19 Sep 2005

Are politicians scared of e-democracy?

“Decisions are made by the people who turn up.”

I’m not sure where the quote originated, but I first heard it from Martin Sheen on ‘West Wing’. He was telling a group of students that if they wanted to have an influence on politics they had to get off their butts and take part in the meetings.

You can spread the same message in any democratic society, but for most of us the reality is more than a few well intentioned words. For a start, a lot of us struggle to make meetings that begin early in the evening; working hours and awkward journeys place them out of our reach. For those who can escape work in time, it invariably means dragging yourself across town to a draughty meeting room and going without dinner. Then you spend two or three hours enduring the words of pedantic busybodies and long winded idealogues who are more concerned with making their presence felt than getting things done. If you’ve been through this routine you’ve probably noticed how some people – usually those with a more tolerant, common sense outlook and less to say – get tired of it all and slip out before the meeting is concluded.

Decisions are not necessarily made by those who turn up; they’re made by those who are willing to endure what most of us find exhausting after a day’s work. That often means those who don’t do full time jobs, or whose lives revolve around politics.

This is unhealthy. A proper democracy should have room to accommodate people who want to make a contribution, but don’t want it to swamp the time they have away from work. Instead we have a culture where you have to be driven, whether by good intentions or an outsized ego (and they often go together), to make your presence felt.

I’ve been thinking about this after recently writing an article on e-democracy. I believe a lot of people would be much more inclined to take part in politics if they could do it from the comfort of home.

So far, most e-democracy initiatives in the UK have been around consultations or petitioning, but it could be used for the decision making process. Technology has already developed to a point where it’s not difficult to circulate the agenda and supporting material for a discussion online, allow people to make their contributions to a debate over a period of days or weeks, and provide a forum for voting. It’s not beyond government to set up a registration process for participants, keep the debate civilised, ensure that the vote is transparent and provide an audit for the whole process.

One big advantage would be that people could sort through the hair splitting, digressions and political rants to the core arguments in much less time than if they sit listening to them, trying to be patient and wondering why they are subjecting themselves to the ordeal. They could say their own piece without dirty looks or shouting matches. They could take some time to think, and make up their minds detached from the pressures that often arise in a meeting room.

A lot of people would be more ready to get involved by spending an hour per week in front of their computers than enduring meetings. I reckon it would provide a more balanced group of people than those who tend to dominate politics. It would create a more open democracy, and lay the ground for decisions that go closer to meeting public needs.

Maybe I’m missing something, but so far I don’t see this happening. Is there any government agency or local authority that has set up an online forum for making decisions? Are there any political parties that carry out their debates and form policy online?

It brings out the sceptic in me. I have this suspicion that a lot of people who are active in politics enjoy the current situation. They’re making the decisions, and don’t want too many people turning up.
Most of them go through the treadmill of endless meetings as part of their lives, and to their minds anyone who wants to join the game should do what they’ve had to do. Shouldn’t people show their commitment before they can exert an influence?

I’m probably being unkind. I’ve met plenty of politicians who are open, honest and eager to do something for the public good. But also met quite a few who are convinced they are a cut above the drones who won’t devote a sizeable chunk of their lives to the game. I suspect that there is a sentiment in favour of broadening the democratic process, but not enough commitment to making it happen.

I hope that time proves me wrong, but I suspect that politicians are not all that keen on taking e-democracy all the way.

Mark Say is editor of Government Computing magazine. At various times in the past 25 years he has been a member of the Labour Party, a school governor, the chair of a council tenants’ association and the secretary of a youth club charity. In each case he grew extremely bored with the meetings.

Posted by Mark Say on 19/09/05 at 12:32pm
Categories · Political engagement · Across the Board · Ideal Goverment - project

Trackbacks

Permalink

Page 1 of 1 pages

Ideal Government

Let's say what we want from e-enabled government. Let's observe government first-hand. Let's say "Wouldn't It Be Better If" (WIBBI). Become an ethnographer of bureaucracy today! It beats getting frustrated with public services.

Comment

Anyone is free to comment. Or mail with an article if you want to be an author. I'll post it up and send you a password. This whole thing is supported by Kable.

Authors

Member List

Sign up for new articles

19 Sep 2005

Are politicians scared of e-democracy?

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics

19 Sep 2005

Are politicians scared of e-democracy?

Ideal Government

Categories

Comment

Sponsor

Authors

Sign up for new articles

Copyright

Designed by...

Statistics