The mobile Parliamentarian
The connected Party Actor
The online Representative
The wired Legislator

In summary, in terms of use of ICTs by parliamentarians, there are not too many surprises in the results of the research. All of the parliamentarians, selected because of their ‘early adopter’ status, use most of the mainstream, publicly available ICTs. Everyone has a mobile phone (although not necessarily third generation), and email is starting to replace the highly popular fax machine as the main tool for written communication, although verbal wins out over written. Interestingly SMS has become popular among members of parliament, suggesting firstly that parliamentarians are now more likely to use the technology themselves (rather than just their assistants, on their behalf) and secondly that they will be potentially doing new things, and with new people e.g. taking care of more of their own logistical or organisational matters (as with most SMS users) or having increasing contact with certain groups – perhaps experts, advisors or voters. And of course, face-to-face contact is still very important and desired, both in and out of parliament.

Overall, there is a lack of strategy in how parliamentarians use these tools: there is simply an ‘ICTs just add to my toolbox’ approach.  The outlook is still ‘first base’, with few insights into the full potential of using ICTs in their work. There is not much beyond brochure-ware on most of the parliamentarians individual websites, although this is not an indication of their level of interest in, competence with, or commitment to technology: several early adopters have no websites at all. They have few insights into the full potential of using ICTs in their work. Their approach is very broadcast-media and not particularly participatory or dialogic, using tools for information dissemination rather than consultation or engagement. Furthermore, there is no clear evidence of evaluation of the impacts or results of their ICT activities, and surprisingly, very little cost-benefit analysis, even among those who have invested in full-time webmasters.

A slightly more creative use of the internet, either of websites or other online activities, is still a rarity. Those who have weblogs or undertake online consultations are relative innovators. Experimenting using mobile technologies is still quite far off. There is also relatively little mention of participating in third party online activities, given the concern expressed over the lack of perceived credibility of information on their own sites.

Parliamentarians are not particularly ambitious or experimental in their plans, as well as their existing behaviour. Their ‘wish-lists’ consist of upgrading their websites or having tools and applications to solve current technical problems (e.g. spam management), rather than experimenting with new forms of consultation, representative or legislative practices.

The main drivers behind the deployment of ICTs by parliamentarians (and their parties) are efficiency, cost and broadcast efficacy – despite the lack of formal evaluation. The parliamentarians are realists in their assessment of the relative advantages of devoting more time and resources to online activity while their populations are still in the real (and often un-wired) world. This realism is observed in their low interest in and preparedness for online activity for their next elections.

Interestingly, the traditional and predictable North-South or East-West divides were not really visible in either behaviour, or attitudes or our sample. While this does not reflect the character of their colleagues, it might suggest some similarities (since homogeneity is far to strong) in our early adopter community.

So who is our wired Parliamentarian?  In short, in their use of ICTs, these parliamentarians seem to be more ‘mobile workers’ than e-democrats (or e-representatives).  This is exemplified by their areas of concern (personal safety, data security and confidentiality) as well as their ICT wish-list.  While this is a likely outcome of the early adopter status of our group, this seems to resonate with some of the research presented in the literature review.

Within their parties, similar patterns in the use of ICTs are emerging: ICT is predominantly used for efficiency-driven information dissemination. It is interesting to note the perception that the potential for increased internal party democracy (i.e. more ‘bottom-up’ inputs) is sometimes stifled by the same enabling technologies, steered by political will in one direction rather than the other.

In terms of activism, ICTs have not obviously extended activity or participation in party life. There is not much evidence of the use of general e-democracy tools such as e-consultations, by either individual parliamentarians or parties. While some parties have experienced a slight increase in membership numbers through online recruitment drives, these new ‘e-members’ tend to have (and want) a looser association with the party, without deep involvement in internal party life.

Clearly ICTs, have a potential for increased cohesion and singularity of presentation of political parties, through a tighter and more rapid message control system. This could possibly lead to an increased strength and position of parties, in an age of decreased partisanship and political de-alignment.

Despite the perceived trend for parties to use ICTs to support their central co-ordination function, Parliamentarians do see the potential for more ‘individualisation of politics’ through the use of ICTs, with politicians being able to develop highly individualised and personal relations with audiences beyond their immediate reach.

The Representative in our study is shown to be the least ‘transformed’ through the use of technology, in terms of day-to-day work, but with possibly the most potential for future change.

With the ever-increasing amount of contact, and decreasing formality of contact with their citizens, (through the use of email and now SMS) our representatives have the feeling of being closer to citizens. Yet they do not feel they have a better understanding of what people think, or what their interests are, and neither can they better represent them. This paradox is clearly one of the potential areas for change.

While our Representatives still prefer face-to-face contact, most of them read and answer their own email correspondence. If this is a trend which will go beyond the early adopter set, it will clearly have consequences for staffing requirements and the internal organisation of parliamentarians offices.

The impact of ICTs on political participation remains ambiguous. The findings of this study point to an increase in activity of the ‘already-active’ (e.g. party members or interest groups) and possible increase in participation among those who might fall into the latent or potentially active category, but triggered into action perhaps by the convenience or anonymity of ICTs. There is little evidence of ICTs extending or broadening participation, as opposed to deepening it among the already active. This leaves our representatives with the impression that they are still ‘preaching to converted’.

The Legislator is the most affected by the use of ICTs, of our three parliamentarians. While on balance this appears to be a convenient and satisfying development, there are several negatives. The perceived speeding up of parliamentary life and the feeling of greater pressure from drowning in the sea of information overload, is paramount. This raises related questions as to the impact on the quantity and quality of legislative output, as well as the possible consequences for the legislators’ ability to balance interests.