DEMOCRACY AND E-DEMOCRACY RELATIONSHIP IN THE CONTEXT OF QUALIFIED DEMOCRACY

Year 2019, , 1101 - 1118, 01.12.2019

Önder Aytaç Afşar

https://doi.org/10.17130/ijmeb.2019456400

Cited By: 3

Abstract

E-democracy is a concept that aims to transform democracy in an open, accountable, transparent, civic engagement. E-democracy consists of processes and structures that include all forms of electronic interaction such as information, negotiation, and voting among the public institutions, government and citizens. E-democracy is not a new type of democracy, but it is linked to the concept of qualified democracy. Beyond procedural democracy, it is an important factor in increasing the quality of democracy by increasing participation in political processes with a management approach sensitive to citizen demands. The study aims to explain the effects of ICT in the process of democratic governance, to examine the concept of e-democracy more closely, to explain its relationship with the theories of democracy and to provide a more precise, preferable terminology for the theory of e-democracy

Keywords

Democracy, E-government, E-Democracy, Qualified Democracy

NİTELİKLİ DEMOKRASİ BAĞLAMINDA DEMOKRASİ VE E-DEMOKRASİ İLİŞKİSİ

Abstract

E-demokrasi demokrasiyi açık, hesap verebilir, şeffaf, sivil katılımı geliştirecek şekilde dönüştürmeyi amaçlayan bir kavramdır. Kamu kurumları, hükumet ve vatandaşlar arasındaki bilgilendirme, müzakere, oylama gibi tüm elektronik etkileşim şekillerini kapsayan süreç ve yapılardan oluşmaktadır. E-demokrasi, yeni bir demokrasi türü olmayıp nitelikli demokrasi kavramıyla bağlantılıdır. Prosedürel demokrasinin ötesinde, vatandaş taleplerine duyarlı bir yönetim anlayışıyla siyasal süreçlere katılımı artırarak demokrasinin kalitesinin yükselmesinde önemli bir faktördür. Çalışma, demokratik yönetim sürecinde BİT’in etkisini açıklamak üzere demokrasi kuramları çerçevesinde, e-demokrasi kavramının daha yakından incelenmesi, demokrasi kuramlarıyla ilişkisinin açıklanması ve e-demokrasi kuramı için daha kesin, tercih edilebilir bir terminoloji sunmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Keywords

Demokrasi, E-devlet, E-Demokrasi, Nitelikli Demokrasi

References

• Afşar, Ö. A. (2017). Nitelikli demokrasiden demokratik konsolidasyona demokrasi yaklaşımları. International Journal of Academic Value Studies, 3 (12), 192-208.
• Aström, J. (2001). Should democracy online be quick, strong or thin?. Communications of the ACM, 44 (1), 49–51.
• Avrupa Konseyi. (2008). E-democracy: Who dares? Erişim Tarihi: 05.11.2018, http://www.icsd.aegean. gr/website_files/proptyxiako/208838613.pdf
• Bollen, K. A. & Paxton, P. (2000). Subjective measures of liberal democracy. Comparative Political Studies, 33 (1), 58-86.
• Bruno, E. (2015). Co-deciding with citizens: Towards digital democracy at EU level. Brussels: ECAS. Erişim Tarihi: 07.03.2018, http://www.ecas.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/ECAS-Publication- online-version.pdf.
• Caldow, J. (2004). E-democracy: putting down global roots. IBM Software. Erişim Tarihi: 05.03.2018, https://www.coursehero.com/file/19795265/e-democracy-putting-down-roots-2/
• Chadwick, A. & Christopher M. (2003). Interaction between states and citizens in the age of the internet: “e-Government” in the United States, Britain, and the European Union. Governance, 16 (2), 271 - 300.
• Clift, S. L. (2004). E-government and democracy representation and citizen engagement in the information age. Publicus.net. Erişim Tarihi: 03.03.2018, http://www.publicus.net/articles/ cliftegovdemocracy.pdf
• Crick, B. (2002). Democracy a very short introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Dahl, R. A. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Dahl, R. A. (2010). Demokrasi üzerine. (Çev.: B. Kadıoğlu). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
• Dahlberg, L. (2001). Democracy via cyberspace: Mapping the rhetorics and practices of three prominent camps. New Media & Society, 3(2), 157–177.
• Diamond, L., Linz, J., & Lipset, M. L. (1995). Introduction: What makes for democracy?. In L. Diamond, J. J. Linz, S. M. Lipset (Eds.), Politics in developing countries: Comparing experiences with democracy (pp.1-66). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Held, D. (1996). Models of democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.
• Huntington, S. P. (1968). Political order in changing societies. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Huntington, S. P. (1993). Üçüncü dalga: Yirminci yüzyıl sonlarında demokratikleşme. (Çev.: E. Özbudun). Ankara: Türk Demokrasi Vakfı.
• Kneuer, M. (2016). E-democracy: A new challenge for measuring democracy. International Political Science Review, 37(5), 666 –678.
• Lijphart, A. (1999). Patterns of democracy government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Lijphart, A. (2011). Democratic quality in stable democracies. Society, 48(1), 17–18.
• Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man: The social bases of politics. NY: Gardencity, Doubleday.
• Lironi, E. (2016). Potential and challenges of e-participation in the European Union. Brussels: European Parliament. Erişim Tarihi: 12.12.2018, http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/ STUD/2016/556949/IPOL_STU (2016)556949_EN.pdf
• Macintosh, A. (2004, January). Characterizing e-participation in policy-making. 37th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Hawaii. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/down load?doi=10.1.1.98.6150&rep=rep1&type=pdf.
• Maraş, G. (2011). Kamu yönetimlerinde e-devlet ve e-demokrasi ilişkisi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, (37), 121-144.
• Morlino, L. & Diamond, L. (2004). The quality of democracy an overwiev. Journal of Democracy, 15(4), 20-31.
• Morlino, L. (2011). Change for democracy actors, structure, processes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Nair, P. (2007, December). E-governance: A step towards digital democracy. 5th International Conference on E-Governance: Foundations of EGovernment, Hydebarad: ICEG, 147–154.
• Paivarinta, T. & Sæbo, O. (2006). Models of e-democracy. Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 17(1), 818-840.
• Przeworski, A. (1999). Minimalist conception of democracy: A defence. In I. C. Shapiro, H. Gordon (Eds.), Democracy’s value (pp.23-55). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Schedler, A. (1999). Conceptualizing accountability. In A. Schedler, L. Diamond, M. F. Plattner (Eds.), The self-restraining state: Power and accountability in new democracies, (pp.13–28). Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
• Schmitter, P. C. & Karl, T. L. (1991). What democracy is… and is not. Journal of Democracy, 2(3), 75- 88.
• Schumpeter, J. (1970). Capitalism, socialism, and democracy. London: George Allen and Unwin.
• Simon, J., Bass, T., Boelman, V., & Mulgan, G. (2017). Digital democracy: The tools transforming political engagement. London: Nesta. Erişim Tarihi: 15. 12. 2018, http://www.nesta.org.uk/ publications/digital-democracy-tools-transforming-political-engagement.
• The Economist (2018). Democracy index 2018. Erişim Tarihi: 15. 12. 2018, http://www.eiu.com/topic/ democracy-index.
• Tilly, C. (2014). Demokrasi. (Çev. E. Arıcan). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınevi.
• Tuzzi A., Padovani C., & Nesti G. (2007). Communication and (e)democracy: Assessing European e-democracy discourses. In B. Cammaerts, N. Carpentier (Eds.), Reclaiming the media: Communication rights and democratic media roles (pp. 31-65). Bristol, Chicago: Intellect.
• United Nations (2018). United Nations e-government survey 2018. Erişim Tarihi: 15. 12. 2018, https://publicadministration.un.org/egovkb/portals/egovkb/documents/un/2018-survey/e- government%20survey%202018_final%20for%20web.pdf.
• Van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2013). Digital democracy: Vision and reality. In I. Snellen, W. van de Donk (Eds.), Public Administration in the Information Age: Revisited, (pp. 49-62). IOS Press.