Naming the revolution
We are, it is often asserted, at the beginning of a revolution in the way we do politics that will match the revolution already happening in the way we do business.
Advocates of the increased use of information and communications technologies in government believe that the old political order will shortly be swept away by a tide whose name is legion but which begins always and inevitably with an e.
Call it e-Government or e-Democracy. Name it a thousand times and still the effect is believed to be the same: power will be returned to the people through the medium of the Internet and the newly invigorated polity will then give their consent to be governed anew by the bold, the brightest and the best.
This is the argument for a wired politics. Yet the reality to date seems one of failed projects, misguided initiatives, skewed ballots and fraudulent consultations. It is markedly different from the promised techno-utopia heralded by the Hansard Society, the Institute of Public Policy Research(ippr) and the vendors of electronic voting systems.
In part, this has come about because the technology and the political system are not built to work together; the two sides neither understand nor respect each other. Few can cross the chasm represented by the simple hyphen that separates e from democracy, outside a select (and probably deeply disturbed) band of ewonks drilled in the disciplines of IT and policy-making. (Like the ewoks of Star Wars, ewonks are often hairy and can be vicious when roused; I coined this term in conversation with James Crabtree.)
This is clear in the lack of any agreed framework for discussion of the change in the worlds political systems brought about by the widespread adoption of the Internet. It is clear in the arguments over benchmarking and measurement of the success (or otherwise) of projects. It is clear in the way that nobody can agree what this whole area should be called.
Some (as in this debate) call it e-Democracy (even the hyphen is a contested zone); others refer to e-Government. In their paper e-Participation in local government (ippr, 2002), the ippr uses the term e-Participation to cover the use of information and communication technology (ICT) by those outside the conventional apparatus of government. Other terms are no doubt being brainstormed into existence in think tanks and policy units around the globe.
The very words themselves have vastly different readings and, as the ippr paper puts it, are often used by different people at different times to refer to a wide variety of different types of activity (ibid. p 12).
This core confusion should not be allowed to disguise the change that has happened to date. Whatever ones preferred nomenclature, and whatever ones political or technological position, it is undeniable that technology principally involving personal computers and the Internet has already altered the way that business operates and it is starting to generate significant shifts in the personal lives of individuals, especially in the developed western world.
Transforming social behaviour
On a typical Friday night in Cambridge, UK, many young people will go out to meet friends. A year ago they would agree in advance where to meet, and when. Now such planning is redundant each will go out separately and, on finding a good place for the evening, will call or text (SMS) the rest of the group, who will then flock there.
This sort of change in social behaviour is of more than academic interest it is seriously challenging those who run pubs and bars to find new attractors as they can no longer rely on people arriving and just hanging around because they are meeting friends.
If technology is affecting these areas of life, why should politics be exempt? It seems obvious that the process of government, the institutions of the state and the limits of political activity will be affected by the Internet and all that it brings with it. The questions then are, first, how? And second, in what ways can this process be guided or driven to ensure that the result is better government?
e-Democracy or e-Tatorship?
The temptation is to bring an ideological commitment to a debate on e-Democracy, and to ask such general abstract questions as will never conceivably find an answer.
The assumption, for example, that e-Government and e-Democracy are in some way coextensive is one that should be rejected. There is no limitation on the use of computers and the Internet to mature democracies, and no reason to assume that the technology is inherently democratic; e-Dictatorship, e-State socialism and even e-Theocracy are all perfectly imaginable.
A well-run dictatorship (perhaps we should call it an e-tatorship) that makes optimal use of new technology may well do better in meeting the material and cultural needs of its subjects than a necessarily imperfect democracy, where personal liberty and effective administration often conflict.
By contrast, a democratic state that simply applies the disciplines of business use of information technology to the operation of government may well find itself sacrificing individual privacy in the interests of better administration, betraying its core principles for cost savings and joined-up government and damaging the very democratic values it is supposed to uphold.
Indeed there is, within the mature democracies, a general belief that the Internet is primarily a tool with which to revitalise their political system. As voter turnout falls, engagement with consultation exercises declines and interest in democratic institutions diminishes, the view is that sprinkling a little online fairy dust and launching numerous e-Democracy initiatives will solve the problem.
The Internet: bad for democracy?
This may not be the case. The Internet may well turn out to be bad for democracy in many ways.
Even if e-voting can be made secure, it encourages those who want some form of direct democracy and prefer polls to elections. Will representatives become delegates?
Online communities, divorced from any shared neighbourhood ties, are far less stable and far more homogeneous than the groups that democratic institutions were created to deal with. Can those institutions survive?
Online consultation on policies or pending legislation is presented as encouraging participation and active citizenship, but it is just as easy to create the pretence of participation and change nothing, or offer engagement but find no real interest. Can a democracy survive if nobody is willing to work for it?
As campaigning moves online, the costs to all candidates and groups will rise, and the early benefits will be lost as parties and single-issue groups turn the Web into another medium for political advertising, where only the loudest voices are heard. Is it good for democracy to make getting elected even costlier?
These are just some of the problems that arise when the Internet is used for politics. Are they sufficient to make us think again about moves to e-democracy, or is there still enough to be gained to make it worth the risk?
The implications are not just limited to the level of state or national politics, or the process of electing a parliament or senate. When we discuss politics for a networked planet then local initiatives matter just as much as the governance of global institutions, and campaigning organisations are as affected as political parties.
When considering the value or dangers of e-Politics, many factors are significant: local civic networks; the changes in our models of community and engagement, which online activity can bring; and the use of the Internet to facilitate solutions to political problems that lie beyond the nation state.
The e is irrelevant
Finally, there is also a need to look at how the network itself is governed, at the ways we democratise the e rather than making democracy electronic.
The breadth of this agenda is intimidating because it can seem too large for any useful analysis to be performed. So it is worth emphasising the core principle of all these discussions and projects: that, in the end, the e is irrelevant.
Our concern with technology should be transitional, as we move from an essentially pre-computing age of politics into a new political era, where technology supports political systems but is effectively invisible. After all, good e-government is, or should be, indistinguishable from good government, whatever the system or ideology. Figuring out how we can reach that goal is the real purpose of our debate.