Implementing change
Mendez (2007) suggested there are four phases to the implementation of political experimentation [i].
The first of these is change in the incentive structure, including the availability of new technologies and a willingness to experiment with them.
Second, these new incentives mobilise political entrepreneurs to offer e-democracy innovations. However, these could also be balanced by the mobilisation of groups opposed to such changes.
The third phase sees the resulting conflicting demands settled by the political process through its institutional arrangements. The ability to experiment, or to oppose such experimentation, will be mediated by the institutional settings.
And finally the policy outcomes emerge "in response to the demands of policy entrepreneurs and conflicts among political actors".
The importance of the third phase is crucial, as it determines the outcome of the debate between those who support and oppose change.
For the ideas set out in these essays, resistance to change might be expected to come from the traditionally dominant political parties. Given their embedded role within the institutions that will decide on these arguments, this may be seen as giving such political parties a vital advantage in arguing for outcomes which maintain their position.
So prospects for change depend on the institutions recognising they are the agents of the state rather than the government or political parties. Their ability to view themselves in such a way will be strengthened by the loss of support, and therefore legitimacy, which the main parties will have experienced.
This will provide the opportunity for a shift to the radical solutions outlined here.
Footnotes:
Recent comments