Advertisement

The Quality of Democracy as a Key to Cyber Democracy

  • Thorsten D. Barth
  • Willi Schlegelmilch
Living reference work entry

Abstract

Never until now during the known history of mankind was it so easy to communicate globally and to share information so rapidly. An increase of information and knowledge is resulting from the growing information exchange. The technical transformation processes have the impact that more and more aspects of politics, policies, or public opinion formation in a democracy are already now and will further be transferred into the digital world. A variety of factors is contributing to and responsible for these transformation processes. In this context, global networking and communication can be seen as one of the most critical factors. The increasing global networking and communication is closely linked to and build upon revolutionary developments in the information technology. Having this in mind, it becomes clear that today’s democratic societies have to be modernized, if they want to survive as functioning political democratic systems in the already established digital environment. This is even more important in the digital era for a democracy’s future as a Cyber Democracy. The thesis of this chapter is that a Cyber Democracy can only be implemented and maintained sustainably, when the basic principles of a democracy as well as the quality standards of a high-quality democracy are fulfilled to an extremely high degree. Our conclusion is that in due consideration of the high-quality standards for a democracy, a basic and sustainable concept for a Cyber Democracy can be established in the digital world.

Keywords

Quality of democracy Democracy Cyber democracy Information 

References

  1. Barth, T. D. (2010). Konzeption, Messung und Rating der Demokratiequalität. Brasilien, Südafrika, Australien und die Russische Föderation 1997-2006. Saarbrücken: VDM-Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, T. D. (2011). The idea of a green new deal in a quintuple helix model of knowledge, know-how and innovation. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 2(1). http://www.igi-global.com/article/idea-green-new-deal-quintuple/51633
  3. Barth, T. D. (2013). Freedom, equality and the quality of democracy: Democratic life in the United States, Australia, Sweden and Germany. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development (IJSESD), 4(1). http://www.igi-global.com/article/freedom-equality-quality-democracy/77345
  4. Barth, T. D., & Schlegelmilch, W. (2014). Chapter 7. Cyber democracy: The future of democracy?. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F.J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense (pp. 195–206). New York: Springer. http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1028-1_7
  5. Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Müller, L., & Weßels, B. (2008a). Wie lässt sich Demokratiequalität am besten messen? Zum Forumsbeitrag von Thomas Müller und Susanne Pickel. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 49(1), 114–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bühlmann, M., Merkel, W., Weßels, B., & Müller, L. (2008b). The quality of democracy: Democracy barometer for established democracies (pp. 1–64). Working paper no. 10a – NCCR democracy. Retrieved from, http://www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/publications/workingpaper/pdf/WP10a.pdf
  7. Campbell, D. F. J. (2008). The basic concept for the democracy ranking of the quality of democracy. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. Retrieved from, http://www.democracyranking.org/downloads/basic_concept_democracy_ranking_2008_A4.pdf
  8. Campbell, D. F. J. (2014). Cyber-democracy. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense (pp. 113–116). New York: Springer. Part II.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, D. F. J., & Barth, T. D. (2009). Wie können Demokratie und Demokratiequalität gemessen werden? Modelle, Demokratie-Indices und Länderbeispiele im globalen Vergleich. SWS-Rundschau, 49(2), 209–233. http://www.uni-klu.ac.at/wiho/downloads/campbell_u._barth-demokratiemessung-sws_rundschau-heft_2009_02-FINAL.pdf
  10. Campbell, D. F. J., Pölzlbauer, P., Barth, T. D., & Pölzlbauer, G. (2012). Democracy ranking 2012: The quality of democracy in the World: Method and ranking outcome. Comprehensive scores and scores for the dimensions. Vienna: Democracy Ranking. http://democracyranking.org/wordpress/?page_id=392
  11. Campbell, D. F. J., Barth, T. D., Pölzlbauer, P., & Pölzlbauer, G. (2014). Democracy ranking – edition 2014: The quality of democracy in the World. Norderstedt: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  12. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2009). “Mode 3” and “quadruple helix”: Toward a 21st century fractal innovation ecosystem. International Journal of Technology Management, 46(3/4), 201–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carayannis, E. G., & Campbell, D. F. J. (2010). Triple helix, quadruple helix and quintuple helix and how do knowledge, innovation and the environment relate to each other? A proposed framework for a trans-disciplinary analysis of sustainable development and social ecology. International Journal of Social Ecology and Sustainable Development, 1(1), 41–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carayannis, E. G., Barth, T. D., Campbell, D. F. J. (2012). The quintuple helix innovation model: Global warming as a challenge and driver for innovation. Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 1(1), 1–12. http://www.innovation-entrepreneurship.com/content/pdf/2192-5372-1-2.pdf
  15. Dahl, R. A. (1971). Polyarchy, participation and opposition. New Haven/London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Diamond, L., & Morlino, L. (2005). Introduction. In D. Larry & L. Morlino (Eds.), Assessing the Quality of Democracy (pp. ix–xliii). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Diecker, J., & Galan, M. (2014). Chapter 9. “Creating” a public sphere in cyberspace: The case of the EU. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense (pp. 231–255). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  18. Ferdinand, P. (2003). Chapter 21. Cyber-democracy. In R. Axtmann (Ed.), Understanding democratic politics: An introduction. Sage: London. Online Pub. Date: May 31, 2012 , DOI:  10.4135/9781446220962, Print ISBN: 9780761971832, Online ISBN: 9781446220962.
  19. Fröschl, E., Kozeluh, U., & Schaller, C. (Eds.). (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic – A comparison. Innsbruck/Vienna/Bozen: Studien.Google Scholar
  20. Klein, A., Vöhringer, B., & Krcmar, H. (1999). Cyberdemocracy – eine politische chance. http://www.winfobase.de/lehrstuhl/publikat.nsf/intern01/076790EF7CDE06A84125686C002CCFCD/$FILE/99-19.pdf
  21. Lincoln, A., Chittenden, L. E. (2009/1908). Abraham Lincoln’s speeches, general books, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  22. Lincoln (1863). Gettysburg Address; In Lincoln, A., Chittenden, L. E. (2009/1908). Abraham Lincoln’s speeches, general books, Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Google Scholar
  23. Lipset, S. M. (1960). Political man (1st ed.). New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc..Google Scholar
  24. Macpherson, C. B. (1973). Democratic theory. Essays in retrieval. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mitterlehner, B. (2014). Chapter 8. Cyber-democracy and cybercrime: Two sides of the same coin. In E. G. Carayannis, D. F. J. Campbell, & M. P. Efthymiopoulos (Eds.), Cyber-development, cyber-democracy and cyber-defense (pp. 207–230). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  26. NCCR (National Center of Competence in Research). (2011). Democracy barometer – Newsletter. No. 8 February 2011. Retrieved from, http://www.nccr-democracy.uzh.ch/research/module5/barometer/Newsletter_Febr11_Demokratiebarometer.pdf
  27. O’Donnell, G. (2004). Human development, human rights, and democracy. In G. O’Donnell, J. V. Cullell, & O. M. Iazzetta (Eds.), The quality of democracy. Theory and applications (pp. 9–92). Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
  28. O’Donnell, G. (2005). Why the rule of law matters. In L. Diamond & L. Morlino (Eds.), Assessing the quality of democracy (pp. 3–17). Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Pelinka, A. (2008). Democratisation and de-democratisation in Austria. In E. Fröschl, U. Kozeluh, & C. Schaller (Eds.), Democratisation and de-democratisation in Europe? Austria, Britain, Italy, and the Czech Republic – A comparision (pp. 21–36). Innsbruck/Wien/Bozen: Studien.Google Scholar
  30. Rueschemeyer, D., Stephens, E. H., & Stephens, J. D. (1992). Capitalist development & democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  31. Taureck, B. H. F. (2010). Gleichheit für Fortgeschrittene – Jenseits von “Gier” und “Neid”. Munich: Wilhelm Fink.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Political Scientist & Academic EntrepreneurVienna Democracy Ranking Organization – Academic Ranking TeamViennaAustria
  2. 2.Accounting System StandardisationSchönaichGermany

Personalised recommendations