Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Friday, July 31, 2009
VA Governor, Northrop, the Customer and Technology
http://www.examiner.com/x-10080-DC-Technology-Examiner~y2009m7d31-Why-do-governments-keep-getting-technology-wrong-the-case-of-Virginia
Friday, June 5, 2009
Talking about a revolution: governance, web 2.0 and Digital Bangladesh
Around March 4, someone posted on YouTube a thirty to forty minute clip from a meeting between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and army officials. It showed the confrontation between angry army officials and the PM on her decision to negotiate with the mutineers rather than take military action.
Within hours, the clip had spread to the four corners of the world. Facebook users put the YouTube link in their status, bloggers wrote about the video, related articles were dug up, and TV stations around the world discussed the meeting and its implications on the newly elected PM and the army. (All of these applications are considered a part of Web 2.0, where Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design that facilitates communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web).
Taken by surprise by the intense media attention, the government blocked Youtube altogether on March 6, hoping that it would blow over.
This created an even bigger sensation, and the government was soon impelled to take down the block -several short clips with the meeting's audio are now online. The end result? For one, the government, the army and the rest of the administration were forced to acknowledge the power of social media as a force for increased transparency. A combination of a watchful citizenry and technology brought about increased transparency. Secondly, many realised the irony of talking about a "Digital Bangladesh" in the same breath as Youtube blocks.
Flashback to 1975. On August 15, 1975, a group of junior army officers invaded the president's residence and assassinated Sheikh Mujib and most of his family. As the events unfolded, citizens were left uninformed, and Dhaka became a city of rumors. Coups and counter-coups took place, and stability was established only in 1977.
If the state of technology had been then what it is now, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other social media would have brought the news of Sheikh Mujib's assassination and the events that followed, to doorsteps of not just Bangladeshis but also the rest of the world's. This, unfortunately, did not happen. 1975 remained, for the most part, local and not global, which meant that it probably continued longer than it might have under Web 2.0.
There are two lessons we can take away from the 1975 and 2009 comparison. One is that information and communication technologies (ICT), especially Web 2.0, can be relevant even in developing countries by contributing to improved governance. It does so through increased transparency, accountability and collaboration. The other is that Digital Bangladesh is already happening, and those interested in the development of Bangladesh need to align Digital Bangladesh strategies with what is already happening in the country.
Bangladesh provides a good counterpoint to governments, international development agencies and others who argue that information technology projects are not relevant for developing countries, as there are more basic needs that should be fulfilled first. They argue that one is better off investing valuable resources on areas such as food, nutrition and education, rather than on information technology.
This point of view is pretty much de facto among the development community. This argument is based on the assumption that technology is an independent sector, and that resources can be diverted to one sector or the other. This is a flawed assumption and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of technology. Technology is not just a sector of its own, but also an important driver of other sectors, and an enabler of development goals.
To ignore investment in information technology puts a developing country at risk of falling even further behind in the race for development. Every country, regardless of the level of economic growth, can benefit from thoughtful applications of ICT. In Bangladesh, which is a developing country, the two mutinies of 1975 and 2009 proved that ICTs, through increased transparency, can create pressure for improved governance, and thus contribute to development.
It was technology that really made the difference in 2009. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc., all of which played a key role in 2009, are Web 2.0 tools (also "social media"). Web 2.0 forced the government of Sheikh Hasina and the entire political apparatus to accept the fact that, from now on, transparency would be de facto. All government actions will have to be taken with the explicit understanding that their actions could be broadcasted to the whole world within minutes.
Digital Bangladesh is already happening, whether the powers that be like it or not. The best way to promote it is to support the direction that it is already taking, and not counter it through ineffectual means like banning Youtube. It is also proof that ICTs, when thoughtfully used to promote governance and economic development, can be of great benefit to all countries, especially developing countries. It is enormously shortsighted to take technology investment off the table of options, when considering ways of bringing about economic development.
-Previously published as an Op-ed in The Daily Star, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Within hours, the clip had spread to the four corners of the world. Facebook users put the YouTube link in their status, bloggers wrote about the video, related articles were dug up, and TV stations around the world discussed the meeting and its implications on the newly elected PM and the army. (All of these applications are considered a part of Web 2.0, where Web 2.0 refers to a perceived second generation of web development and design that facilitates communication, secure information sharing, interoperability, and collaboration on the World Wide Web).
Taken by surprise by the intense media attention, the government blocked Youtube altogether on March 6, hoping that it would blow over.
This created an even bigger sensation, and the government was soon impelled to take down the block -several short clips with the meeting's audio are now online. The end result? For one, the government, the army and the rest of the administration were forced to acknowledge the power of social media as a force for increased transparency. A combination of a watchful citizenry and technology brought about increased transparency. Secondly, many realised the irony of talking about a "Digital Bangladesh" in the same breath as Youtube blocks.
Flashback to 1975. On August 15, 1975, a group of junior army officers invaded the president's residence and assassinated Sheikh Mujib and most of his family. As the events unfolded, citizens were left uninformed, and Dhaka became a city of rumors. Coups and counter-coups took place, and stability was established only in 1977.
If the state of technology had been then what it is now, blogs, Facebook, Twitter and other social media would have brought the news of Sheikh Mujib's assassination and the events that followed, to doorsteps of not just Bangladeshis but also the rest of the world's. This, unfortunately, did not happen. 1975 remained, for the most part, local and not global, which meant that it probably continued longer than it might have under Web 2.0.
There are two lessons we can take away from the 1975 and 2009 comparison. One is that information and communication technologies (ICT), especially Web 2.0, can be relevant even in developing countries by contributing to improved governance. It does so through increased transparency, accountability and collaboration. The other is that Digital Bangladesh is already happening, and those interested in the development of Bangladesh need to align Digital Bangladesh strategies with what is already happening in the country.
Bangladesh provides a good counterpoint to governments, international development agencies and others who argue that information technology projects are not relevant for developing countries, as there are more basic needs that should be fulfilled first. They argue that one is better off investing valuable resources on areas such as food, nutrition and education, rather than on information technology.
This point of view is pretty much de facto among the development community. This argument is based on the assumption that technology is an independent sector, and that resources can be diverted to one sector or the other. This is a flawed assumption and reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of technology. Technology is not just a sector of its own, but also an important driver of other sectors, and an enabler of development goals.
To ignore investment in information technology puts a developing country at risk of falling even further behind in the race for development. Every country, regardless of the level of economic growth, can benefit from thoughtful applications of ICT. In Bangladesh, which is a developing country, the two mutinies of 1975 and 2009 proved that ICTs, through increased transparency, can create pressure for improved governance, and thus contribute to development.
It was technology that really made the difference in 2009. Facebook, Twitter, Youtube etc., all of which played a key role in 2009, are Web 2.0 tools (also "social media"). Web 2.0 forced the government of Sheikh Hasina and the entire political apparatus to accept the fact that, from now on, transparency would be de facto. All government actions will have to be taken with the explicit understanding that their actions could be broadcasted to the whole world within minutes.
Digital Bangladesh is already happening, whether the powers that be like it or not. The best way to promote it is to support the direction that it is already taking, and not counter it through ineffectual means like banning Youtube. It is also proof that ICTs, when thoughtfully used to promote governance and economic development, can be of great benefit to all countries, especially developing countries. It is enormously shortsighted to take technology investment off the table of options, when considering ways of bringing about economic development.
-Previously published as an Op-ed in The Daily Star, Dhaka, Bangladesh
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)