with a shared awareness of common grievances and opportunities for collective action. Egyptian Revolution The Egyptian Revolution began on 25 January 2011, prompted by mass protests in Cairo, Egypt, against the long reign of President Hosni Mubarak, high unemployment, governmental corruption, poverty, and societal oppression. The 18-day revolution gained momentum not through initial acts of violence or protests, but via a single Facebook page, which quickly attracted the attention of thousands and eventually millions of Egyptians, evolving into a global phenomenon. The Internet became a tool of empowerment for the protestors, facilitating participation in their government's democratization process. Protestors effectively utilized digital platforms to communicate, organize, and collaborate, generating real-time impact. In response to the regime's failed attempt to disrupt political online discussions by severing all internet access, Google and Twitter collaborated to create a system that allowed information to reach the public without internet access. The interactive nature of media during this revolution enhanced civic participation and played a significant role in shaping the political outcome of the revolution and the democratization of the entire nation. The Egyptian Revolution has been interpreted by some as a paradigm shift from a group-controlled system to one characterized by "networked individualism". This transformation is tied to the post-"triple revolution" of technology, consisting of three key developments. First, the shift towards social networks, second, the widespread propagation of the instantaneous internet, and third, the ubiquity of mobile phones. These elements significantly impacted change through the Internet, providing an alternative, unregulated sphere for idea formation and protests. For instance, the "6 April Youth Movement" in Egypt established their political group on Facebook and called for a national strike. Despite the subsequent suppression of this event, the Facebook group persisted, encouraging other activist groups to utilize online media. Moreover, the Internet served as a medium for building international connections, amplifying the impact of the revolt. The rapid transmission of information via Twitter hashtags, for example, made the uprising globally known. In particular, over three million tweets contained popular hashtags such as #Egypt and #sidibouzid, further facilitating the spread of knowledge and fostering change in Egypt. Kony 2012 The Kony 2012 video, released on 5 March 2012 by the non-profit organization Invisible Children, launched an online grassroots campaign aimed at locating and arresting Joseph Kony, the leader of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) in Central Africa. The video's mission was to raise global awareness about Kony's activities, with Jason Russell, a founder of Invisible Children, emphasizing the necessity of public support to urge the government's continued search for Kony. The organization leveraged the extensive reach of social media and contemporary technology to spotlight Kony's crimes. In response to the campaign, on 21 March 2012, a resolution was introduced by 33 Senators denouncing "the crimes against humanity" perpetrated by Kony and the LRA. This resolution supported the US government's ongoing efforts to boost the capabilities of regional military forces for civilian protection and the pursuit of LRA commanders. It also advocated for cross-border initiatives to augment civilian protection and aid populations affected by the LRA. Co-sponsor Senator Lindsey Graham noted the significant impact of public attention driven by social media, stating that the YouTube sensation would "help the Congress be more aggressive and will do more to lead to his demise than all other action combined". India Against Corruption (2011–2012) The India Against Corruption (IAC) movement was an influential anti-corruption crusade in India, garnering substantial attention during the anti-corruption protests of 2011 and 2012. Its primary focus was the contention surrounding the proposed Jan Lokpal bill. IAC sought to galvanize the populace in their pursuit of a less corrupt Indian society. However, internal divisions within the IAC's central committee led to the movement's split. Arvind Kejriwal left to establish the Aam Aadmi Party, while Anna Hazare created the Jantantra Morcha. Long March (Pakistan) Long March is a socio-political movement in Pakistan initiated by Qadri after returning from a seven-year residence in Toronto, Ontario, Canada, in December 2012. Qadri called for a "million-men" march in Islamabad to protest government corruption. The march commenced on 14 January 2013, with thousands pledging to participate in a sit-in until their demands were met. The march began in Lahore with about 25,000 participants. During a rally in front of the parliament, Qadri critiqued the legislators saying, "There is no Parliament; there is a group of looters, thieves and dacoits [bandits] ... Our lawmakers are the lawbreakers.". After four days of sit-in, Qadri and the government reached an agreement—termed the Islamabad Long March Declaration—which pledged electoral reforms and enhanced political transparency. Despite Qadri's call for a "million-men" march, the government estimated the sit-in participants in Islamabad to number around 50,000. Five Star Movement (Italy) The Five Star Movement (M5S), a prominent political party in Italy, has been utilizing online voting since 2012 to select its candidates for Italian and European elections. These votes are conducted through a web-based application called Rousseau, accessible to registered members of Beppe Grillo's blog. Within this platform, M5S users are able to discuss, approve, or reject legislative proposals. These proposals are then presented in Parliament by the M5S group. For instance, the M5S's electoral law and the selection of its presidential candidate were determined via online voting. Notably, the decision to abolish a law against immigrants was made by online voting among M5S members, in opposition to the views of Grillo and Casaleggio. M5S's alliance with the UK Independence Party was also determined by online voting, albeit with limited options for the choice of European Parliament group for M5S. These were Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD), European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), and "Stay independent" (Non-Inscrits). The possibility of joining the Greens/EFA group was discussed but not available at the time due to the group's prior rejection of M5S. When the Conte I Cabinet collapsed, a new coalition between the Democratic Party and M5S was endorsed after over 100,000 members voted online, with 79.3% supporting the new coalition. COVID-19 pandemic The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the importance and impact of e-democracy. In 2020, the advent of COVID-19 led countries worldwide to implement safety measures as recommended by public health officials. This abrupt societal shift constrained social movements, causing a temporary halt to certain political issues. Despite these limitations, individuals leveraged digital platforms to express their views, create visibility for social movements, and strive to instigate change and raise awareness through democracy in social media. As reported by news analysis firm The ASEAN Post, the pandemic-induced limitations on traditional democratic spaces such as public meetings have led Filipinos, among others, to resort to social media, digital media, and collaborative platforms for engaging in public affairs and practising "active citizenship" in the virtual domain. This shift has enabled active participation in social, written, or visual interaction and the rectification of misinformation in a virtual setting. Opportunities and challenges Potential impacts E-democracy has the potential to inspire greater community involvement in political processes and policy decisions, interlacing its growth with complex internal aspects such as political norms and public pressure. The manner in which it is implemented is also closely connected to the specific model of democracy employed. Consequently, e-democracy is profoundly influenced by a country's internal dynamics as well as the external drivers defined by standard innovation and diffusion theory. In the current age, where the internet and social networking dominate daily life, individuals are increasingly advocating for their public representatives to adopt practices similar to those in other states or countries concerning the online dissemination of government information. By making government data easily accessible and providing straightforward channels to communicate with government officials, e-democracy addresses the needs of modern society. E-democracy promotes more rapid and efficient dissemination of political information, encourages public debate, and boosts participation in decision-making processes. Social media platforms have emerged as tools of empowerment, particularly among younger individuals, stimulating their participation in electoral processes. These platforms also afford politicians opportunities for direct engagement with constituents. A notable example is the 2016 United States presidential elections, in which Donald Trump primarily used Twitter to communicate policy initiatives and goals. Similar practices have been observed among various global leaders, such as Justin Trudeau, Jair Bolsonaro, and Hassan Rouhani, who maintain active Twitter accounts. Some observers argue that the government's online publication of public information enhances its transparency, enabling more extensive public scrutiny, and consequently promoting a more equitable distribution of power within society. Jane Fountain, in her 2001 work Building the Virtual State, delves into the expansive reach of e-democracy and its interaction with traditional governmental structures. She offers a comprehensive model to understand how pre-existing norms, procedures, and rules within bureaucracies impact the adoption of new technological forms. Fountain suggests that this form of e-government, in its most radical manifestation, would necessitate a significant overhaul of the modern administrative state, with routine electronic consultations involving elected politicians, civil servants, pressure groups, and other stakeholders becoming standard practice at all stages of policy formulation. States where legislatures are controlled by the Republican Party, as well as those characterized by a high degree of legislative professionalization and active professional networks, have shown a greater propensity to embrace e-government and e-democracy. E-democracy provides numerous benefits, contributing to a more engaged public sphere. It encourages increased public participation by offering platforms for citizens to express their opinions through websites, emails, and other electronic communication channels, influencing planning and decision-making processes. This digital democracy model broadens the number and diversity of individuals who exercise their democratic rights by conveying their thoughts to decision-making bodies about various proposals and issues. Moreover, it cultivates a virtual public space, fostering interaction, discussion, and the exchange of ideas among citizens. E-democracy also promotes convenience, allowing citizens to participate at their own pace and comfort. Its digital nature enables it to reach vast audiences with relative ease and minimal cost. The system promotes interactive communication, encouraging dialogue between authorities and citizens. It also serves as an effective platform for disseminating large amounts of information, maintaining clarity and minimizing distortion. Challenges While e-democracy platforms, also known as digital democracy platforms, offer enhanced opportunities for exercising voting rights, they are also susceptible to disruption. Digital voting platforms, for example, have faced attacks aimed at influencing election outcomes. As Dobrygowski states, "cybersecurity threats to the integrity of both electoral mechanisms and government institutions are, quite uncomfortably, more intangible." While traditional paper ballots are often considered the most secure method for conducting elections, digital voting provides the convenience of electronic participation. However, the successful implementation of this system necessitates continual innovations and contributions from third parties. Ensuring digital inclusion To foster a robust digital democracy, it's imperative to promote digital inclusion that ensures all citizens, regardless of income, education, gender, religion, ethnicity, language, physical and mental health, have equal opportunities to participate in public policy formulation. During the 2020 elections, digital communications were utilized by various communities to cultivate a sense of inclusivity. Specifically, the COVID-19 pandemic saw a surge in online political participation among the youth, demonstrated by the signing of online petitions and participation in digital protests. Even as youth participation in traditional politics dwindles, young people show significant support for pressure groups mobilized through social media. For instance, the Black Lives Matter movement gained widespread recognition on social media, enabling many young people to participate in meaningful ways, including online interactions and protests. Requirements E-Democracy is facilitated by its significance in fostering participation, promoting social inclusivity, displaying sensitivity to individual perspectives, and offering flexible means of engagement. The Internet endows a sense of relevance to participation by giving everyone a platform for their voices to be heard and articulated. It also facilitates a structure of social inclusivity through a broad array of websites, groups, and social networks, each representing diverse viewpoints and ideas. Individual needs are met by enabling the public and rapid expression of personal opinions. Furthermore, the Internet offers an exceptionally flexible environment for engagement; it is cost-effective and widely accessible. Through these attributes, e-democracy and the deployment of the Internet can play a pivotal role in societal change. Internet accessibility The progression of e-democracy is impeded by the digital divide, which separates those actively engaged in electronic communities from those who do not participate. Proponents of e-democracy often recommend governmental actions to bridge this digital gap. The divergence in e-governance and e-democracy between the developed and the developing world is largely due to the digital divide. Practical concerns include the digital divide that separates those with access from those without, and the opportunity cost associated with investments in e-democracy innovations. There also exists a degree of skepticism regarding the potential impact of online participation. Security and privacy The government has a responsibility to ensure that online communications are both secure and respectful of individuals' privacy. This aspect gains prominence when considering electronic voting. The complexity of electronic voting systems surpasses other digital transaction mechanisms, necessitating authentication measures that can counter ballot manipulation or its potential threat. These measures may encompass the use of smart cards, which authenticate a voter's identity while maintaining the confidentiality of the cast vote. Electronic voting in Estonia exemplifies a successful approach to addressing the privacy-identity dilemma inherent in internet voting systems. However, the ultimate goal should be to match the security and privacy standards of existing manual systems. Despite these advancements, recent research has indicated, through a SWOT analysis, that the risks of an e-government are related to data loss, privacy and security, and user adoption. Government responsiveness To encourage citizens to engage in online consultations and discussions, the government needs to be responsive and clearly demonstrate that public engagement influences policy outcomes. It's crucial for citizens to have the opportunity to contribute at a time and place that suits them and when their viewpoints will make a difference. The government should put structures in place to accommodate increased participation. Considering the role that intermediaries and representative organizations might play could be beneficial to ensure issues are debated in a manner that is democratic, inclusive, tolerant, and productive. To amplify the efficacy of existing legal rights allowing public access to information held by public authorities, citizens ought to be granted the right to productive public deliberation and moderation. Some researchers argue that many initiatives have been driven by technology rather than by the core values of government, which has resulted in weakened democracy. Participation and engagement Interaction modes E-democracy presents an opportunity to reconcile the conventional trade-off between the size of the group involved in democratic processes and the depth of will expression (refer to the Figure). Historically, broad group participation was facilitated via simple ballot voting, but the depth of will expression was confined to predefined options (those on the ballot). Depth of will expression was obtained by limiting participant numbers through representative democracy (refer to the Table). The social media Web 2.0 revolution has demonstrated the possibility of achieving both large group sizes and depth of will expression. However, expressions of will in social media are unstructured, making their interpretation challenging and often subjective (see Table). Novel information processing methods, including big data analytics and the semantic web, suggest potential ways to exploit these capabilities for future e-democracy implementations. Currently, e-democracy processes are facilitated by technologies such as electronic mailing lists, peer-to-peer networks, collaborative software, and apps like GovernEye, Countable, VoteSpotter, wikis, internet forums, and blogs. The examination of e-democracy encompasses its various stages including "information provision, deliberation, and participation in decision-making." This assessment also takes into account the different hierarchical levels of governance such as local communities, states/regions, nations, and the global stage. Further, the scope of involvement is also considered, which includes the participation of citizens/voters, the media, elected officials, political organizations, and governments. Therefore, e-democracy's evolution is influenced by such broad changes as increased interdependency, technological multimediation, partnership governance, and individualism. Social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and Blogspot, are increasingly significant in democratic dialogues. The role of social media in e-democracy is an emerging field of study, along with technological developments such as argument maps and the semantic web. Another notable development is the combination of open social networking communication with structured communication from closed expert and/or policy-maker panels, such as through the modified Delphi method (HyperDelphi). This approach seeks to balance distributed knowledge and self-organized memories with critical control, responsibility, and decision-making in electronic democracy. Social networking serves as an entry point within the citizens' environment, engaging them on their terms. Proponents of e-government believe this helps the government act more in tune with its public. Examples of state usage include The Official Commonwealth of Virginia Homepage, where citizens can find Google tools and open social forums, considered significant steps towards the maturity of e-democracy. Community involvement Civic engagement encompasses three key aspects: understanding public affairs (political knowledge), trust in the political system (political trust), and involvement in governmental decision-making processes (political participation). The internet enhances civic engagement by creating a new medium for interaction with government institutions. Advocates of e-democracy propose that it can facilitate more active government engagement and inspire citizens to actively influence decisions that directly affect them. Numerous studies indicate an increased use of the internet for obtaining political information. From 1996 to 2002, the percentage of adults claiming that the internet played a significant role in their political choices rose from around 14 to 20 percent. In 2002, almost a quarter of the population stated that they had visited a website to research specific public policy issues. Research has indicated that people are more likely to visit websites that challenge their viewpoints rather than those that align with their own beliefs. Around 16 percent of the population has participated in online political activities such as joining campaigns, volunteering time, donating money, or participating in polls. A survey conducted by Philip N. Howard revealed that nearly two-thirds of the adult population in the United States has interacted with online political news, information, or other content over the past four election cycles. People tend to reference the websites of special interest groups more frequently than those of specific elected leaders, political candidates, political parties, nonpartisan groups, and local community groups. The vast informational capacity of the Internet empowers citizens to gain a deeper understanding of governmental and political affairs, while its interactive nature fosters new forms of communication with elected officials and public servants. By providing access to contact information, legislation, agendas, and policies, governments can enhance transparency, thereby potentially facilitating more informed participation both online and offline. As articulated by Matt Leighninger, the internet bolsters government by enhancing individual empowerment and reinforcing group agency. The internet avails vital information to citizens, empowering them to influence public policy more effectively. The utilization of online tools for organizing allows citizens to participate more easily in the government's policy-making process, leading to a surge in public engagement. Social media platforms foster networks of individuals whose online activities can shape the political process, including prompting politicians to intensify public appeal efforts in their campaigns. E-democracy offers a digital platform for public dialogue, enhancing the interaction between government and its residents. This form of online engagement enables the government to concentrate on key issues the community wishes to address. The underpinning philosophy is that every citizen should have the potential to influence their local governance. E-democracy aligns with local communities and provides an opportunity for any willing citizen to make a contribution. The essence of an effective e-democracy lies not just in citizen contribution to government activities, but in promoting mutual communication and collaboration among citizens for the improvement of their own communities. E-democracy utilizes information and communication technologies (ICT) to bolster the democratic processes of decision-making. These technologies play a pivotal role in informing and organizing citizens in different avenues of civic participation. Moreover, ICTs enhance the active engagement of citizens, and foster collaboration among stakeholders for policy formation within political processes across all stages of governance. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) identifies three key aspects regarding the role of ICTs in fostering civic engagement. The first aspect is timing, with most civic engagement activities occurring during the agenda-setting phase of a cycle. The second factor is adaptation, which refers to how ICTs evolve to facilitate increased civic participation. The final aspect is integration, representing how emerging ICTs blend new and traditional methods to maximize civic engagement. ICT fosters the possibility of a government that is both more democratic and better informed by facilitating open online collaborations between professionals and the public. The responsibility of collecting information and making decisions is shared between those possessing technological expertise and the traditionally recognized decision-makers. This broadened public involvement in the exchange of ideas and policies results in more democratic decision-making. Furthermore, ICT enhances the notion of pluralism within a democracy, introducing fresh issues and viewpoints. Ordinary citizens have the opportunity to become creators of political content and commentary, for instance, by establishing individual blogs and websites. Collaborative efforts in the online political sphere, similar to ABC News' Campaign Watchdog initiative, allow citizens to report any rule violations committed by any political party during elections. In the 2000 United States presidential race, candidates frequently utilized their websites to not only encourage their supporters to vote but to motivate their friends to vote as well. This dual-process approach—urging an individual to vote and then to prompt their friends to vote—was just beginning to emerge during that time. Today, political participation through various social media platforms is typical, and civic involvement via online forums is common. Through the use of ICTs, individuals interested in politics have the ability to become more engaged. Youth involvement In previous years, individuals belonging to Generation X, Generation Y, and Generation Z, typically encompassing those aged 35 and below as of the mid-2000s, have been noted for their relative disengagement from political activities. The implementation of electronic democracy has been proposed as a potential solution to foster increased voter turnout, democratic participation, and political literacy among these younger demographics. E-citizenship Youth e-citizenship presents a dichotomy between two predominant approaches: management and autonomy. The strategy of "targeting" younger individuals, prompting them to "play their part," can be interpreted as either an incentive for youth activism or a mechanism to regulate it. Autonomous e-citizens argue that despite their relative inexperience, young people should have the right to voice their perspectives on issues that they personally consider important. Conversely, proponents of managed e-citizenship view youth as nascent citizens transitioning from childhood to adulthood, and hence not yet fully equipped to engage in political discourse without proper guidance. Another significant concern is the role of the Internet, with advocates of managed e-citizenship arguing that young people may be especially susceptible to misinformation or manipulation online. This discord manifests as two perspectives on democracy: one that sees democracy as an established and reasonably just system, where young people should be motivated to participate, and another that views democracy as a political and cultural goal best achieved through networks where young people interact. What might initially appear as mere differences in communication styles ultimately reveals divergent strategies for accessing and influencing power. In Scotland The Highland Youth Voice, an initiative in Scotland, is an exemplar of efforts to bolster democratic participation, particularly through digital means. Despite an increasing emphasis on the youth demographic in UK governmental policy and issues, their engagement and interest have been waning. During the 2001 elections to the Westminster Parliament in the UK, voter turnout among 18- to 24-year-olds was estimated to be a mere 40%. This contrasts starkly with the fact that over 80% of 16- to 24-year-olds have accessed the internet at some point. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child emphasizes the importance of educating young individuals as citizens of their respective nations. It advocates for the promotion of active political participation, which they can shape through robust debate and communication. The Highland Youth Voice strives to boost youth participation by understanding their governmental needs, perspectives, experiences, and aspirations. It provides young Scots, aged 14 to 18, an opportunity to influence decision-makers in the Highlands. This body, consisting of approximately 100 elected members, represents youth voices. Elections occur biennially and candidates are chosen directly from schools and youth forums. The Highland Youth Voice website serves as a pivotal platform where members can discuss issues pertinent to them, partake in online policy debates, and experience a model of e-democracy through simplified online voting. Thus, the website encompasses three key features, forming an online forum that enables youth self-education, participation in policy discourse, and engagement in the e-democracy process. Civil society's role Civil society organizations have a pivotal role in democracies, as highlighted by theorists such as Alexis de Tocqueville, acting as platforms for citizens to gain knowledge about public affairs and as sources of power beyond the state's reach. According to Hans Klein, a public policy researcher at the Georgia Institute of Technology, there exist several obstacles to participation in these forums, including logistical challenges of physical meetings. Klein's study of a civic association in the northeastern US revealed that electronic communication significantly boosted the organization's capacity to achieve its objectives. Given the relatively low cost of exchanging information over the Internet and its potential for wide reach, the medium has become an attractive venue for disseminating political information, especially among interest groups and parties operating on smaller budgets.'" For example, environmental or social interest groups might leverage the Internet as a cost-effective mechanism to raise awareness around their causes. Unlike traditional media outlets, like television or newspapers, which often necessitate substantial financial investments, the Internet provides an affordable and extensive platform for information dissemination. As such, the Internet could potentially supplant certain traditional modes of political communication, such as telephone, television, newspapers, and radio. Consequently, civil society has been increasingly integrating into the online realm. Civic society encompasses various types of associations. The term interest group is typically used to refer to formal organizations focused on specific social groups, economic sectors like trade unions, business and professional associations, or specific issues such as abortion, gun control, or the environment. Many of these traditional interest groups have well-established organizational structures and formal membership rules, primarily oriented towards influencing government and policy-making processes. Transnational advocacy networks assemble loose coalitions of these organizations under common umbrella organizations that cross national borders. Innovative tools are increasingly being developed to empower bloggers, webmasters, and social media owners. These aim to transition from the Internet's strictly informational use to its application as a medium for social organization, independent of top-down initiatives. For instance, the concept of Calls to action is a novel approach that enables webmasters to inspire their audience into action without the need for explicit leadership. This trend is global, with countries like India cultivating an active blogosphere that encourages internet users to express their perspectives and opinions. The Internet serves multifaceted roles for these organizations. It functions as a platform for lobbying elected officials, public representatives, and policy elites; networking with affiliated associations and groups; mobilizing organizers, activists, and members through action alerts, newsletters, and emails; raising funds and recruiting support; and conveying their messages to the public via traditional news media channels. Deliberative democracy The Internet holds a pivotal role in deliberative democracy, a model that underscores dialogue, open discussion, and access to diverse perspectives in decision-making. It provides an interactive platform and functions as a vital instrument for research within the deliberative process. The Internet facilitates the exchange of ideas through a myriad of platforms such as websites, blogs, and social networking sites like Twitter, all of which champion freedom of expression.[citation needed] It allows for easily accessible and cost-effective information, paving the way for change. One of the intrinsic attributes of the Internet is its unregulated nature, offering a platform for all viewpoints, regardless of their accuracy. The autonomy granted by the Internet can foster and advocate change, a critical factor in e-democracy. A notable development in the application of e-democracy in the deliberative process is the California Report Card. This tool was created by the Data and Democracy Initiative of the Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society at the University of California, Berkeley, in collaboration with Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom. Launched in January 2014, the California Report Card is a web application optimized for mobile use, aimed at facilitating online deliberative democracy. The application features a brief opinion poll on six pertinent issues, after which participants are invited to join an online "café". In this space, they are grouped with users sharing similar views through Principal Component Analysis, and are encouraged to participate in the deliberative process by suggesting new political issues and rating the suggestions of other participants. The design of the California Report Card is intended to minimize the influence of private agendas on the discussion. Openforum.com.au also exemplifies eDemocracy. This non-profit Australian project facilitates high-level policy discussions, drawing participants such as politicians, senior public servants, academics, business professionals, and other influential stakeholders. The Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act (OPEN Act), presented as an alternative to SOPA and PIPA, garners the support of major companies like Google and Facebook. Its website, Keep The Web Open, not only provides full access to the bill but also incorporates public input—over 150 modifications have been made through user contributions. The peer-to-patent project allows public participation in the patent review process by providing research and 'prior art' publications for patent examiners to assess the novelty of an invention. In this process, the community nominates ten pieces of prior art to be reviewed by the patent examiner. This not only enables direct communication between the public and the patent examiner but also creates a structured environment that prompts participants to provide relevant information to aid in decision-making. By allowing experts and the general public to collaborate in finding solutions, the project aims to enhance the efficacy of the decision-making process. It offers a platform for citizens to participate and express their ideas beyond merely checking boxes that limit their opinions to predefined options. Voting and polling One significant challenge in implementing e-democracy is ensuring the security of internet-voting systems. The potential interference from viruses and malware, which could alter or inhibit citizens' votes on critical issues, hinders the widespread adoption of e-democracy as long as such cybersecurity threats persist. E-voting presents several practical challenges that can affect its legitimacy in elections. For instance, electronic voting machines can be vulnerable to physical interference, as they are often left unattended prior to elections, making them susceptible to tampering. This issue led to a decision by the Netherlands in 2017 to count election votes manually. Furthermore, 'Direct Recording Electronic' (DRE) systems, used in numerous US states, are quickly becoming outdated and prone to faults. A study by USENIX discovered that certain DREs in New Jersey inaccurately counted votes, potentially casting votes for unintended candidates without voters' knowledge. The study found these inconsistencies to be widespread with that specific machine. Despite the potential of electronic voting to increase voter turnout, the absence of a paper trail in DREs can lead to untraceable errors, which could undermine its application in digital democracy. Diminished participation in democracy may stem from the proliferation of polls and surveys, potentially leading to a condition known as survey fatigue. Government openness and accessibility Through Listserv's, RSS feeds, mobile messaging, micro-blogging services and blogs, government and its agencies can disseminate information to citizens who share common interests and concerns. For instance, many government representatives, including Rhode Island State Treasurer Frank T. Caprio, have begun to utilize Twitter as an easy medium for communication. Several non-governmental websites, like transparent.gov.com, and USA.gov, have developed cross-jurisdiction, customer-focused applications that extract information from thousands of governmental organizations into a unified system, making it easier for citizens to access information. E-democracy has led to a simplified process and access to government information for public-sector agencies and citizens. For example, the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles simplified the process of certifying driver records for admission in county court proceedings. Indiana became the first state to allow government records to be digitally signed, legally certified and delivered electronically using Electronic Postmark technology. The internet has increased government accessibility to news, policies, and contacts in the 21st century. In 2000, only two percent of government sites offered three or more services online; in 2007, that figure was 58 percent. Also, in 2007, 89 percent of government sites allowed the public to email a public official directly rather than merely emailing the webmaster (West, 2007)"(Issuu). Controversies and concern Opposition Information and communications technologies can be utilized for both democratic and anti-democratic purposes. For instance, digital technology can be used to promote both coercive control and active participation. The vision of anti-democratic use of technology is exemplified in George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. Critiques associated with direct democracy are also considered applicable to e-democracy. This includes the potential for direct governance to cause the polarization of opinions, populism, and demagoguery. Cybersecurity The current inability to protect internet traffic from interference and manipulation has significantly limited the potential of e-democracy for decision-making. As a result, most experts express opposition to the use of the internet for widespread voting. Internet censorship In countries with severe government censorship, the full potential of e-democracy might not be realized. Internet clampdowns often occur during extensive political protests. For instance, the series of internet blackouts in the Middle East in 2011, termed as the "Arab Net Crackdown", provides a significant example. Governments in Libya, Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, Iran, and Yemen have all implemented total internet censorship in response to the numerous pro-democracy demonstrations within their respective nations. These lockdowns were primarily instituted to prevent the dissemination of cell phone videos that featured images of government violence against protesters. Social media manipulation Joshua A. Tucker and his colleagues critique e-democracy, pointing out that the adaptability and openness of social media may allow political entities to manipulate it for their own ends. They suggest that authorities could use social media to spread authoritarian practices in several ways. Firstly, by intimidating opponents, monitoring private conversations, and even jailing those who voice undesirable opinions. Secondly, by flooding online spaces with pro-regime messages, thereby diverting and occupying these platforms. Thirdly, by disrupting signal access to hinder the flow of information. Lastly, by banning globalized platforms and websites. Populism concerns A study that interviewed elected officials in Austria's parliament revealed a broad and strong opposition to e-democracy. These officials held the view that citizens, generally uninformed, should limit their political engagement to voting. The task of sharing opinions and ideas, they contended, belonged solely to elected representatives. Contrary to this view, theories of epistemic democracy suggest that greater public engagement contributes to the aggregation of knowledge and intelligence. This active participation, proponents argue, enables democracies to better discern the truth. Stop Online Piracy Act The introduction of H.R. 3261, the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), in the United States House of Representatives, was perceived by many internet users as an attack on internet democracy. A contributor to the Huffington Post argued that defeating SOPA was crucial for the preservation of democracy and freedom of speech. Significantly, SOPA was indefinitely postponed following widespread protests, which included a site blackout by popular websites like Wikipedia on 18 January 2012. A comparable event occurred in India towards the end of 2011, when the country's Communication and IT Minister Kapil Sibal suggested pre-screening content for offensive material before its publication on the internet, with no clear mechanism for appeal. Subsequent reports, however, quote Sibal as stating that there would be no restrictions on internet use. Suitable government models Representative democracy A radical shift from a representative government to an internet-mediated direct democracy is not considered likely. Nonetheless, proponents suggest that a "hybrid model" which leverages the internet for enhanced governmental transparency and greater community involvement in decision-making could be forthcoming. The selection of committees, local town and city decisions, and other people-centric decisions could be more readily facilitated through this approach. This doesn't indicate a shift in the principles of democracy but rather an adaptation in the tools utilized to uphold them. E-democracy would not serve as a means to enact direct democracy, but rather as a tool to enable a more participatory form of democracy as it exists currently. Electronic direct democracy Supporters of e-democracy often foresee a transition from a representative democracy to a direct democracy, facilitated by technology, viewing this transition as an ultimate goal of e-democracy. In an electronic direct democracy (EDD) – also referred to as open source governance or collaborative e-democracy – citizens are directly involved in the legislative function through electronic means. They vote electronically on legislation, propose new legislation, and recall representatives, if any are retained. Technology supporting electronic direct democracy Technology to support electronic direct democracy (EDD) has been researched and developed at the Florida Institute of Technology, where it has been applied within student organizations. Many other software development projects are currently underway, along with numerous supportive and related projects. Several of these projects are now collaborating on a cross-platform architecture within the framework of the Meta-government project. EDD as a system is not fully implemented in a political government anywhere in the world, although several initiatives are currently forming. In the United States, businessman and politician Ross Perot was a prominent supporter of EDD, advocating for "electronic town halls" during his 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns. Switzerland, already partially governed by direct democracy, is making progress towards such a system. Senator On-Line, an Australian political party established in 2007, proposes to institute an EDD system so that Australians can decide which way the senators vote on each and every bill. A similar initiative was formed 2002 in Sweden where the party Direktdemokraterna, running for the Parliament, offered its members the power to decide the actions of the party over all or some areas of decision, or to use a proxy with immediate recall for one or several areas. Liquid democracy Liquid democracy, or direct democracy incorporating a delegable proxy, enables citizens to appoint a proxy for voting on their behalf, while retaining the ability to cast their own vote on legislation. This voting and proxy assignment could be conducted electronically. Extending this concept, proxies could establish proxy chains; for instance, if citizen A appoints citizen B, and B appoints citizen C, and only C votes on a proposed bill, C's vote will represent all three of them. Citizens could also rank their proxies by preference, meaning that if their primary proxy does not vote, their vote could be cast by their second-choice proxy. Wikidemocracy One form of e-democracy that has been proposed is "wikidemocracy", where the codex of laws in a government legislature could be editable via a wiki, similar to Wikipedia. In 2012, J Manuel Feliz-Teixeira suggested that the resources necessary for implementing wikidemocracy were already accessible. He envisages a system in which citizens can participate in legislative, executive, and judiciary roles via a wiki-system. Every citizen would have free access to this wiki and a personal ID to make policy reforms continuously until the end of December, when all votes would be tallied. Perceived benefits of wikidemocracy include a cost-free system that eliminates elections and the need for parliament or representatives, as citizens would directly represent themselves, and the ease of expressing one's opinion. However, there are several potential obstacles and disagreements. The digital divide and educational inequality could hinder the full potential of a wikidemocracy. Similarly, differing rates of technological adoption mean that some people might readily accept new methods, while others reject or are slow to adapt. Security is also a concern; we would need to trust that the system administrators would ensure a high level of integrity to safeguard votes in the public domain. Peter Levine concurs that wikidemocracy could increase discussion on political and moral issues but disagrees with Feliz-Teixeira, arguing that representatives and formal governmental structures would still be needed. The term "wikidemocracy" is also used to refer to more specific instances of e-democracy. For example, in August 2011 in Argentina, the voting records from the presidential election were made available to the public in an online format for scrutiny. More broadly, the term can refer to the democratic values and environments facilitated by wikis. In 2011, a group in Finland explored the concept of wikidemocracy by creating an online "shadow government program". This initiative was essentially a compilation of the political views and goals of various Finnish groups, assembled on a wiki. Egora Egora, also known as "intelligent democracy", is a free software application developed for political opinion formation and decision-making. It is filed under the copyleft licensing system. The name "Egora" is a blend of "electronic" and "agora", a term from Ancient Greek denoting the central public space in city-states (polis). The ancient agora was the hub of public life, facilitating social interactions, business transactions, and discussions. Drawing from this Ancient Greek concept, Egora aims to foster a new, rational, efficient, and incorruptible form of democratic organization. It allows users to form their own political philosophies from diverse ideas, ascertain the most popular ideas among the public, organize meetings to scrutinize and debate these ideas, and employ a simple algorithm to identify true representatives of the public will. In popular media The theme of e-democracy has frequently appeared in science fiction. Works such as David's Sling by Marc Stiegler and Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card notably predicted forms of the internet before it actually came into existence. These early conceptualizations of the internet, and their implications for democracy, served as major plot drivers in these stories. David's Sling In David's Sling, Marc Stiegler presents e-democracy as a strategy leveraged by a team of hackers to construct a computer-controlled smart weapon. They utilize an online debate platform, the Information Decision Duel, where two parties delve deeply into the intricacies of their arguments, dissecting the pros and cons before a neutral referee selects the more convincing side. This fictional portrayal of an internet-like system for public discourse echoes real-world aspirations for e-democracy, underscoring thorough issue analysis, technological enablement, and transparency. The book's dedication, "To those who never stop seeking the third alternatives," epitomizes this emphasis on comprehensive issue scrutiny. Ender's Game Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game also explores e-democracy, with the internet portrayed as a powerful platform for political discourse and social change. Two of the characters, siblings Valentine and Peter, use this platform to anonymously share their political views, gaining considerable influence. Their activities lead to a significant political shift, even though they are just children posing as adults. This highlights the issue of true identity within online participation and raises questions about the potential for manipulation in e-democracy. Other portrayals E-democracy has also been depicted in: The Evitable Conflict by Isaac Asimov: Machines manage the economy for common welfare and make all key societal decisions. The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein: A sentient computer assists Lunar colonists in their rebellion against Earth, with significant decisions made through public electronic voting. Distraction by Bruce Sterling: The novel explores potential perils of e-democracy in a future United States heavily influenced by the internet and electronic voting. Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom by Cory Doctorow: The future society in this work practices digital direct democracy with a reputation-based currency called "Whuffie". Rainbows End by Vernor Vinge: The novel imagines societal changes due to technological advancements, including more participatory democracy through continuous public polling and consensus-building tools. The Prefect by Alastair Reynolds: The narrative centers on a future society where an artificial intelligence, the Prefect, administers a democratic system. These works provide varied perspectives on the potential benefits and challenges of e-democracy. See also Collaborative e-democracy Collaborative governance Decidim, a "technopolitical network for participatory democracy" Democracy experiment Democratization of technology E2D International E-Government E-participation Electronic civil disobedience Electronic Democracy Party, a political party in Turkey Emergent democracy eRulemaking Hacktivism Index of Internet-related articles Internet activism Isocracy IserveU, a Canadian-based online voting platform Media democracy Online consultation Online deliberation Online Party of Canada, a political party in Canada Open politics Open source governance Outline of the Internet Parliamentary informatics ParoleWatch Party of Internet Democracy, a political party in Hungary Participation Platform cooperative Public Whip Second Superpower Smart mob Spatial Citizenship Technocracy Technology and society TheyWorkForYou References External links Council of Europe's work on e-Democracy - Including the work of the Ad Hoc Committee on e-Democracy IWG established in 2006 Edc.unigue.ch - Academic research centre on electronic democracy. Directed by Alexander H. Trechsel, e-DC is a joint-venture between the University of Geneva's c2d, the European University Institute in Florence and the Oxford University's OII. Institute for Politics Democracy and the Internet Democras ICEGOV - International Conference on Electronic Governance NYTimes Op-Ed Digital Democracy UK - launched to elected local councillors across the UK in 2013 to enable them to work alongside local residents in the democratic determination of community priorities Transparent Government Balbis Platform for digital democracy which enables creation of proposals, debates and voting. The Blueprint of E-Democracy Egora Politics and technology Types of democracy

Nordic model

The Nordic model comprises the economic and social policies as well as typical cultural practices common in the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and multi-level collective bargaining based on the economic foundations of social corporatism, and a commitment to private ownership within a market-based mixed economywith Norway being a partial exception due to a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all have some common traits. The three Scandinavian countries are constitutional monarchies, while Finland and Iceland have been republics since the 20th century. All the Nordic countries are however described as being highly democratic and all have a unicameral legislature and use proportional representation in their electoral systems. They all support a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility, with a sizable percentage of the population employed by the public sector (roughly 30% of the work force in areas such as healthcare, education, and government), and a corporatist system with a high percentage of the workforce unionized and involving a tripartite arrangement, where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy is mediated by the government. As of 2020, all of the Nordic countries rank highly on the inequality-adjusted HDI and the Global Peace Index as well as being ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report. The Nordic model was originally developed in the 1930s under the leadership of social democrats, although centrist and right-wing political parties, as well as labour unions, also contributed to the Nordic model's development. The Nordic model began to gain attention after World War II and has transformed in some ways over the last few decades, including increased deregulation and expanding privatization of public services. However, it is still distinguished from other models by the strong emphasis on public services and social investment. Overview and aspects The Nordic model has been characterized as follows: An elaborate social safety net, in addition to public services such as free education and universal healthcare in a largely tax-funded system. Strong property rights, contract enforcement and overall ease of doing business. Public pension plans. High levels of democracy as seen in the Freedom in the World survey and Democracy Index. Free trade combined with collective risk sharing (welfare social programmes and labour market institutions) which has provided a form of protection against the risks associated with economic openness. Little product market regulation. Nordic countries rank very high in product market freedom according to OECD rankings. Low levels of corruption. In Transparency International's 2022 Corruption Perceptions Index, Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden were ranked among the top 10 least corrupt of the 180 countries evaluated. A partnership between employers, trade unions and the government, whereby these social partners negotiate the terms to regulating the workplace amongst themselves, rather than the terms being imposed by law. Sweden has decentralised wage co-ordination while Finland is ranked the least flexible. The changing economic conditions have given rise to fear among workers as well as resistance by trade unions in regards to reforms. High trade union density and collective bargaining coverage. In 2019, trade union density was 90.7% in Iceland, 67.0% in Denmark, 65.2% in Sweden, 58.8% in Finland, and 50.4% in Norway; in comparison, trade union density was 16.3% in Germany and 9.9% in the United States. Additionally, in 2018, collective bargaining coverage was 90% in Iceland, 88.8% in Finland (2017), 88% in Sweden, 82% in Denmark, and 69% in Norway; in comparison collective bargaining coverage was 54% in Germany and 11.7% in the United States. The lower union density in Norway is mainly explained by the absence of a Ghent system since 1938. In contrast, Denmark, Finland and Sweden all have union-run unemployment funds. The Nordic countries received the highest ranking for protecting workers rights on the International Trade Union Confederation 2014 Global Rights Index, with Denmark being the only nation to receive a perfect score. Very high public spending, with Sweden at 56.6% of GDP, Denmark at 51.7%, and Finland at 48.6%. Public expenditure for health and education is significantly higher in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden in comparison to the OECD average. Overall tax burdens as a percentage of GDP are high, with Denmark at 45.9% and both Finland and Sweden at 44.1%. The Nordic countries have relatively flat tax rates, meaning that even those with medium and low incomes are taxed at relatively high levels. The United Nations World Happiness Reports show that the happiest nations are concentrated in Northern Europe. The Nordics ranked highest on the metrics of real GDP per capita, healthy life expectancy, having someone to count on, perceived freedom to make life choices, generosity and freedom from corruption. The Nordic countries place in the top 10 of the World Happiness Report 2018, with Finland and Norway taking the top spots. Economic system The Nordic model is underpinned by a mixed-market capitalist economic system that features high degrees of private ownership, with the exception of Norway which includes a large number of state-owned enterprises and state ownership in publicly listed firms. The Nordic model is described as a system of competitive capitalism combined with a large percentage of the population employed by the public sector, which amounts to roughly 30% of the work force, in areas such as healthcare and higher education. In Norway, Finland, and Sweden, many companies and/or industries are state-run or state-owned like utilities, mail, rail transport, airlines, electrical power industry, fossil fuels, chemical industry, steel mill, electronics industry, machine industry, aerospace manufacturer, shipbuilding, and the arms industry. In 2013, The Economist described its countries as "stout free-traders who resist the temptation to intervene even to protect iconic companies", while also looking for ways to temper capitalism's harsher effects and declared that the Nordic countries "are probably the best-governed in the world." Some economists have referred to the Nordic economic model as a form of "cuddly capitalism", with low levels of inequality, generous welfare states, and reduced concentration of top incomes, contrasting it with the more "cut-throat capitalism" of the United States, which has high levels of inequality and a larger concentration of top incomes, among others social inequalities. As a result of the Sweden financial crisis of 1990–1994, Sweden implemented economic reforms that were focused on deregulation and the strengthening of competition laws. Despite this however, Sweden still has the highest government spending-to-GDP ratio of all the Nordic countries, it retains national-level sectoral bargaining unlike Denmark and Iceland, with over 650 national-level bargaining agreements, it retains the Ghent system unlike Norway and Iceland and consequently has the second-highest rate of unionization in the world. Despite being one of the most equal OECD nations, from 1985 to the 2010s Sweden saw the largest growth in income inequality among OECD economies. Other effects of the 1990s reforms was the substantial growth of mutual fund savings, which largely began with the government subsidizing mutual fund savings through the so-called Allemansfonder program in the 1980s; today 4 out of 5 people aged 18–74 have fund savings. Norway's particularities The state of Norway has ownership stakes in many of the country's largest publicly listed companies, owning 37% of the Oslo stock market and operating the country's largest non-listed companies, including Equinor and Statkraft. In January 2013, The Economist reported that "after the second world war the government nationalised all German business interests in Norway and ended up owning 44% of Norsk Hydro's shares. The formula of controlling business through shares rather than regulation seemed to work well, so the government used it wherever possible. 'We invented the Chinese way of doing things before the Chinese', says Torger Reve of the Norwegian Business School." The government also operates a sovereign wealth fund, the Government Pension Fund of Norway, whose partial objective is to prepare Norway for a post-oil future but "unusually among oil-producing nations, it is also a big advocate of human rightsand a powerful one, thanks to its control of the Nobel peace prize." Norway is the only major economy in the north of Europe where younger generations are getting richer, with a 13% increase in disposable income income for 2018, bucking the trend seen in other european-northern nations of Millennials becoming poorer than the generations which came before. Social democracy Social democrats have played a pivotal role in shaping the Nordic model, with policies enacted by social democrats being pivotal in fostering the social cohesion in the Nordic countries. Among political scientists and sociologists, the term social democracy has become widespread to describe the Nordic model due to the influence of social democratic party governance in Sweden and Norway, in contrast to other classifications such as liberal or Christian democratic. According to sociologist Lane Kenworthy, the meaning of social democracy in this context refers to a variant of capitalism based on the predominance of private property and market allocation mechanisms alongside a set of policies for promoting economic security and opportunity within the framework of a capitalist economy as opposed to a political ideology that aims to replace capitalism. While many countries have been categorized as social democratic, the Nordic countries have been the only ones to be constantly categorized as such. In a review by Emanuele Ferragina and Martin Seeleib-Kaiser of works about the different models of welfare states, apart from Belgium and the Netherlands, categorized as "medium-high socialism", the Scandinavian countries analyzed (Denmark, Norway, and Sweden) were the only ones to be categorized by sociologist Gøsta Esping-Andersen as "high socialism", which is defined as socialist attributes and values (equality and universalism) and the social democratic model, which is characterized by "a high level of decommodification and a low degree of stratification. Social policies are perceived as 'politics against the market.'" They summarized the social democratic model as being based on "the principle of universalism, granting access to benefits and services based on citizenship. Such a welfare state is said to provide a relatively high degree of autonomy, limiting the reliance on family and market." According to Johan Strang, since the 1990s, politicians, researchers and the media have shifted to explaining the Nordic model with cultural rather than political factors. These cultural explanations benefit neoliberalism, whose rise this cultural phenomenon coincided with. By the 2010s, politics has been re-entering the conversation on the Nordic model. Lutheran influence Some academics have theorized that Lutheranism, the dominant traditional religion of the Nordic countries, had an effect on the development of social democracy there. Schröder posits that Lutheranism promoted the idea of a nationwide community of believers and led to increased state involvement in economic and social life, allowing for nationwide welfare solidarity and economic co-ordination. Esa Mangeloja says that the revival movements helped to pave the way for the modern Finnish welfare state. During that process, the church lost some of its most important social responsibilities (health care, education, and social work) as these tasks were assumed by the secular Finnish state. Pauli Kettunen presents the Nordic model as the outcome of a sort of mythical "Lutheran peasant enlightenment", portraying the Nordic model as the result of a sort of "secularized Lutheranism"; however, mainstream academic discourse on the subject focuses on "historical specificity", with the centralized structure of the Lutheran church being but one aspect of the cultural values and state structures that led to the development of the welfare state in Scandinavia. Labour market policy The Nordic countries share active labour market policies as part of a social corporatist economic model intended to reduce conflict between labour and the interests of capital. This corporatist system is most extensive in Norway and Sweden, where employer federations and labour representatives bargain at the national level mediated by the government. Labour market interventions are aimed at providing job retraining and relocation. The Nordic labour market is flexible, with laws making it easy for employers to hire and shed workers or introduce labour-saving technology. To mitigate the negative effect on workers, the government labour market policies are designed to provide generous social welfare, job retraining and relocation services to limit any conflicts between capital and labour that might arise from this process. Nordic welfare model The Nordic welfare model refers to the welfare policies of the Nordic countries, which also tie into their labour market policies. The Nordic model of welfare is distinguished from other types of welfare states by its emphasis on maximising labour force participation, promoting gender equality, egalitarian, and extensive benefit levels, the large magnitude of income redistribution and liberal use of expansionary fiscal policy. While there are differences among the Nordic countries, they all share a broad commitment to social cohesion, a universal nature of welfare provision in order to safeguard individualism by providing protection for vulnerable individuals and groups in society, and maximising public participation in social decision-making. It is characterized by flexibility and openness to innovation in the provision of welfare. The Nordic welfare systems are mainly funded through taxation. Despite the common values, the Nordic countries take different approaches to the practical administration of the welfare state. Denmark features a high degree of private sector provision of public services and welfare, alongside an assimilation immigration policy. Iceland's welfare model is based on a "welfare-to-work" (see workfare) model while part of Finland's welfare state includes the voluntary sector playing a significant role in providing care for the elderly. Norway relies most extensively on public provision of welfare. Gender equality When it comes to gender equality, the Nordic countries hold one of the smallest gaps in gender employment inequality of all OECD countries, with less than 8 points in all Nordic countries according to International Labour Organization standards. They have been at the front of the implementation of policies that promote gender equality; the Scandinavian governments were some of the first to make it unlawful for companies to dismiss women on grounds of marriage or motherhood. Mothers in Nordic countries are more likely to be working mothers than in any other region and families enjoy pioneering legislation on parental leave policies that compensate parents for moving from work to home to care for their child, including fathers. Although the specifics of gender equality policies in regards to the work place vary from country to country, there is a widespread focus in Nordic countries to highlight "continuous full-time employment" for both men and women as well as single parents as they fully recognize that some of the most salient gender gaps arise from parenthood. Aside from receiving incentives to take shareable parental leave, Nordic families benefit from subsidized early childhood education and care and activities for out-of-school hours for those children that have enrolled in full-time education. The Nordic countries have been at the forefront of championing gender equality and this has been historically shown by substantial increases in women's employment. Between 1965 and 1990, Sweden's employment rate for women in working-age (15–64) went from 52.8% to 81.0%. In 2016, nearly three out of every four women in working-age in the Nordic countries were taking part in paid work. Nevertheless, women are still the main users of the shareable parental leave (fathers use less than 30% of their paid parental-leave-days), foreign women are being subjected to under-representation, and Finland still holds a notable gender pay-gap; the average woman's salary is 83% of that of a man, not accounting for confounding factors such as career choice. Poverty reduction The Nordic model has been successful at significantly reducing poverty. In 2011, poverty rates before taking into account the effects of taxes and transfers stood at 24.7% in Denmark, 31.9% in Finland, 21.6% in Iceland, 25.6% in Norway, and 26.5% in Sweden. After accounting for taxes and transfers, the poverty rates for the same year became 6%, 7.5%, 5.7%, 7.7% and 9.7% respectively, for an average reduction of 18.7 p.p. Compared to the United States, which has a poverty level pre-tax of 28.3% and post-tax of 17.4% for a reduction of 10.9 p.p., the effects of tax and transfers on poverty in all the Nordic countries are substantially bigger. In comparison to France (27 p.p. reduction) and Germany (24.2 p.p. reduction), the taxes and transfers in the Nordic countries are smaller on average. History The term 'peasant republic' is sometimes applied to certain communities in Scandinavia during the Viking Age and High Middle Ages, especially in Sweden, where royal power seems to have been initially somewhat weak, and in areas of modern day Sweden that were not under the rule of the Swedish king yet, as well as in Iceland where the Icelandic Commonwealth serves as an example of an unusually large and sophisticated peasant republic building on the same democratic traditions. Some historians have also argued that Gotland was a peasant republic before the attack by the Danes in 1361. Central for the old Scandinavian democratic traditions was the assemblies called the Thing or Moot. The Nordic model traces its foundation to the "grand compromise" between workers and employers spearheaded by farmer and worker parties in the 1930s. Following a long period of economic crisis and class struggle, the "grand compromise" served as the foundation for the post-World War II Nordic model of welfare and labour market organization. The key characteristics of the Nordic model were the centralized coordination of wage negotiation between employers and labour organizations, termed a social partnership, as well as providing a peaceful means to address class conflict between capital and labour. Magnus Bergli Rasmussen has challenged that farmers played an important role in ushering Nordic welfare states. A 2022 study by him found that farmers had strong incentives to resist welfare state expansion and farmer MPs consistently opposed generous welfare policies. Although often linked to social democratic governance, the Nordic model's parentage also stems from a mixture of mainly social democratic, centrist, and right-wing political parties, especially in Finland and Iceland, along with the social trust that emerged from the "great compromise" between capital and labour. The influence of each of these factors on each Nordic country varied as social democratic parties played a larger role in the formation of the Nordic model in Sweden and Norway, whereas in Iceland and Finland, right-wing political parties played a much more significant role in shaping their countries' social models. However, even in Iceland and Finland, strong labour unions contributed to the development of universal welfare. Social security and collective wage bargaining policies were rolled back following economic imbalances in the 1980s and the financial crises of the 1990s which led to more restrictive budgetary policies that were most pronounced in Sweden and Iceland. Nonetheless, welfare expenditure remained high in these countries, compared to the European average. Denmark Social welfare reforms emerged from the Kanslergade Agreement of 1933 as part of a compromise package to save the Danish economy. Denmark was the first Nordic country to join the European Union in the 1970s, reflecting the different political approaches to it among the Nordic countries. Finland The early 1990s recession affected the Nordic countries and caused a deep crisis in Finland, and came amid the context of the dissolution of the Soviet Union and collapse of trade from the Eastern Bloc. Like in Sweden, Finland's universalistic welfare state based on the Nordic model was weakened and no longer based on the social-democratic middle ground, as several social welfare policies were often permanently dismantled; however, Finland was hit even harder than Sweden. During the crisis, Finland looked to the European Union, which they were more committed and open to joining than Sweden and especially Norway, while Denmark had already joined the EU by the 1970s. Finland is, to date, the only Nordic country to become a Eurozone member state after fully adopting the euro as its official currency in 2002. Iceland According to analyst Harpa Njálsdóttir, Iceland in the late 2010s moved away from the Nordic model towards the economic liberal model of workfare. She also noted that with the large changes having been made to the social security system, "70% of elderly people now live well below national subsistence criteria, while about 70% of those who live alone and in bad conditions are women." Despite this, as of 2021, Iceland has the lowest poverty rate in the OECD of only 4.9%. Norway Norway's "grand compromise" emerged as a response to the crisis of the early 1930s between the trade union confederation and Norwegian Employers' Association, agreeing on national standards in labour–capital relations and creating the foundation for social harmony throughout the period of compromises. For a period between the 1980s and the 1990s, Norway underwent more neoliberal reforms and marketization than Sweden during the same time frame, while still holding to the traditional foundations of the "social democratic compromise" that was specific to Western capitalism from 1945 to 1973. Norway was the Nordic country least willing to join the European Union. While Finland and Sweden suffered greatly from the 1990s recession, Norway began to earn enough revenue from their oil. As of 2007, the Norwegian state maintained large ownership positions in key industrial sectors, among them petroleum, natural gas, minerals, lumber, seafood and fresh water. The petroleum industry accounts for around a quarter of the country's gross domestic product. Sweden In Sweden, the grand compromise was pushed forward by the Saltsjöbaden Agreement signed by employer and trade union associations at the seaside retreat of Saltsjöbaden in 1938. This agreement provided the foundation for Scandinavian industrial relations throughout Europe's Golden Age of Capitalism. The Swedish model of capitalism developed under the auspices of the Swedish Social Democratic Party which assumed power in 1932 and retained uninterrupted power until 1976. Initially differing very little from other industrialized capitalist countries, the state's role in providing comprehensive welfare and infrastructure expanded after the Second World War until reaching a broadly social democratic consensus in the 1950s which would become known as the social liberal paradigm, which was followed by the neoliberal paradigm by the 1980s and 1990s. According to Phillip O'Hara, "Sweden eventually became part of the Great Capitalist Restoration of the 1980s and 1990s. In all the industrial democracies and beyond, this recent era has seen the retrenchment of the welfare state by reduced social spending in real terms, tax cuts, deregulation and privatization, and a weakening of the influence of organized labor." In the 1950s, Olof Palme and the prime minister Tage Erlander formulated the basis of Swedish social democracy and what would become known as the "Swedish model", drawing inspiration from the reformist socialism of party founder Hjalmar Branting, who stated that socialism "would not be created by brutalized...slaves [but by] the best positioned workers, those who have gradually obtained a normal workday, protective legislation, minimum wages." Arguing against those to their left, the party favored moderatism and wanted to help workers in the here and now, and followed the Fabian argument that the policies were steps on the road to socialism, which would not come about through violent revolution but through the social corporative model of welfare capitalism, to be seen as progressive in providing institutional legitimacy to the labour movement by recognizing the existence of the class conflict between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as a class compromise within the context of existing class conflict. This Swedish model was characterized by a strong labour movement as well as inclusive publicly funded and often publicly administered welfare institutions. By the early 1980s, the Swedish model began to suffer from international imbalances, declining competitiveness and capital flight. Two polar opposite solutions emerged to restructure the Swedish economy, the first being a transition to socialism by socializing the ownership of industry and the second providing favorable conditions for the formation of private capital by embracing neoliberalism. The Swedish model was first challenged in 1976 by the Meidner Plan promoted by the Swedish Trade Union Confederation and trade unions which aimed at the gradual socialization of Swedish companies through wage earner funds. The Meidner Plan aimed to collectivize capital formation in two generations by having the wage earner funds own predominant stakes in Swedish corporations on behalf of workers. This proposal was supported by Palme and the Social Democratic party leadership, but it did not garner enough support upon Palme's assassination and was defeated by the conservatives in the 1991 Swedish general election. Upon returning to power in 1982, the Social Democratic party inherited a slowing economy resulting from the end of the post-war boom. The Social Democrats adopted monetarist and neoliberal policies, deregulating the banking industry, and liberalizing currency in the 1980s. The economic crisis of the 1990s saw greater austerity measures, deregulation, and the privatization of public services. Into the 21st century, it greatly affected Sweden and its universalistic welfare state, although not as hard as Finland. Sweden remained more Eurosceptic than Finland, and its struggles affected all the other Nordic countries, as it was seen as "the guiding star of the north", and with Sweden fading away, other Nordic countries also felt like they were losing their political identities. When the Nordic model was then gradually rediscovered, cultural explanations were sought for the special features of the Nordic countries. Reception The Nordic model has been positively received by some American politicians and political commentators. Jerry Mander has likened the Nordic model to a kind of "hybrid" system which features a blend of capitalist economics with socialist values, representing an alternative to American-style capitalism. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has pointed to Scandinavia and the Nordic model as something the United States can learn from, in particular with respect to the benefits and social protections the Nordic model affords workers and its provision of universal healthcare. Scandinavian political scientist Daniel Schatz argued that Sanders is wrong, saying that "the success of Nordic countries like Swedenas measured by relatively high living standards accompanied by low poverty, with government-funded education through university, universal health coverage, generous parental-leave policies and long life spansprecedes the contemporary welfare state.", adding that "Research has suggested that the Northern European success story has its roots in cultural rather than economic factors. The Scandinavian countries ... historically developed remarkably high levels of social trust, a robust work ethic and considerable social cohesion". According to Luciano Pellicani, the social and political measures adopted in countries like Sweden and Denmark are the same that some other European left-wing politicians theorised to combine justice and freedom, referring to liberal socialism and movements like Giustizia e Libertà and Fabian Society. According to Naomi Klein, former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev sought to move the Soviet Union in a similar direction to the Nordic system, combining free markets with a social safety net, but still retaining public ownership of key sectors of the economyingredients that he believed would transform the Soviet Union into "a socialist beacon for all mankind." The Nordic model has also been positively received by various social scientists and economists. American professor of sociology and political science Lane Kenworthy advocates for the United States to make a gradual transition toward a social democracy similar to those of the Nordic countries, defining social democracy as such: "The idea behind social democracy was to make capitalism better. There is disagreement about how exactly to do that, and others might think the proposals in my book aren't true social democracy. But I think of it as a commitment to use government to make life better for people in a capitalist economy. To a large extent, that consists of using public insurance programsgovernment transfers and services." Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz says that there is higher social mobility in the Scandinavian countries than in the United States and posits that Scandinavia is now the land of opportunity that the United States once was. American author Ann Jones, who lived in Norway for four years, posits that "the Nordic countries give their populations freedom from the market by using capitalism as a tool to benefit everyone" whereas in the United States "neoliberal politics puts the foxes in charge of the henhouse, and capitalists have used the wealth generated by their enterprises (as well as financial and political manipulations) to capture the state and pluck the chickens." Economist Jeffrey Sachs is a proponent of the Nordic model, having pointed out that the Nordic model is "the proof that modern capitalism can be combined with decency, fairness, trust, honesty, and environmental sustainability." The Nordic combination of extensive public provision of welfare and a culture of individualism has been described by Lars Trägårdh of Ersta Sköndal University College as "statist individualism." A 2016 survey by the think tank Israel Democracy Institute found that nearly 60 percent of Israeli Jews preferred a "Scandinavian model" economy, with high taxes and a robust welfare state. Criticism Socialist economists Pranab Bardhan and John Roemer criticize Nordic-style social democracy for its questionable effectiveness in promoting relative egalitarianism as well as its sustainability. They posit that Nordic social democracy requires a strong labour movement to sustain the heavy redistribution required, arguing that it is idealistic to think similar levels of redistribution can be accomplished in countries with weaker labour movements. They say that even in the Scandinavian countries social democracy has been in decline since the weakening of the labour movement in the early 1990s, arguing that the sustainability of social democracy is limited. Roemer and Bardham posit that establishing a market-based socialist economy by changing enterprise ownership would be more effective than social democratic redistribution at promoting egalitarian outcomes, particularly in countries with weak labour movements. Historian Guðmundur Jónsson said that it would be historically inaccurate to include Iceland in one aspect of the Nordic model, that of consensus democracy. Addressing the time period from 1950 to 2000, Jónsson writes that "Icelandic democracy is better described as more adversarial than consensual in style and practice. The labour market was rife with conflict and strikes more frequent than in Europe, resulting in strained government–trade union relationship. Secondly, Iceland did not share the Nordic tradition of power-sharing or corporatism as regards labour market policies or macro-economic policy management, primarily because of the weakness of Social Democrats and the Left in general. Thirdly, the legislative process did not show a strong tendency towards consensus-building between government and opposition with regard to government seeking consultation or support for key legislation. Fourthly, the political style in legislative procedures and public debate in general tended to be adversarial rather than consensual in nature." In a 2017 study, economists James Heckman and Rasmus Landersøn compared American and Danish social mobility, and found that social mobility is not as high as figures might suggest in the Nordic countries, although they did find that Denmark ranks higher in income mobility. When looking exclusively at wages (before taxes and transfers), Danish and American social mobility are very similar; it is only after taxes and transfers are taken into account that Danish social mobility improves, indicating that Danish economic redistribution policies are the key drivers of greater mobility. Additionally, Denmark's greater investment in public education did not improve educational mobility significantly, meaning children of non-college educated parents are still unlikely to receive college education, although this public investment did result in improved cognitive skills amongst poor Danish children compared to their American peers. There was evidence that generous welfare policies could discourage the pursuit of higher-level education due to decreasing the economic benefits that college education level jobs offer and increasing welfare for workers of a lower education level. Some welfare and gender researchers based in the Nordic countries suggest that these states have often been over-privileged when different European societies are being assessed in terms of how far they have achieved gender equality. They posit that such assessments often utilise international comparisons adopting conventional economic, political, educational, and well-being measures. By contrast, they suggest that if one takes a broader perspective on well-being incorporating, such as social issues associated with bodily integrity or bodily citizenship, then some major forms of men's domination still stubbornly persist in the Nordic countries, e.g. business, violence to women, sexual violence to children, the military, academia, and religion. While praising the Nordic model as a "clear and compelling contrast to the neoliberal ideology that has strafed the rest of the world with inequality, ill-health and needless poverty," economic anthropologist Jason Hickel sharply criticizes the "ecological disaster" that accompanies it, noting that data shows the Nordic countries "have some of the highest levels of resource use and CO2 emissions in the world, in consumption based terms, drastically overshooting safe planetary boundaries," and rank towards the bottom of the Sustainable Development Index. He argues that the model needs to be updated for the Anthropocene, and reduce overconsumption while retaining the positive elements of progressive social democracy including universal healthcare and education, paid vacations and reasonable working hours, which have resulted in much better health outcomes and poverty reduction compared to overtly neoliberal countries like the United States, in order to "stand as a beacon for the rest of the world in the 21st century." Swedish economist John Gustavsson, writing for American conservative magazine The Dispatch, criticized the Nordic model for its high taxation rates, including on the middle class and poor people. Political scientist Michael Cottakis has noted the rise of right-wing populist and anti-immigration sentiment in the Nordic countries, arguing that these countries, in particular Sweden, have failed to handle immigration effectively. Misconceptions George Lakey, author of Viking Economics, says that Americans generally misunderstand the nature of the Nordic model, commenting: "Americans imagine that "welfare state" means the U.S. welfare system on steroids. Actually, the Nordics scrapped their American-style welfare system at least 60 years ago, and substituted universal services, which means everyonerich and poorgets free higher education, free medical services, free eldercare, etc." In a speech at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, the centre-right Danish prime minister from the conservative-liberal Venstre party, addressed the American misconception that the Nordic model is a form of socialism, which is conflated with any form of planned economy, stating: "I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore, I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy." See also Dirigisme, a socioeconomic model associated with France Folkhemmet Liberal socialism Market socialism Nefco Polder model Rehn–Meidner model Rhenish model, a socioeconomic model associated with Germany Social democracy Social market economy Welfare in Finland Welfare in Sweden Lists Human Development Index Legatum Prosperity Index List of countries by GDP per capita List of countries by income equality List of countries by life expectancy List of countries by share of income of the richest one percent List of countries by wealth per adult List of international rankings Press Freedom Index Social Progress Index Where-to-be-born Index References Further reading Kjellberg, Anders (2022) The Nordic Model of Industrial Relations . Lund: Department of Sociology. Kjellberg, Anders (2023) The Nordic Model of Industrial Relations: comparing Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden . Department of Sociology, Lund University and Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies, Cologne. Livingston, Michael A. (2021). Dreamworld or Dystopia? The Nordic Model and Its Influence in the 21st Century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. External links "The Nordic Way". . Davos: World Economic Forum. January 2011. Retrieved 3 December 2019. Thorsen, Dag Einar; Brandal, Nik; Bratberg, Øivind (8 April 2013). Utopia sustained: "The Nordic model of social democracy". Fabian Society. Retrieved 3 December 2019. "The secret of their success". The Economist. 2 February 2013. Retrieved 3 December 2019. Sanders, Bernie (26 July 2013). "What Can We Learn From Denmark?". The Huffington Post. Retrieved 3 December 2019. Isaacs, Julia (25 September 2013). "What Is Scandinavia Doing Right?". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 December 2019. Stahl, Rune Møller Stahl; Mulvad, Andreas Møller (4 August 2015). "What Makes Scandinavia Different?". Jacobin. Retrieved 3 December 2019. "The Nordic Model: Local Government, Global Competitiveness in Denmark, Finland and Sweden". KommuneKredit. August 2017. Retrieved 3 October 2020. Goodman, Peter S. (11 July 2019). "The Nordic Model May Be the Best Cushion Against Capitalism. Can It Survive Immigration?". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 October 2020. "Om Norden" (in Swedish). Föreningen Norden. Retrieved 3 December 2019. "The Nordic Model". Nordics. Aarhus University. Retrieved 3 October 2020. Capitalism Corporatism Economic policy in Europe Economic systems Mixed economies Nordic politics Political-economic models Social democracy Welfare in Europe

Media democracy

Media democracy is a democratic approach to media studies that advocates for the reform of mass media to strengthen public service broadcasting and develop participation in alternative media and citizen journalism in order to create a mass media system that informs and empowers all members of society and enhances democratic values. Media democracy is both a theory and a social movement. It is against concentration in the ownership of media, and it champions diversity of voices and perspectives within the news system. Definition Media democracy focuses on the empowerment of individual citizens and on the promotion of democratic ideals through the spread of information. Additionally, the approach argues that the media system itself should be democratic in its own construction, shying away from private ownership or intense regulations. Media democracy entails that media should be used to promote democracy and that media itself should be democratic. For example, it views media ownership concentration as undemocratic and as being unable to promote democracy, and thus, as facet of media that must be examined critically. Both the concept and the social movements promoting it have grown in response to the increased corporate domination in mass media and perceived shrinking of the marketplace of ideas. It understands media as a tool with the power to reach a large audience with a central role in shaping culture. The concept of a media democracy follows in response to the deregulation of broadcast markets and the concentration of mass media ownership. In the book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, authors Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky outline the propaganda model of media, which states that the private interests in control of media outlets shape news and information before it is disseminated to the public through the use of five information filters. Media democracy gives people the right to participate in media. It extends the media's relationship to the public sphere, where the information gathered can be viewed and shared by the people. The relationship of media democracy and the public sphere extends to various types of media, such as social media and mainstream media, in order for people to communicate with one another through digital media and share the information they want to publish to the public. The term also refers to a modern social movement evident in countries all over the world. It attempts to make mainstream media more accountable to the publics they serve and to create more democratic alternatives to current forms of mass media. Media democracy advocates for: Replacing the current corporate media model with one that operates democratically, rather than for profit; Strengthening public service broadcasting; Incorporating the use of alternative media into the larger discourse; Increasing the role of citizen journalism; Turning a passive audience into active participants; Using the mass media to promote democratic ideals. The competitive structure of the mass media landscape stands in opposition to democratic ideals since the competition of the marketplace affects how stories are framed and transmitted to the public. This can "hamper the ability of the democratic system to solve internal social problems as well as international conflicts in an optimal way." Media democracy is grounded in creating a mass media system that favours a diversity of voices and opinions over ownership or consolidation, in an effort to eliminate bias in coverage. This, in turn, leads to the informed public debate necessary for a democratic state. The ability to comprehend and scrutinize the connection between press and democracy is important because media has the power to tell a society's stories and thereby influence thinking, beliefs and behaviour. Media ownership concentration Cultural studies have investigated changes in the increasing tendency of modern mass media in the field of politics to blur and confuse the boundaries between journalism, entertainment, public relations and advertising. A diverse range of information providers is necessary so that viewers, readers and listeners receive a broad spectrum of information from varying sources that is not tightly controlled, biased and filtered. Access to different sources of information prevents deliberate attempts at misinformation and allows the public to make their own judgments and form their own opinions. This is critical as individuals must be in a position to decide and act autonomously for there to be a functioning democracy. The last several decades have seen an increased concentration of media ownership by large private entities. In the United States, these organizations are known as the Big Six. They include: General Electric, Walt Disney Co., News Corporation, Time Warner, Viacom, and CBS Corporation. A similar approach has been taken in Canada, where most media outlets are owned by national conglomerates. This has led to a reduction in the number of voices and opinions communicated to the public; to an increase in the commercialization of news and information; a reduction in investigative reporting; and an emphasis on infotainment and profitability over informative public discourse. The concentration of media outlets has been encouraged by government deregulation and neoliberal trade policies. In the United States, the Telecommunications Act of 1996 removed most of the media ownership rules that were previously put in place. This led to a massive consolidation of the telecommunications industry. Over 4,000 radio stations were bought out, and minority ownership in TV stations dropped to its lowest point since 1990 when the federal government began tracking the data. Another aspect of the concentration of media ownership is the nature of the political economy that follows. Some media theorists argue that corporate interest is put forth, and that only the small cluster of media outlets have the privilege of controlling the information that the population can access. Moreover, media democracy claims that corporate ownership and commercial pressures influence media content, sharply limiting the range of news, opinions, and entertainment citizens receive. Consequently, they call for a more equal distribution of economic, social, cultural, and information capital, which would lead to a more informed citizenry, as well as a more enlightened, representative political discourse. To counter media ownership concentration, advocates of media democracy support media diversification. For instance, they prefer local news sources, for they allow for a greater variety in the ideas being spread thanks to being outside the corporate economy, since diversity is at the root of a fair democracy. Internet media democracy The World Wide Web, particularly Web 2.0, is seen as a powerful medium for facilitating the growth of a media democracy as it offers participants "a potential voice, a platform, and access to the means of production." The internet is being utilized as a medium for political activity and other pressing issues such as social, environmental, and economic problems []. Moreover, the utilization of the internet has allowed online users to participate in political discourse freely and increase their democratic presence online and in person.Users share information such as voting polls, dates, locations, and statistics, or information about protests and news that is not yet covered by the media. The Arab Spring in the Middle East and North Africa, media was used for democratic purposes and uprisings. Social media sites like Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube allowed citizens to connect quickly, exchange information, and organize protests against their governments. While social media is not solely credited with the success of these protests, the technologies played an important role in instilling change in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya. These acts show that a population can be informed through alternative media channels and adjust its behaviour accordingly. Individuals who did not have the facility to access these social media platforms were still able to observe news through satellite channels and other people who were able to connect online. Crowdfunded websites are also linked to a heightened spread of media democracy. The Romanian Election of 2014 [] serves as an example of internet media democracy. During the elections, many took to social media to voice their opinions and share pictures of themselves at polling centres all around the world. This 2014 election is remembered as the first time in which virtual ambition and the use of social media translated positively and directly onto polling numbers. Many Romanians were actively campaigning online through social media platforms, specifically, Facebook, "As more than 7 million Romanians have profiles on at least one social network and more than 70% of that one were active daily, the campaign was focused on the development of the civic participation through internet social networks." Restriction in media Restrictions in media may exist either directly or indirectly. Before internet usage of media, as well as social media, became prominent, ordinary citizens rarely had much control over media. Even as the usage of social media has increased, major corporations still maintain the primary control over media as they are acquiring more and more platforms that would be considered in public use today. Media has been compared in the sense that it is the usage of media that determines how the content is considered, rather than the actual messages of the content. According to Alec Charles edited Media/Democracy, “It is not the press or television or the internet or even democracy itself that is good or bad. It is what we do with them that makes them so”. The role government plays in media restrictions in media has been viewed with skepticism as well. The government involvement in media is possibly due to distrust between the government and media, as the government has criticized media before. Partial blame for distrust between the government and the public on both sides often goes to media as the public may feel as though there is false information though media and the government may feel as though media is giving the public false information. These functions of media in the way that it exists is described in a review of Victor Pickard's book, America's Battle for Media Democracy: The Triumph of Corporate Libertarianism and the Future of Media Reform, where Josh Shepperd wrote, “If one approaches the historical question of media ownership from a public service model, the private emphasis of the system requires praise for its innovations and self-sustainability, but deserves deep interrogation for its largely uncontested claim that the system, as is, provides the best opportunity for social recognition”. In his 2005 speech at the NASIG, Leif Utne states that media democracy is related to freedom of press because it contributes to the reciprocal exchange of desires and information between the press, the state, and the population. Normative roles of media in democracy Monitorial role The term is originally coined by Harold Lasswell who associated the monitorial role with surveillance, "observing an extended environment for relevant information about events, conditions, trends, and threats." This form of media democracy is organized through the scanning of the real world of people, status and events, and potentially relevant sources of information. Under the guidance of relevance, importance, and normative framework that regulates the public domain, such information is evaluated and verified. Staying alert and controlling political power. It provides information to individuals to make their own decisions. The monitorial role involves practices such as publishing reports, agendas, and threats, reporting political, social, and economic decisions, and shedding light to public opinion. Facilitative role Media democracy uses journalism as a means to improve the quality of public life and promote democratic forms. It serves as a glue to hold community together. And it also enhances the ability and desire to listen to others. Radical role Going to the "root" of power relations and inequality and exposing their negative impacts upon the quality of everyday life and the health of democracy. Oppositional to commercial/mainstream media which tend to protect the interest of the powerful and fail to provide information that raises critical awareness and generated empowerment. Cultivating political advocacy motivates engaging in political social democracy. Collaborative role Collaboration between media and state is always open and transparent. Actual roles of media in democracy There is widespread concern that the mass media and social media are not serving the role that a well-functioning democracy. For example, the media is in charge of broadcasting political news to truthfully inform the population, but those messages can have a double purpose (promoting the good of the population and advancing the politicians' career through public relations), which can make the journalists' work more difficult. There is a need for the public to be informed about certain issues whether it may be social, political, or environmental. The media is heavily credited for keeping the public informed and up-to-date with activity, however, throughout the 80's and 90's corporate media has taken over in providing this information. Feminism Feminist media theories argue that the media cannot be considered truly inclusive or democratic if it continues relying on masculine concepts of impartiality and objectivity. They argue that creating a more inclusive and democratic media requires reconceptualizing how we define the news and its principles. According to some feminist media theorists, news is like fictional genres that impose order and interpretation on its materials by means of narrative. Consequently, the news narrative put forward presents only one angle of a much wider picture. It is argued that the distinction between public and private information that underpins how we define valuable or appropriate news content is also a gendered concept. The feminist argument follows that the systematic subversion of private or subjective information excludes women's voices from the popular discourse. Further to this point, feminist media theorists argue there is an assumed sense of equality implicit in the definition of the public that ignores important differences between genders in terms of their perspectives. So while media democracy in practice as alternative or citizen journalism may allow for greater diversity, these theorists argue that women's voices are framed within a masculine structure of objectivity and rationalist thinking. Despite this criticism, there is an acceptance among some theorists that the blurring of public and private information with the introduction of some new alternative forms of media production (as well as the increase in opportunities for interaction and user-generated content) may signal a positive shift towards a more democratic and inclusive media democracy. Some forms of media democracy in practice (as citizen or alternative journalism) are challenging journalism's central tenets (objectivity and impartiality) by rejecting the idea that it is possible to tell a narrative without bias and, more to the point, that it is socially or morally preferable. Activism Media Democracy Day, OpenMedia, and NewsWatch Canada are all Canadian initiatives that strive for reforms in the media. They aim to give an equal voice to all interests. Others, such as the creators of the Indonesian television program Newsdotcom, focus on increasing the population's media literacy rate to make the people more critical of the news they consume. Criticism The media has given political parties the tools to reach large numbers of people and inform them on key issues ranging from policies to elections. The media can be seen as an enabler for democracy; having better-educated voters would lead to a more legitimate government. However, critics such as Julian King have argued that malicious actors can easily hijack those same tools - both state and non-state - and use them as weapons against people. In the past few years, media has become a direct threat to democracy. Two organizations of the Omidyar Group, Democracy Fund and Omidyar Network assembled to establish the relationship between media and democracy. Their initial findings presented six ways that social media was a direct threat to democracy. Many social media platforms, such as Facebook, utilize surveillance infrastructure to collect user data and micro-target populations with personalized advertisements. With users leaving digital footprints almost everywhere they go, social media platforms create portfolios of the user to target them with specific advertisements. This leads to the formation of "echo chambers, polarization and hyper-partisanship." Therefore, social media platforms create bubbles, which are forever growing, of one-sided information and opinions. These bubbles trap the users and diminish opportunities for a healthy discourse. A commonly known effect social media has on democracy is the "spread of false and/or misleading information". Disinformation and Misinformation is commonly, at scale, spread across social media by both state and private actors, mainly using bots. Each type poses a threat as it floods social media with multiple, competing realities shifting the truth, facts and evidence to the side. Social media follows an algorithm that converts popularity into legitimacy, this is the idea that likes or retweets create validity or mass support. In theory, it creates a distorted system of evaluating information and provides a false representation. It's further harder to distinguish who is a troll or a bot. Social media further allows for manipulation by "populist leaders, governments and fringe actors". "Populist" leaders use platforms such as Twitter, Instagram to communicate with their electorate. However, such platforms allow them to roam freely with no restrictions allowing them to silence the minority voice, showcase momentum for their views or creating the impression of approval. Finally, social media causes the disruption of the public square. Some social media platforms have user policies and technical features that enable unintended consequences, such as hate speech, terrorist appeals, sexual and racial harassment, thus discouraging any civil debates. This leads the targeted groups to opting out of participating in public discourse. as much as social media has made it easier for the public to receive and access news and entertainment from their devices it has been dangerous in terms of rapid spread of fake news (2019). the public is now easily accessible to those with the intend to spread disinformation information in order to harm and misled the public. those in authority, officials and the elite use their power to dominate the narratives on social media often times to gain their support and misled them. See also Democratic media Embedded journalism Free Press (organization) Media conglomerate Media Lens Media literacy mediatization, how media interact with society and democracy Media manipulation Outfoxed Participatory culture Prometheus Radio Project Save the Internet Social aspects of television National Conference for Media Reform Radical media References Further reading Hackett, Robert A. (2001). Building a Movement for Media Democratization. In P. Phillips and Project Censored. Project Censored 2001. New York : Seven Stories. Hackett, Robert A. & Carroll, William K. (2006). Remaking Media: The Struggle to Democratize Public Communication. New York; London: Routledge Hazen, Don and Julie Winokur, (eds). (1997) We the Media: A Citizens’ Guide to Fighting for Media Democracy. New York: The New Press. Lewis, Jeff (2005) Language Wars: The Role of Media and Culture in Global Terror and Political Violence, London: University of Michigan Press/ Pluto Books, 2005. McChesney, Robert, Making Media Democratic, Boston Review, Summer 1998 McChesney, Robert Waterman. (2000). Rich media, poor democracy: Communication politics in dubious times. New York: New Press. McChesney, Robert W. and Nichols, John (2002) Our Media, Not theirs: The Democratic Struggle Against Corporate Media. New York : Seven Stories. Rush, Ramona R. and Allen, Donna, (eds). (1989) "Communications at the Crossroads: The Gender Gap Connection. New Jerskey: Ablex Publishing. Allen, Donna and Rush, Ramona R. and Kaufman, Susan J. (eds). (1996) "Women Transforming Communications, Global Intersections." Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Ross, Karen and Byerly, Carolyn M. (eds.). (2004) "Women and Media, International Perspectives" Malden: Blackwell Publishers. Byerley, Carolyn M. (ed.) (2013) "The Palgrave International Handbook of Women and Journalism" New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Mass media issues Social movements Community building Types of democracy

Democratic capitalism

Democratic capitalism, also referred to as market democracy, is a political and economic system that integrates resource allocation by marginal productivity (synonymous with free-market capitalism), with policies of resource allocation by social entitlement. The policies which characterise the system are enacted by democratic governments. Democratic capitalism was implemented widely in the 20th century, particularly in Europe and the Western world after the Second World War. The coexistence of capitalism and democracy, particularly in Europe, was supported by the creation of the modern welfare state in the post-war period. The implementation of democratic capitalism typically involves the enactment of policies expanding the welfare state, strengthening the collective bargaining rights of employees, or strengthening competition laws. These policies are enacted in a capitalist economy characterized by the right to private ownership of property. Catholic social teaching offers support for a communitarian form of democratic capitalism with an emphasis on the preservation of human dignity. Definition Democratic capitalism is a type of political and economic system characterised by resource allocation according to both marginal productivity and social need, as determined by decisions reached through democratic politics. It is marked by democratic elections, freedom, and rule of law, characteristics typically associated with democracy. It retains a free-market economic system with an emphasis on private enterprise. Professor of Entrepreneurship Elias G. Carayannis and Arisitidis Kaloudis, Economics Professor at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), describe democratic capitalism as an economic system which combines robust competitiveness with sustainable entrepreneurship, with the aim of innovation and providing opportunities for economic prosperity to all citizens. Edward Younkins, professor at Wheeling University, described democratic capitalism as a “dynamic complex of economic, political, moral-cultural, ideological, and institutional forces”, which serves to maximize social welfare within a free market economy. Younkins states that the system of individual liberty inherent within democratic capitalism supports the creation of voluntary associations, such as labour unions. Philosopher and writer Michael Novak characterised democratic capitalism as a blend of a free-market economy, a limited democratic government, and moral-cultural system with an emphasis on personal freedom. Novak comments that capitalism is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of democracy. He also proposes that the prominence of democratic capitalism in a society is strongly determined by the religious concepts which drive its customs, institutions, and leaders. History Early to mid-20th century The development of democratic capitalism was influenced by several historical factors, including the rapid economic growth following World War One, the Great Depression, and the political and economic ramifications of World War Two. The growing critique of free-market capitalism and the rise of the notion of social justice in political debate contributed to the adoption of democratic capitalist policies. At the Bretton Woods Conference of 1944, officials from the United States and the United Kingdom and forty-two other nations committed to trade openness. This commitment was made in conjunction with international guidelines which guaranteed autonomy for each country in responding to economic and social demands of its voters. Officials requested international capital controls which would allow governments to regulate their economies while remaining committed to the goals of full employment and economic growth. The adoption of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade supported free trade, while allowing national governments to retain veto power over trade policy. Such developments saw the incorporation of democratic demands into policies based on capitalist economic logic. Democratic capitalism was first widely implemented after the Second World War in the Western world, particularly in North America and Western Europe. Following the severe economic impacts of the war, working classes in the Western world were more inclined to accept capitalist markets in conjunction with political democracy, which enabled a level of social security and improved living standards. In the post-war decades, democratic capitalist policies saw reduced levels of socioeconomic inequality. This was synonymous with the expansion of welfare states, more highly regulated financial and labour markets, and increased political power of labour unions. According to political scientist Wolfgang Merkel, democracy and capitalism coexisted with more complementarity at this time than at any other point in history. Policy makers in Europe and Asia adopted democratic capitalist policies in an attempt to satisfy the social needs of their voters and respond to the challenge of communism. The policies implemented supported the public provision of medical care, improved public housing, aged care, and more accessible education. Guarantees of full employment and the support of private research and innovation became priorities of policy makers. Policy developments were based on the rising notion that free markets required some state intervention to maintain them, provide structure, and address social inequities caused by them. Governments around the world regulated existing markets in an attempt to increase their equity and effectiveness. In order to stabilise the business cycle, the role of government was reconceived by anticommunist leaders in Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Scandinavia, and Japan. An emphasis was placed on supporting economic growth, promoting innovation, and enhancing living standards. This saw the expansion of educational opportunities and public insurance of basic health and aged benefits. United States As automated production expanded in the United States, demand for semi skilled workers increased. Combined with the expansion of secondary education, this saw the development of a large working class. The resulting strong economic growth and improved income equality allowed for greater social peace and universal suffrage. Capitalism was viewed as a means of producing the wealth which maintained political freedom, while a democratic government ensured accountable political institutions and an educated labour force with its basic rights fulfilled. Europe In the postwar period, free market economic systems with political systems of democracy and welfare states were established in France and Germany. This occurred under the leadership of the Popular Republican Movement in France and the Christian Democratic Union in Germany. Late 20th century Following the oil shocks of the 1970s and the productivity slowdown in the United States in the 1980s, politicians and voters maintained strong support for democratic capitalist policies and free markets. Globalisation and free trade were promoted as a means of boosting economic growth, and this saw the formation of the North American Free Trade Agreement and the European Union. Labour market and competition regulations were eased in existing free-market economies, particularly in Anglo-America. Rapid technological innovation and globalisation brought widespread international economic change. Publicly funded democratic capitalist policies were designed and implemented to compensate individuals negatively affected by major, structural economic change. Implemented beginning in the early years of the Cold War, such policies included unemployment benefits, universal or partially universal healthcare, and aged pensions. Post-1970s, the number of public sector jobs available expanded. Ageing populations in Europe, Japan and North America saw large increases in public spending on pensions and healthcare. In the 1980s, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development economies began reducing corporate taxation, though personal income taxes and public spending on social security programs generally remained stable. Large-scale innovation in production technology throughout the 20th century had widespread economic benefits in many capitalist economies. These benefits contributed to the conciliation of democratic politics and free markets and the widespread acceptance of democratic capitalist policies by voters. From the late 20th century, the tenets of democratic capitalism expanded more broadly beyond North America and Western Europe. United States After taking office as president in 1981, Ronald Reagan advocated for a reduced role of government in the economy, while responding to voters’ skepticism of liberal capitalism by maintaining strong public sector spending. Many voters doubted the ability of free market capitalism to provide consistent peace, security and opportunity, and sought improved living standards, aged care, and educational opportunities for youth. The Reagan administration maintained previous levels of government expenditure on Social Security and Medicare as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP). Total government expenditure levels as a percentage of GDP also remained stable under the Reagan administration. Europe From the mid-1980s, European leaders began endorsing neoliberal ideas, such as those associated with Reaganomics and Thatcherism, based on the notion of the interdependence of economic and social policy. In this context, European competition law policy developed as a method of curbing the excesses of capitalism, while aligning the economy of the European Union with the existing democratic ideals of European society. This saw the advancement of democratic capitalism throughout the European region. South Africa The South African Competition Act of 1998 prioritised the eradication of anticompetitive business practices and the free participation in the economy of all citizens, while maintaining a pro-free-market economy. Early 21st century India India enacted the Competition Act, 2002 to promote and sustain competition and protect the welfare of market participants, goals synonymous with democratic capitalism. Implementation The post-war implementation of democratic capitalism saw the expansion of welfare states and the free collective bargaining rights of employees, alongside market policies designed to ensure full employment. Under democratic capitalism, an autonomous democratic state enacts of policies which in effect create a compromise between upper and lower classes, while remaining compatible with free-market capitalism. Such policies include the establishment or expansion of a welfare state, as a method of mediating social class conflict and catering to the demands of workers. The system is characterised by the establishment of cooperative economic institutions. This includes institutions which facilitate bargaining between government bodies and business and labour organisations such as unions, and those which regulate the relationships between employees and management within private firms. The development of institutions to promote cooperation among public and private economic entities acknowledges the benefits of market competition, while attempting to address the social problems of unrestrained capitalism. Economic security concerns of citizens are addressed through redistributive policies. Such policies include income transfers, such as welfare payment programs and pensions, to support the financial needs of the elderly and the poor. Other policies which promote economic security include social insurance, and the fiscal financing of education and job training programs to stimulate employment. The right to private ownership of productive property is a central tenet of democratic capitalism, and is recognized as a basic liberty of all democratic citizens, as in a regular free-market capitalist economy. According to political philosopher John Tomasi, democratic capitalism addresses social entitlement and justice concerns through the preservation of citizens’ private property rights, allowing citizens to be “free, equal, and self-governing”. The robust competitiveness and sustainable entrepreneurship which define democratic capitalism are characterised by top-down policies and bottom-up initiatives implemented by democratic governments. Top-down policies are planned and implemented by formal leaders in an organisation, while bottom-up policies involve gradual change initiated and sustained by lower-level members of organisations. Policies implemented are designed to incentivise public and private sector innovation. Examples include strong research and development funding, and policies which protect intellectual property rights. Competition law A characteristic of democratic capitalist economies is the democratic enactment of laws and regulations to support competition. Such laws include United States antitrust laws. Competition laws are designed to regulate private sector activities, including the actions of capital asset owners and managers, in order to prevent outcomes which are socially undesirable according to the democratic majority. The implementation of competition law is intended to prevent anti-competitive behaviour that is harmful to the welfare of consumers, while maintaining a free market economy. The implementation of antitrust laws was found to be a characteristic of democratic capitalism specifically, and not regular free-market capitalism. Conflicts between notions of resource allocation According to economic sociologist Wolfgang Streeck, the capitalist markets and democratic policies that characterise democratic capitalism are inherently conflicting. Streeck suggests that under democratic capitalism, governments tend to neglect policies of resource allocation by marginal productivity in favour of those of resource allocation by social entitlement, or vice versa. In particular, he comments that the accelerating inflation of the 1970s in the Western world can be attributed to rising trade-union wage pressure in labour markets and the political priority of full employment, both of which are synonymous with democratic capitalism. In Catholic social teaching Catholic texts offer support for a form of socially regulated democratic capitalism. The papal encyclical Centesimus annus, written by Pope John Paul II, emphasizes a vision of a communitarian form of democratic capitalism. The communitarian system of democratic capitalism described promotes respect for individual rights and basic workers’ rights, a virtuous community, and a limited role for the state and the market. According to the encyclical, these characteristics should be combined with a conscious effort to promote institutions which develop character in individuals. The encyclical stressed to decision makers the importance of the dignity of the person and a concern for the poor, while acknowledging the need to balance economic efficiency with social equity. The US Bishops’ 1986 Pastoral Letter Economic Justice for All suggested that specific institutional arrangements be developed to support this form of democratic capitalism. Arrangements proposed included structures of accountability designed to involve all stakeholders, such as employees, customers, local communities, and wider society, in the corporate decision making process, as opposed to stockholders only. The letter offered acceptance for the market economy under the condition that the state intervene where necessary to preserve human dignity. See also Democratic communism Democratic socialism Georgism Libertarian paternalism Mixed economy Neoclassical liberalism Post-war consensus Regulatory capitalism Social democracy Social market economy State capitalism Welfare capitalism References Capitalism Democracy Economic ideologies Economic liberalism Economic systems Ideologies of capitalism Types of democracy

Political system

In political science, a political system means the form of political organization that can be observed, recognised or otherwise declared by a society or state. It defines the process for making official government decisions. It usually comprizes the governmental legal and economic system, social and cultural system, and other state and government specific systems. However, this is a very simplified view of a much more complex system of categories involving the questions of who should have authority and what the government influence on its people and economy should be. Along with a basic sociological and socio-anthropological classification, political systems can be classified on a social-cultural axis relative to the liberal values prevalent in the Western world, where the spectrum is represented as a continuum between political systems recognized as democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes, with a variety of hybrid regimes; and monarchies may be also included as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three. Definition According to David Easton, "A political system can be designated as the interactions through which values are authoritatively allocated for a society". Political system refers broadly to the process by which laws are made and public resources allocated in a society, and to the relationships among those involved in making these decisions. Basic classification Social anthropologists generally recognize several kinds of political systems, often differentiating between ones that they consider uncentralized and ones they consider centralized. Uncentralized systems Band society Small family group, no larger than an extended family or clan; it has been defined as consisting of no more than 30 to 50 individuals. A band can cease to exist if only a small group walks out. Tribe Generally larger, consisting of many families. Tribes have more social institutions, such as a chief or elders. More permanent than bands. Many tribes are sub-divided into bands. Centralized governments Chiefdom More complex than a tribe or a band society, and less complex than a state or a civilization Characterized by pervasive inequality and centralization of authority. A single lineage/family of the elite class becomes the ruling elite of the chiefdom Complex chiefdoms have two or even three tiers of political hierarchy. "An autonomous political unit comprising a number of villages or communities under the permanent control of a paramount chief" Sovereign state A sovereign state is a state with a permanent population, a defined territory, a government and the capacity to enter into relations with other sovereign states. Supranational political systems Supranational political systems are created by independent nations to reach a common goal or gain strength from forming an alliance. Empires Empires are widespread states consisting of people of different ethnicities under a single rule. Empires - such as the Romans, or British - often made considerable progress in ways of political structures, creating and building city infrastructures, and maintaining civility within the diverse communities. Because of the intricate organization of the empires, they were often able to hold a large majority of power on a universal level. Leagues Leagues are international organizations composed of states coming together for a single common purpose. In this way, leagues are different from empires, as they only seek to fulfill a single goal. Often leagues are formed on the brink of a military or economic downfall. Meetings and hearings are conducted in a neutral location with representatives of all involved nations present. Western socio-cultural paradigmatic-centric analysis The sociological interest in political systems is figuring out who holds power within the relationship between the government and its people and how the government’s power is used. According to Yale professor Juan José Linz there a three main types of political systems today: democracies, totalitarian regimes and, sitting between these two, authoritarian regimes (with hybrid regimes). Another modern classification system includes monarchies as a standalone entity or as a hybrid system of the main three. Scholars generally refer to a dictatorship as either a form of authoritarianism or totalitarianism. Democracy Authoritarianism Totalitarian Monarchy Hybrid Marxist/Dialectical materialistic analysis 19th-century German-born philosopher Karl Marx analysed that the political systems of "all" state-societies are the dictatorship of one social class, vying for its interests against that of another one; with which class oppressing which other class being, in essence, determined by the developmental level of that society, and its repercussions implicated thereof, as the society progresses through the passage of time. In capitalist societies, this characterises as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or capitalist class, in which the economic and political system is designed to work in their interests collectively as a class, over those of the proletariat or working class. Marx devised this theory by adapting his forerunner-contemporary Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel's notion of dialectics into the framework of materialism. See also Political structure Polity Systems theory in political science Tractatus Politicus Voting system Notes References Further reading Almond, Gabriel A., et al. Comparative Politics Today: A World View (Seventh Edition). 2000. . Ferris, Kerry, and Jill Stein. The Real World An Introduction to Sociology. 3rd ed. New York City: W W Norton & Co, 2012. Print. "political system". Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2012. Web. 02 Dec. 2012. External links Topic guide on political systems at Governance and Social Development Resource Centre Political terminology

Economic democracy

"Economic democracy (sometimes called a democratic economy) is a socioeconomic philosophy that propo(...TRUNCATED)

Totalitarianism

"Totalitarianism is a political system and a form of government that prohibits opposition political (...TRUNCATED)

Politicisation

"Politicisation (also politicization; see English spelling differences) is a concept in political sc(...TRUNCATED)

Comparative politics

"Comparative politics is a field in political science characterized either by the use of the compara(...TRUNCATED)

Mediatization (media)

"Mediatization (or medialization) is a method whereby the mass media influence other sectors of soci(...TRUNCATED)