What do you see as the role of political parties - and the competition between them - in driving innovation in how citizens are engaged in policy formation?
The introduction of basic commercial research techniques such as Focus Groups has been more driven by the Labour Party than by Government.
Similarly, the intensive consultation and involvement techniques used by Liberal Democrats in local Government are slowly being adopted by the other parties and by local Government itself decades after the Liberal party started to use them and began its advance in local government.
In the end, if people are deciding not to vote for political parties (and it's normally the party, not the person they vote for), won't it have to be the parties that reengage with the voter - rather than - as you focus on in your paper - the state?
Posted by Martin Tod at December 9, 2001 02:52 PMThese are interesting questions, Martin. I suppose that the answer depends upon how sanguine one is about the future of political parties. My own view is that parties are indeed necessary for representative democracy, but, in their present form, try though they might, they will fail to re-engage voters. What they must do is engage citizens as equals in the civic process rather than as outsiders who must either be won over or ignored. I'd like parties to comment on the ideas in 'Bowling Together', but not simply to see them in terms of 'how can this enable us to campaign better?' In short, e-campaigning is closer to e-commerce than to e-democracy. I'd very much like to open up a dialogue - here and elsewhere - between parties and this agenda.
Posted by Stephen Coleman at December 9, 2001 03:37 PMI was delighted to read your excellent report, which raises a lot of important issues. I felt, however, that it perhaps got too involved, prematurely, in technical issues, when some of the fundamentals still need questioning.
In particular, my feeling was that the report was too rooted in the mindset of 200 years ago, when the 300 miles to decision-makers was a real obstacle to involvement, and when the assumption of superior judgement by politicians (not least by Burke) was unchallenged.
You skated too easily over the relationship between deliberation and decision. Of =course= we don't want ignorant plebiscites, as eg in many USA states' support for the death penalty. But if the deliberation is (as you rightly intend)informed, then why ever =not= use it as the basis for policy and legislation?
One reason, other than an irrational respect for "representational" democracy (which to my mind is only democratic by a =very= tenuous thread), may be that you have been seduced by the currently available and fashionable technologies. By becoming blinkered by the threaded, conversational nature of online 'discussions', as in bulletin boards, you have overlooked the value of achieving a (multicultural) consensus, upon which decisions can be based without any need for so-called 'representatives' as middle-men.
If, for example, you looked towards a tabular format, rather than, or as well as, a story-based format, for your deliberations, you would see that =real= deliberation, examining issues systematically, would be possible. Not only that, and the decision-making which flows from it, but it would then be possible to add =a= (perhaps =the=) most important feature of enfranchisement, viz an audit trail by which each and every contributor would be able to verify that his or her contribution had indeed been taken into appropriate account, and argue about it if he or she felt it hadn't.
Martin Tod is right to point to some LibDem consultation processes, but these still rely on people with loud voices, and bits of paper which get virtually or actually lost. With the application of modern technology, plus some accountable and careful human intervention, we can now do much better. Nor need it be limited to only a few thousand contributors.
Our "representatives" have had their day. Much as I like and admire those Lords and MPs whom I know personally, I think that their main virtue is that they're better as rulers than Kings or Bishops. As soon as something better turns up, we should get rid of the lot of them, say I!
Posted by Peter Davis at December 9, 2001 10:36 PMGrrrr! Your rotten software has lost all my careful paragraphs. Any contribution ought to be readable, not just legible!! Sorry about what now appears above as one long rant (rather than some mini-rants!).
Posted by Peter Davis at December 9, 2001 10:41 PMOur "rotten software"? Hmmm ... we think it's quite good, actually. It's Moveabletype, by the way (note to self, fix the MT-logo). Well, I take your point about the paragraphs, and have just enabled them, as you see. So, what else is rotten about the software?
I do not agree that we "prematurely" take on the technical issues. It may be that we should have elaborated more on them though, and maybe also on some of the fundamentals.
I'd like to see some good examples using a tabular format of the deliberations. The idea is interesting, but it is my experience that it doesn't work in practice.
Posted by John Gøtze at December 10, 2001 12:28 PMThanks for enabling paragraphs; perhaps I should have complained of rotten parameters rather than rotten software!
I can't give examples of good deliberations using tables - I had no idea that anyone had yet tried to implement the concept, let alone that they might have invoked it to good effect. Perhaps you could retell your experiences, so that maybe improvements could be made which =do= work in practice?
My point, however, is that whilst nested tables (given good human facilitation) can conceivably allow rapid , auditable, structured deliberation, leading to consensus and decisions, there is no way that the anecdotal, conversational nature of threaded bulletin boards can do that except for trivial, academic or small-scale (
I accept that, in the realm of theory, table entries could be mapped onto threads, and vice versa. But, in practice, bulletin boards are rambling and diversionary, whereas tables are focussed.
A good example of an intermediate state, where a deliberation is moving towards the definition of clearly separated issues, and a little way towards a consensus, is the summary of key points and themes made by Prof Chesshire from the consultation by the Cabinet Office's Performance and Innovation Unit Review of Energy (security of supply). I suggest that a tabular display of the issues could be created easily from such a summary, and that even the masterly summary which it is, might have been created by a less distinguished author if contributions had been tabularised as they arrived.
Be that as it may, nested tables allow for every point contributed to be assigned to one or more cells, which allow contributors complete visibility of how their contributions have beeen summarised, composited, argued with and voted upon. Such an audit trail is essential for contributors to know that their voice has been heard, understood and taken fully into account. I think that anecdotal, relatively unstructured bulletin-board techniques (and even sympathetic reports like Prof Chesshire's) can't provide that vital element of provable involvement in decision-making needed for true Citizenship.
Peter Davis spoke about "the irrational respect for representative democracy". I don't think that it is irrational at all, but then rationality is always dependent on the values that one uses as benchmark.
The Swedish "Business and Society" association recently commissioned a number of distinguished political scientists to write a report on the crisis of representative democracy. Voter turnout is still high - ~85% - but membership in political parties is falling and expected to reach 0 in 2013 (linear correlation).
Their answer was that it isn't primarily a crisis for democracy, but a crisis for the established political parties. Citizenīs are still politically active, but not in the established political parties. At the same time, however, they argued that democracy is not possible without political parties.
Representative democracy is, according to the report, an essential prerequisite for a functionning society. It is necessary in order to aggregate issues into cohesive action plans, to weigh and balance conflicting interests, to ensure that due account is taken of long term perspectives and consequences, and to provide accountability.
Direct democracy can never serve as a foundation for a democratic society. Try it, and the society will disintegrate into tribal wars of the sort that we have seen recently on the Balkan peninsula.
Knut Rexed
Posted by Knut Rexed at December 17, 2001 03:42 PMI agree with Knut about direct democracy. This has long been a rather timewasting distraction in the debate about how the internet can strengthen democracy. But I would submit that we are moving in the direction of a more direct form of representation. By 'direct representation' I mean that old assumptions about the link between representatives and represented will have to be reconsidered as traditional obstacles to less mediated connection (distance, scale, deference) become culturally and technologically obsolete. E-democracy could benefit from a broader debate than we have yet had about the role of representatives in an e-connected polity.
Posted by Stephen Coleman at December 20, 2001 01:50 AMStephen said "I agree with Knut about direct democracy." Knut asserted that "Direct democracy can never serve as a foundation for a democratic society. Try it, and the society will disintegrate into tribal wars."
It can NEVER be a foundation? Never say never!
Perhaps Knut is thinking of Swiss-style cantonal meetings, or the Athenian city-state; both seem pretty democratic to me.
But of course, tribal wars and Balkanisation are a danger IF 'direct democracy' is thought of as 'public out-cry', where the loudest voice wins, and those who lose feel understandably aggrieved.
But nowadays we can do better and, as I suggested earlier, technology could ensure that ALL parties to a debate are satisfied that their voice has been heard, understood and taken into account, and that no-one is seriously dissatisfied.
Such a direct democracy is much better, to my mind, than representative assemblies - my MP is a personal friend, and a very capable chap with whom I agree on most things, but I wouldn't trust him to represent me any further than I could throw him!
Stephen provocatively states that "This has long been a rather timewasting distraction". Perhaps he should wonder just why it keeps re-appearing, if representational 'democracy' is so good.
Posted by Peter Davis at December 20, 2001 08:01 PMI agree with Stephen C that internet will give a new depth to the relation between elector and elected, for better or for worse. Itīs significant that most of the bright young people who joined politics on the left or the right side ten years ago have already left for lobbying, consulting and marketing - but not because they reject the parliamentary system but because of internal rigidities in the established parties.
Direct democracy at national level can never manage the outsourcing of care for the aged, the creation of an efficient tax system, an adequate macro economic policy or a proper and timely reaction to a terrorist attack.
The Swíss cantons that stuck to town meetings the longest were essentially mountain tribes. If you ever find out where canton Glarus is and go there, you'll find a narrow mountain valley shadowed be high mountains and closed in itself.
Knut
We have coupled our massive database of tens of millions of responsive
subscribers in our optin email marketing database with razor-sharp strategy and
creativity, bulletproof implementation, and cutting-edge analysis technology.
Direct response agency specializing in lead generation direct marketing per inquiry
and cost per action advertising through the Internet, Optin Email, Telemarketing,
and Search Engine Optimization.