Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

EU Democracy and E-Democracy: Can the Two Be Reconciled?

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Democracy in Transition

Abstract

For many observers neither EU-democracy nor e-democracy exist in any meaningful sense. With regard to the latter this is certainly the case, though this does not mean that we are not witnessing innovative experimentation with information and communication technologies (ICT) in the democratic realm. This chapter focuses on the prospects for e-democratic experimentation in the EU political setting. Drawing on normative democratic theory we look at four dimensions of e-democratic innovation: ICT techniques aimed at improving mechanisms of (1) representation, (2) participation and (3) deliberation and (4) opening new channels of contestation. The aim of the chapter is to survey some recent e-democratic innovations within the framework of these four broader normative visions and, in doing so, investigate the potential impact of ICT driven innovation on EU democratisation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Dutch Evaluation Report on 2004 elections. Experiment with Internet and telephone voting for voters abroad. Dutch Ministry of the Interior and Kingdom. Available at: www.minbzk.nl/aspx/download.aspx?file=/contents/pages/10764/041110evaluatierapportexpinternetenteldefversie_eng3.pdf

  2. 2.

    See the Estonian Electoral Commission website: http://vvk.ee/ep09/index.php?id=11195

  3. 3.

    See http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/decisionmaking_process/a30000_en.htm

  4. 4.

    See http://www.european-citizens-consultations.eu/

  5. 5.

    See welcome page of the ESF at: http://www.fse-esf.org

References

  • Alvarez, M. R., Hall, T., & Trechsel, A. (2009). Internet voting in comparative perspective. Political Science and Politics, 42(3), 497–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Auer, A., & Mendez, M. (2005). E-voting, E-democracy and EU-democracy: A thought experiment. In A. Trechsel & F. Mendez (Eds.), Introducing e-voting for the European parliament elections. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. R. (1998). Three scenarios for the future of technology and strong democracy. Political Science Quarterly, 113(4), 573–589.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barber, B. R. (2004). Strong democracy: Participatory politics for a new age. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpini, D., Michael, X., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cedroni, L., & Garzia, D. (2010). Voting advice applications in Europe: The state of the art. Napoli: Scriptaweb.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media Society, 9(5), 827–847.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • della Porta, D., & Mosca, L. (2005). Global-Net for global movements? A network of networks for a movement of movements. Journal of Public Policy, 25(01), 165–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drechsler, W., & Madise, U. (2004). Electronic voting in Estonia. In N. Kersting & H. Baldersheim (Eds.), Electronic voting and democracy. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Follesdal, A., & Hix, S. (2006). Why there is a democratic deficit in the EU: A response to Majone and Moravcsik. Journal of Common Market Studies, 44(3), 533–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2007). Democratic theory and political science: A pragmatic method of constructive engagement. American Political Science Review, 101(03), 443–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1989). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kies, R., Leyenaar, M., & Niemoller, K. (forthcoming). European Citizens Consulation: A large consultation on a vague concept. European citizens’ deliberation: A promising path for EU governance? Abingdon, Oxon: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kies, R., Mendez, F., Schmitter, P., & Trechsel, A. (2004). Evaluation of the use of new technologies in order to facilitate democracy in Europe: E-democratizing the parliaments and parties in Europe. Luxembourg: STOA. European Parliament.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. (2007). Political opposition and the European Union. Government and Opposition, 42(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., & Steenbergen, M. (Eds.). (2004). European integration and political conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez, F. (2010). Elections and the internet: On the difficulties of ‘upgrading’ elections in the digital era. Representation, 46(4), 459–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moravcsik, A. (2008). The myth of Europe’s ‘democratic deficit’. Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, 43(6), 331–340.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, C. (2000). The democratic paradox. London: Verso Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundo, Y. (forthcoming). Europe’s new communication policy and the introduction of transnational deliberative citizens’ involvement projects. In European citizens’ deliberation: A promising path for EU governance? Abingdon, Oxon: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2005). E-voting as the magic bullet for European parliamentary elections? In A. Trechsel & F. Mendez (Eds.), The European Union and e-voting: addressing the European Parliament’s internet voting challenge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and democratic theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pettit, P. (2000). Democracy, electoral and contestatory. In S. Ian & M. Stephen (Eds.), Designing democratic institutions. New York: Nomos, NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pianta, M. (2012). European alternatives: Trajectories of mobilisations responding to Europe’s crisis. Open Democracy retrieved (www.opendemocracy.net).

  • Pieters, W., & van Haren, R. (2007). Temptations of turnout and modernisation: E-voting discourses in the UK and The Netherlands. Journal of Information, Communication and Ethics in Society, 5(4), 276–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitter, P. C. (2005). E-voting, E-democracy and EU-democracy: A thought experiment. In A. Trechsel & F. Mendez (Eds.), The European Union and e-voting: addressing the European Parliament’s internet voting challenge. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. London: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trechsel, A. H., & Mair, P. (2011). When parties (also) position themselves: An introduction to the EU profiler. Journal of Information Technology and Politics, 8(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van den Hoven, J. (2005). E-democracy, E-contestation and the monitorial citizen. Ethics and Information Technology, 7(2), 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, S. (2007). A virtual European public sphere? The futurum discussion forum. Journal of European Public Policy, 14(8), 1167–1185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Director of the Democracy Centre, Centre for Democracy Research in Aarau (ZDA), University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

    Fernando Mendez

Authors
  1. Fernando Mendez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Fernando Mendez .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Department of Social and Political Scien, University of Cyprus, Kallipoleos 75, Nicosia, 1678, Cyprus

    Kyriakos N. Demetriou

Annex

Annex

Table A1 Conceptions of e-democracy
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Mendez, F. (2013). EU Democracy and E-Democracy: Can the Two Be Reconciled?. In: Demetriou, K. (eds) Democracy in Transition. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-30068-4_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation