eGov projects in these countries are generally market-driven rather than strategic choices. In Ukraine and Belarus, they are stimulated to a large extent by the strong demand from businesses and from governments' desire to standardise its operations, and to implement more effective managerial controls.
Experts from all three countries emphasise that government officials cannot implement their information society and knowledge society rhetoric, and regard the digital divide and economic and managerial cost effectiveness as major reasons for introducing eGov practices.
In all three countries there is no standard official definition of eGovernment. In legislative acts, eGovernment is broadly described as computerization and automation (replaces current human-executed processes), informatisation (provides information supports to current human-executed processes or/and eServices). That complicates any assessment of eGovernment progress and hinders the shift to an 'eGovernance paradigm'. Even more, that leads to misunderstanding of eGov (and the host of notions associated with it) as a merely governmental (public administration) issue.
The eBelarus programme defines 'electronic government' as automated information - analytical systems to support decision making process concerning governing economic development of the country, which will foster improvement and efficiency of central government and of local administrations on the basis of information and communication technologies. But this definition is not satisfactory even for governmental actors. There is an understanding that eGovernment is much broader concept and includes: internal administration efficiency through a developed corporate network with the focus on coordination of subdivisions activities; information-analytical system (database) for long-term strategies development; creation of a unified database for public use; services for specific target groups.
Though governments in the three countries are pursuing e-government transformation in one way or another, policymakers in each country have adopted different eGov approaches defined by dominating visions of governance. For the Lithuanian government, eServices are priority. The Belarusian concept of eGovernment is based on strengthening the managerial capacities of national and local governments. Governmental resolutions in Ukraine emphasise information provision and transparency as key elements of electronic government.
There is a general understanding in all the three countries that eGov programmes can be implemented on the basis of multi-stakeholder cooperation. Governments seek financial assistance and technical expertise from ICT businesses. International bodies (World Bank, United Nations Developent Programme, Central and Eastern European Networking Association and others) as well as national non-governmental organizations (NGOs) provide assistance in the form of benchmarking and training. Each country has established multi-stakeholder partnerships.
Governments in the three countries are pursuing eGovernment transformation in one way or another. Each country has worked out a general conceptual framework for eGov projects. eServices and provision of information are the central concerns of eGov programming. In all countries under discussion governments are major stakeholders in eGov programming as it is connected, in one way or another, with administrative reforms; governments take the role of leaders and set agendas in eGov programming. The private sector, especially national IT application developers, and national academic institutions are normally seen by the government as essential partners. NGOs regard their participation in eGov project as the means to enhance human capacities and to empower local communities. As a result, only senior government officials, national private ICT businesses, academic institutions lobbying groups, and, to some extent, international bodies assume roles in eGov programming.
The lower and middle bureaucracy, organised groups of citizens, and local communities, not to mention individual citizens, remain passive and unresponsive to the eGov efforts of their governments. The same passivity characterizes the representative bodies of the three countries.
Citizens and organised citizens' groups and, generally, parliaments are not agenda setters. The private sector is viewed by governments as a source of information and finance, as well as an ICT products supplier. Citizen groups are not recognised as valuable contributors to eGov agendas. Even in Ukraine, where civil society actively tries to win a place in eGov agenda setting, the government remains the main player. The role of parliaments highly depends on the individual will and capacities of MPs, as in Lithuania, where only members of the Seimas Information Society Committee in 2000-2004 were active advocates of eGov initiatives. Citizens occasionally are invited to discuss some eGov issues, but the absence of an established institutional framework for deliberative participation makes such initiatives futile.
Therefore, civil society actors should actively pursue a role in constituting the ways in which the new technology are conceived and put to use. Through participation CSOs will determine a citizen-oriented eGovernment; contribute to a transition from the public as 'customer' to the public as 'citizen'. Civic engagement benefits governments because it provides a basis for a sustainable eGovernance strategy; increases the efficiency of policy; enhances overall implementation capacity; and catalyzes greater coordination via developing new partnerships and networks. The overarching goal in this context is to effect a transition to collaborative or networking eGovernance in order to promote democratic values and principles of civic engagement in all the three countries. In this light, public servants need to learn to consult the public; elected officials should facilitate engagement, overview experimentation in new ways to obtain public input into eGov planning, and both renew and ensure accountability. These trends are vital for effective democracy, for building social capital and knowledge society, as well as for building trust in state machinery and social cohesion enhancing. Seeking to find an interactive role for the citizen in an effective and meaningful way is one of the major challenges now facing both governments and CSOs. An unedited version of this case study first appeared on E-Belarus.org and can be viewed at www.e-belarus.org/article/egovplanning.html.
Quelle: eStrategies online, November 2005
