This year, 195 million people are using the Web, including over 107 million in North America, over 46 million in Europe, and nearly 37 million in the Asia-Pacific region. The phenomenal growth of this new media has opened up many new opportunities for changing who gets access to politicians and governments — as well as who politicians and governments can reach with their own messages. It has been described as putting government at the fingertips of citizens, or what Bill Gates, the chairman of Microsoft describes as taking ‘government to the people’.

Technological innovations could indeed bring government and politicians closer to the people, but with what effect? While many fear that change could undermine democratic institutions and processes, there seems to be a growing chorus of networked citizens — called ‘netizens’ by some — who see the Internet and Web as intrinsically democratic and biased toward the empowerment of individuals in relation to large institutions, like governments.

Several prominent innovations in politics and governance illustrate contemporary trends and provide a more concrete basis for discussing their implications. However, before I describe these, I would like to place this discussion in a broader context, which I will call ...

The Politics of Tele-Access

I realize that popular conceptions of the ‘information society’ are useful in conveying the social significance of the revolution in information and communication technologies. Nevertheless, the idea of an information society fails to provide insights about the role of information and communication technologies in society, and could even be misleading, if it focuses attention on a too limited a view of information.

This revolution is not about information, but about access, or what I have called ‘tele-access’. Technology has not made information a new resource, for it has always been a critical resource. Instead, it has changed the way we gain access to information. But it is more than that. Information and communication technologies define also how we get access to other people, to services, and to technologies themselves, such as how people use the Internet to gain access to computers around the world.

Technological advances not only shape how people get access, but they also shape and reshape outcomes: what information people get access to, and when, and where, people obtain access — influencing what you know, who you know, what you consume, and what know-how you must possess.

New media can reduce, screen, and change the content and flow of information, by accident or design. Technical advances, like the Internet, can change cost structures. Think of the way the TV remote control has made it easier -- less costly -- to switch channels. This has not only influenced the way households watch television, but influenced what they watch. The living room politics of the remote control that goes on in households is a very simple and local example of how social and technical choices shape the politics of tele-access.

Also, communication technologies can expand or contract the geography of access. The Internet can enable the restructuring of networks of communication, such as creating vertical networks of one-to-many, or more horizontal networks of one-to-one, or many-to-many communication.

There are other ways that any technology can reshape tele-access. For instance, the answering machine has redistributed communicative power between senders and receivers. The Violence-chip (of V-chip) has been introduced in the US to provide parents more control over what television content is viewed in the home.

People design technologies, decide to adopt them, and how to use them. But these social choices are made more enduring through technology. Citizens of an information society need to focus on how technological change is shaping their relative power to shape access to information, communication, services, and technology. And vice versa, how is technical change reshaping the power of other actors -- friends, enemies, businesses, and governments -- to gain access to them.

In this way, all innovations in information and communication technology are political in that they influence communicative power -- the ability of different actors to control tele-access. But I would like to consider this general process in the specific context of politics. How will advances in information and communication technologies reshape tele-access in politics and governance. Most generally, will citizens be empowered?

Just as many people believe that mainframe computers of an earlier era would be a force behind the centralization of control over access, many believe that the new media of the personal computer and the Internet will create a more politically informed, active, and powerful citizen. Many believe the Internet has already democratized speech, enabling an individual or group with limited resources to reach an audience anywhere in the world.

However, many others fear that technological change could deepen inequalities in access, and further distance the public from government and politicians, rather than enhance democratic control. One need only think of how the answering machine has left many citizens on hold and unable to reach real human beings over the phone. Or, how advances in technology appears to be widening gaps between the information rich and the information poor, both within and among nations.

While this debate progresses, a growing number of political organizations and government agencies are employing the Internet and Web to change the way services are delivered and citizens interact with government and each other. Policy must anticipate and keep up with trends if freedom of expression, privacy, and equitable access to public services are to be achieved.

I would like to discuss three general areas, which I will call electronic-, or e-politics, e-government, and e-highways, that are critical to electronic democracy.

E-Politics

... refers to the use of new technologies of communication in political campaigns and elections. Television has for a long time been recognized as central to election campaigns in every advanced industrial nation. More recently, advances in new media have held out the promise of more actively engaging the public, better informing voters, and providing access to candidates and causes that get little, if any, exposure on TV. In fact, throughout the last few decades, most of the proponents of new media have sought to counter the impact of television.

Many uses of new media have become elements of campaigns at all levels, including direct mail, opinion polling, interactive town hall meetings, e-mail, and the Web, with most candidates now setting up their own Web sites.

In the 1996 elections, the Internet played a largely symbolic role in helping to identify the candidate as up-to-date and technologically youthful. Campaigns could develop some presence on the new media at a relatively low cost, compared to TV, but the major campaigns did not place a real priority on the new media, largely because of its limited reach. It is likely to play a more significant role in the 2000 elections.

To illustrate, I would like to focus on two areas of development: electronic voter guides, and Web-based, grassroots campaigns. Let me begin with ...

Electronic Voter Guides: The Democracy Network

A variety of electronic voter guides have emerged in the US. There are official government electronic voter guides. For example, there are 21 initiatives that will be placed on the ballot for California voters to decide. Among the 21 are propositions on same-sex marriages, a measure to allow people under 14 years of age to be prosecuted in adult courts for serious crimes, and a repeal of a state cigarette tax. There are too many initiatives for The Los Angeles Times newspaper to even summarize. So the newspaper refers readers to Web site of the California Secretary of State <http://www.ss.ca.gov>.

Also, there are Web sites that use expert systems on the Web, such as SelectSmart.com, to help voters identify the candidates whose views on the issues most closely approximate their own views.

The most promising electronic voter guide is The Democracy Network (DNet), which my colleagues and I have been studying for several years. Launched in the summer of 1996 by the Center for Governmental Studies, a not-for-profit think-tank in Los Angeles, California, DNet is a step toward its developer’s vision of the next generation of public affairs TV. Originally designed for interactive cable television, it has been redesigned for the Web <http://www.dnet.org>. This site provides issue-oriented information to voters about a fuller range of candidates and issues than covered in the mass media.

[Here I will Demo DNet for the Audience]

I have brought an example of an early prototype that will be rolled-out nationwide within a few months for the 2000 elections. You can see that it is the official voter guide for the US League of Women Voters, a powerful organization devoted to improving the quality of information available to American voters.

Voters linked to this site would first indicate their residency, in order for them to be presented with the campaigns of relevance to their jurisdiction. Let’s say I am from Sussex County in New Jersey. I’d then be presented all the offices being contested.

I am interested in the election for governor. Clicking on the governor’s race, I see the candidates running for office — Scarecrow, Tin Man, and Dorothy Gale. (Remember this is a prototype.) Let’s find out more about Dorothy Gale.

I can read her biography, find out how to contact her, and see her calendar so that I could possibly attend a campaign event in my community. She has an endorsement from Glenda, the Good Witch, which I could hear.

Now I’d like to know who is contributing to her campaign. Here DNet has created a link to The Center for Responsive Politics, which collects and summarizes campaign finance reports submitted by candidates.

How does she stand on the issues? What are the issues in this election? To answer this, we could go to the Candidate Grid — or an issue grid — where we see there are four issues raised. You can see that Dorothy has stated her position on the issue of ‘disaster relief’, which we can read by clicking on the appropriate cell.

Dorothy thinks ‘magical or unusual circumstances’ should be added to the list of disasters that merit relief from the state. But what do the other candidates say about each other’s position on this issue? Let’s compare the Tin Man and Scarecrow.

Tin Man thinks the Scarecrow shows little compassion, while Scarecrow accuses Tin Man of thinking with his heart, not his head. Notice that I could see any video either candidate may have downloaded, an audio file, or see these statements in Spanish. Let’s look at Scarecrow’s video rebuttal.

Back to the issue grid, you’ll notice that Dorothy is shown to have taken no position on the issue of a ‘flower shortage’. Imagine I was her campaign manager, and wished to enter a statement. I would go to a remote updating system.

Here I could edit her biography, add or edit an endorsement, up-date the candidate’s calendar, or add a statement or rebuttal. Let’s add a statement on the flower shortage.

I will say: ‘We must obtain more flowers at any cost.’ Now when I go back to the issue grid, you can see that Dorothy is at the top, because she most recently up-dated an issue, and she is shown to have made a statement on the issue of a flower shortage.

DNet has ordered the issues alphabetically in the past, but has a plan for allowing voters to rate the importance of issues so that they will shape the order in which they are presented. This is important because our research found that users tend to surf the Internet, including election guides, often reading or looking at only a few pages. In the last California election for governor, DNet’s issue grid covered 31 issues with statements by 17 candidates.

Finally, DNet has a link to another site, called Public Agenda, where voters can learn more about the issues of the campaign, such as education. We can discuss this later, but I will make a few preliminary observations.

First, our study of the use of DNet in the 1998 governors’ race in California suggested that the site does generate interest among active participants, and did provide more information about more candidates than available in the print and TV news.

Nevertheless the time voters spend on this site is very limited, pressing the producers to be even more engaging, and more succinct. For example, allowing voters to rank the issues will put the most highly rated issues up front, making them more likely to be seen and read.

Another problem is creating a virtuous cycle of use. Candidates are focused on their own Web sites, and won’t pay great attention to a voter guide unless they believe important voters attend to it. Sophisticated activists and journalists covering elections won’t look at a site unless the candidates take it seriously. To increase use and prime a virtuous cycle, DNet has created partnerships with the League of Women Voters, links with other strong Web sites, links with broadcast-television Web sites that permit them to show video news clips of candidates, and put more funds into improving the design, functionality, and national coverage of the site. This costs money and may lead to only a few sites surviving over time.

Let’s turn to a more grassroots version of ...

Web Politics

One issue raised by sites like DNet is that the voter is being informed, but not organized. Users of DNet can e-mail candidates and find out how and where to see a candidate speak, but the links are between Netizens and candidates, rather than among citizens.

An emerging and powerful use of the Internet and Web is in organizing individuals in support or opposition to a particular candidate or issue. Mayors have been recalled, and legislation influenced via Web-orchestrated campaigns.

For example, I am studying currently the use of the Web to defeat a plan to create what is called a ‘telephone area code overlay’ for West Los Angeles — the “Stop the Overlay” campaign. Telephone area codes in the US comprise three digits that have defined the geographical location of the telephone number. 310 was the area code created for the Westside and South Bay areas of Los Angeles County in 1992.

Essentially, a proposal by the State of California’s Public Utility Commission was to

overlay another area code (562) on top of the 310 code, because the explosion of cell phones and faxes had -- it was argued -- exhausted the available seven digit numbers within the 310 area. This would force subscribers to dial 11 digits rather than 7 digits (1 plus the area code) for every call, even next door. Moreover, your next door neighbor could have a different area code, fracturing the geographical identity invested in this number.

To many, this may seem to be a technical or trivial issue. But this makes it interesting. In fact, the technical nature of this issue, and its low visibility in the media, has meant that most public anger over this and similar telephone number changes have gone virtually unchallenged. Not this time.

A plastic surgeon in West Los Angeles became incensed by this change, since he understood that it was caused by the way telephone companies were allocating numbers in huge blocks to competing phone companies. That is, the shortage of numbers was caused by the administration of the numbering system, rather than actual use of numbers. The surgeon faxed a friend of his, a popular print journalist, who had a background in engineering, understood the issue, and began writing editorials in opposition to the overlay.

Coincidentally, another colleague of the journalist, who was an avid Internet user, also learned of the overlay. Initially, he questioned the uproar over such a minor change. However, discussion with his wife convinced him that it was unjust for the public to pay the price of poor administration of the telephone numbering system. This netizen and his wife built an Internet site -- <Stopoverlay.com>. The plastic surgeon paid the monthly fee for the Web site. The journalist feed his editorials to the site.

Almost overnight, the site galvanized and focused opposition to the overlay, gained attention in the state capital and within the telephone companies, and contributed substantially to a reversal of the Public utility Commission’s decision. In October 1999, a few months after the launch of this campaign, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 406, that killed the 310 overlay. Three people, a few months, and the Web.

While these are two very different types of examples, the developers of issue-oriented voter guides like DNet are trying to conceive of ways to link their users to Web-based issue campaigns like that opposed to the overlay. In such ways, infrastructure for Netizen initiated campaigns is being put into place.

I will move into two other areas of development, more briefly, focusing on e-highways, and ....

E-Government

Through the 1960s, the public sector often led the private sector in the application of computers and telecommunications. This was when computing was focused on administrative applications, like budgeting, accounting and payroll.

Leadership since then has changed hands in the US and in most other countries. Business and industry have made fundamental moves toward using computing and telecommunications to improve the quality and productivity of their operations, re-engineering business practices, and provide front-line services to customers. Governments have taken a long time to move in the same direction, although they are increasingly using electronic media for direct support of services to the public.

In the early 1990s, a variety of US governments began to experiment with multimedia kiosks and other approaches to electronic service delivery.

An early example of an innovative move in this direction was taken by the City of Santa Monica, California, which created a Public Electronic Network (PEN) in 1986. This electronic city hall used e-mail and computer conferencing systems, developed and financed by the city, to connect residents with city departments and elected officials. Residents could use a home computer or one of twenty public terminals in 16 public locations, such as libraries, to register and take part in activities on PEN. They could retrieve public information about the city’s services; do some simple transactions, like registering for a recreation class; e-mail the city departments or other PEN users (called PENners), or participate in numerous computer conferences on topics of local concern.

Conferencing and e-mail -- communication, not information retrieval -- was the heart of the PEN system, but both declined after several years of successful operation. One reason was controversy over the civility of discussions on PEN. Political back-stabbing, long-winded entries, and offensive remarks chased some key participants and families off this new public forum. Another reason was the migration of the PEN system, and its users, towards the Internet and Web. By the late 1990s, attention in Santa Monica, and other US cities, turned almost exclusively to the Internet and a means for having an electronic presence.

At the national level, the US federal government is spending hundreds of $millions on Internet-related activities over next few years, with an increasing focus on migrating services from legacy systems onto interoperable systems of the Internet. This is essentially what most calls for digital government mean in the US context -- migrating systems to the Internet and Next Generation Internet. The European Commission has also emphasized innovative uses of networks in public services, as have many local and national governments of Europe in the 1990s.

In the US, a recent local example is provided by the County of San Diego, California, which proposed an ambitious plan for outsourcing a large proportion of all public information and communication services. The city created a vision of a ‘Virtual County Government’, which would provide residents with services on-line, rather than standing ‘in-line’. The proposal calls for partnering with a major group of world class IT providers. Believing that the County did not have the personnel and expertise to migrate services onto the Internet, they are relying on the private sector to help them re-engineer their information technology operations and services. Call centers, electronic service delivery, and Internet-based and distributed applications will be developed to serve San Diego residents.

Catching up with the times in the use of information and communication technologies in governance is important if the public is to realize the opportunities afforded by tele-access in enhancing democratic relationships among all actors within society. However, technological innovation in governance is difficult and entails serious risks, which is why it needs to be accompanied by careful and open consideration of the full range of opportunities and problems in providing electronic citizen access and digital government.

Finally, the area of development of new public information and telecommunication infrastructures is a critical effort that I will call ....

E-Highways

Today, a battle is raging in the US over new telecommunication infrastructures, specifically, how cities will be wired for high-speed Internet services. A current debate in Los Angeles and many other US cities is over a proposal of AT&T’s newly acquired MediaOne cable company to up-grade its cable systems in Los Angeles, installing cable modems and other infrastructure required for high speed Internet access from households and businesses.

One side in this debate argues that local governments need to insure open access to high speed Internet services. That is, MediaOne and other cable firms should provide the same speed and ease of access to all Internet Service Providers, and not privilege its own subsidiary, Excite@Home-Roadrunner.

Opponents of an open platform for Internet access believe that governments at all levels should keep their hands off this industry and let cable firms, like AT&T-MediaOne, develop their own high-speed Internet services, like Excite@Home-Roadrunner. AT&T’s MediaOne argues that this will be necessary to create the financial incentives for them to up-grade cable systems.

A public interest argument for this view is that deregulation will promote innovative advances in broadband Internet services, that will enable voice, data and video communications to be provided over one information highway. It is argued that this advance will: create competition to the local telephone companies; support local economic development, such as by fostering the growth of multimedia companies in Los Angeles, and fuel the diffusion of the most democratic communication technology in the world — the Internet.

As enticing as this vision might be, it is undermined by the history of cable and telecommunication industries over the last several decades. Ironically, thirty years ago, the very logic that today supports efforts to stop local governments from ensuring open access was offered in support of eliminating regulatory restrictions on the cable industry so that they would ‘wire cities’.

It was in the aftermath of President Kennedy’s assassination, that Lyndon Johnson launched America’s War on Poverty. This was the context in 1969, when Ralph Lee Smith wrote ‘The Wired Nation’. His article envisioned an ‘electronic highway’, created by the convergence of telecommunication and computing. It would provide all kinds of information and communication services to all businesses and households. Johnson’s administration embraced this vision as a means to provide educational and other urban services and support economic development by encouraging the growth of the electronics, computer, and related industries.

The Chairman of the FCC at that time was so taken by the vision of a wired nation that he decided in 1971 to reduce restrictions on cable system development within the major television markets, like Los Angeles. He thought the promise justified the risks, such as to local broadcasters. The National Science Foundation supported a set of interactive cable television experiments in 1974, which explored the technical feasibility and social impact of local and interactive programming.

Local governments were equally captured by the vision, and awarded exclusive franchises to cable companies that would introduce advanced technologies and services. In return, cable companies were to provide such public benefits as interactive services, local programming, and facilities, like public access channels, equipment and studios.

As it turned out, even before the NSF experiments were even completed, an economic downturn hit the cable industry, leading it to pull back on its promises. In 1984, the only major commercial development of local and interactive cable, the Qube Project in Columbus, Ohio, folded. In one city after another, the cable industry reneged on its promises, saying they could not afford to deploy advanced technologies and services.

The history of cable and telecommunications regulation have a bearing on today’s debate over open access:

First, policy-makers should not be dependent on the good will, or promises, of industry.

Secondly, policy and regulation — in this case a hands-off approach —cannot force advanced technology. Regulatory incentives to innovate will be insufficient. If the market flounders, the industry will pull back. If it flourishes, the industry will compete.

Secondly, deregulation is not competition. The current Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission argues for ‘unregulation’ of the Internet, and supports his case by pointing to the history of telephone deregulation. However, the telephone industry does not provide an example of unregulation, but an illustration of the value of strong regulatory measures, imposed by the courts and the FCC, to force competition. Regulated competition, not unregulation or deregulation, has spurred innovation and price reductions in the US and abroad.

Finally, regulations aimed at supporting the production of technologies, like permitting MediaOne to privilege its own content providers, can be at odds with policy aimed an fostering the utilization of new media. It is the use -- more than the production -- of information and communication technologies like the Internet that can support economic development across all sectors of the economy and society. Even if a hands-off approach were to benefit the cable industry, such as MediaOne, it is likely also to create higher prices than in a more competitive arena. It could retard its utilization.

Several themes cut across these examples of e-politics, e-government, and e-highways.

First, technical change is reshaping access to politics, to government, to our information highways and society. Access is absolutely the most central and enduring issue in the information age.

The changing cost structures of communication over the Internet is enabling new actors to bypass traditional gatekeepers, such as most clearly shown by the overlay campaign’s ability to overcome the press, which refused to cover this issue, as well as by DNET exposing voters to candidates and issues not covered by the mass media.

At the same time, it is evident that there are pressures to gain an economy of scale in all of these areas, which is leading the key players to scale up their activities to broader geographical areas. This will be a major force for standardization. Standardization may help lower economic barriers to participation in politics, governance, and public services. The standardization of paper and books enabled cost reductions of print media and more diversity of content. As many have pointed out, the Internet has come into existence through the establishment of standards. Likewise, the development of national or international standards in voter guides, public information systems, and electronic highways could foster greater diversity of content. That said, this might require careful regulation and oversight, since the standards advantage some actors and disadvantage others. There is a need to insure open access in all arenas.

Secondly, in the American context, one cannot overstate the degree to which the Internet and Web have become the prevailing technological paradigm for the future of information and communication services. In politics, government, and infrastructure developments, the Internet model is shaping social and technical choice.

Thirdly, you can see evidence of a declining role of the public sector in each arena. Put differently, non-governmental actors -- public interest groups, netizens, private information technology providers, and communication firms -- are taking on ever greater roles in linking citizens and their governments at all levels.

Finally, the future of these developments rely on the informed participation of citizens. Many proponents of e-democracy believe that the mass media is a significant cause of citizen apathy. They and other proponents of new media argue that e-democracy could better inform voters about the issues at stake, and provide them a means for more actively engaging in the political process, and become, therefore, more interested in public affairs. But even if the creative use of new media cannot overcome widespread apathy, it might nurture those who are interested in politics, facilitate the more efficient provision of public services, and facilitate deeper public involvement. Or, will Web campaigns, virtual governments, and broadband-Internet access to entertainment further distance citizens from one another and their governments?

The values and choices of citizens will be important as will those of politicians and leaders in determining whether the information society invigorates or undermines the role of citizens. Early experiences with the Internet, such as I have discussed, suggest that the potential for netizens to play a positive role in politics and governance is real.

Bill Dutton is author of Society on the Line (Oxford University Press, 1999). He is a professor in the Annenberg School for Communication and the School of Policy, Planning, and Development at the University of Southern California.