[LINK] Australian E-government Case Studies

[rchirgwin at ozemail.com.au]

Tom Worthington wrote:

> If e-democracy is going to happen it will have to be despite the 
> existing political processes, or as a gradual evolution. I prefer 
> gradual evolution. As an example it is now routine for government 
> reports to be made available on-line. This was done gradually, but is 
> a significant step to e-democracy.

Why is "in spite of" an imperative, Tom?


Let's see. Imagine that "e-democracy" is, a priori, valid as a 
distinction; which I don't necessarily acknowledge. Does this set it in 
necessary opposition to "non-e" democracy? There are too many implicit 
definitions - I have to swallow that:
a) "Democracy" = "current process"
b) Current process is inadequate
c) "E-democracy" addresses the shortcomings in current process
- and a lot of other assumptions which don't bear critical examination.

I prefer to think that the contribution of "live and online" activities 
is an improvement to democracy, rather than in opposition to it. Which, 
I think, puts me in the "gradual evolution" camp, as you are.

I guess the point I am labouriously making is that radical revision 
seldom produces improvements in democracy. And democracy has never 
itself produced the more important outcome of personal liberty. Liberty 
stands on two legs: democracy and impartial law. The most perfect 
democracy, without law, is merely an oppressive majority.

RC