Articles and talks

The Future of e-Democracy

by Louise Ferguson, 2002

The government has embraced e-democracy as a way of reaching out to citizen constituencies – such as young people – who are currently opting out of the party political process. But just how much can we expect e-democracy to deliver, and where would it lead us in terms of representative democracy? Does technology by itself have the power to change behaviour, or do people need a 'fun factor' to convince them to take part in the democratic process in the era of Big Brother and Pop Idol?

These were some of the issues addressed at the Spiked Online debate "E-democracy: Political Solutions at the Touch of a Button?", the final event in a series of events addressing prospects for and barriers to IT.

As well as seeing opportunities for digital technologies to create more personalised relationships in services, Charles Leadbeater, advisor to the Downing Street Policy Unit and author of "Up the Down Escalator: Why the Global Pessimists are Wrong", believes their capacity for socialisation to be even more significant.

'I think the most powerful and politically significant aspect of these technologies is for allowing people to collaborate and self-organise: not simply the ability to reorganise relationships between governments and citizens, but to create new opportunities for citizens to organise themselves,' said Leadbeater.

'They permit new identities to be created, or existing identities to be expressed in new ways. Politics, in many ways, is about the clash of different collective identities and interests, so a technology that allows new interests to be articulated or organised in new ways has considerable potential.'

The implication of this, according to Leadbeater, is that we need to rethink the whole idea of what democratic politics means in an era of pervasive digital technologies.

'I think it's clear that more people will be political players, they will probably be better informed and more assertive, and they will be better able to compare the performance and behaviour of government and people in power across different domains.'

Using these technologies, citizens will be better able to collaborate and organise themselves, and Leadbeater pointed to the way campaigning and protest groups had already taken up the potential offered by online technologies. 'The anti-globalisation movement in many ways was a product of the dot-com boom as much as anything else.'

But just as important, thinks Leadbeater, is the way the line between the people, policy-making apparatus, and delivery apparatus starts to blur.

Leadbeater used the example of the Government's forthcoming statement on biodiversity, which has been 'developed in a completely networked way with all sorts of groups outside of the Department of the Environment – because actually most of the knowledge exists outside the Department.' The scope of democratic practice consequently expands beyond simple representative democracy or e-voting.

He argued that the global impact of these technologies is potentially enormous, with information and the media being the key to the spread of democracy. Furthermore, digital technologies perhaps offer the only way to govern certain international bodies in a democratic fashion.

But openness and transparency may not always be a good thing, suggested Leadbeater, pointing to departments having minimal media exposure as being more able to pursue progressive agendas, away from the spotlight of publicity.

Not all panel members were as convinced of the government's wish or ability to implement real change in democratic functions - or to achieve greater transparency - through digital technologies.

Simon Moores, Chairman of the Research Group and head of consultancy Zentelligence, is convinced that many MPs will not want to hear from voters, and that government departments may feel themselves overwhelmed by public feedback. The disappearance of dozens of email addresses from the website of the Office of the e-Envoy may be an attempt to control feedback, according to this argument.

But the implications of e-participation go far beyond voting. 'If people vote in a democratic fashion' using e-technologies to represent opinions on individual issues, said Moores, 'doesn't that make party politics irrelevant? And do we indeed need parties or governments in the traditional sense?'

The nature of technology holds within it the risk of changing the way government relates to citizens, according to Moores, who believes that at times government fears e-democracy or true accountability, in the sense of its potential for rendering party politics irrelevant.

Is government really afraid of e-democracy? James Woudhuysen, professor of forecasting and innovation at De Montfort University, is also convinced that it is, but points to an inexorable trend in that direction, motivated by a government desire to establish more links with the populace.

'It's about making the state part of the fabric of our lives,' argued Woudhuysen, who nevertheless finds this supposed policy at odds with other aspects of government policy.

Woudhuysen's main argument is with the technological determinism promoted by Manuel Castells. 'When Charles [Leadbeater] speaks of the network society, he's talking about that aspect of Castellsian thought which is technological determinism, a radical preference for the forms of democracy rather than the content,' said Woudhuysen, but technology neither determines the future of society, nor is it society.

Government focus on technology and 'channels' avoids many issues being addressed, argued Woudhuysen. 'What are the causes that are really likely to be promoted? How will the clash of views re-establish power relations in a more democratic way?' The stress on e-democracy is merely another way of addressing new forms, but voting Big Brother-style using new technologies does not address the content issue, he argued. While in the consultation document "In the Service of Democracy" Robin Cook speaks of 'the public's desire for new avenues' for democracy, Woudhuysen claims not to detect a public desire for new avenues in the political world.

He pointed to boredom with politics as an unavoidable issue. 'I favour the webcasting of the Welsh assembly, but did the broadcasting of Parliament really turn us on? Did it raise the level of parliamentary debate?'

Government's desperation to 'get in touch with the youth' has led it to posit Big Brother as a possible model for e-participation. But Woudhuysen believes the government to be mistaken in seeing the success of interactive TV shows as being due to the technology in allowing a greater number of people to be directly involved. 'I'd put it to you that the success of Pop Idol is not to do with mass technology. It's to do with the fact that it's a bit more interesting than the soaps,' he said.

Concluding, Woudhuysen said he believes that the most logical response to e-democracy initiatives from government 'is not critical support but supportive deep suspicion', and that Government's preoccupation with communication and channels, rather than production and content, 'is not the genuine innovation that Charles [Leadbeater] and I would like to see, and is just not good enough.

Read more articles on this website
Check out shorter pieces on the blog