The challenges in extending the MCDA paradigm to e-democracy
2
JOURNAL OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 12: 63–64 (2003) Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/mcda.346 Editorial The Challenges in Extending the MCDA Paradigm to e-Democracy TED’s vision is one of substantive democracy, in which people participate in societal decisions, not one of procedural democracy, in which people elect representatives to take the decisions for them. But there is no simple dichotomy here. There are many visions of substantive democracy, including the Athenian ideal, which when practised in ancient times was probably far less democratic than we imagine it. There are also many forms of procedural democracy to elect parliaments or other forms of executive. Between the many substantive and procedural democracies there are a wealth of middle grounds: for instance, ones in which individuals and stakeholder groups may participate in the discussions and processes leading up to a decision, while leaving the ultimate choice to an elected body or a statutory body answerable to an elected one. The vision that drives TED is that modern decision analytic methods embedded in web- enabled software provide the technological means to articulate substantive e-democracy. These methods are necessary for our vision to become reality, but they are very far from sufficient. At the first TED workshop, Towards Electronic Democracy}Setting Directions (Trinity College Dublin, October 25th and 26th, 2002), our discussion ranged over many issues that need be faced before any e-democratic system can be established such as: * Security}how can citizens be sure that only those with a right to interact can interact and only vote once? * Constituencies}when cyberspace knows no geographical boundaries, how do you define those who have a right to interact and to vote? * Cognitive burden}do substantive e-democracy which allow citizens not just to discuss and vote, but to explore decision models and express preferences and, perhaps, uncertainties quanti- tatively place too high a cognitive burden on many citizens, effectively disenfranchising them because they do not understand how to interact? * Accessibility}will the interface disenfranchise groups through cost, availability, sensory im- pairment, ...? * Time requirements}do citizens have time to interact substantively: voting is quick; explor- ing, debating and analysing is time consuming? * Motivation}will citizens be motivated to inter- act or will they be as disillusioned about substantive (e-)democracy as they are becoming in Western European procedural democracy? These greater demands of substantive e-democ- racy}and remember that the list above are only some examples}over our current procedural democracies mean that citizens are likely to be sufficiently motivated to interact only on decisions that matter to them: sometimes national, e.g. on GMO’s, environmental or health policy; but usually local, e.g. on whether a by-pass or a new factory should be built. Thus TED’s vision may first appear in new systems employed by regula- tory or planning agencies to involve the public and stakeholders in specific decisions. Later it may replace referendums and develop into a fuller substantive democratic system. The debates at Madrid carried some of these points forward and they are reflected in several of the papers in this issue. However, primarily TED is about how decision analytic techniques and methodologies may be used to articulate democratic societal decision making. We accept that a successful and valid e-democracy will require many socio-technical issues to be addressed: we only have sufficient resources to address some of these. Inevitably the discus- sions and debates in the following papers are partial. They are a contribution to the ongoing debates on e-democracy, albeit we hope a substantial one. There are 13 papers in the following pages. Their topics range from the theoretical to the reports of real case studies. In some cases, they explore a broad range of socio-technical perspec- tives; in others, there is a narrow focus on Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
-
Upload
simon-french -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
1
Transcript of The challenges in extending the MCDA paradigm to e-democracy
JOURNAL OF MULTI-CRITERIA DECISION ANALYSIS
J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 12: 63–64 (2003)
Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/mcda.346
Editorial
The Challenges in Extending theMCDAParadigm to e-Democracy
TED’s vision is one of substantive democracy, inwhich people participate in societal decisions, notone of procedural democracy, in which people electrepresentatives to take the decisions for them. Butthere is no simple dichotomy here. There are manyvisions of substantive democracy, including theAthenian ideal, which when practised in ancienttimes was probably far less democratic thanwe imagine it. There are also many forms ofprocedural democracy to elect parliaments orother forms of executive. Between the manysubstantive and procedural democracies there area wealth of middle grounds: for instance, ones inwhich individuals and stakeholder groups mayparticipate in the discussions and processes leadingup to a decision, while leaving the ultimate choiceto an elected body or a statutory body answerableto an elected one.
The vision that drives TED is that moderndecision analytic methods embedded in web-enabled software provide the technological meansto articulate substantive e-democracy. Thesemethods are necessary for our vision to becomereality, but they are very far from sufficient. Atthe first TED workshop, Towards ElectronicDemocracy}Setting Directions (Trinity CollegeDublin, October 25th and 26th, 2002), ourdiscussion ranged over many issues that needbe faced before any e-democratic system can beestablished such as:
* Security}how can citizens be sure that onlythose with a right to interact can interact andonly vote once?
* Constituencies}when cyberspace knows nogeographical boundaries, how do you definethose who have a right to interact and to vote?
* Cognitive burden}do substantive e-democracywhich allow citizens not just to discuss andvote, but to explore decision models and expresspreferences and, perhaps, uncertainties quanti-tatively place too high a cognitive burden onmany citizens, effectively disenfranchising thembecause they do not understand how to interact?
* Accessibility}will the interface disenfranchisegroups through cost, availability, sensory im-pairment, . . .?
* Time requirements}do citizens have time tointeract substantively: voting is quick; explor-ing, debating and analysing is time consuming?
* Motivation}will citizens be motivated to inter-act or will they be as disillusioned aboutsubstantive (e-)democracy as they are becomingin Western European procedural democracy?
These greater demands of substantive e-democ-racy}and remember that the list above are onlysome examples}over our current proceduraldemocracies mean that citizens are likely to besufficiently motivated to interact only on decisionsthat matter to them: sometimes national, e.g. onGMO’s, environmental or health policy; butusually local, e.g. on whether a by-pass or a newfactory should be built. Thus TED’s vision mayfirst appear in new systems employed by regula-tory or planning agencies to involve the public andstakeholders in specific decisions. Later it mayreplace referendums and develop into a fullersubstantive democratic system.
The debates at Madrid carried some ofthese points forward and they are reflected inseveral of the papers in this issue. However,primarily TED is about how decision analytictechniques and methodologies may be usedto articulate democratic societal decision making.We accept that a successful and valid e-democracywill require many socio-technical issues to beaddressed: we only have sufficient resourcesto address some of these. Inevitably the discus-sions and debates in the following papersare partial. They are a contribution to theongoing debates on e-democracy, albeit we hopea substantial one.
There are 13 papers in the following pages.Their topics range from the theoretical to thereports of real case studies. In some cases, theyexplore a broad range of socio-technical perspec-tives; in others, there is a narrow focus on
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
potential mathematical models which encodedemocratic ideals. Briefly:
* Bollinger and Pictet present a case study of adecision on the management of the Orbe Plainin Switzerland which faces regular flooding.They identify issues of legitimacy, power andthe need to address these in building successfulapplications of (e-)democracy.
* Geldermann and Rentz draw on their experi-ences in developing the use of the web toexchange information on environmental deci-sions to consider some of the issues facing thedevelopment of e-democracy.
* Gronlund takes us to task, pointing out that thetechnical issues of taking MCDA methods intoe-democracy may pale into insignificance whencompared with the social, behavioural andcommunication issues relating to the demo-cratic process itself.
* H.aam.aal.aainen describes the www.decisionarium.hut.fi website, which is currently the bestexemplar of web-enabled decision analytic,discussion and voting tools.
* Kracik and Karny take a normative andmathematical view of the issue of defining fairdemocratic structures which draw together theinformation provided by citizens on theirpreferences for different strategies.
* Kersten looks from a socio-technical perspectiveat user issues in designing e-democracy systems.
* Lotov discusses issues relating to the involve-ment of lay stakeholders in environmentaldecision making, describing a web-enabledMCDA tool and using as an example a casestudy of large-scale water management projectin the former USSR based on partial diversionof the flow of Northern Russian rivers into theVolga River basin.
* Moreno-Jim!eenez and Polasek look at manyissues relating to the growth of various formats
for democracy and suggest that, in addition tothese, e-democracy will need to address thecreation and diffusion of knowledge and toemphasise this they introduce a new concept ofe-cognocracy.
* Mateos, Jim!eenez and S. R!ııos-Insua present agroup decision support system which allowsthat each member gives incomplete informationon their preferences, a necessary first step fordeveloping e-democracy systems which recog-nise that citizens may provide information ontheir preferences with varying degrees of precision.
* Niculae and French argue that to substantive e-democracy systems will need to be able toexplain the principles and specifics of anyanalysis to users and that this will requiremethods derived from explanation systemsdeveloped within artificial intelligence.
* Papamichail and Robertson note that MCDAoften appears to look at the point of decision,a moment when choice is made, whereas e-democracy will necessary involve and extendedprocess of interactions, elicitations and discus-sions, proposing a process modelling methodol-ogy to support this.
* D. Rios Insua, Holgado and Moreno look toe-negotiation systems as a basis for e-democracy.
* Rosqvist revisits Keeney and Raiffa’s conceptof a supra decision maker to articulate theprocess of social decision making and exploreshow this might be used.
These papers tackle challenging issues, ones thatwe must face if we are eventually to reap thebenefits offered to democracy by modern Internettechnologies.
Guest EditorSIMON FRENCH
Manchester Business SchoolUniversity of Manchester
Booth Street West, Manchester M15 6PB, UK
Copyright # 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Multi-Crit. Decis. Anal. 12: 63–64 (2003)
EDITORIAL64
