Saturday, April 7, 2007
Examining the “e” in “e-gov”
Last week at Barcamp, during the e-governance session, TB Dinesh of Janastu announced an e-governance conference he was helping organise later in the year, tentatively December 2007.
Typical criticism of e-governance centres around how the digitisation is often an excuse to usher in something else, a something that may not always be in favour of the citizenry in whose name e-governance is justified. The best criticism of the technology itself that I’ve seen is limited to questioning the platforms and vendors used. None of it deals with how the manner of application of the technology, shorn of non-technological motives, correlates with its transformative effect on society.
As Mitch Kapor brilliantly summarised it, in a different context, Architecture is Politics:
When I was first thinking fifteen years ago about the challenge of protecting and fostering freedom and openness on computer networks, I originated the phrase “architecture is politics”. The structure of a network itself, more than the regulations which govern its use, significantly determines what people can and cannot do.
…
When it comes to building a new movement, the converse proposition, “politics is architecture” holds true as well. The architecture (structure and design) of political processes, not their content, is determinative of what can be accomplished. Just as you can’t build a skyscraper out of bamboo, you can’t have a participatory democracy if power is centralized, processes are opaque, and accountability is limited.
BoingBoing has a timeline of Kapor’s thought process.
Dinesh has tentatively titled his conference “Information Architectures for E-Governance”. Here are his notes. Elsewhere on that site, I found another page outlining plans for the event (both links may break). While the site says the event is scheduled to be held in Trivandrum, the plan appears to have changed to Mysore (from personal conversation).
Dinesh has specific questions: what is it that makes computers e-governance, and how can the software backend be strengthened to reduce tampering? The concern: an electronic system may be said to eliminate corruption and redundancies only so far as there is no unauthorised access to the data storage. What was once a social construct defined around persons, economic standing and power hierarchies is now an act of patrolling the technological barriers, in turn defined around a different and (often) unwitting social construct.
In my opinion, a conference of this sort would be incomplete without representation from NIC.
The National Informatics Centre is a government body that provides tech solutions to various other government agencies. By virtue of regulations in India, government agencies can procure from other government agencies without requiring external approval, but must use an open tender process for private suppliers. This makes NIC the primary supplier to much of the government.
NIC built some of the key software components of the e-governance framework in Karnataka, including the Bhoomi land records system, and Rural Digital Services (RDS), a unified interface to services from state departments.
I deal with NIC as part of my work responsibilities and find their motivation structure incomprehensible. It is neither capitalistic nor based on the free software philosophy. If I understand correctly, NIC provides software at no charge, their payment coming out of a central budget. Their units appear to operate independently, for I’ve heard of radically different platform choices in different parts of the country, while each unit more or less sticks to the same platform. The software in Karnataka is not open source. They appear to not be answerable to their client, the government department that takes their software to citizens.
So what, then, motivates them? A concern for the common citizen, an altruistic sense of what’s good for the government department, or an unknown hierarchy within their organisation?
For it has much to do with how the architecture of their software turns into politics and defines what e-governance is in some of India’s most significant projects.
Ashok — Apr 8, 2007 1:54:23 AM — # ↩
"what is it that makes computers e-governance, and how can the software backend be strengthened to reduce tampering? The concern: an electronic system may be said to eliminate corruption and redundancies only so far as there is no unauthorised access to the data storage......"
I think the issue is deeper than mere data tampering (this can probably be controlled to a large extent with appropriate safeguards...)
what about cases where despite having a system no one in the govt. department actually enters any data into it...? (because they are not interested or dont care....) what about cases where data is actually entered (as procedure), but the department refuses to share it...? (citing secrecy, or "we dont need to..."...) Both of which defeat the purpose of putting in a system...
A right to information act is a nice thing, but doesnt really exist in most countries... and even where it exists, its implementation is fictional.. To me, most of the problems in implementing something functional in government lie in changing rigid government procedures...which is what i think the Kapor guy is saying... (especially the ones that define "how X procedure is to be implemented.." a sort of standing orders for each govt. department ...) - either that or getting someone powerful enough at the top to issue a blanket directive (more easily possible in centralized "former dictatorship" bureaucracies...rather than an indian style bureaucracy...)
Kiran Jonnalagadda — Apr 8, 2007 8:48:23 AM — # ↩
I think Dinesh is partly responding to the impression that the human side of implementing e-gov has already been widely examined, while the purely technological side has not. The bit on how use of the technology comes to affect human structures -- after non-tech motives are dealt with -- is my reading.
I've long believed that technology is rarely neutral. By its very nature, it favours those who have access and encourages a certain kind of behaviour over others.
For a trivial example, the Captcha test on the commenting form below is an unpleasant experience, thereby subtly encouraging one to not bother commenting at all.
Arun — Apr 9, 2007 7:20:52 AM — # ↩
Interesting, your thoughts on NIC. Indeed, they are one of those mysterious organizations within the govt! :-) From what I have seen, a few good (relatively) guys there seem to keep it alive and running. An unknown hierarchy within the organization seems like a good explanation.