Digital Democracy: Bridging The Gap
This is part of a series of guest posts about the BBC's Digital Democracy plans, and is a response to Pete Clifton's post asking for your thoughts and feedback. Here, Andy Williamson of the Hansard Society calls for democracy where we can all get involved.
Or: Press The Red Button To Engage
The British people are radically disengaged from political institutions, with fewer than ever believing that their local representatives are worth voting for or even worth remembering. The result is that decision making is left to experts and consultants, with the views of ordinary people largely ignored and citizens left ignorant until it is too late.
Government has failed to keep up with the transformation of society made possible in part by the forms of networked individualism associated with the internet. Community action is increasingly self-motivated, viral, emergent and temporal. And this presents a significant problem for government, as old and new ways of engaging clash headlong like rutting stags.
Digital technologies can't of themselves change the nature of engagement. The strengths of the internet, most notably its ability to connect people to global networks, are resisted by government, whilst the latter fails to harness new technologies in ways that resonate with internet denizens. The new worldview enabled by the internet remains so alien to many of those inside the fortress of government that innovative ideas fail to gain any traction.
This is why the internet alone will not solve the problems of democratic disconnection, particularly when it is used to enable the very institutions of power that people no longer trust. Most government-led attempts at eDemocracy still rely on the structures of formal governance that cause and demand top-down, monolithic solutions to be imposed on communities. They operate via a "best practice" mindset of one-size-fits-all that often results in mediocrity. eDemocracy examples on the fringes, such as the 10 Downing Street ePetitions, attempt to address this problem but ultimately are likely to fail because they remain disconnected from the policy process.
"Online" is still largely out of mind in government policy making. The Governance Of Britain green paper [pdf] published last year makes one reference to the internet and this is in relation to alternative voting methods.
We need conduits that can connect an increasingly remote government to the changing society that it serves. This means moving the political debate back to citizens; for government to "do with" rather than to "do to" people. It means encouraging more dynamic and emergent forms of democracy which can be enabled by new technologies, which are grounded in our local communities and which emerge from the grassroots. This is easier said than done. I don't doubt that Hazel Blears believes that the internet "has the potential to open the door to a new kind of politics" and I most certainly believe that she is correct. However, she may well be underestimating the resistance to be encountered along the way.
Digitally enabling democracy will not overcome the entrenched barriers of social status, education and wealth, either. These are all fundamental and create inequalities in the accessibility of broadband and the acquisition of information literacy skills. eDemocracy can further exclude those on the margins unless strategies are developed to ensure these gaps are closed. There is also a risk that the "usual suspects" and extremes of offline politics simply set up camp online, again shouting over the voice of the middle ground.
Trusted institutions can help bridge the gap. While political trust is at an all-time low, the BBC remains relatively well thought of. Digital television and the internet increase the opportunities to connect people with democracy and to present them with choices. The risk is that these choices become illusory if they are not properly developed or connected to process.
Access and literacy are pre-cursors to digital adoption, but personal motivation through accessible, relevant and timely content is the key to staying connected. So when Mark Thompson talked about the BBC's rôle in building digital democracy recently, the idea resonated with me. The BBC's Charter makes it clear that it has a rôle to play. While it is just one piece in the jigsaw, the BBC does have the scale and trust necessary to mediate the democratic divide.
Can a new age of democracy at the BBC recognise that we live in a new landscape? Can it bring key stakeholders from both sides along with it? I believe it must because change is not something that can occur in isolation. I would like to see models of interactivity where all of us can get involved; where institutions such as the BBC provide not just coverage and commentary but red-button democracy, allowing citizens to pass judgement on what their elected representative do and say in real time.
This is democracy light, perhaps, and initially passive - but from here opportunities arise to create digital pathways, accelerating those who are motivated into increasingly deliberative spaces. New democratic forms will emerge beyond the original host because true digital democracy is multi-dimensional and no longer the domain of a privileged few.
Andy Williamson is the Director of eDemocracy programmes at the Hansard Society.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~22~RS~)
Comments
Are you going to engage directly with comments that appear here?
What happens to the disadvantaged few who do not have access to computers or TV?
I think the greatest resistence will come from the politicians. What have they to gain from giving the general population more access to decision making? As for people who don't have or can't currently afford computers and broadband. Well, very recently I heard of a box for under £200 which enables you to surf the internet without the need for a computer, and I'm sure that in a very short time that technology will be available for half the price. So personally I believe that having an internet connection will in a few years become as common as having a dvd player, and I think you may be surprised how capable the vast majority of the population are when they see the many advantages.
The British people are radically disengaged from political institutions
I think you have that backwards. It should read "The political institutions are radically disengaged from the British people".
I don't believe for an instant that the politicians really want that much involvement from the general population, especially when that involvement goes directly against policies that they are proposing.
Time and again the government ignore public involvement. They tried to sweep public dissent over ID cards under the table, by combining all the negative reactions delivered electronically into a single negative statistic. They set up the online petition system which appears to make no difference to what direction the government takes on any policy. They flat out refuse to hold a referendum on the EU constitution/treaty. They may say they want public involvement in politics, but their actions say something different.
It's good that the focus of these comments so far is on access to ICT. Of course digital democracy is anything but democratic is a considerable portion of our society (currently about 40%) is also digitally disadvantaged. Overcoming this problem wasn't the focus of this piece but it is as much on my mind as what to do once we have overcome it. Yes, digital set-top boxes remove the need for a pc and increasingly a range of devices are becoming internet-enbabled. However, the barriers are more than financial, they are educational, aspirational and motivational. I have always said and I maintain that any government strategy for digital engagement MUST include strategies for overcoming barriers to access and for improving digital literacy.
Al T: I think the greatest resistence will come from the politicians.
There will be resistance from some politicians, but I feel the evidence is that the greatest resistance will come from officials. MPs can see benefits, however, the transformational nature of digital democracy means it can break down existing power-bases and provide new channels. This challenges entrenched ideas of power and control in many parts of the civil service.
I’m afraid that unless the UK adopts a direct democracy model similar to that of Switzerland any attempts to have ‘red button’ democracy will just be another impotent means of attempting to measure public opinion, but with all the limitations that it or the Sun’s phone in polls etc have. Opinion polls at least try and sample a representative selection of the public.
Direct democracy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
The real issue is in politicians’ reluctance to relinquish the current model of first past the post elections that hand absolute power to the winning party for a fixed term.
Thatcher or Blair were both conviction politicians; they saw public opinion as being fickle, the only poll that mattered was the general election. Unless that model is changed then [to quote yourself] choices will remain illusory as they are not properly developed or connected to process.
And people will realise that ‘pushing the red button' is just a sham, unless it can be seen to result in real change. The majority will become disinterested, leaving as its only enthusiasts various finge groups attempting to influence opinion.
jayfurneaux has a point, the voting system in this country favours the status quo. Coming from a country that has a proportional system, I know it isn't perfect but I do personally believe it is better. Let's be clear though, it does not solve the long term problem of democratic drift.
And if direct democracy still assumes a government-led model, then it overlooks the greatest benefit of the internet too. I think the real challange is to transform the processes of government and democracy from wholly government-led to becomebalanced between government-led and citizen-led.
1) Do you think local representatives are worth voting or even remembering? Why?
2) Do you think there should be more tangible evidence of politicians making decisions and having views?
3) Politicians have failed to keep up with the transformation of society made possible in part by the forms of networked individualism
associated with the internet. Why do you think that is?
3) Would you regard the popular march against the war in Iraq as "self-motivated, viral, emergent and temporal"? If not, why not? What
criteria do you use to make your assessment?
4) "old and new ways of engaging clash headlong like rutting stags". Please describe what you mean in detail about new ways of working, and the main barriers that have prevented politicians from adopting them. What are the main sources of resistance?
5) "Digital technologies can’t of themselves change the nature of engagement". Why do you think you put down the role of digital technology? Isn't it allowing this very act of communication that wouldn't be possible otherwise, and therefore significantly changing the nature of
engagement?
6) "The new worldview enabled by the internet remains so alien to many of those inside the fortress of government that innovative ideas fail to gain any traction". Is this a general comment about traction of innovation, or one specifically associated with the Internet? What are the current communication channels for innovation?
7) "This is why the internet alone will not solve the problems of democratic disconnection, particularly when it is used to enable the very institutions of power that people no longer trust". I have difficulties following this logic. To me this appears to be saying that it won't work because politicians don't use the internet?!!!
8) "Online" is still largely out of mind for politicans. Have you asked politicians why this is so? If not, what answer do you predict?
9) Have you asked politicans if they want to "move the political debate back to citizens"? Did they wholeheartedly agree? Perhaps they could post here.
10) You confuse accessibility of broadband with having a dedicated broadband connection at home. Many very poor countries rely on shared communal connections in places such a libraries and cafes. Has the social status, education and wealth of politicians been a barrier to internet use such as posting opinions on a blog, or creating a blog?
11) After being elected, in what sense can an MP represent the views of thousands of people? Can you give examples of effective influence?
12) "allowing citizens to pass judgement on what their elected representative do and say in real time". Would some tangible record of an MPs choices and decision help in this case? With the existing "Have Your Say" forum, can you demonstrate how this has influenced MPs?
13) The government has naturally filtered out blacks, asians and women from the highest levels for many years. Why do you think politicians are going to be any more objective with the views of the public, if they are so easily swayed by skin colour and gender?
Marko, thanks for the comments, that’s a lot of points so I’ll try and tackle them in order and try to keep the answer brief!
1) Do you think local representatives are worth voting or even remembering? Why?
A: Yes, I do. I believe local knowledge and connections are important. The internet might make things more global but it also accentuates the local.
2) Do you think there should be more tangible evidence of politicians making decisions and having views?
A: Sticking to online, I think this already exists, theyworkforyou.com allows me track how my MP voted and to monitor what they said.
3) Politicians have failed to keep up with the transformation of society made possible in part by the forms of networked individualism associated with the internet. Why do you think that is?
A: It’s a basic adoption cycle… our politicians tend to be in the demographic that falls into the later adopter category for ICT and the internet in particular.
3) Would you regard the popular march against the war in Iraq as "self-motivated, viral, emergent and temporal"? If not, why not? What criteria do you use to make your assessment?
A: Yes, I probably would and that’s a very good parallel to draw. Why? Because it emerged out of a ground-swell of public opinion 1) deciding that was being done was wrong, 2) feeling motivated enough to do something about it and 3) getting together with like-minded people to act together. It’s actually a classic internet model for disruption only carried out in the real world. In fact this probably makes a good argument about why we must focus on people and not technology (so thanks for the analogy). Of course, one might also argue that ultimately it has been a largely ineffective social movement in that it has clearly had an effect but has failed to secure the desired result. A warning for online too, I suspect.
4) "old and new ways of engaging clash headlong like rutting stags". Please describe what you mean in detail about new ways of working, and the main barriers that have prevented politicians from adopting them. What are the main sources of resistance?
A: Old democratic practices are elitist and inward looking, government values its own views above those of individual citizens. New media transforms this model so that more views can be heard, democracy can be more deliberative and – if anyone is listening – decisions can be made based on a much wider input. These models are polar opposites, the challenge is finding the balance between old and new – it’s not either or but somewhere in between.
5) "Digital technologies can’t of themselves change the nature of engagement". Why do you think you put down the role of digital technology? Isn't it allowing this very act of communication that wouldn't be possible otherwise, and therefore significantly changing the nature of engagement?
A: Yes it is, but to elevate the role is to be technologically deterministic and this is a flawed argument – change occurs because of people, not technology.
6) "The new worldview enabled by the internet remains so alien to many of those inside the fortress of government that innovative ideas fail to gain any traction". Is this a general comment about traction of innovation, or one specifically associated with the Internet? What are the current communication channels for innovation?
A: Well, yes, I’d probably agree with you that this comment applies beyond the internet. Ironically the civil services is now being encouraged to be more innovative but this has to be contextualized within the existing culture, I guess.
7) "This is why the internet alone will not solve the problems of democratic disconnection, particularly when it is used to enable the very institutions of power that people no longer trust". I have difficulties following this logic. To me this appears to be saying that it won't work because politicians don't use the internet?!!!
A: No, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that relying on technology without making the necessary process transformations or demonstrating the benefits to people won’t work. Adoption comes from personal motivation, discontinuous adoption will come from value derived from new processes that technology supports.
8) "Online" is still largely out of mind for politicans. Have you asked politicians why this is so? If not, what answer do you predict?
A: Yes. See 3 above!
9) Have you asked politicans if they want to "move the political debate back to citizens"? Did they wholeheartedly agree? Perhaps they could post here.
A: Yes and yes many of them do… in fact I still believe that most MPs are there because they believe they can improve people’s lives and most want to find more effective ways of keeping in touch with constituents (not least, it can help secure their re-election, which might seem self-serving but see 7) above about personal motivation).
10) You confuse accessibility of broadband with having a dedicated broadband connection at home. Many very poor countries rely on shared communal connections in places such a libraries and cafes. Has the social status, education and wealth of politicians been a barrier to internet use such as posting opinions on a blog, or creating a blog?
A: No, I don’t. This comment is absolutely intentionally written as it stands. I agree with your comment about access through places other than home completely but I have seen over and over again in my own research that adoption and value is directly related to proximity of access. It should be a policy aim to ensure that people have access to the internet where and when they need it – that can and should include libraries and community centres but it must focus on access in the home, workplace and school.
11) After being elected, in what sense can an MP represent the views of thousands of people? Can you give examples of effective influence?
A: This goes back to the core tenets of representative democracy. I’m also not sure what you mean by ‘represent’ versus ‘influence’ here… there are certainly examples of the internet being used to influence political opinion. The obvious one is the 10 Downing St road toll petition. Personally I don’t believe this did anything that wouldn’t have happened anyway but I do believe it significantly reduced the time it took the government to feel the full force of public opinion.
12) "allowing citizens to pass judgement on what their elected representative do and say in real time". Would some tangible record of an MPs choices and decision help in this case? With the existing "Have Your Say" forum, can you demonstrate how this has influenced MPs?
A: It’s problematic that there doesn’t appear to be any real evaluation of the effectiveness of sites such as this or theyworkforyou. Anecdotally they appear to have value but it’s hard to draw conclusions beyond that.
13) The government has naturally filtered out blacks, asians and women from the highest levels for many years. Why do you think politicians are going to be any more objective with the views of the public, if they are so easily swayed by skin colour and gender?
A: Yes, sadly the current system continues to be skewed not just by race and gender but also social class. I think there is a strong movement within disenfranchised groups to raise their profile and voice their opinions, the internet assists this but nothing will guarantee that people are listened too, again, this is a social issue and it requires a shift in culture. Hopefully, this will occur over time in part because of the way the internet can break down silos and barriers. It’s a depressing thought to end on, perhaps, but there remains the risk that the internet is simply colonized by those in power as a way of retaining their power. It requires others to stake claims in these spaces for this to change, passivity won’t work.
Sorry, a bit of a marathon and I’ve probably not covered everything, Andy
How many people are part of the Facebook group
" I can't be bothered to pay tax because as the Revenue lost 25,000,000 records on child benefit, I know they will never find me "
or the Bebo site
" What's the point of having a passport from a government when you can buy one on the internet ? "
I think at the last count, it was 548,756 for the first and 23,756 for the second
Is that more than the Labour Party
There is another one
" Why pay the licence fee when you never get caught " with 56,907 members