21 May 2004

Contact Info: Vassilis Goulandris Director of Communications Tel: (+30) 210 77 80 430 vgoulandris[AT]access2democracy.org

Ladies and gentlemen, friends and colleagues,

Welcome to Athens and thank you for being here with us. Today, I have been asked to address you in my capacity as a member of the board of directors of access2democracy, a new, non-governmental organisation launched here in Greece today, but with global reach and aspirations.

Access2democracy’s chief aim to foster e-democracy. The notion of e-democracy has begun to flourish at a time when traditional politics have hit a global crisis. In many parts of the world, democratic ideals are of lower priority than the ideal of consumerism; voter turnouts are in free fall; citizens find themselves participating – only nominally – every four years while events overtake the and people define themselves in terms of what they want – not what they do.

There are several explanations for this. Behind voter apathy and the widespread loss of interest in politics lies a powerful force – globalisation. As national governments lose power, voters quite reasonably get less and less animated by the prospect of influencing their local or national government. Politics today needs to be exercised at the global level, and citizens must be able to feel that they do influence the way the world decides. Today we do not only need to think globally and act locally but to be able to act globally also.

A second reason is that we live in an era of social disengagement. Not too long ago, political debates were connected to deeply held beliefs. Today – in a very complex world – we can easily get caught yp in discussions that have more to do with the technical aspects of these complexities yet forget about the values and objectives a society may need. In a global but highly fragmented society this has the consequence of a citizen becoming apathetic or on the other hand resorting to extremism, fundamentalisms, often out of insecurity, frustration or sense of injustice.

Pessimism about politics prevails even where we least expect it. The hundreds of thousands of citizens around the world who demonstrated against the war in Iraq or the bombs in Madrid were united by their disillusionment with global capitalism and a sense of political powerlessness, rather than by a common conviction that politics could improve social equality and correct global injustices. When I demonstrated as a younger man, I remember feeling connected with those around me by a common purpose; a feeling that together we could create new institutions, new forms of government, even new types of enterprise.

Today, it seems to me that even those who bother to demonstrate lack such confidence. They use marches and slogans as opportunities for self-expression. But self-expression is not the same as collective political action. People have become alienated from the idea that they can change society in a systematic way through democratic politics.

On the other hand, there is huge potential to revitalise democracy if we can somehow persuade our citizens to become less cynical about politics. If we can harness the enthusiasm and faith of the millions of people who selflessly donate their time, energy and money to NGOs to promote a variety of good causes. Political leaders must convince these people that a better, more democratic world is possible as a result of their collective action.

Is e-democracy the solution? The optimistic answer is that, if we present citizens with the opportunity to be part of a deliberative process, enabled by information and communication technologies, they will become active participants in important public debates.

Once ordinary people have gained virtual access to the chambers of power, they will start to re-evaluate the power of democracy, and also enrich its scope through new means of direct engagement.

This will take a great deal more than a brilliant computer network linking legislators, executive and voters. Innovations in information technology are helping to improve our capacity to communicate globally.

These technological advances are a source of hope for the future of democracy around the world.

Just as printing presses gradually ushered in the Enlightenment, their modern electronic equivalent will – in due course - ensure that no-one is excluded from access to information and knowledge, which break down the barriers of prejudice and intolerance.

But this was no simple process at the time. When Union leaders in Britain saw that the printed word was a new and forceful medium for informing and mobilizing the working class they decided to use it. However very few workers could read. Therefore the unions began to teach their members to read and write. This is where the movement for adult education began.

It ended up by evolving into a mass school system as we know it today. However the mass school system was created at the time to take away the power of knowledge from the unions. To make sure that workers were socialized into a specific power relationship.

There are some very interesting analogies today.

If we are to move from citizen impotency to empowerment, from complacency to responsibility, from cynicism to optimism, from manipulation by the media to critical thinking, from fear, insecurity and withdrawal to self-confidence we need to promote the following:

Create a movement to close the digital divide and make all our citizens, around the world, technologically literate – ie. to be able to use computers and the internet.

Ex. PASOK – we are making this a high political priority putting into practice for members and friends of our party.

Reshape our schools from ones of mass and rote learning to learning to research, to analyze, to critically think about the world around us, to be able to learn individually yet act collectively.

Ensure that new technologies become more and more user friendly and accessible to the poor.

Ensure that data bases are accessible to all.

Ensure that different languages are represented.

Ensure the ‘human and democratic rights of the internet surfer’, such as privacy, protection of personal information, etc.

Ensure that electronic polls are valid and we don’t have the equivalent of ‘ballot stuffing’ etc.

To use a well known slogan we need to ensure that the people do have the power.

The problem here is not merely how to bridge the digital divide - although this is a formidable problem that must be solved if e-democracy is to be plausible. We must devise strategies for creating a global electronic demos, or e-Demos. The ancient Athenians imagined the Demos to be an active community of citizens who engaged in public deliberation about what ought to be done at the communal and state level. The point was not to stage a process whereby the rulers consult the people, but one in which the people rule. We shall therefore be in a position to speak credibly of an e-demos only when the exchange of opinions is a prelude to collectively agreed courses of action.

Posting opinions on the Internet is not tantamount to democracy. It is a useful tool of expression, but its contribution to the quality of democracy depends on what happens next. Information empowers but does not, in itself, strengthen democracy. Equal access to information stabilises and legitimises democracy; it improves the quality of opinions held by citizens. But for these opinions to become the raw materials of a democratic process, a meaningful dialogue must ensue. And we must begin to create new institutions, democratic ones, where consulting through the internet becomes a democratic right. We need further to prepare democratic decision making through this medium. This will truly revitalize our democratic institutions.

This process should become a transformative dialogue which creates common ground where there was none; a debate between responsible people who understand there are trade-offs to be negotiated; a process of deliberation which reaches policy conclusions which represent the majority’s collective will.

During the Greek EU Presidency last year, we undertook a bold experiment to test the plausibility and usefulness of e-democracy at the European level. We set up an interactive, online forum, the e-Vote, where citizens were invited to respond to questions and share their views on a range of topical issues, from the war in Iraq to immigration policy. I regularly shared the results with my colleagues in the Council of Ministers, so that ordinary people’s concerns and suggestions might influence the decision-making process.

Over 175.000 people took part in this phenomenally successful experiment. By far the most popular e-Vote was on the Iraq crisis, with over 105.000 participants using this forum as a platform for peaceful protest. This demonstrates the value of using the Internet to engage citizens in issues of topical and global relevance. If people feel they have a direct stake in the issues, and a real sense of how their voice can affect political decisions, they will actively seek to assert their views. Indeed, over 70% of participants in the e-Vote characterised the development of such a forum at European Union level as an excellent idea. About 70% of respondents said they would make frequent use of such a forum in the future.

Inspired by the success of the e-Vote, access2democracy was conceived as an NGO whose aim is to foster democracy where it is absent; to strengthen democracy where it is already practised; and to enhance access to democracy’s benefits for those who have the least, at the local, national and global levels. Access2democracy is committed to seeking ways and means of influencing both technological innovators and political actors so that the voices of the marginalised and repressed are heard in the corridors of power. Our aim is to create interactive channels of communication linking citizens and their elected representatives, so as to overcome the deep-rooted suspicion that most people are not sophisticated enough to decide important matters of state.

This is a challenging and complex exercise. As I said earlier, apathy takes root when people feel the political process is irrelevant; that real power is covertly exercised in an economic sphere which is increasingly autonomous from politics. Democracy is Greek for people-rule. For a ruling people to become imaginable again, economic power must cease to reside outside the sphere of democratic politics. Let us not forget that the ancient Agora was at once a place of trade and of political debates. e-democracy can help bridge the divide between political and economic power using the networked computer as a tool which not only improves the efficiency of production but also democratises decision-making in political and economic life – in the global market of goods and ideas – so that each and every one of us can eventually exercise decisive authority over the world we all share.

E-democracy, thus, should not be seen as a mere technical breakthrough, ensuring that citizens preferences are tallied through information and communication technologies. Ensuring citizen empowerment and nurturing an electronic demos depends on several preconditions.

Firstly, while not a panacaea, universal access and digital literacy is a necessity; our modern democracy cannot function effectively if we don't combat social, political and cultural exclusion, and is not a democracy if only the privileged few can effectively participate in its workings.

Secondly, equal representation and visibility of different viewpoints - especially those of ethnic, cultural and political minorities - is paramount, especially since our societies are becoming increasingly multicultural, heterogeneous and potentially fragmented; indeed, information technology can give a voice to oppressed and minority cultures and ensure osmosis and dialogue in our changing world.

Thirdly, effective e-democracy presumes exercising power with responsibility: as decision-making becomes increasingly dislocated and dissociated from mechanisms rooted in the physical locus of the community, or the nation state, we need to ensure that expressing one's opinion over electronic networks is not just an idle exercise of inconsequential choice, but is aligned with responsibility over people's livelihood, today and in the future.

Fourthly, contrary to an individualist view of the world, democracy can only function on the basis of collectivities, and ICTs can be a particularly effective force in ensuring the emergence, cohesiveness and creative development of new collective political actors involving engaged citizens, at the local, regional, national and transnational level.

The emergence of new tools and paradigms for political interaction and participation pose significant challenges to information and communication technology research.

Technology humanists, such as Michael Dertouzos, dreamt of information technology as a liberating, humanising power, freeing people from the chores of a limited social, cultural and political existence, and ensuring a new renaissance of creativity, participation and progress. It is evident that, in order to support such a vision of technology as empowerment, it is necessary to energize a vast arsenal of technologies, to ensure adequate knowledge representation and access to citizens engaging in their right to information, interaction and dialogue within cohesive virtual political communities, transparent and credible decision-making involving citizens, and effective control and sharing of authority by the people.

It is, also, necessary to study and promote the emergence of important new competencies, going beyond digital literacy. Finally, it requires the integration of the virtual with the real, so that digital services related with e-democracy are soundly based on the principles of accountability and responsibility, and the impact of decisions made online on people's actual lives is demonstrated.

Thank you.