This document summarizes a presentation on e-participation in Slovenian e-government. It finds that Slovenia has an implementation deficit and development deficit when it comes to e-participation, as earlier strategies focused on strengthening representative democracy rather than participatory democracy. While government websites provide public information, few allow for online commenting and forums have had little success. These deficits result from a technocratic understanding of democracy that sees e-participation as a technological issue rather than empowering citizens. The presentation recommends adopting laws supporting public participation, integrating civil society knowledge, using web 2.0 technologies, and embracing electronic strong democracy.

1. Information and Communication Technologies:
from Modern to Information Society
Univerzitetno in raziskovalno središče Novo mesto
19.-20. september 2008
e-PARTICIPATION IN
SLOVENIAN e-GOVERNMENT
Simon Delakorda
(Institute for Electronic Participation - INePA)

2. Empirical Facts

5. Explanation Hypotheses
Slovene e-government state of the art in the
area of e-Participation / e-Democracy is a
result of:

Implementation deficit

Development deficit

6. Methodology

Slovene government ministries web sites
analysis (e-democracy tools typology; Trechsel,
2003)

Specific case studies analysis

E-government policy documents analysis
(typology of e-democracy; Hagen, 1996)

Informal correspondence with government
officials

7. Results I. - Implementation deficit

Earlier e-government strategies favoured
electronic democratization concept (strengthening
representative democracy)

E-government strategy 2006: Republic of Slovenia
among 10 most developed e-democracies in the
world

Conceptual shift towards participatory and direct
democracy (e-pools, e-consultations, e-
referendum etc.)

e-Democracy neglected by implementation plans

8. Results II. - Development deficit

all government ministries provided public
information e-access

8 ministries out of fifteen offered an e-mail
address for sending comments on draft
legislation

Little success with moderated on-line forums

Web 2.0 applications rarely available

E-Democracy web 1.0 portal not yet finalized

11. Interpretation
Implementation and development deficit of e-
Participation are results of a technocratic
understanding of political democracy and
citizenship:

e-Participation as technological issue

e-Participation as legal issue

Top down controlled e-participation in order to
secure objective and rational support for
political elites interest

12. Possible solutions

Adoption of Government Law on public participation and
co-decision (e-participation regulation):
− Political citizens are not e-government consumers
− Political freedom should mean that citizens have the
democratic right and instruments to reject government
and political elites decisions without being sanctioned

Integration of knowledge and resources between public
administration and civil society

Technology reorientation towards web 2.0 for
strengthening active citizenship communities

Electronic strong democracy (Grossman, 1995)

13. THANK YOU!
simon.delakorda@inepa.si
Institute for Electronic Participation (INePA)
Povšetova ulica 37
1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
Tel.:+386 41 365 529
http://www.inepa.si