A Critique of the eConsultations conducted by the Uganda Parliament ICT Committee By Wairagala Wakabi, researcher with the Collaboration

on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa (CIPESA), www.cipesa.org Kampala-Uganda Email: wakabi@cipesa.org Abstract Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are enabling governments to expeditiously reach out to citizens who are at times excluded from public deliberations and policy-making processes. From the offer of electronic services, to provision of information and the gathering of citizens opinions, ICTs are facilitating swift and cost-effective communication between public officials and the public. One of the areas that is gaining currency in developed countries is eConsultations, or the use of ICT to elicit public opinion on policies or activities. But while eConsultations have great benefits, they are only beginning to be employed in developing countries such as Uganda, where a myriad of challenges are ranged against them, including low literacy rates, minimal internet usage, and exorbitant bandwidth costs. For eConsultations to succeed, some prerequisites should be navigated carefully. Although there are no well-established models on evaluation of eConsultations, we conducted an extensive literature study through which we identified factors prevalent in some contemporary models. We then studied the consultations conducted by the Ugandan Parliamentary ICT Committee on three bills, testing how these measured up against some of the factors we had identified in the literature. The paper concludes that although the eConsultations carried out by the Ugandan Parliamentary ICT Committee do not measure up to most of these identified factors, they are enabling some people to provide meaningful input to policy-making, and they present a learning experience which Ugandan public institutions could build on to increase ICT-based communication within government and with citizens. The fact that few Ugandans are online subtracts from the potential effect of the eConsultations as a tool for promoting eParticipation, and we argue that at the moment the eConsultations do not appear to be reaching groups of Ugandans that are normally left out of deliberations and consultations.

A Critique of the eConsultations conducted by the Uganda Parliament ICT Committee Introduction Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are enabling Governments to engage more effectively with some of their citizens at a time of dwindling citizen participation in democratic affairs. This 'eParticipation', which enables citizens to engage with fellow citizens as well as with their leaders through the use of ICTs, therefore holds much promise for countries such as Uganda which are trying to increase the efficiency, accountability and inclusiveness of government. Governments are increasingly developing new methods to provide easier and wider access to government information and to achieve broader and deeper consultation with citizens (Whyte & Macintosh 2002). One of the main forms of enabling eParticipation are online consultations, or

eConsultations, which are defined as the use of ICT to involve the public through different forms of interaction with our democratic institutions, with the intention to elicit inputs that contribute to more sustainable or robust decision-making (Peters, J. & Manon A. 2008). According to OECD (2001), information, consultation and active participation provide government with a better basis for policy-making, enabling it to become a learning organisation. At the same time, it ensures more effective implementation, as citizens become well informed about the policies and take part in their development. It is widely recognised that eConsultations could play a fundamental role in addressing the so-called 'democracy deficit' which sees citizens in many countries excluded from participation in the governance and democratic affairs in their countries (OECD 2001; Dalton, R. J. & Kuechler, M. 1990). Indeed, as Peters, J. & Manon A. (2008) posit, eConsultations can present the different perspectives on an issue and facilitate a deliberative exploration, allow the public to engage in civic discourse and dialogue, and close the gap between citizen expectations and what leaders actually deliver. A number of researchers (Whyte and Macintosh 2002; Muhammad, R.1995; Arnst, R. 1996) argue that participation in the top down incumbent democracy is largely characterised by voting, by normalised interaction within structured groups and by orderly civic involvement. But these researchers add that under the so-called incumbent democracy, the top-down orientation often leads to failure, with electoral reforms and devolution of power to regional assemblies having minimal effect on voter turnout. These democracy deficits, in turn, are some of the scenarios that eConsultations seek to respond to. This paper critiques the eConsultations conducted by the ICT Committee of the Parliament of Uganda using a number of benchmarks prevalent in contemporary literature. The evaluation focuses on the consultations on three bills: 1) The Interception of Communications Bill, which took place during February and March 2009; and 2) The National Information Technology Authority (NITA) Bill, conducted during April-May 2009, and the Cyber Laws Bill discussed during February to April 2009.

The Problem Public organisations face a challenge of communicating effectively with citizens. This is because there are various publics that need to be reached, and diverse messages to be communicated. ICT-based communication, by being fast, cost effective and increasingly ubiquitous, holds much promise for easing the public sector organisations communication, besides improving transparency and participation. But in spite of the potential, the use of ICT in public sector communication in Uganda is fairly new and largely undocumented. eConsultations are indeed a new phenomenon in Uganda, and this paper therefore sought to review how this mode of communication and consultation was fairing in its infancy stage in Uganda. Whyte & Macintosh (2002) argue that democratic participation must involve both the means to be informed and the mechanisms to take part in the decision-making. They add that over the last decade there has been a gradual awareness of the need to consider new tools for public engagement that enable a wider audience to contribute to the policy debate and where contributions themselves are broader and deeper - enhancing deliberation so as to better inform and influence the policy process. In the same line, OECD (2001) defines three types of interaction between governments and citizens that

aim to entrench democracy, and which communicating with the use of ICT makes easier to achieve. The first is 'Information', which involves government producing and delivering information for use by citizens. This is one-way participation and does not involve citizens providing feedback or producing information and taking part in debates. On the other hand, under the 'Consultation' stage, there is a twoway exchange of information; government defines the issue for consultation, sets the questions and manages the process, with citizens asked to submit opinions on the issues at hand. A more advanced stage, according to OECD, is 'Active participation and this is defined as a relationship based on partnership with government in which citizens actively engage in defining the process and content of policy-making. This stage is a step higher than 'Consultation' because it acknowledges equal standing for citizens in setting the agenda, proposing policy options and shaping the policy dialogue although the responsibility for the final decision or policy formulation rests with government (OECD 2001). Increasingly, eConsultations are being used by state organs, including Parliaments, to engage citizens and to get their views on a range of policy issues. The UK Parliament, for instance, regularly runs a number of eConsultations. The mode in which the UK Parliament carries out eConsultations is different from the way the Uganda ICT Committee does theirs. The UK has an online presence where citizens can read what others are saying, see the issues the Government is seeking views on, and make their own submissions. On the other hand, the Ugandan Committee relies on a list-serv that is not governmentowned. During the March-to June 2009 period, for example, seven e-Consultations were carried out according to the UK Parliament's e-forums website. The subjects of the consultations were: 1) Securing the future of the Post office 2) Attitudes on UK's aid to the poor 3) What students think of the university admissions' process 4) Traders views on the performance of retail markets 5) Improving the performance of the House of Lords 5) Challenges facing prisons officers 6) Why women, disabled people and people from ethnic minorities are under-represented in the House of Commons (Parliament Forum 2009). List-servs, such as the one the Ugandan committee uses, have been reported to offer some advantages which some online participation tools might not have. Critics argue that one of the drawbacks of eConsultation is that it does not always provide the opportunity for the community to hear the concerns of other members and can often hinder one's sense of engagement in the process. However, argue the critics, the consultation method that addresses this problem is the listserv or online forum where citizens and hosts of the discussion can all participate in the same discussion via email. Chadwick (2006) observes that the relative anonymity of the online world renders individuals less accountable for their action so they feel empowered to speak up against more powerful actors because they have less fear of punishment. Besides, e-consultations provide the opportunity for individuals to participate who would not usually be interested in the traditional methods of consultation, for example community meetings, longer workshops or large group interventions which can take days to complete. Additionally, the e-consultation process can provide flexible options for input, such as allowing citizens the choice of when and where from to participate from (Gehring V.D (ed) 2007; Chadwick 2006) In spite of their several merits, e-Consultations have their own downside, which means that they are not always a magic bullet for enhancing citizen engagement and participation. Language difficulties,

insufficient computer skills, and difficulty in comprehending text can be big challenges. For Uganda and many other developing countries, the problems go beyond these, and many resolve around the fact that few citizens (in Uganda's case only 8 percent of the population) are online. There are a myriad reasons why: low bandwidth, high costs of internet access, shortage of local (language) content, low levels of literacy. So the use of online methods of citizen engagement would have to be minimal and to involve the same population that largely has access to other forms of information and participation mechanisms. This therefore tends to undermine eConsultation and eParticipation generally. The Ugandan ICT Committee often conducts online communication on bills and issues that are under consideration by the committee. The consultations are conducted through the I-Network listserv, the multi-stakeholder mail discussion group on ICT issues. How it works normally is that the chairman of the committee writes to the d-group introducing and explaining the issue they need citizens to provide views on. The Committee chairs moderates the discussions for a period of time, and at the end of the discussions gives a round up and then later on feedback on the summary of the views collected and how the Committee has taken them into consideration. Methodology: Whyte and Macintosh (2002) indicate that there is a clear lack of an accepted framework on how to evaluate and measure the impact of e-democracy systems in general and e-consultations in particular. Equally, the OECD while pointing to a number of best practice guidelines developed by some countries, also acknowledges that there is no universal guideline for assessing eConsultations. However, there is widespread literature on some success factors for eConsultations, and even a model by Whyte and Macintosh. The factors which were used in this paper are picked from various literature, representing those that are prevalent and applicable to the sort of consultations which the Uganda Parliament's ICT Committee carries out. The methodology for this paper included a literature review on eParticipation, on eParticipation in developing countries such as Uganda, as well as on eConsultations. The literature review aimed to understand the current debate and practice on eParticipation and eConsultations. The literature review enabled the author to identify from the literature some factors that help eConsultations to achieve their objectives. After identifying some of these factors, the Ugandan consultations were then critiqued against these benchmarks. The results are presented in a table that captures how the consultations on each of the three Bills faired against the benchmarks. A discussion of the performance of the Ugandan consultations against some of the identified best practice follows. Results This section presents the results of the evaluation of the eConsultations which are carried out by the Uganda ICT Committee. The first part of the section lays down the major factors identified in literature as contributing to eConsultations achieving their objectives. The second part then tests these factors against the Ugandan consultations. Evaluation benchmarks for eConsultations An evaluation framework for eConsultations developed by Whyte and Macintosh, 2002 list various factors that could be studied. These include whether the eConsultation process was conducted as planned; whether the consultation objectives and what was expected of the citizens made clear; how

well the consultation reached the target audience; and how appropriate the information provided was. Other factors are whether feedback was provided during and after the consultation; and finally, if there was an impact on policy content. McNutt K & and McKay C (2008) argue that for eConsultations to achieve their objectives, there must be four prerequisites: public awareness, issue literacy, willingness to provide feedback and political will. Additionally, according to Peters, J. & Manon A. (2008) for public involvement to be considered genuine, it must be able to contribute to the decision-making process. While this should not mean that the public should make the ultimate decision, its input must be considered and used by those requesting public involvement. There are a range of other eConsultations best practices in literature, and here below we present the ones that predominate in the literature reviewed. Table 1 showing some of the predominant eConsultations best practices identified in literature Best practice Explanation Provide balanced This information should allow for thoughtful consideration of the issue information without the hosts of the eConsultations being seen as biased or paternalistic Use information from The opinions generated in eConsultations should be taken into account by eConsultations for the hosts in reaching a decision. The eConsultations should not be mere decision-making tokenism. Host of eConsultations eConsultation hosts should provide full transcript of the consultation, should provide feedback summarize input and respond to citizens priorities and policy concerns Use simple language Use simple, straight-forward language and style and tone that allow for users to easily understand the message and respond to it Issue literacy A basic knowledge of the policy issue being consulted on is necessary for participants to provide meaningful feedback. Identifying target Existing email networks can be used to advertise consultation events, and populations that hosts of eConsultations could consider creating email contact lists to broaden the pool of participants Table by author based on factors identified in various literature on eConsultations

Fig 2: Performance of the Ugandan consultations against various eConsultation evaluation benchmarks (ratings done by author based on study of the consultations history against benchmarks in literature) Interception of Cyber Laws Bill National Information Communications Bill Technology Agency Bill Provide The Committee Committee did not General information balanced explained the rationale provide balanced about the bill was information for the Bill as explained information. There provided but not by the security minister are various bills implications. The but voiced concerns (computer misuse, e- information was not regarding misuse of the transactions, deep and sufficient law and violating signatures) lumped enough to support privacy together in the informed discussions eConsultation without each being explained Host of The host provided The host provided The host provided eConsultatio feedback on what views feedback on what feedback on what ns should were generated, and views were views were generated, provide how they were generated, and how and how they were feedback integrated they were integrated integrated Use simple Very simple and clear Probably due to To a large extent, language language used that made complexity of various simple language was the issue understandable bills covered, used but explanations even to lay people Committee didnt were insufficient give plain language information Issue Great issue literacy There was minimal Average issue literacy. literacy though this related only issue literacy More could have been to tapping phones not done by the Committee other communications Use Committee took up most The Bill is yet to be The Bill was passed information of views from the handled by the and largely reflected from eConsultations and used Committee so it is yet many of the views that eConsultatio them to bar the security to be seen came up in the ns for ministry from eConsultations decisionprogressing with the Bill making as it was Identifying Very high awareness of Committee failed to Information provided target the bill which explain the gist and was not comprehensive populations discussants renamed the implications of these for an average person phone tapping bill bills. Few readers to know what was at making it relevant to seemed stake members of the knowledgeable

eConsultations and therefore drawing much debate

judging from number & quality of responses

Discussion The eConsultations being conducted by the ICT Committee are able to reach a great number of the stakeholders and experts in the Ugandan ICT community. This community is always eager to provide input to legislation that affect the sector, and the diverse skills and experiences of its members means that if the eConsultations are conducted diligently then the Committee will be able to get very useful views while at the same time enabling citizens to play a role in making policies and legislation. At the moment there does not appear to be any other forum at which the Committee can effectively and efficiently gather the kinds of inputs, or have the kind of interactions with sector players and citizens, as is the case with the eConsultations. According to our findings, sometimes the Committee did not explain at length the issue to be discussed as well as to highlight some of the areas they might mostly need input on. The entire Bills under debate have been placed in a forum where eConsultations participants can view/download it. However, as per the review we conducted the Committee did not always explained the Bills well, or the kinds of input they seek. This has been the case with the cyber laws bills, and this could have affected the very low number of responses that were received on these consultations. On the Committee reporting back to the members consulted, it was noted that always the Parliamentary Service compiles the various responses that emerge from the eConsultations. The chairman of the ICT Committee sums up the discussions at the end. Once the committee is through with receiving views some of the additional ones are got from Government officials and other stakeholders during physical meetings with the Committee - the Committee reports back to the eConsultations. The information is integrated into the recommendations that the committee makes. Hence, it can be said that the eConsultations are actually enabling citizens in Uganda to input into policy processes in the ICT arena. With regard to the volume of responses, these are not always very many but quality was high and the value of the views which the Committee receives is quite comparable to what the Committee receives in face-to-face meetings. The eConsultations, besides helping the committee to garner the views of key stakeholders, also achieve a double objective of getting its work and the Bills and Acts it handles publicised. This in itself is a key prerequisite for effective eParticipation: a well-informed citizenry. Among lessons learnt are that people seem happy to contribute if they understand the issues and how they will be affected be these issues. In the case of the Parliamentary ICT Committee, the consultations have been held on bills that are to be debated by Parliament, and understanding the implications of these proposed laws has been critical in having meaningful discussions. Perhaps the most illustrative example was the Interception of Communications Bill, which most discussants preferred to refer to as the phone tapping bill. That set out the bill as intrusive on peoples privacy; everyone could understand how the bill was going to affect them, and so they took an interest in understanding it and debating the proposals in the bill which they found objectionable. Careful, well-thought moderation of eConsultations tended to help the consultations to achieve their objectives of informing citizens and having them voice useful concerns which the Committee would take into consideration while handling the bills. Where objectives seemed met to a larger extent were in

cases where the Committee appeared more prepared by giving detailed information on the bills, by explaining its implications, by always responding to the concerns raised by participants in the eConsultations. Unfortunately, the ICT committee does not always seem to systematically plan and structure the consultations. Even with their shortcomings, however, they have provided the Parliamentary ICT Committee with an opportunity to leverage on ICT to promote inclusive policy-making and at a wider level to promote greater participation of citizens in their governance. Deepening and reforming democracy requires involving more people in deliberations. But for Uganda's case, it does not seem that eConsultations are enabling a big group of excluded citizens to take part in the public debate. Besides, the fact that the consultations are not well-structured, and that they do not have a permanent record available in the public domain also subtracts from their effectiveness. For Uganda, eConsultations cannot come anywhere near face-to-face meetings in enabling those who are marginalised or excluded to air their voices. They do not bring into public deliberation voices that do not have opportunity to e heard under the traditional deliberative and participation mechanisms. Instead, they offer an extra platform to fairly well-educated and good income earners, who are already aware of how to participate using the traditional off-line forums. One could therefore conclude that eConsultations in Uganda remain an elitist forum which might be offering members of the middle class an extra way to participate but might not be bringing into the fold any citizens that were previously excluded. The Uganda ICT Committee's eConsultations are informing the policy process, because they target an audience that is well-versed with the area of ICT and has a keen policy in influencing policy.

Conclusion The eConsultations carried out by the Uganda Parliaments ICT Committee enable some people to provide meaningful input. Citizens can input from the comfort of their office or homes, they have a greater amount of time to reflect on the issues at hand and could therefore be able to provide more meaningful comments. There is a pool of information from the Committee - and from other members of the discussion - at their disposal so they ideally could discuss from an informed position. But it is clear that the eConsultations are at the moment not having more people involved than in conventional consultations. Neither do they appear to be reaching groups of Ugandans that are normally excluded from deliberations and consultations. The fact that there are few Ugandans online subtracts from the (potential) effect of eConsultations as a tool for promoting eParticipation. But it in no way renders them a useless tool. At the moment, the eConsultations are a good starting point and the experience of the ICT Committee should encourage Parliament to extend eConsultations to wider sections of Ugandans. The Ugandan Government, and Parliament, should also consider using more mediums than the listserv that is currently used, with consideration being given to having a permanent online forum for eConsultations as is the case with the UK Parliament.

References 1 Arnst, R. (1996). Participatory Approaches to the Research Process, in J. Servaes, T. L. Jacobson and S.Blaug, R. (2002). POLITICAL STUDIES: 2002 VOL 50, 102116

2 Chadwich, A. (2006). Internet politics States, Citizens, and New Communications Technologies. Oxford University Press, New York. 3 Dalton, R. (2002). Citizen Politics Public opinion and political parties in advanced industrial democracies; third edition; Seven Bridges Press: New York Dalton, R. J. and Kuechler, M. (eds) (1990) Challenging the Political Order. Cambridge: Polity. Gehring, V.G. (ed) The Internet in public life. Muhammad, R. A. (1995) Participatory Development: Toward Liberation or Co-optation? in Craig and Mayo, Community Empowerment, pp. 2432. OECD. (2002). Public Management Policy Brief: Engaging Citizens in Policy Making: Information, Consultation, and Public Participation Paris, OECD. Parliament Forum (2009). The Commons online Forum, forums.parliament.uk/ ; accessed June 4 2009 Peters, J. & Manon A. (2008). E-Consultation: Enabling Democracy between Elections Choices, IRPP , Vol. 15, no. 1, January 2009

4 5 6

10 Whyte, A. and Macintosh, A. (2002). Analysis and Evaluation of e-consultations; www.teledemocracy.org; accessed June 17 2009