Teaching Comparative

Populist digital politics

Democratic candidates for president responded to questions posed in YouTube videos and appeared at the Yearly Kos, a meeting of liberal bloggers. Some Republican candidates balked at answering questions posed on the Internet, but are likely to do so in the end. Technology is changing politics and government. But how and how much?

A pair of op-ed articles on the web site of the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures & Commerce in the UK might offer some starting points for discussion, debate or writing in your classes.

Here are excerpts:

Open to all…

George Osborne on ‘open-source politics’
[George Osborne is shadow chancellor of the Exchequer and MP for Tatton, Cheshire]

"The internet is changing the world... What is less clear is how politics and government need to change to keep pace... Just as companies all over the world are changing the way they do business... We need to recast the political settlement for the digital age. We need ‘open source’ politics.

"First, this means embracing equality – equality of information...

"Secondly, we need to harness the potential of new online social networks... These new online networks enable us to engage with new audiences...

"The final pillar of this new settlement is ‘open source’. Open source harnesses the power of mass collaboration to find new ideas..."

…but tread with caution

Will Davies on why we need to stay focused on the real issues within the UK power structure, rather than on the niche area of ‘open-source politics’
[Will Davies is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Public Policy Research]

"Consider the following two portraits of Britain in 2007. In the first, the internet has fostered a culture of mass collaboration, in which open source projects such as Wikipedia are worked on by a distributed network of volunteers.Politics increasingly follows a similar model, with citizens seizing the potential of interactive media to organise themselves both on a local and non-local level. Political parties and governments have no choice but to partner with these ever-more confident citizens on an equal basis.

"Transparency and interactivity have trumped secrecy and passivity. Individuals speak for themselves and hold power to account, thanks to being equipped with abundant information...

"The second portrait could scarcely be more different. In this, the rules that limit state and police power are gradually eroded, with tangible public support. Liberal measures such as data privacy and freedom of information become viewed as unnecessary burdens that undermine the more important goals of maximising security and public-service efficiency. Concern for inequality leads policymakers further into the private lives of individuals and families...

"George Osborne’s championing of ‘open-source politics’ only exacerbates the contradiction. He argues that top-down politics is impossible in a bottom-up age, while the truth is that the two are mutually reinforcing. How can this be? Three answers suggest themselves.

"Firstly, to paraphrase the trickle-down economists, the rising tide of digital technology lifts all ships. While citizens can now Google each other, search parliamentary debates using theyworkforyou.com or gather medical information to challenge their doctor’s opinion, similar technologies have been harnessed by the powerful to entrench their informational advantages...

"Secondly, a vague but highly significant line is being drawn between those decisions that can and can’t be democratised. At one extreme lies counter-terrorism, an activity that by definition can’t engage the public on an equal footing. At the other lies pure opinion gathering, such as a BBC message board. But problems arise in the middle ground, especially where children are involved. Should parents be involved in developing the content of the school curriculum? How much should employers be allowed to know about their employees (and vice versa)? The e-democracy zealots tend to focus only on the narrow comfort zone in which decisions matter sufficiently to attract interest, but not enough to carry significant risk...

"Following from this is a more perturbing thesis, but one that any serious investigation of this topic must address. In his classic study of community life, Bowling Alone, Harvard academic Robert Puttnam writes: 'The ability to send a message to president@whitehouse.gov can give the illusion of much more access, participation and social proximity than is actually available'. While all efforts to make the democratic process more transparent must be celebrated, there is a danger that some of them look to substitute technological interactivity for constitutional interactivity...

"None of the above is to dispute the veracity of Osborne’s depiction. Open-source politics is real and interesting. But to focus on a niche and relatively inconsequential area of politics to the exclusion of other more momentous shifts in UK power structures is irresponsible..."

---

Labels: change, concepts, culture, participation, political culture, theory

posted by Ken Wedding @ 10:26 PM