Egm report e-Government and New Technologies: Towards Better Citizen

 

Moderator: Vyacheslav Cherkasov, DPADM/DESA 

Panelists: 

•  Mr. Jovan Kurbalija, Founding Director, Diplo Foundation, “Can Web 2.0 

facilitate Global Governance 2.0?” (Switzerland) 

•  Mr. Jorge Alonso Estrada, Chief Advisor, Government of Mexico, 

Secretariat of Communications and Transportation,  “A citizen-driven digital 

agenda: e-Mexico technological platform 2010-2012” (Mexico) 

•  Dr. K. Jayakumar, Joint Secretary (Admin), Council of Scientific and 

Industrial Research, Ministry of Science and Technology, “Building 

Institutional Capacities for a purposive transformative change to support e-governance 

initiatives” (India)  

•  Dr. Rowena G. Bethel, Legal Advisor, Ministry of Finance (Bahamas) 

•  Ms. Viola Krebs, “Citizen engagement through cybervolunteerism: the example of 

E.TIC.net in Senegal and Mali” 

---

e-Government and New Technologies: Towards better citizen engagement for development 

4

 

 

 

Dr. Jayakumar as well as the other expert presenters believe the challenge that is most 

often faced by governments is in accomplishing institutional transformations which ensures, 

(i) building systems and capacities in government agencies that will result in renewed 

processes, enhanced agility, improved quality of responsiveness and services to citizens, while 

such perspectives are internalized within such organizations as learnt behaviors; (ii) 

institutionalization of ingenious strategies, productive methods, progressive practices for 

persistent problem solving and for guaranteeing results; (iii) executing continuous 

improvements in government systems, policies, practices aligned with citizens’ needs and 

stakeholder expectations and (iv) pursuing and implementing participative, inclusive methods 

to engage and leverage purposive relationships with citizens and stakeholders with a view to 

enhance the organizations’ capacity to deliver and improve the quality of results.  

The lessons from implementing e-governance initiatives need to progressively lead to 

evolving frameworks, models, guidelines and recommended practices that can help in 

resolving innumerable issues relating to strategies, models, design of interventions, 

mechanisms, approaches, standards and guidelines. Effective results and impact from e-

government initiatives will require appropriate goal setting, creation of ownerships, building 

of leadership at all levels, transforming systems for delivering results, clarity in roles, 

responsibilities, optimal deployment of resources, incentivizing returns, change control, 

advocacy, stakeholder engagement, and assessment of quality of outcomes for required 

corrections

2

.  

The expert presenters discussed the need to narrow the digital divide through a variety of 

measures that includes leveraging infrastructure to be more accessible to citizens, developing 

and nurturing the human resources to design, develop and operate the new digital 

infrastructure. They went on to discuss the need for encouraging and building better systems 

that provide for greater citizen participation, and to create new information systems and 

solutions that provide safe and practical experiences. Other mechanisms include creating more 

public-private partnerships, renewing business process and re-engineering and expanding 

service delivery channels. All of this will require a renewed commitment to strategic vision 

and leadership for improved e-government services.  

Ms. Viola Krebs, director of ICVolunteers (ICV) provided some excellent examples and 

case studies of how citizen engagement programmes are working in Senegal and Mali through 

the use of new technologies aimed at helping the very poorest of citizens, farmers, herders, 

and fishermen be able to compete and sell their products. These key economic functions 

comprise the essential pillar of success of African nations. These challenges have been 

magnified due to the high rate of illiteracy, lack of available power sources, and many have 

never touched a computer. Nevertheless, the ICV has worked with the local population in 

                                                 

2

 Abstract: “Building Institutional Capacities for a Purposive Transformative Change to Support e-

government Initiatives, Dr. K. Jayakumar, May 2010. 

---

e-Government and New Technologies: Towards better citizen engagement for development 

5

 

 

 

helping them first identify key areas of economic concern and then studied ways of best 

reaching and engaging citizens.  

It was essential for the local population see the benefits of selling their products through 

the use of technologies as well as using the same technologies to gain a better education on 

how the latest methods for fishing, farming, and herding.  

The success of this case study can be owed in part to excellent field action research 

coupled with sound planning that utilizes many different electronic and print offerings.  

This includes websites, community radio, written press, mobile phones – some using 

SMS, and creating telecenters to best reach citizens.  

Throughout the expert panel presentations and discussions there were many references to 

e-government and the need for increased citizen engagement strategies. Some government 

ministers embraced the concept yet others felt their governments were totally unprepared for 

true citizen engagement activities. Professor Wojeich Cellary presented a challenging 

proposition regarding the limits of citizen engagement and managing expectations. It wasn’t 

long ago when a community was defined by geographic boundaries and specific groups of 

people who might even know one another. Taken to the next level governments were 

essentially required to seek solutions to problems of a certain community. When a community 

was small as in a territory, communication was made easier, more frequent, and perhaps 

richer. More frequent communication usually equated to stronger relationships.  

With the advent of the Internet, we now have what Professor Cellary calls “Internet 

Communication”. With Internet communication everybody may publish his or her own 

information, including comments to information published by others. Information is available 

to everyone with access to the Internet, it can be searched individually, and this information 

leads to people interested in this information. We now have two forms of communities, one 

being “Territorial Communities” where they are impacted by the consequences of living 

together on a common territory. The other form of community is “Content Communities” 

where the communities are brought together by common content. These two communities are 

not the same, argues Professor Cellary.

3

 

                                                 

3

 Professor Cellary, “Non-Technical Aspects of Citizens Engagement in e-Government” 

---

e-Government and New Technologies: Towards better citizen engagement for development 

6

 

 

 

 

 

It is important to recognize content communities on the Internet provide their members 

the ability to learn about a variety of views and opinions from different perspectives. And, 

these same communities serve rather to exhibit people’s own opinions acquired elsewhere 

than to accept opinions of others or to unify opinions. Because opinions in an Internet 

community tend to be anonymous, members may lack the responsibility for one’s words. This 

has the possibility to of changing opinions and positions, and can include unconsidered 

contexts and unconsidered multiple aspects of a problem. There are no incentives to even 

achieve consensus and there is usually a lack of hierarchy, whereas Professor Cellary puts it 

“A word of a fool can equal the word of a sage”. 

When citizen engagement is compared to what citizens are expected to do within the 

context of e-Government, one must take into account the serious limitations of Content 

Communities. This in turn drives citizen and public administrator expectations one way or 

another. When focusing on citizen engagement via the Internet, it is necessary to take into 

account the characteristics of content communities since they do not necessarily represent the 

whole territorial community and it is much easier for them to represent negative or ill-

informed positions.  

Therefore, content communities may at best provide a government with a variety of 

partial views, but cannot exempt a government from a harmonized solution for the benefit of 

the whole territorial community. This is an important consideration in developing more 

advanced e-Government and citizen engagement systems in terms of the political 

shortcomings where technology today has yet to recognize. 

---

e-Government and New Technologies: Towards better citizen engagement for development 

7