People power or pixel posturing?
by Ewen Cook
The era of web 2.0 heralds a revitalised terrain for political engagement. But can the growing raft of e-democracy tools actually reinvigorate a disenfranchised electorate and, furthermore, actively regenerate communities?
If the jury is still out on e-democracy, it is perhaps because the courtroom needs major renovation and the view from the public gallery is almost completely obscured.
"It's become fashionable to talk up the potential for media to be a vehicle for democratisation. But there's a huge gap between the rhetoric and the action here." Daniel Meadows
Despite the digital revolution presenting an inestimable opportunity for governments worldwide — a platform to bridge the widening gap between citizens and the legislative powers — public alienation from the political sphere remains all too profuse.
The Government is so concerned by the huge numbers of people languishing in digital exclusion that, in 2003, it charged Ofcom with a "duty to promote media literacy".
Webcameron: lukewarm response
But if the intent to repair the damage is burgeoning, the execution is woeful. Jack Straw's Fabian lecture in June 2006 saw him reiterate that politics should be "a contact not a spectator sport." Yet the hitherto limited impact that our political leaders have enjoyed squiring apathetic voters via online canvassing is stark.
Webcameron fooled few with its "inauthentic" attempt to present a benevolent affront to the centralised model of political communications. Moreover, in a climate of political distancing and mistrust, such tokenism — reactivity masquerading as interactivity — only compounds an undeniable democratic impasse:
- Almost four out of every ten people failed to turn out at the last three general elections
- Voter apathy hit its nadir in 2001, when only 59.4% bothered to vote — the lowest figures since 1918, which was before women were given the vote
- The Hansard Society has suggested that low turnout is not simply down to apathy but due to a widespread, conscious decision not to vote. People are not less interested in politics, they feel "less well informed and connected to the political process."
E = everyday: e-democracy means tangible tools
Given the web's much-vaunted shift from a tool of reference to one of collaboration — collectively known as web 2.0 — the above evidence from Hansard illustrates a striking incongruence which might well be viewed with a certain bewilderment.
David Wilcox interviews Tom SteinbergFormer Evening Standard correspondent and community technology specialist David Wilcox has written persuasively about making e-democracy part of the everyday: "Nothing much will change until user/voters/citizens start to use new media tools effectively to make their voices heard, to shift the balance of control," he says.
And the tools are out there — and growing fast. Lauded effusively by Wilcox, Tom Steinberg and his crew of developers — creators of the truly inspirational mySociety — have produced e-democracy tools that have won plaudits from politicians, civil servants and citizens alike. Tony Blair joined Pledgebank this year and subsequently encouraged over a hundred other public figures to agree to become patrons of community sports clubs.
"Political culture is a much harder thing to shift than how people buy books."
But Steinberg is realistic about the potential for rapid, meaningful change at the politico-technological interface: "People sometimes think that because some things grow incredibly fast on the internet, that everything can change very quickly. But political culture is a much harder thing to shift than how people buy books."
Humanising the digital frontier
Engendering a successful climate of e-democracy is imperative. But an avalanche of digital avenues, platforms and tools alone does not democracy make. Wilcox stresses that processes should remain humanised: "Understanding comes from talking as well as voting and petitioning and pledging."
A pluralised perspective is crucial. Former Chief Adviser on Strategy to Tony Blair, Matthew Taylor, recently argued that e-democracy's role is not to simply provide channels for citizens to make more demands on politicians, but "to increase their understanding of deliberative decision-making and the challenges of government."
Patience, of course, is requisite; there will be no immediate, convivial "e-electorate" solution. But there is also great value in the very example that diverse e-democracy conduits provide — in terms of a visible contribution to community regeneration and to popular transparency. Democracy is not just about who leaves the armchair come election time.
Digital Stories's Daniel MeadowsFor Pontypridd-based social enterprise consultant Steve Cranston, e-democracy entails a localised, progressive tableau: "It means finding new ways of demonstrating the contribution people make to building community. I see this as a vital part of renewing democracy."
Daniel Meadows, creator of over 1000 digital stories through his vehicle Capture Wales, concurs: "I believe in a participatory culture, one where we all work together to make the world function on a human scale. We are, after all, shaped by the tools we use."
Digital Storytelling is a convivial tool which affords and espouses democracy by its very nature: generating tactile communiqués of an inclusive, invitational and universal kind.
Digital Storytelling is precisely a convivial tool which affords and espouses democracy by its very nature: generating tactile communiqués of an inclusive, invitational and universal kind.
E-democracy's challenge in the 21st century is both differentiated, expansive and exciting. It must secure not only the re-establishment of trust and dialogue between the state and its citizens, but simultaneously inspire the societal evolution of grassroots human discourse itself.
Updated 2nd November 2005
