The transition to the information society leads to the transformation of the political institutions of democracy. As a result of the rapid development of modern information technologies the debate about the theory of democracy intensified. At the center of discussions are questions about the nature of the influence of the Internet on democratic institutions and processes. Undoubtedly, the development of the Internet is already affecting modern power relations. BUT is it possible to say without a shadow of a doubt that "electronic democracy" will become the democracy of the future, and what are the main problems it will face on the way of its formation? It is difficult to disagree with the statement of M.S. Vershinin, that the Internet generates both unique opportunities and threats to traditional democratic institutions and actions.

E-democracy is a form of democracy characterized by the use of information and communication technologies as the main means for collective cognitive and administrative processes (informing, making joint decisions - electronic voting, monitoring the implementation of decisions, etc.) at all levels - starting from the level of local government and ending with international.

A distinction should be made between e-democracy and e-government. Stephen Clift emphasizes: "Electronic democracy" (e-democracy) and "electronic government" (e-government) are completely different concepts. If the latter means increasing the speed and convenience of access to public services from anywhere and at any time, then the former refers to the use of information technology to empower every citizen.

Electronic or Internet democracy is not just another stage in the global development of democratic institutions and, at the same time, not just a technical innovation that allows citizens to conveniently communicate with their government, and the latter to quickly receive information about their citizens. Internet democracy is a way to raise the issue of democracy anew, to identify the key problems of any democratic structure, to understand what dangers the mass digitalization of communications is preparing and what prospects are possible for a real democratization of mass politics.

Since the mid-90s of the last century, E-democracy (Internet democracy) has embarked on the path of its development, although this path is still very far from the end. The development began precisely with the organization of electronic governments of various kinds. Canada, Singapore, Holland, Finland, Norway, Australia and Estonia have made great strides in this area.

Gradually, as scientists became aware of the possibilities of the Global Network, various theories of electronic or cloud democracy began to appear. There is a book of the same name by L. Volkov and F. Krasheninnikov, released in 2011 in Yekaterinburg. The authors propose to create an innovative Internet system in which every citizen can take part in the political processes of the country. Every politically active citizen, thanks to individual electronic signature, will have the opportunity not only to vote for bills, but also to propose them himself. Also, this citizen will have the right to delegate his vote on a particular issue to a more competent person - an expert. Thus, the creator and holder of power and law, in a certain sense, will be the people.

E-democracy is an increase in the participation of citizens in the life of society through the use of the resources of the Web. That is, its important characteristic is the focus on the initiative "from below". In order for such an initiative to exist, many obstacles will have to be overcome. First of all technical character. This is the speed, and coverage and cost of the Internet. Although the Internet in Russia is developing rapidly, in many parts of our large country there is still no access to it. However, according to the report federal agency on Press and Mass Communications “Internet in Russia. State, Trends and Prospects”, while maintaining current trends in the development and spread of the Internet, by the end of 2014 the number of users will increase by approximately 30 million people. At the same time, more than half of Russians can be attributed to the most active part (daily audience) - 56%, or approximately 63 million people. Therefore, there is a technical possibility of establishing 100% availability of the Internet in Russia, it remains only to wait.

However, in addition to the technical difficulties of establishing e-democracy, there are others.

The Internet-enabled increase in political participation has been accompanied by a decline in political accountability. Information technology removes social barriers that prevent previously unrepresented groups from participating in political life. Such participation against the backdrop of a low political Internet culture can lead to serious consequences. How often do we see swearing online, one iota that does not bring us closer to solving specific issues? For the transition to e-democracy, it is necessary that the society be not only technically, but also psychologically ready for this step.

Electronic voting, in a certain sense, can exacerbate crisis tendencies in a democratic society. The desire to take into account the general will of the people on any political issue, that is, to transfer politics to the regime of a continuous referendum, threatens with total manipulation of voters. In addition, all theories of building e-democracy are based on “compulsory honesty”, which leads to the destruction of the “secret ballot” procedure (and this is one of the basic principles of democratic elections). This fact can further weaken basic democratic institutions, reducing voting to a polling procedure or tracking consumer tastes. It is also important that if people know that their choice, at least potentially, can be known to others and to society as a whole (and the Internet just provides such opportunities), they will most likely vote differently or not vote at all.

It is worth fearing the littering of political resources. In fact, the Internet is a worldwide fence. Pluralism of opinions is one thing, and quite another is the flow of uncontrolled criticism and unsubstantiated proposals. In this context, the system is clearly not yet worked out. Separate concerns are caused by the process of delegation of authority. Based on Volkov's and Krasheninnikov's proposals, each user will be able to delegate his or her vote on any issue (or several issues) to one or many competent people, be they economists or environmentalists. But the electorate in our country for the most part is not active and, therefore, the question arises whether this will lead to a widespread practice of buying votes? Or even to the emergence of an expertocracy? Not professionals in their field, but representatives of the marginal (or even deviant) Internet "elite" - radicals, nationalists - can enter the leadership ranks through a detailed Internet voting.

These are the risks that need to be taken into account. At the moment, the political contingent is already represented on the Internet, politicians are blogging, parties are creating websites. There are actors, organizations and movements that exist only on the Web. There are public service portals. Despite all this, I can hardly imagine that e-democracy will be formed in Russia in the coming years. The transition to it on the one hand is really inevitable. Society has long crossed the line of information in business and education. But, on the other hand, for the transition specifically to e-democracy, simple technical readiness, as it turns out, is not enough. Firstly, it is difficult for many people to develop trust in the Internet, but it is more a matter of time. Secondly, e-democracy must be based on a certain political and Internet culture. This is not yet the case in our country. The Internet gives a feeling of anonymity and freedom, and people are used to it and behave accordingly. But such behavior calls into question the possibility of developing e-democracy. Until certain foundations of a culture of political activity on the Web are formed, it seems unlikely that an effective system of network democracy will emerge. Thirdly, the factor of psychological readiness of not only members of society, but also representatives of the authorities cannot be ignored. At the moment, this readiness is not. Network democracy involves open, unlimited communication between the government and society. How can such communication be established when a specially hired person writes for politics in social networks and blogs, or moreover, some company or office.

But all this does not mean that attempts should not be made to organize certain elements of e-democracy. There are several Internet portals that provide an opportunity to manage the country in a certain sense - these are "Democracy2", "Democrat". These projects are at varying degrees of efficiency, it can be said with certainty that they are popular with a certain circle of politically active users. So "Democrator" works more precisely with citizens' appeals on some specific, everyday problems, it has existed since February 2010 and, based on the internal data of the site, has about 400 thousand users. The Democracy 2 website is positioned precisely as a pilot project of a large-scale e-democracy institute, created in 2011 and so far has about 7 thousand users.

In the last two years, we have often witnessed the release of representatives of the netocracy (political Internet activists) into the light. Quite often they organize rallies and pickets, participate in regional elections. Relatively recently, elections were held for the Coordinating Council of the Russian Opposition. All this is an example of modern “going to the people”. After all, the very idea of ​​e-democracy has another, very significant problem. This problem is elitism. A certain circle of people knows that the Internet can become the main platform for political activity. About some "famous" bloggers, a simple person who works around the clock and goes online just to talk with friends can only learn from the news. And then, only after this blogger was detained for participating in an unsanctioned rally.

E-democracy is an initiative from the bottom. And in order for it to be established and function, it is necessary for the entire population to be aware of the opportunities that the Internet provides for politically active people. Now, alas, this is not the case. And I doubt that I will be mistaken if I say that the main problem of e-democracy in our country is the lack of awareness and interest. And all the ideologists of this innovation process will have to fight against this.

Electronic Portal:Politics

Electronic democracy (e-democracy) - a form of democracy, characterized by the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) as the main means for collective thinking (crowdsourcing) and administrative processes (informing, joint decision-making - electronic voting, monitoring the execution of decisions, etc.) at all levels - starting from local government to international level.

The concept of the effectiveness of e-democracy is based on both theoretical studies (information theory of democracy) and experimental data obtained, for example, in the course of research on collective intelligence.

Terminology

A distinction should be made between e-democracy and e-government. Steven Clift points out:

"Electronic democracy" (e-democracy) and "electronic government" (e-government) are completely different concepts. If the latter means increasing the speed and convenience of access to public services from anywhere and at any time, then the former refers to the use of information technology to empower every citizen.

Some researchers (for example, sociologist I. Eidman) use the term network democracy instead of the term e-democracy.

Electronic democracy in Russia

E-democracy in Russia is taking its first steps. Below is a list of recent projects that are in various stages of development.

e-government expert center

Expert Center established in 2012 e-government. The head of the Expert Center is Pavel Khilov. The main tasks of the activity of the Expert center of the electronic state:

development and dissemination of expertise in the field of regional and municipal informatization, the formation of the information society and e-government;

organization of professional discussions of initiatives and preparation of proposals for the formation of priority areas for the development of information technologies and public policy in the areas of e-government, e-democracy and regional informatization;

formation of an independent mechanism for monitoring and evaluating the current results of the entities' activities Russian Federation in the field of application of information technologies, implementation of projects in the field of creation and implementation of tools for e-democracy and e-government at the regional and municipal levels;

development of human resources to solve the problems of information technology development at the regional and municipal levels;

promotion of Russia's place in international ratings of ICT development.

In November 2012, the Expert Center held the first large-scale crowdsourcing in Russia among specialists in the field of information technology to determine priorities in regional informatization.

"AlterRussia"

Volkov said that the technological system for the implementation of the project will be created in October 2011.

Lawyer and blogger Alexei Navalny, who was present at the presentation of the book, declared his support for the ideas of cloud democracy.

On June 7, sociologist and networking specialist Igor Eidman criticized the project of "cloud democracy", in particular the idea of ​​matrix delegation. According to Eidman, under Russian conditions, it will lead to mass buying and extortion of powers of attorney for voting, to the dominance of opposition "leaders" who control the votes of ordinary participants.

On June 19, Leonid Volkov and Fyodor Krashennikov spoke about their project to the participants of the Anti-Seliger civil forum.

On July 3, at a meeting of the Federal Political Council of Solidarity, the concept of "cloud democracy" was called promising for the implementation of the Internet democracy project, one of the four strategic projects movement.

On October 2, at the civil forum "Last Autumn", a presentation of the site "Democracy 2", created in line with the concept of "cloud democracy", took place. At the same time, the registration of participants on the site began.

Currently, the site is in the testing phase, its functionality is gradually expanding. As of October 16, 2011, the site had about 1000 members (Federation group).

On October 22, an improved version of the site appeared, including a new design, new comment notifications, private messages, vote delegation, a petition mechanism, and the Democracy Today newspaper.

On December 27, Andrei Illarionov, a well-known economist and public figure, published a keynote article “December theses for the citizens of Russia”, in which, in particular, he recommended using the Democracy 2 website to discuss and resolve all issues related to the general civil movement and organize voting for participants . Illarionov's article was published on many opposition sites. After that, the number of participants in the Democracy 2 website increased rapidly and in mid-January 2012 was close to 3,000.

On January 9, 2012, Igor Eidman again sharply criticized the Democracy 2 project, pointing out the lack of an effective mechanism for correct mass voting, the closeness of the development team, lack of transparency in funding, etc. He also accused the authors of the project of plagiarizing their ideas. Eidman approached Alexei Navalny with a proposal to raise funds from the public for an e-democracy project, form a supervisory board, and hold an open tender to select a contractor to create an e-democracy website.

On January 16, 2012, a beta version of the site was launched, which will implement all the necessary functionality.

The project is funded by businessman Sergiy Kolesnikov, who previously accused Putin of corruption; Kolesnikov is currently in hiding in the United States. According to Leonid Volkov, Kolesnikov took upon himself the obligation not to interfere in the affairs of the project and to transfer all rights to it into the hands of the community of its users.

"Democrat"

Candidates from the general civil list, as well as three curias - left, liberal and nationalist - participated in the elections. A total of 45 people were elected. A total of 211 candidates applied for seats in the Constitutional Court. The Coordinating Council is elected for one year, after which new elections will be held.

Political network of direct e-democracy

At the first stages of voting, there were big cheating of certain candidates (mostly with Jewish surnames in order to discredit the project) using bots. Then the organizers to some extent cleaned up the results from the bots' votes, introduced a captcha and limited multiple voting from one IP address (no more than once per hour). The results have become more adequate.

After the election, some deputies prepared video messages to voters, which were published on the Novaya Gazeta website. However, then (as of March 2012) the Network Parliament did not carry out any activity (see, for example, the entry in the blog of deputy Litvinov).

In the course of the Foundation's activities, "Web Neighbors" and "Direct Wikidemocracy" were added to the number of its projects. On February 25, 2012, the FRED held the first foresight on the topic of e-democracy in Russia, in which the Minister of Telecom and Mass Communications of the Russian Federation Igor Shchegolev took part. After the first Federal Congress on e-democracy held on May 17-18, 2012, the FRED, together with the Pirate Party of Russia, focused on working on an alternative concept for the development of e-democracy in Russia.

Internet Party of the Russian Federation

The first Russian political party registered by the Ministry of Justice, assembled via the Internet, and the first party with an interactive political program, IPRF has set itself the goal of collecting the best intellectual resources of the Runet and giving everyone the opportunity to participate in the development, adoption and promotion of serious political decisions. The party leadership constantly emphasizes that the main goal of the IPRF is practical work not a protest.

Pirate Party of Russia

Electronic democracy and open government is one of the main activities of the Pirate Party of Russia, as well as its main political goal.

Portal of Civil Rights and Responsibilities Where to Whom

Electronic democracy on this portal is implemented through the service of compiling complaints and statements to any authority in Russia, free online preparation of claims and other statements.

Internet portal "Persons of the Saratov province"

Of particular note is the experiment with conducting polls on the Internet when appointing certain leaders in Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug. In August 2011, Governor N.V. Komarova appointed the director of the Department of Physical Culture and Sports based on the results of a public discussion of candidates. Similarly, the appointment of the director of the district department of education and youth policy took place in November of the same year. At the same time, 80,318 people took part in the survey conducted on the governor's blog. In June 2012, the regulations for the appointment of the chief physician of the District Clinical Hospital in Khanty-Mansiysk were adopted, according to which 2 candidates with the highest rating among TV viewers during the TV debates will be submitted for approval.

Activities of the President of the Russian Federation on the development of e-democracy in Russia

The activities of the President of the Russian Federation are of great importance for the development of e-democracy in the Russian Federation.

Thus, by Decree of the President of the Russian Federation of May 7, 2012 No. 601 “On the main directions for improving the system government controlled» The Government of the Russian Federation was instructed to ensure the implementation of the following measures: - to form a system for disclosing information about the draft regulatory legal acts being developed, the results of their public discussion, bearing in mind:

creation of a single resource in the Internet information and telecommunications network (hereinafter referred to as the Internet) for posting information on the development of draft regulatory legal acts by federal executive authorities, the course and results of their public discussion;

the use by federal executive authorities for the purpose of public discussion of draft regulatory legal acts of various forms of public consultations, including departmental resources and specialized resources on the Internet; providing at least 60 days for public consultations;

obligatory generalization by federal executive authorities - developers of draft regulatory legal acts of the results of public consultations and placement of relevant information on a single resource on the Internet;

Approve the concept of the "Russian public initiative", providing for: the creation of technical and organizational conditions for the public presentation of citizens' proposals using a specialized resource on the Internet from April 15, 2013; consideration of these proposals, which received the support of at least 100 thousand citizens within one year, in the Government of the Russian Federation after these proposals have been worked out by an expert working group with the participation of deputies of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, members of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation and representatives of the business community ;

Provide Internet access to open data contained in the information systems of state authorities of the Russian Federation.

Notes

1. e-government expert center
2. Yesterday and tomorrow of "cloud democracy" Radio Liberty. 06/07/2011
3. Cloud Democracy. Kasparov.ru 06.06.2011
4. Igor Eidman. Democracy: cloudy or real? 06/07/2011
5. Decisions of the Federal Political Council of the UDM "Solidarity". 07/04/2011
6. "Last Autumn" Presentation of the e-democracy project
7. Dmitry Chirkov. First major innovations. 22.10.2011
8. December theses for citizens of Russia 27.12.2011
9. Igor Eidman. "Decembrists" and electronic democracy. 01/09/2012
10. Leonid Volkov, Fedor Krasheninnikov. Democracy2: RELOAD 01/15/2012
11. Udaltsov: the opposition expects to attract 100,000 people to the elections to the coordinating council. Vedomosti, 08/18/2012
12. Direct e-democracy network rules "Putin must go". Viewed on 27.02.2011
13. D. Baranovsky. Once again about the idea of ​​the project. Blog of the movement "Just Russians"
14. Working group of the Council of the Movement. "Just Russians"
15. We choose the network parliament of Runet. New Newspaper. March 28, 2011
16. [TO. Poleskov. ONLINE PARLIAMENT: The final voting will end today at 23:59 Moscow time. " New Newspaper", 04.04.2011]
17. Igor Eidman. News of electronic democracy. 04/25/2011
18. [TO. Poleskov. Who are all these people? Runet users have chosen an alternative parliament for the first time. Novaya Gazeta, 04/24/2011]
19. Representatives of RARIO took part in a press conference dedicated to the establishment of the Fund for the Development of Electronic Democracy, RARIO. Retrieved 3 July 2012.
20. Foundation for the Development of Electronic Democracy. Founders (Russian). archived
21. Foundation for the Development of Electronic Democracy. Projects (Russian). Archived from the original on August 19, 2012. Retrieved July 3, 2012.
22. Rassypnova, K. The ideas of the "volunteers" of the Fund for the Development of Electronic Democracy will be taken into account when creating an "open" government - Shchegolev, ITAR-TASS(February 25, 2012). Retrieved 3 July 2012.
23. Work continues on an alternative concept for the development of e-democracy in Russia, Electronic Democracy Development Foundation. Retrieved 3 July 2012.
24. Lenta.ru: The Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation registered the "Internet Party"
25. Slon.ru: The Ministry of Justice registered the "Internet Party"
26. Internet Party Program
27. Lenizdat.ru: "Internet Party of the Russian Federation": Trample squares of 50-100 people does not seem appropriate
28. Manifesto of the Pirate Party of Russia
29. Service for compiling Complaints and Applications to any authority
30. Igor Trofimov: “It’s already harder for officials not to react” // Vzglyad. May 03, 2012
31. Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated October 20, 2010 No. 1815-r
32. Uzbekova A. Fishermen rush to bite // Russian newspaper: newspaper. - M ., October 25, 2011. - No. 5615 (239).

A. A. Bashkarev

ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY AS A FORM OF POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

The work is presented by the Department of Political Science of the St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University. Scientific adviser - Doctor of Political Science, Professor S. M. Eliseev

The article is devoted to political communications in modern computer networks, and in particular to the phenomenon of electronic democracy. Classical concepts are considered in comparison with the opinions of modern scientists, the main priorities for the development of computer technologies are outlined as a tool for maximum involvement and participation in the political life of all members of society.

Keywords Keywords: politics, communications, Internet, involvement.

The article is devoted to the political communications in the Internet, in particular the phenomenon of electronic democracy. Classical concepts are considered in comparison with opinions of the modern scientists. The author designs the basic priorities of development of computer technologies for maximal involvement and participation of all members of society in the political life.

Key words: policy, communications, the Internet, involving.

The concepts of e-democracy refer to theories that consider computers and computer networks as essential tool in a democratic political system. E-democracy is any democratic political system in which computers and computer networks are used to perform essential functions of the democratic process, such as the dissemination of information and communication, the unification of citizens' interests, and decision-making (by deliberation and voting). These concepts are different

by the possibility of using a direct or representative form of democratic government and by the degree of activity of citizens in the state. What these concepts have in common is the belief that the various properties of new media, such as interactivity, faster ways of communicating information, the ability to connect large numbers of users to each other, an abundance of information, and new user control over processes, can positively influence democratic political system 1.

The term “e-democracy” has at least two interpretations2. The first, earlier and more specific, involves the implementation of political activity through new information and communication technologies. The second, more recent interpretation of e-democracy is based on the scholarly notion that new technologies improve citizenship in the broadest sense, becoming the center of politics and governance.

The analysis of e-democracy is carried out in modern political science mainly in the context of the conceptual apparatus of traditional concepts of democracy: liberalism, republicanism and the theory of participatory democracy.

The liberal tradition, which took shape thanks to the work of J. Locke, considers the “democratic expression of the will of citizens” as a private element of the political system, structurally formalized within the framework of the constitution and involving the separation of powers and the legal regulation of legislative activity. The concept of teledemocracy largely draws its arguments from the economic model of democracy by E. Downes, which was formed in the liberal political theory in the 1950s This model is based on the idea of ​​rationality of political behavior: each actor seeks to maximize the result of his activity in the economic sense, i.e., to get more results at lower costs. With this approach, politics is viewed as a market, where competition and mutual exchange take place in order to obtain the most beneficial result. Two main premises economic theory democracies in this regard are the most important: firstly, “every government tries to maximize political support”, and secondly, “every citizen tries rationally to maximize the utility of the result of his action”3.

These premises determine the understanding of the features of a democratic system, in which both those who rule and those who are ruled act guided not by ideals, but by their own real interests. The attempts of any government (respectively, any political force in the form of a party) to maximize support pursue a pragmatic goal: to maintain its dominance or win dominant positions.

The notion of society as an originally political entity (societas civilis) essentially identifies democracy with the political self-organization of society as a whole and is based on the republican tradition dating back to Aristotle, Machiavelli, Rousseau, Hegel, Tocqueville. The state as a bureaucratically self-contained administrative mechanism must again become part of society as a whole.

An equally important area of ​​theoretical research within the framework of the republican political tradition has become the concept of "deliberative" (deliberative), reflective or reflective democracy. Its core idea is a permanent and as broad as possible political discourse in society, the results of which are determined not by the balance of power, but by the strength of arguments. The deliberative process acts as a “democracy of discovery” for the society itself of the meaning of the decisions made and their consequences. The model of deliberative democracy, developed by the German philosopher J. Habermas, suggests the ideal of a society of free and equal individuals who determine the forms of living together in political communication. The procedure for forming the opinions and will of the people should be conceived as a democratic self-organization, and the decision is legitimate, in the discussion of which the largest number of citizens took part4.

The relationship between civil society and the state, in the interpretation of Habermas, trans-

are formed in such a way that "the principles and structures of the rule of law are analyzed as a mechanism for the institutionalization of the political discourse of the public." At the same time, institutionalization is understood as both the rationalization of opinions and the enforcement of legislative programs. Deliberative democracy is not just the power of the opinions of the people, but rather the possibility of the power of reason, obtained in the institutions of communication between citizens. The purpose of communication is to reach consensus.

The concept of deliberative democracy is actively used in modern studies of the Internet as a democratic public sphere. Theorists of participatory democracy - J. Wolf, F. Green, B. Barber - remain true to the central idea classical theory democracy about ability ordinary people manage yourself; they believe that a democratic system of political power does not yet exist in full, that the status quo cannot be maintained, but that it is necessary to achieve a universal effective involvement of the masses in the political decision-making process. Against elite tyranny, a well-informed public is needed that can exercise democratic control through general elections and representative institutions. Civic literacy is characterized as a set of abilities that make it possible to function in a democratic community, think critically, act deliberately in a pluralistic environment. The Internet is seen as the most important means of establishing direct democracy.

In many Western studies, the main goal of e-democracy is declared to increase the level of political participation. Analyzing the role of the Internet as a guarantor of democracy is one of the most promising directions in political theory. Modern information technologies not only change

change the form of implementation of democratic procedures, but also the very essence of development social processes. Describing the role of new information technologies in the 21st century, R. Dahl notes: “We have barely begun to seriously consider the possibilities they open up and carried out the very first, timid trials on an insignificant scale”5.

The classical concept of democracy comes from the postulate: democracy is based on the common interest of the majority of citizens, which forms their common will. Nevertheless, in a post-industrial society, the former forms of solidarity are disintegrating, and a pluralization of positions and interests is emerging. Differentiation of ideas, principles, values, norms of behavior fragments civil society, hinders the achievement of the degree of agreement that is necessary for the democratic governance of society6.

End of XX century marked the transition from the "politics of interests and goals" to the "politics of values". Modern political science proceeds from the fact that the "old politics" - "party politics" (party politics), parties of the old type, based on a class basis, on the interests of social groups, the division of the party spectrum into "left" and "right", traditional electoral systems and systems of representation are gradually becoming a thing of the past. New ones take their place social movements and new social practices, including in the system of representation, the “democracy of participation” is expanding, the task of expanding the use of “direct democracy” has again been put on the agenda. The Internet plays an important role in this process.

It should be noted that mass political participation is only one of the many key functions of politics through the Internet. Equally important functions of the Internet that can strengthen the institutions of representative democracy are: providing conditions for the competition of parties and the competition of candidates,

activation and involvement of civil society, ensuring transparency and increasing accountability in the decision-making process, as well as their effective communication from power structures to citizens.

A key question in evaluating the role of information technology for democracy is how much governments and civil society will learn to use the opportunities provided by new channels of information and communication to promote and strengthen the basic representative institutions that bring citizens and the state together. Considered in this way, the opportunities for public participation created by new technologies are certainly important, but the Internet is also capable of generating information, increasing the transparency, openness of activities and responsibility of national and international authorities, as well as strengthening channels of interactive communication between citizens and intermediary institutions. These are special features, and the Internet implements some of them better than any other means. In particular, the Internet could provide a more suitable means of interaction in political campaigns for minority parties than traditional mass media (newspapers, radio, television); provide greater one-time access to information for journalists, official documents and current legislative initiatives and proposals.

The rapid spread of the Internet provides an opportunity for an unlimited number of people to quickly access the texts of draft laws at the stage of their preliminary development, as well as to the maximum amount of analytical information of an unclassified nature. By reducing the cost of receiving and transmitting information, a group of people who have the opportunity to participate

in the development and adoption of politically significant decisions, significantly increases - potentially to the level of the entire politically active population. As a result, prerequisites are being created for a gradual decrease in the acutely felt inequality of political opportunities for citizens of formally democratic states, which is predetermined by inequality in the distribution of property and income7.

Nevertheless, it would be completely unreasonable to leave without scientific analysis the problems associated with the dangers and risks of e-democracy, in particular the danger of manipulation of voting and election data due to the lack of sufficient data protection, the danger of dividing society into those who own information and those who who does not own (digital division), and, as a result, infringement of the principle of democracy of choice, there is also the danger of propaganda by criminal and extremist groups and their influence, especially on the younger generation8.

The discussion about e-democracy in last years is shifting towards the discussion of e-government projects. In the Russian case, e-government means, first of all, increasing the effectiveness of the mechanisms of state control over citizens in the areas of tax collection, combating crime, etc.9 The Western approach implies, in addition to facilitating communication, strengthening citizens' control over the government, which the introduction of public performance indicators of the latter. It is important to note that if informatization is rapidly developing “at the top”, without penetrating into society, it deprives citizens of the opportunity to monitor the activities of state structures, check them, and therefore not only does not make the state more transparent, but can also strengthen the state’s monopoly on information. Electronization "from above" will thus give

the ruling elite additional opportunities to manipulate society and the individual.

The greatest prospects in Russia are the process of using Internet technologies to further expand opportunities existing system representative democracy and the development of “electronic democratization” processes. Its main meaning is to use the Internet in order to expand the access of voters and media representatives to legislative activities, reduce the costs of forming associations and associations of voters, and increase the efficiency of feedback between voters and their representatives in legislative bodies.

For Russia, the problem of “new despotism”, i.e., sophisticated and refined forms of manipulating society with the help of modern technologies communications, mass culture, political process. "New Despotism"

does not resort to open violence, the suppression of individual rights, the abolition of democratic institutions; The construction of liberal democracy is preserved, but its content (the functions of civil will) is emasculated. Thus, B. Barber points out that "new technologies can become a dangerous conductor of tyranny..."10, and thus the "new despotism" is able to take people's lives beyond the bounds of political existence11.

Technology, thus, can change the methods of regulation, but does not change their essence, and the dependence of the emergence of information openness as a consequence of the electronization of relations between citizens and state institutions cannot be called straight. The introduction of "electronic democracy" is not able to make the police state more open, however, it allows to improve the system of expression of will and increase the political participation of each member of society in cases of healthy functioning of one or another political system.

NOTES

1 Vershinin M. S. Political culture as a reflection of the political and communicative reality of society // Actual problems communication theory: Collection of scientific papers. St. Petersburg: SPbSPU Press, 2004, pp. 98-107.

2 Vartanova E. Finnish model at the turn of the century: Finnish information society and media in a European perspective. M., 1999. S. 85.

3 Downs A. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, 1957. C. 37.

4 Habermas J. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Cambridge: Polity Press, 1989. P. 118.

5 Dahl P. On Democracy. M., 2000. S. 179.

6 Kovler A. I. The Crisis of Democracy? Democracy at the turn of the XXI century. M., 1997.

7 Vershinin M. S. Political communication in the information society. SPb.: Publishing House of Mikhailov V.A., 2001. S. 90-91.

8 Vershinin M. S. Political culture as a reflection of the political and communicative reality of society. pp. 98-107.

9 Peskov D.N. Internet in Russian politics: utopia and reality // Polis. 2002. No. 1. S. 37.

10 Barber B. Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy // Political Science Quarterly, Winter 1998-1999. Vol. 113. No. 4. C. 581-582.

11 Kapustin BG Modernity as a subject of political theory. M., 1998. S. 229.

UDC 321.7:004.77

ELECTRONIC DEMOCRACY: CONCEPT, PROBLEMS

O. V. Omelichkin

E-DEMOCRACY: CONCEPT AND PROBLEMS

O. V. Omelichkin

The article examines theoretical issues related to the use of new information technologies and the formation of e-democracy. The main problems and contradictions are analyzed. The prospects for the formation of e-democracy in Russia are considered.

The paper studies some theoretical issues related to the application of new information technologies and the formation of e-democracy. It explores the major challenges and contradictions of the process. The perspectives on the e-democracy development in Russia are subject to a detailed analysis.

Key words: information technologies, political communication, democracy, e-democracy, political participation.

Keywords: information technology, political communication, democracy, e-democracy, political participation.

IN modern conditions new information and communication technologies (ICTs) have a great influence on political life. The Internet, which forms a unified global virtual space, is of great importance. At the same time, new forms of public administration are being formed in the form of “electronic government” activities. Systems of websites of state institutions, parties and public organizations are being created. In many countries, various methods of "electronic voting" are beginning to be used. As a result, politics is becoming more penetrating, public and spectacular. New forms of political communication cannot but have a significant impact on the processes of democratization. They led to the emergence of a new phenomenon called "electronic democracy", "network democracy", etc. It opens up new opportunities for citizens to participate in politics. In modern science, these processes have received a certain theoretical understanding.

J.-A. de Condorcet and other thinkers of the past. In the second half of the 20th century, new communication theories emerged. M. McLuhan saw the most important factor in the historical process in new information technologies and argued that the dominant type of communication also determines the type of society. After the pre-literate stage of the development of civilization and the stage of written culture, an “electronic society” (or “global village”) arises, which, with the help of electronic means of communication (infocommunications), forms a new multidimensional picture of the world.

Ideas that anticipated the advent of e-democracy were expressed at different times by C. Cooley, R. Park, J. Gallup, G. Lasswell, and others. O. Toffler was one of the first to record a new political phenomenon. In his book Future Shock (1970), he wrote about the emergence of "anticipatory democracy". Its essence was that the authorities, when making political decisions, should listen to the opinion of the people regarding possible consequences proposed changes. At the same time, citizens themselves, through interested groups, on their own initiative can apply with proposals

nyami and projects for the development of the country or any institution in government bodies. Initially, this form of democracy relied on traditional media, but with the advent of new technologies, its capabilities have grown significantly.

M. Castells states the crisis of the existing liberal model of democracy. He notes the need to move from a hierarchical system of government to a decentralized and networked one based on the development of local self-government and established horizontal links between citizens and authorities, as well as the widespread use of electronic communications.

Already in the 70s. in the United States, the first experiments began to create interactive telematics systems (in the form of "electronic city meetings"). In 1993, the first official state website of the White House appeared. Since 1998, all federal authorities began to use e-mail. The first elections over the Internet were held in 2000 in Oregon. In Estonia, local elections were held using the Internet in 2005. Another voting option involves the use of "electronic ballot boxes" that can work without being connected to the electricity grid and communication infrastructure. In Brazil, such a system has been used in municipal elections since 2000.

A portal has been created in Estonia that allows citizens to submit proposals for improving public administration and legislation, and come up with new initiatives. In Iceland and New Zealand, major bills are discussed this way. Similar examples could be continued. It is no coincidence that in 2006 the Council of Europe created a special committee on e-democracy (SAIBE) - an intergovernmental body consisting of representatives of 47 states that are members of the Council of Europe, as well as other international organizations.

As a result of such innovations, direct and feedback links are established between the authorities and citizens, working online and allowing them to conduct a continuous dialogue. This contributes to the prompt discussion of public

problems and allows you to achieve support from the population for decisions made. Thus, the nature of political governance is changing, taking on an increasingly democratic form.

The idea that the information society creates new forms and mechanisms of democratic participation is being actively developed in the scientific literature. R. Dahl wrote that interactive telecommunications systems help reduce the gap between the elite and the people, allow any citizen to ask questions and get easily accessible information about public problems in a form suitable for him. They "allow citizens to engage in discussions with experts, with political decision-makers and with ordinary compatriots" . Such democracy provides new channels of interaction between political subjects, expands the political audience and opens up new opportunities for informing and self-organizing people.

We consider e-democracy as a form of interaction between people and authorities, in which the processes of informing and involving citizens in politics, voting, joint discussion and decision-making, control over their implementation, etc. are carried out on the basis of the latest information and communication technologies.

The concept of e-democracy is being actively developed in modern science. Experts distinguish two directions in it - direct democracy (democracy of participation) and communitarian democracy. The first direction is represented by I. Masuda and B. Barber, who note the increased importance of direct participation of citizens in politics and the management of public affairs through new information channels. As a result, the political representation of professionals, officials and experts will gradually be overcome. Supporters of the communitarian approach (A. Etzioni, H. Reingold) note that various groups, associations, citizens interact in the electronic space, discuss and make decisions on a wide range of issues without the participation of professional intermediaries.

At the same time, some scholars speak of a qualitatively new stage in the development of democracy, indicating a kind of return to direct democracy with its absence of intermediaries represented by elected representatives, political parties and other structures. The introduction of new information technologies leads to the onset of the third (previously ancient and representative) era of democracy (L. Grossman).

It should be emphasized that the growing globalization of the modern world leaves a huge imprint on the democratic configuration of information networks. It weakens the control of nation-states over communication sources and promotes the wide and unhindered dissemination of political ideas and democratic experience.

However, many scientists believe that these changes affect only the technical possibilities of accelerating information processes and the provision of services, leaving the old social ties and relationships. The nature of power and political control does not change. The low level of political

civic culture and activity of citizens can devalue the full potential of the latest information technologies.

In this regard, experts note that new technologies have significant opportunities for manipulating public consciousness. Disinformation and lies penetrate any electronic networks.

They express the interests of very different political forces that control these channels. Newest technical means can also be used for anti-state terrorist activities.

This circumstance makes us doubt the democratic nature of the emerging information society. The Italian specialist D. Zolo speaks about the utopian nature of the very idea of ​​e-democracy. Availability of new interactive communication technologies (teleconferences, polling systems public opinion, automated programs feedback, bilateral cable TV etc.), allowing for constant public consultation and instant referendums, did not lead to the creation of a true democracy. The fact is that professional agencies engaged in the field of communication, for the most part, work for profit and are guided by the interests of the ruling circles represented by large companies and state bureaucracy. Therefore, they consistently hush up (or “talk out”) the most controversial social problems and stifle political innovation. This is also hampered by the growing specialization of political functions and the extreme lack of time and attention inherent in modern society. The continuous increase in the volume (redundancy) of transmitted information and the uncontrollability of processes lead to disorientation and apathy in relation to traditional collective forms of political participation and, accordingly, to the withdrawal of individuals into the sphere of private life. The author calls this effect "an intoxicating dysfunction" that replaces personal responsibility and participation.

Political practice shows that in a democratic society, political associations, organizations and other structures that usually act as intermediaries still enjoy great influence and actively use electronic means for your purposes. In addition, the technological systems themselves are the same social structures, as well as political institutions, and their activities are controlled and regulated by the state. The leading role in democracy continues to be played by various social groups and individuals who use them.

Therefore, state and public control over the mass media and the activities of the "invisible" political power is necessary. Only then the Internet and other information technologies can play an important role in the formation of democratic mechanisms of political participation.

At the same time, in modern conditions there is a noticeable reduction in direct forms of political participation. The number of political associations is decreasing. Periodically, the activity of people in the elections falls. At the same time, there is an expansion of symbolic forms of participation through the media. People become interested

observers of political events, connecting the need for knowledge and orientation in public politics with entertainment and organizing their own leisure. Such participation can result both in new forms of information exchange and self-organization of citizens, and in the imitation of democratic forums.

At the same time, it becomes obvious that, in general, ICT contribute to an increase in the level of political activity of the masses, involvement in politics of new social strata and groups (especially young people or the population of remote areas), their accelerated mobilization during political campaigns, equal participation of citizens in the discussion and making responsible decisions. , collective control over the organs of the state. They expand the political space by virtualizing and doubling it.

At the same time, it is necessary to distinguish between the concepts of "electronic democracy" and "electronic government". Following other experts, we believe that the latter ensures efficiency and convenience in the provision of services to citizens by state institutions, informing them about the most important events. The democratic quality of the system is associated with additional opportunities in holding elections and personal participation of citizens in the discussion and adoption of political decisions. As a result, people get the opportunity not only to communicate their proposals and demands, but to control and partly direct the activities of public authorities.

The basic principles of e-democracy are enshrined in such an important international document as the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe CM/JEU(2009)1 on e-democracy. The Appendix to them defines the main directions and standards in its development.

Briefly, they look like this:

The main goal of e-democracy is to support democracy and strengthen democratic institutions and processes.

It complements and interacts with traditional processes.

It is based on the democratic, human and cultural values ​​of society.

It is the realization of power in electronic form and includes informal politics and non-governmental actors.

E-democracy implements fundamental freedoms, including freedom of information and access to it, human and minority rights.

It ensures the expansion of political debate and the improvement of the quality of decisions made at all levels of government.

It can be used in various types democracy and at different stages of democratic development.

The goals and principles of e-democracy are transparency, accountability, responsibility, involvement, discussion, inclusiveness, accessibility, participation, subsidiarity, trust, social cohesion.

The media and other open sources play a key role in it. electronic platforms for public debate.

E-democracy is an integral part of the information society.

It is based on the following concepts: awareness, broad citizenship, participation, empowerment, inclusion, discussion.

It brings decision makers and citizens together in policy making, promoting social inclusion and community stability.

E-democracy enhances the international and global nature of politics and facilitates cross-border cooperation.

In general, e-democracy ensures that the opinions and proposals of the population and organizations are taken into account in the process of making political decisions and administration. It promotes the involvement of citizens in the political process in new, simpler and more accessible forms. Authorities directly interact with the people, their activities become open and effective on the basis of accelerating all procedures for discussing and making managerial decisions and the provision of public services. The goal of such a democracy is to optimize the activities of political institutions by eliminating unnecessary intermediary structures and information barriers, as well as direct and active political participation of the people in public affairs.

As part of this process, social media free political communication and cooperation and wide dissemination of any information and projects. On this basis, new social network political movements are formed, which gradually replace traditional parties and public organizations in the eyes of the audience. For "implicit" communities and interest groups, such movements can become convenient form political organization and education, coordination of collective actions that ensure the situational mobilization of citizens and the development of political goals that unite them. They are characterized by the presence of many opinion leaders and the existing levels of information interaction. At the same time, all members of the network community remain independent and independent of any structures, voluntarily enter into political unions and assume any responsibility, guided by their own ideas and beliefs. Thus, the political configuration of society takes the form of a set of autonomous agencies and associations.

In Russia, there are all the prerequisites for the development of an electronic political space. Even now, the country ranks first in Europe and sixth in the world in terms of the number of Internet users. The total number of users is about 70 million people. The Internet is becoming the second most important source of news about events in the country and in the world after television. According to VTsIOM data (March 2013), the share of Internet users is 67% of the population, and 41% of them do it daily. Among those surveyed, 53% expressed confidence that the development of the Internet is beneficial to our society. It provides quick access to information and expands the possibilities for communication. However, 24% see more harm in this, because, in their opinion, this space is filled with “empty”, harmful information and negatively affects young people (“zombie”, stupidity) .

At the same time, the overwhelming majority of Russians agree that there are indeed many dangerous sites and materials on the Internet, and therefore it is necessary to introduce censorship and limit access to it for teenagers.

In July 2013, the Public Opinion Foundation conducted a study to find out how widespread civic initiatives are on the Internet. It turned out that among those who visit the Internet at least once a month, 15% of the respondents showed civic activity. At the same time, over the past six months - a year they had to do the following on the Internet: speak out on social and political problems on blogs, social networks, news sites - 6%, visit the websites of parties, public (non-profit) organizations, political leaders - 5%, donate money in charitable foundations, unfamiliar needy people -4%, participate in Internet voting on political issues - 2%, post information about local problems on centralized services (for example, a garbage dump, a broken playground, etc.) -2%, join groups parties/political leaders in social networks - 1%, disseminate information about public and political problems and events - 1%, join groups of public (non-profit) organizations, initiatives to solve public problems and help those in need of social

networks - 1%, sign petitions, bills, appeals on the Internet - 1%, participate in public examination of bills - 1%. Among active users, these figures are significantly higher. At the same time, 81% of respondents did not do any of the above.

It is obvious that political activity is still typical of a small part of Internet users. However, the study showed that people who show high civic activity on the Internet are more ready than others to unite for joint actions, tend to trust people from their environment. They are more likely to express their readiness to organize and participate in social events, as well as to donate money to various social projects.

E-democracy provides the population with various public services and information about the activities of relevant institutions, allows citizens to participate in the discussion of socially significant problems and the adoption of important decisions, in monitoring their implementation. Its main mechanisms are electronic voting, polls, online network communication, appeals and proposals of citizens, the formation of communicative communities and the organization of their activities. All this should contribute to the development of self-governing principles in public life and the implementation in new forms of the main civil rights and freedom.

e-democracy. Principles of technology implementation in democratic process

Electronic democracy

The world of the 21st century is electronic and mobile. At the end of the last century, trends towards the digitization of society were clearly visible. Therefore, it is not surprising that this digital trend should affect many other facets of life. Concepts electronic control, e-democracy and e-participation discussed and implemented in a variety of ways as there is a growing need for participation in the political decision-making process. Indeed, the Internet can be seen as an opportunity to bridge the gap between the rulers and the ruled. In a sense, institutions have been unable to take advantage of new technologies.

Today, e-democracy is still in its infancy. It seems that websites with political information appeared only a few years ago. The same can be said about the development of the first e-democracy tools for e-forums and e-voting; the focus was on using 20th century political methods along with 21st century technology. Web 2.0 offers capabilities such as conflict resolution and other group decision-making tools and technologies that can be used to radically transform and expand democracy through technology. Perhaps most of the technology required to support the features included in the participation tools is already available.

It is not only a wide range of government institutions that are placing ICT at the forefront of their strategies for change: other organizations and groups are increasingly using the Internet for campaigning and debate. E-democracy can bring about change for the better and is not always managed or controlled by the government.

One way to increase the impact of e-democracy on the democratic process is to identify the contexts in which many of its goals are achieved and where missing details can be obtained. These missing details are more likely to become links than the sites themselves: the network provided by the Internet is the most important engine of e-democracy. When it is recognized that various people and organizations also promote, create and control democracy, more Internet sites that support e-participation (even if the term is not mentioned there) will be recognized. The challenge will be how best to support them with quality information, as well as to convey to politicians their experience and the results of their activities.

E-democracy does not lead to a different type of democracy than the type that exists where it is implemented. From a fundamental point of view, e-democracy is not intended to change democracy or the type of democracy that exists in the place where it is implemented. The methods of e-democracy and e-participation can be classified in different ways. In most cases, a three-tier classification is used, for example, according to the degree of interaction and the binding force of the result (information - communication - transmission), or the degree of participation (information - communication - participation). Some suggest a four-tier classification (eg information - consultation - cooperation - joint determination/decision making, or more related to e-government: information - one-way response - two-way response - full electronic case processing). E-democracy does not promote any particular type of democracy. E-democracy, for example, is not intended to promote direct democracy. The purpose of e-democracy is to facilitate democratic processes, not to promote any particular type of democracy.

The main purpose of e-democracy is not to force people to use technology: it is to use technology to improve democratic governance and participation. E-democracy must be driven by the demands of democracy, not technology. Neither ICTs themselves nor enhanced or improved technologies in and of themselves automatically contribute to the support or strengthening of democracy, democratic institutions and processes. Agreed democratic and human values ​​and ethical considerations are inseparable parts of the technological aspects of e-democracy. The choice of instruments reflects not only the course of policy, but also the implementation of values ​​and ethical considerations. In addition to their function of sharing and disseminating information, ICTs also have the ability and vocation to improve the process of realizing human rights.

There are several reasons for the introduction of technology into the democratic process: for example, a decrease in the turnout in elections, a lack of interest in politics among young people, a decrease in the level of legitimacy, and a gap between politicians/state authorities and citizens. However, technology should never be the reason for implementing e-democracy. Technology can be used to address these current challenges facing democracy. E-solutions to these problems include e-participation, e-parliament, e-petitions and e-consultation.

The Internet of the future will not be what it is today. IN currently Web 2.0 is widely used, but Web 3.0 is already being developed. The term "Web 2.0" is used to describe Internet applications designed to enhance creativity, information sharing and collaboration. New technologies and tools include user-generated content, social media, social e-commerce, semantic web capabilities, web-based employee engagement, personal publishing, and community journalism. Some of the Web 2.0 applications are very successful (Facebook, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube). Wikipedia demonstrates how citizens can collaborate in content creation and knowledge sharing through grassroots collaboration and employee engagement. An important issue related to Web 2.0 is what e-government and e-democracy can learn from social media and how public authorities can take advantage of this. new way cooperation and information exchange.

E-democracy: world experience

The creation of new forms of interaction between the state and citizens using information and communication technologies (ICT) is not a new idea, known since the 1970s, when the possibilities of cable networks began to be used to increase the activity of citizens in elections. The 1980s saw a number of experiments with e-voting and online discussions, but it was not until the early 2000s, with the development of the Internet, that there was significant interest in using ICTs to promote democracy.

One of the pioneers in the field of e-democracy is Estonia, which in 2005 was the first in the world to hold local elections using Internet voting. In 2007, electronic voting was already used in the elections to the Estonian Parliament. And if in 2005 only about 2% of Estonian voters voted on the Internet, in the 2011 parliamentary elections this figure reached 24%.

Another example from Estonia is the “Today I Decide” (“Täna Otsustan Mina” (TOM), or “Today I Decide” (TID) project, initiated in 2001 (there is also a TID+ project that accumulates the experience of the TID project). is to create a portal that provides citizens with the opportunity to openly express their proposals for improving public administration and the legislative system and discuss new initiatives affecting various areas of society. main task The project should be more active participation of voters in the formation of public policy and the removal of barriers between society and the state.

The same ideas formed the basis of the Estonian E-Citizen project, which created two electronic resource: Information Portal and Citizen Portal. Portals operated by the Department of State information system Estonia, open the door to the "e-state", informing citizens about their rights and obligations and providing access to electronic services, databases, a virtual office, and so on.If in 2005 about 2% of Estonian voters voted online, in the 2011 parliamentary elections this figure reached 24%.

In Iceland, information and communication technologies are also being used for a wide discussion of socially important issues. According to the latest estimates, 97.8% of Icelanders use the Internet. One of the most enlightening examples from the experience of this country is the collective discussion of the draft Constitution on social networks: the website of the Constitutional Council received 3600 comments and more than 300 official proposals. Taking them into account, the draft basic law of the state was presented to the parliament and the public.

Many ordinary citizens, seemingly far from state administration and lawmaking, showed activity in the discussion of the draft Constitution. At the same time, some experts and representatives of higher educational institutions were very passive. According to one of the representatives of the Constitutional Council of Iceland, the main lesson of the experiment is that truly positive results can only be expected when the authorities listen to the opinion of citizens.

Another interesting example of the implementation of e-democracy mechanisms can be seen in New Zealand with the revision of the police law, which has been in force since 1958. In 2007, a wiki version of the bill was brought to public attention. As a result of the experiment, 234 proposals were received and taken into account, which formed the basis of the new document. According to experts, the participation of citizens has become one of the key aspects in the process of drafting the law.

The functioning of e-democracy mechanisms is directly related to the issues of "e-participation" (e-participation), which Professor Ann McIntosh defined as "the use of ICTs to increase the degree of political participation by enabling citizens to interact with each other, as well as with elected representatives." South Korea is one of the leaders in the field of e-participation, according to the recent UN report "E-Government 2012: E-Government for the People". Since 1995, the Ministry of Information and Communications of this country has committed significant resources to the development of the Internet. In 2000, most South Korean citizens had access to the World Wide Web, and a number of politicians had their own web pages. New websites quickly appeared, instantly filled with political discussions. The result was a sharp increase in political activity on the Internet. key point In the development of e-democracy in South Korea, the presidential elections of 2002 began: according to analysts, Ro Moo-hyun's victory was largely due to the support of the Internet community organized by the candidate's supporters on the website www.nosamo.org and numbering about 47,000 participants.

A revolution in the virtual world often has serious influence to the real world: suffice it to recall the revolution in Tunisia, which led to the overthrow of President Ben Ali, who created a police state and suppressed any protest actions. Despite certain achievements of his regime in the economic sphere, a significant number of Tunisian citizens opposed the authoritarian course, and social networks became the main platform for protest. It was they who allowed opposition-minded citizens to convey to the world information about the events that were carefully hidden by the authorities. Facebook and Twitter have become platforms for the free exchange of opinions and the coordination of the protest movement.

The Internet is often targeted by authoritarian regimes. For example, the Iranian authorities have repeatedly blocked access to Gmail e-mail (the last time this measure was presented as a "response" to the screening of the movie "Innocence of Muslims"). According to official explanations, e-mail services do not comply with the laws of the Islamic Republic. Currently, Iranian government agencies are actively developing their own analogue of the Internet.

Internet freedom is significantly limited in China, Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Vietnam. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) has a mixed picture: on the one hand, this country is considered one of the leaders in the development of e-government and has a high score in e-decision making (100% in the UN ranking). The government website www.government.ae allows citizens to ask questions, participate in discussions and express their opinions on a range of issues of public interest. On the other hand, the mechanisms of e-democracy in the UAE coexist well with authoritarian tendencies: it is strange to hear, for example, about achievements in the field of e-democracy and at the same time about state intervention in all spheres of public life, the closure of offices of foreign organizations, persecution and arrests of dissenters.

It sets out recommendations, principles and guidelines on e-democracy, which are intended to apply in the context of e-democracy the principles of democracy and human rights, as established, inter alia, in documents of the Council of Europe and other international instruments. The recommendation is complemented by a series of indicative guidelines offered as additional suggestions for possible action.

Recommendation CM/REC(2009)1 uses the terms "democracy", "democratic institutions" and "democratic processes". The concept of democracy reflects two principles of democracy. The first is that all participants enjoy generally recognized freedoms. Democratic institutions, including NGOs, are essential because democracy is not limited to periodic elections; and therefore institutions are needed to support and defend democracy. Democratic processes consist in the ways in which decisions are made within these institutions and the protection of democratic rights.

E-democracy includes everything that is democracy and is not only about technology. Therefore, the evolution of e-democracy through improved technologies should be taken as a basis and used in accordance with the principles of democratic governance and practice. E-democracy and its tools are presented in the Recommendation as additional opportunities for democracy; at the same time, there are neither elements of their promotion, nor obstacles to their application

The CM/REC(2009)1 recommendation on e-democracy represents the first serious international document describing e-democracy in its entirety. Thus, this is only the first step taken by an international (intergovernmental) organization in presenting and describing e-democracy and setting appropriate standards. It is proposed to further work in specific areas of e-democracy. The Council of Europe, among other things, will continue to work on legislative matters consultations and bottom-up e-democracy, as these are areas in which the Council of Europe has particular expertise and interest.

Principles of e-democracy

The appendix to recommendation CM/Rec(2009)1 states that when introducing e-democracy or taking steps to improve it, stakeholders should take into account the following principles of e-democracy:

P.1. As a support and reinforcement of democratic institutions and processes through ICTs, e-democracy is first and foremost about democracy. Its main goal is to support democracy electronically.

P.2. E-democracy is one of several strategies to support democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes, and to spread democratic values. It complements the traditional processes of democracy and is interconnected with them. Each process has its own merits, and none of them is universally applicable.

P.3. E-democracy is based on the democratic, human, social, ethical and cultural values ​​of the society in which it is implemented.

P.4. E-democracy is closely related to good governance, which is an efficient, effective, collaborative, transparent and accountable way of exercising power in electronic form and includes informal politics and non-governmental actors.

P.5. E-democracy must respect and realize fundamental freedoms, human and minority rights, including freedom of information and access to it.

P.6. E-democracy is an opportunity to facilitate the provision of information and discussion by increasing the activity of citizens to expand political debate and ensure an increase in the quality and legitimacy of political decisions.

P.7. E-democracy affects all sectors of democracy, all democratic institutions, all levels of government, as well as a wide range of other parties.

P.8. The stakeholders of e-democracy are all individuals and institutions involved in and benefiting from democracy.

P.9. E-democracy, like democracy, involves many and different stakeholders and requires their participation. Participating States, public authorities and their representatives are just a few of the parties that have a stake in e-democracy. Citizens, civil society and its institutions, the media and the business community are all equally necessary to develop and implement e-democracy.

P.11. Any type of participation can be achieved through e-democracy:

providing information;

communication, consultation, discussion;

interaction, empowered participation, joint development and decision making.

P.12. E-democracy can be implemented with varying degrees of sophistication, in different types of democracy and at different stages of democracy development. It is not associated with or leads to any particular type of democracy.

P.13. In particular, democracy can, through the use of new technologies, attract young people to democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes.

P.14. NGOs can both benefit from the introduction of e-democracy and provide a testing ground for e-democracy for citizens.

P.15. E-democracy can be especially useful for regions that cross state borders and cover territorial units from different countries. Their institutions and citizens who live in different countries and have a common linguistic and cultural identity can also win. It can facilitate participation and decision-making processes in international institutions.

P.16. Public authorities can benefit from discussions and initiatives regarding e-democracy activities carried out by civil society, as well as cooperation in this area with civil society.

P.17. The goals of e-democracy, which are similar to those of good governance, are transparency, accountability, accountability, inclusion, discussion, inclusiveness, accessibility, participation, subsidiarity, trust in democracy, democratic institutions and democratic processes, and social cohesion.

P.18. Trust is extremely important for any type of e-democracy at all stages and phases. It is closely related to accessibility, transparency and accountability.

P.19. E-democracy helps to increase the level of participation of individuals and groups, allows those whose voices are heard less often or in a quieter voice to express their views, and promotes equal participation. It can lead to more collective forms of decision-making and democracy.

P.20. E-democracy is about supporting and strengthening democratic participation; it covers sectors of e-democracy where civil society and businesses are involved in formal and informal programming, and decision-making.

P.21. E-democracy by itself does not cover the constitutional and other duties and responsibilities of decision makers; it can provide them with additional benefits.

P.22. E-democracy requires information, dialogue, communication, discussion and the continuous creation of open public spaces where citizens can gather to advance their civic interests.

P.23. The media play a key role in e-democracy; among other things, they offer a platform where citizens can take part in public debate and defend their interests in the public sphere.

P.24. New Media and Suppliers electronic services improve the quality of access to information, thereby providing people with a better basis for participating in democracy.

P.25. E-democracy is an integral part of the information society, bringing with it a number of traditional and innovative tools that can be successfully applied in democratic processes and institutions.

P.26. Access to a new information and communication environment can facilitate the process of realizing democratic rights and freedoms, in particular, to participate in public life and democratic processes.

P.27. If e-democracy is to be designed properly, it must be based on the following concepts:

active provision of a comprehensive, balanced and objective information designed to help the public understand the problems, alternatives, opportunities and/or solutions to democratic problems; this concept is closely related to freedom of information and freedom of speech;

a broad understanding of citizenship, embracing individuals and groups of individuals who permanently reside and are integrated into political reality, regardless of nationality;

civic participation - that is, the involvement of citizens and groups of citizens, such as interest groups, corporations, associations and non-profit organizations(NPOs) into public affairs so that they can influence and improve the quality and acceptability of the results of democratic processes;

empowerment – ​​in particular, strategies and measures to support civil rights and provide resources for participation;

inclusion - that is, the political and technological arming of citizens, regardless of age, gender, education, socio-economic status, language, special needs and place of residence; such inclusion requires the ability to use electronic tools (knowledge, e-skills, e-readiness), available and accessible tools, and a combination of electronic and non-electronic approaches;

discussion - in particular, rational debate on an equal footing, where people publicly discuss, approve and criticize each other's points of view in the course of meaningful, polite discussion of the issue and the action required in relation to it.

P.28. E-democracy can lead to a form of democracy that all stakeholders can view, observe, access and interact with from anywhere.

P.29. E-democracy has the potential to bring decision makers and citizens together in new forms of engagement and policy development. On the one hand, this can lead to a better understanding of public opinion and the needs of the people by decision makers, on the other hand, to a better understanding by the public of the tasks and difficulties faced by responsible persons. This will provide citizens with more effective definition democratic system and a higher level of respect and trust in democracy.

P.30. Since e-democracy opens up new channels for information, communication, discussion and participation and increases transparency and accountability, it has the potential to address shortcomings in democratic institutions and processes.

P.31. E-democracy has great potential for community building, including community building among and with minorities.

P.32. By offering a means of limiting the degree of exclusion, e-democracy can enhance social inclusion and social cohesion, thereby contributing to social stability.

P.33. E-democracy has the potential to further enhance the European, international and global nature of politics and to facilitate the cross-border cooperation that it entails.

P.34. E-democracy requires interdisciplinary and cross-border research.

E-democracy in Russia: official version

In Russia, the development of the information society and e-democracy, at first glance, is going very well: in terms of the number of Internet users, the country has taken first place in Europe and sixth in the world. The Internet audience in Russia continues to grow and, according to the Ministry of Communications of the Russian Federation at the beginning of 2012, amounted to 70 million people. According to the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion (VTsIOM), 60% of Russians use the Internet today, and 40% go online every day.

In April 2012, the Ministry of Telecom and Mass Communications published the draft " Concepts for the development of e-democracy mechanisms in the Russian Federation until 2020”, and already in May, at the first federal congress on e-democracy, the ministry presented a new tool for Internet interaction between citizens and the state: the Unified Portal of E-Democracy of the Russian Federation. As conceived by the creators, the Single Portal will provide not only the government, but also individual citizens and organizations with the opportunity to “create, discuss, support and publicly place their appeals with their subsequent sending to departments and authorities, inform authorities about emerging problems, make suggestions and initiatives ".

At the same time, the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation, represented by Deputy Minister Oleg Fomichev, proposed the creation of the Russian Public Initiative portal. According to representatives of the department, the idea of ​​the project arose thanks to the same pre-election article by Putin. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, the portal will become "a unique specialized Internet resource for public promotion and discussion of civil legislative initiatives" and will serve to introduce the mechanisms of e-democracy.

At the end of June 2012, the Office for the Application of Information Technologies and the Development of Electronic Democracy was created in the structure of the Presidential Administration of the Russian Federation, headed by the former Minister of Telecom and Mass Communications Igor Shchegolev. His former deputy, Ilya Massukh, became the founder of the Information Democracy Foundation, whose main task is to translate the virtual communication of citizens with the authorities into a real one. “The Foundation was created to promote all the good things that are on the Internet, to support regional projects,” Massukh said at the first meeting of the Information Democracy Foundation's expert club. “We have to show the citizens how the clique generates this or that action of the authorities.” One of the Fund's key projects is the Russian Public Initiative, which is an alternative version of the project of the same name by the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation.

The abundance of official initiatives creates the impression that, despite some difficulties, Russian e-democracy, under the strict guidance of the authorities, will soon lead the country to the democratization of political life (Ilya Massukh himself wrote about this, for example). However, upon closer examination, the "purity of intentions" of the Russian authorities is called into question.

So, while still in his former position as Minister of Telecom and Mass Communications, Shchegolev spoke about his vision of the “electronic democracy” project as follows: “This is a rather promising project, because it works according to the outsourcing model. When we can use analytical mechanisms to see which areas of work cause the greatest number of claims, then it will be possible to evaluate the work of individual departments, and individual bodies, and individual leaders.” From his words, it turns out that main goal e-democracy is not the expansion of citizens' participation in the exercise of power, but their participation in the optimization of the state machine. The interests of citizens are a secondary matter.