If you’ve not already switched off from the party ‘tit-for-tat’ that is the run up to the spring election, you may have noticed that last month saw a new political football thrown onto the field. A government motion was approved to research into an e-petition system that could force parliament to debate any issue that attracts enough support online. David Cameron responded immediately with a suggestion that any petition that attracted a million signatures should become an issue serious enough for debate. “It’s absurd that a tiny percentage of the population craft legislation that will apply to the entire population. Instead of locking people out of the process, we need to invite them in.”
It remains unclear how many of us would use such a tool. However, does the possibility of an e-petition site open the door to real political inclusion for an otherwise disengaged millennial generation, or is it just the latest fad buzzing around the Blackberrys of Westminster Village? The Number 10 e-petition site, setup to give anyone the ability to deliver a petition directly to the PM, has already had plenty of success. A campaign last year saw the government formally apologise to the late Alan Turing for his prosecution as a homosexual in 1952, whilst a petition signed by 1.8 million people forced a u-turn over road tax proposals. However, notable successes apart it does not seem likely that we will see a discussion in parliament any time soon, as one popular petition demands, on the issue of whether Jeremy Clarkson should be prime minister. So does a large number of responses always indicate it’s a good thing to look at?
Once again, and quite frustratingly, this would appear to be an attempt by baby-boomer led political parties to win over the important Facebook vote; but the policy makers have again missed the point. Petitions, be them online or on paper, are one way tools which offer no forum for discussion or collaboration. eDemocracy promises much more than this, doesn’t it? The council in Melbourne, Australia have successfully used a wiki site where citizens can read, review and edit the ‘city vision’ for the future of the city. This is precisely the type of initiative that brings the wisdom of crowds fully into the process of governing. Governments can avoid single issue groups by taking the discussion to other parts of the web where issues are already being keenly debated, such as social networks. Engagement is not about waiting for people to talk to you, it’s about finding out where the discussion is already happening.
As for e-petitions, its seems we are yet again destined to spend money on something that we already have, just in a digital form. My suggestion: a petition to force a complete rethink over eDemocracy. Who’s with me?
UPDATE - 11/03/2010
The Conservatives today announced a new ‘Technology Manifesto’ that suggested a government under their control would “throw open the doors of Parliament”. The manifesto proudly uses the phrase ‘wisdom of crowds’ but with no indication as to how they will actually harness the opinions of the electorate in policy decisions.
On balance most would welcome the announcements in the same document that alludes to, without firm commitments or time scales, 100Mbps broadband for the UK. However, less than 100 words describing the Tory’s use of technology is really not enough to convince any of us that they really understand what they are talking about when it comes to eDemocracy. There are plenty of us ready to offer advice, so it’s time to listen Cameron and Co – let’s not waste this opportunity.
Nice article. Was not aware of the wiki solution being used, now you mention it it does sound ideal but only if sufficient information is also given to the crowd hence why eDemocracy will always need a few to safeguard certain information.
ReplyDeleteGreat Post Rob! I get really annoyed when politicians make something that exists digital and claim its an innovative way of doing politics. In terms of one way communication (digitally) I think the government has done quite good. But in terms of 2.0 I think we need to wait for a long time to see real progress and real change to the kind of level that is needed.
ReplyDelete