EU u-Government: A Solution for More Citizen Participation in EU Policy-Making

Part of the Palgrave Studies in European Political Sociology book series (PSEPS)


EU democracy has been traditionally practised through representation. This chapter argues that more citizen participation in EU policy-making is plausible, thanks to ubiquitous computing, mixed reality technology and virtual spaces. Current technology and IT services can remedy problems of time and space, the biggest obstacles for active civic involvement in EU governance. The chapter starts with the advantages and disadvantages of applying ubiquitous government (u-government) in policy-making. The following section investigates how practising democracy at EU level can be facilitated through u-government, augmenting citizen participation in EU governance. The third section proposes a conceptual model for using mixed reality technology and u-government in the EU context. The conclusion briefly reflects on the future of citizen participation in the frame of an EU e-democracy.


EU democracy EU governance Mixed reality technology Virtual world Citizen participation 


  1. Anttiroiko, A.V. 2006. Towards Ubiquitous Government: The Case of Finland. E-Service Journal 4(1): 65–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Badouard, R. 2010. Pathways and Obstacles to eParticipation at the European Level. Journal of eDemocracy 2(2): 99–110.Google Scholar
  3. BMRB International. 2002. Public Attitudes towards the Implementation of Electronic Voting (Qualitative Research Report). Accessed 16 Dec 2013.
  4. Bohman, J. 2007. Democracy across Borders: From Dêmos to Dêmoi. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  5. Caiani, M., and L. Parenti. 2013. European and American Extreme Right Groups and the Internet. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  6. Chryssochoou, D. 2001. The Nature of Democracy in the European Union and the Limits of Treaty Reform. Current Politics and Economics in Europe 10(3): 245–264.Google Scholar
  7. Clift, S. 2000. The E-Democracy E-Book: Democracy Is Online 2.0. Accessed 25 Feb 2013.
  8. Dahl, R. 1998. On Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Dryzek, J.S. 1999. Transnational Democracy. The Journal of Political Philosophy 7(1): 30–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ellis, S. 1994. What Are Virtual Environments? Computer Graphics and Applications, IEEE 14(1): 17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eriksen, E.O., and J.E. Fossum. 2000. Post-National Integration. In Democracy in the European Union: Integration Through Deliberation?, ed. E.O. Eriksen and J.E. Fossum. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. ———. 2008. A Done Deal?: The EU’s Legitimacy Conundrum Revisited. In Law, Democracy and Solidarity in a Post-National Union: The Unsettled Political Order of Europe, ed. E.O. Eriksen, C. Joerges and F. Rödl. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  13. ———. 2011. Representation Through Deliberation: The European Case. ARENA Working Papers 5: 1–25.Google Scholar
  14. European Commission. undated 1. Digital Agenda: Europe’s Strategy for a Flourishing Digital Economy by 2020. Accessed 26 Feb 2013.
  15. European Commission. undated 2. Online Privacy. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  16. European Commission. undated 3. Online Trust. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  17. Ferro, E., E.N. Loukis, Y. Charalabidis, and M. Osella. 2013. Policy Making 2.0: From Theory to Practice. Government Information Quarterly 30: 359–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Freeman, J., and S. Quirke. 2013. Understanding E-Democracy Government-Led Initiatives for Democratic Reform. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government 5(2): 141–154.Google Scholar
  19. Friedrich, D. 2011. Democratic Participation and Civil Society in the European Union. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gardner, M., and B. Horan. 2011. Using Virtual Worlds for Online Role-Play. Proceedings of the 1st European Immersive Education Summit, Madrid.Google Scholar
  21. Habermas, J. 2012. The Crisis of the European Union: A Response. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Hilbert, M. 2007. Digital Processes and Democratic Theory: Dynamics, Risk and Opportunities When Democratic Institutions Meet Digital Information and Communication Technologies. Accessed 20 Feb 2016.
  23. Kohler-Koch, B. 2007. The Organization of Interests and Democracy in the European Union. In Debating the Democratic Legitimacy of the European Union, ed. B. Kohler-Koch and B. Rittberger. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. ———. 2011. The Three Worlds of “European Civil Society”: Different Images of Europe and Different Roles for Civil Society. In The New Politics of European Civil Society, ed. U. Liebert and H.J. Trenz. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Kohler-Koch, B., and C. Quittkat. 2011. What Is “Civil Society” and Who Represents It in the European Union? In The New Politics of European Civil Society, ed. U. Liebert and H.J. Trenz. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. McCormick, J.P. 2007. Weber, Habermas, and Transformations of the European State: Constitutional, Social, and Supranational Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Milgram, P., and F. Kishino. 1994. A Taxonomy of Virtual Reality Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information and Systems 1(12): 1321–1329.Google Scholar
  28. Miller, D. 1994. The Nation State: A Modest Defence. In Political Restructuring in Europe: Ethical Perspectives, ed. C. Brown. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  29. Moravcsik, A. 2003. In Defence of the ‘Democratic Deficit’: Reassessing Legitimacy in the European Union. In Integration in an Expanding European Union: Reassessing the Fundamentals, ed. J.H.H. Weiler, I. Begg, and J. Peterson. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  30. Moreno-Jiménez, J.M., C. Pérez-Espés, and M. Velázquez. 2013. e-Cognocracy and the Design of Public Policies. Government Information Quarterly 30: 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Norris, D.F. 2010. E-government... Not e-Governance... Not e-Democracy: Not Now! Not Ever? In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV’10), ed. J. Davies and T. Janowski. New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  32. Oja, M. 2008. Electronic Government in the Age of Ubiquitous Computing (Thesis), University of Lübeck, International School of New Media, Lübeck.Google Scholar
  33. Oja, M., and A. Schrader. 2008. From Internet to Internet of Things—The Evolution of U-Government. Proceedings of the IADIS International Conference WWW/Internet 2008, Freiburg, pp. 344–348.Google Scholar
  34. Okot-Uma, R.W. 2001. Electronic Governance: (Leading to Good Government). In Electronic Governance and Electronic Democracy: Living and Working in the Connected World. Ottawa: The Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance.Google Scholar
  35. OneEurope. undated. The Green PrimaryYou Decide Europe. Accessed 17 May 2016.
  36. Poblet, M. 2011. Rule of Law on the Go: New Developments of Mobile Governance. Journal of Universal Computer Science 17(3): 498–512.Google Scholar
  37. Prensky, M. 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon 9(5): 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Ridgway, B. 2006. Ubiquitous Government: Enabling Innovation in a Connected World, Microsoft Asia-Pacific. Accessed 25 Feb 2013.
  39. Riley, T.B. 2001. Electronic Governance in Context. In Electronic Governance and Electronic Democracy: Living and Working in the Connected World. Ottawa: The Commonwealth Centre for Electronic Governance. Accessed 16 December 2013.
  40. Runciman, D. 2007. The Paradox of Political Representation. The Journal of Political Philosophy 15(1): 93–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Saward, M. 1998. The Terms of Democracy. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  42. Schmidt, V.A. 2006. Democracy in Europe: The EU and National Polities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tserpes, K, M. Jacovi, M. Gardner, A. Triantafillou., and B. Cohen. 2010. +Spaces: Intelligent Virtual Spaces for eGovernment. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Intelligent Environments 2010 (IE’10), IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp. 318–323.Google Scholar
  44. Tully, J. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key, Volume I: Democracy and Civic Freedom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2012. United Nations E-Government Survey 2012. Accessed 25 Feb 2013.
  46. Warren, M. 2009a. Two Trust-Based Uses of Minipublics in Democracy. Paper Presentation at American Political Science Association Meeting, Toronto.Google Scholar
  47. ———. 2009b. Citizen Participation and Democratic Deficits: Considerations from the Perspective of Democratic Theory. In Activating the Citizen: Dilemmas of Participation in Europe and Canada, ed. J. Debardeleben and J. Pammett. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  48. Weiser, M. 1991. The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American 265(3): 94–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Zalesak, M. 2002. m-Government: Definition and Perspectives (Interview), e-Government, the Development Gateway. Accessed 16 Dec 2013.

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Security Studies (C4SS)Metropolitan University PraguePragueCzech Republic
  2. 2.School of Computer Science and Electronic EngineeringUniversity of EssexColchesterUK

Personalised recommendations