BRIDGING THE DIGITAL DIVIDE: A LEGAL ANALYSIS OF E-DEMOCRACY IN LITHUANIA

Abstract

The gap in digital access is steadily increasing. The existing digital divide, observed both in the Republic of Lithuania and across the European Union, underscores the lengthy and intricate nature of integrating new technologies into society. While different sectors face different issues, in relation to introducing technologies into conventional processes, one main issue can be seen throughout the sectors. That is, the growing gap between emerging technologies and the applicable law[3]. Lack of regulations in relation to technologies, used in political processes, such as electronic petitions, electronic voting, etc., creates a situation, where the basic citizens’ rights are not guaranteed. What is more, citizens are not able to utilize these technologies for their intended purpose. Finally, the technologies themselves become inaccessible to those groups of citizens, which would benefit the most from the use of these technologies. If the citizens are precluded from utilising these technologies to exercise their rights to participate in political processes due to insufficient knowledge, lack of accessibility, it can be regarded as an infringement of their rights. What is more, an analogous situation is created, when the very same citizen do end up using these technologies, but there is no rule of law requiring the operators of these technologies to make them safe to use.

Despite the present safety concerns, electronic democracy (hereinafter – or E-democracy) initiatives have already been introduced to the general public. These technologies allow citizens to exercise their rights, such as the right to petition. With the growing threat to democratic processes across the globe, the geopolitical situation of Lithuania makes it extremely vulnerable to the cyberattacks from foreign state operators. Consequently, the current electronic democracy initiatives fall under the guidance of the existing digital review. In this paper, the author has analysed the peculiarities of e-democracy, right to e-democracy and the relevant legislation of Lithuania. The author has come to a conclusion that e-democracy in Lithuania is guaranteed only in part.

Goal of the research – to explore the peculiarities of e-democracy, the right to e-democracy as well as to analyse the current legal regulation of Lithuania, in the context of e-democracy.

To provide more insight regarding the formulation of the goal, it is noteworthy to mention that e-democracy covers rights such as suffrage right (digital versions) as well as e-petition. Essentially, right now, it is unclear whether citizens have the right to exercise e-democracy technology (e-voting and e-petition systems) in Lithuania. Furthermore, even if such rights are being exercised, it is unclear whether the legal environment makes it safe for citizens to exercise these rights. Additional analysis into this topic will provide a clearer picture regarding the regulation of e-democracy and its technology in Lithuania.

Scientific problem – it is not clear whether the right to e-democracy is guaranteed in Lithuania.

Design/methodology/approach – the author will use desk research method. This method will be used to examine the concept of electronic democracy as well as its connection to digital divide or lack thereof. Furthermore, the author will analyse the right to e-democracy, which will allow the author to determine the connection between e-democracy, digital rights, and citizens’ rights (or lack thereof). Finally, the author will analyse the relevant legislation of Lithuania, in order to determine whether the current regulation sufficiently safeguards the main components of e-democracy technology.

The thought process behind the selection of methodology is that the topic of e-democracy, especially in the context of law, is seldom analysed. The main concepts, their interrelation as well as the general status quo of the legislation are relatively alien. Conversely, there does exist literature, which focuses on e-democracy and its peculiarities, even if outside of legal context. That is why the author aims to gather and systemize this information, with an attempt to apply it to the legal context. The analysis of these key topics (e-democracy and the right to e-democracy) is also crucial to introduce the readers to the final part of this article. Without knowing what e-democracy is, or how (or if) the right to e-democracy should be guaranteed, analysing the current legal regulation of Lithuania also becomes moot. Thus, desk research will be used to analyse scientific literature related to e-democracy, right to e-democracy, and finally to assess the relevant legal regulation of Lithuania.

Research limitations/implications – in this article the author focused on two citizens’ rights associated with e-democracy – suffrage right and e-petition. The author mainly analysed the regulation of Lithuania. While discussed, the EU or other states’ law were not the focus of this article. The author did not analyse whether the current legal regulation provides sufficient guidelines for citizens to exercise e-democracy technology, especially targeted at less digitally literate citizens. While references were made, the author did not analyse historical or political context. Author’s research is limited to the status quo of contemporary legal situation, which directly relates to the exercisability of abovementioned citizen rights as well as e-democracy technology in general. The author did not formulate recommendations or solution to the issue, related to guaranteeing citizens’ rights. Rather, with this article, the author sought to initiate a discussion regarding digital divide and impact, that lack of proper e-democracy related laws can have on inviolability of citizens’ rights. In addition, the results presented in this article brought clarity to this field, allowing researchers to narrow down the area of research.

Admittedly, each sub-topic analysed could be an independent research on its own. But taking into account the applicable character limitation and the relevance of these sub-topics to the main topic, the author chose to discuss only the main aspects of each sub-topic.

Originality/Value – this paper contributes to the broader discourse concerning the implementation of electronic democracy technology. The central issue is that the domain of electronic democracy and its legal implications are scarcely discussed. Current legislation was not specifically designed to regulate the use of electronic democracy technology and fails to assess the potential risk of infringing upon citizens’ rights. Consequently, the findings of this paper contribute to the discourse on how current policy should be amended to facilitate a seamless and secure implementation of e-democracy technology, while also ensuring that citizens’ rights, which are exercised virtually through the use of this technology, remain inviolable. Furthermore, by guaranteeing proper implementation and usage of e-democracy technology, it could enable states to bridge the existing digital divide.