A common trend exists amongst many Western democracies. This trend is multifaceted in nature and is associated with the core aspect of a society – that is, in what manner the people are governed. Citizens have become increasingly disillusioned with political systems, disenchanted with the traditional mechanisms of government, and distrustful of elected representatives. Political parties that once commanded a mass membership base of keen activists are now not only failing to attract a new generation of members, but also struggling to stem the outflow of former supporters. Voter turnout, amongst those nations where voting is not compulsory, is consistently dismal, raising further questions of whether the governments formed are truly representative of the people. Moreover, in Australia, where voter turnout is buttressed by an obligation to vote, augmenting numbers of people feel there is a growing divide between their views and those of their elected representatives. The results of the latest Australian Election Study are demonstrative of widespread cynicism towards the current state of democracy.
Respondents were asked the following questions, among others, in Section C of the 2010 AES:
“In general, do you feel that the people in government are too often interested in looking after themselves, or do you feel that they can be trusted to do the right thing nearly all the time?”
“Would you say the government is run by a few big interests looking out for themselves, or that it is run for the benefit of all the people?”
“Some people say that Federal politicians know what ordinary people think. Others say that Federal politicians don't know much about what ordinary people think. Where would you place your view on this scale from 1 to 5?”
It is evident that, as Ian Ward states (p.1), government is progressively viewed by citizens as “something done to, rather than by, them.” Trust of the citizenry in the government and institutions of the state are fundamental aspects of a robust democracy. It is a significant factor underlying belief in the legitimacy of government, as well as adherence to the laws and regulations of the given polity. The relevant literature has put forth a wide-ranging set of explanations for declining levels of trust in government – for a brief literature review see here (pp. 355-56) – yet a recurrent theme is the unresponsiveness of government to the views and wishes of the public. It is not just that many desire increased opportunity to have their say; they also wish to have their opinions heard and acted upon. In essence, for heightening numbers of people, a single vote once every three to four years is insufficient – decision-making power must be decentralised to a point where citizens have genuine and regular influence over the way in which they are governed.
Empirical evidence has demonstrated that the oft-claimed notion of political apathy amongst the wider populace is a myth. The claim that citizens lack the motivation, or capacity, to think about and deliberate on political issues is derived more from an endeavour to maintain centralised decision-making power than it is based upon data or thorough analysis. Moreover, cynicism towards current political mechanisms must not be equated with indifference; rather, this cynicism is indicative of citizens calling for more inclusive, innovative and effective methods through which to be engaged. Many critics claim (pp. 341-42) that political activity is correlated with age and higher levels of education, and thus further decentralising power would only further skew the political process in favour of these groups. While the basis of this claim is indeed accurate, it does not logically follow that decision-making should not be decentralised. Rather, it is a key argument in favour of developing and harnessing engagement strategies that not only open provide opportunities for all citizens to be involved, but also develop the capacity of citizens to realise these opportunities. As Thomas Jefferson once affirmed in a letter to James Madison, “I know of no safe repository of the ultimate power of society but the people. And if we think them not enlightened enough, the remedy is not to take power from them, but to inform them by education.”
Technological development and a proliferation of relevant online tools are now providing a tangible opportunity to overcome many of the traditional barriers to achieving an active, informed and engaged citizenry. The internet, however, will not by itself automatically usher in greater democracy – it is a neutral means that can be utilised towards any number of different ends.
Though there is much to disagree with in Evgeny Morozov’s argument, its central theme is both precise and profound. The internet is not an inherently democratising force; it is more so a reflection of the specific polity under consideration. It can certainly be utilised to leverage greater freedom, accountability, transparency, and political deliberation, yet it is difficult for this to be achieved without sufficient respect for such ideals in the offline society. In essence, for online democracy to flourish, it must be one part of a greater and more pervasive campaign for reforming a failing status quo.
The documentary above, Us Now, is roughly an hour in duration and is well worth a full viewing. It provides an in-depth examination of the ways in which technology, the internet, and mass collaboration or ‘crowdsourcing’ have the potential – when sufficiently utilised – to transform democracy, as well as life in general. While the entire film is valuable, four key quotes are contained within the opening two minutes that express key aspects of online or eDemocracy.
“A revolution doesn’t happen when society adopts new tools; it happens when society adopts new behaviours.”
“... And we can work together in ways that ask a deeper question about the role of government”
“There’s a whole new model that’s emerging where we become part of the government.”
“This is a very profound change... I’m talking about unbundling and reconstituting what is a government.”
An increasing number of studies are now questioning the validity of policy formulation processes that are largely reliant upon politicians, professionals and bureaucrats. Besides a concern with the tendency towards error, dependency upon a small group of professionals is also associated with a greater likelihood of evidence being manipulated, distorted or entirely ignored in the pursuit of a preordained agenda. The rapid and pervasive dispersal of information, enabled by technology, is fostering a growing call for greater transparency in policy- and decision-making, in addition to a larger role for the public. Of course, one problem must not be replaced with another; opening up all decisions to pure direct democracy and collaboration could easily undermine the rationality and efficacy of the process.
A balance must be found, and that balance is not without precedent. The United States Patent Office has
been at the forefront of successfully incorporating crowdsourcing techniques to
aid its patent review and approval processes. Further
localised examples can be seen from the City of Vancouver’s efforts towards
reaching the city’s 2020 Greenest City targets, or or the Massachusetts Department of Transport and Chicago Transit Authority’s decisions to release real-time transit data aimed at collaborating with the public towards web, phone and physical applications that will improve city transportation. A more expansive program built upon the same philosophy that underpins the Massachusetts DoT and Chicago TA programs is Code for America, which links programmers and coders with public servants and officials in order to create robust, informative and innovative city applications.
Facilitated by greater access to information, citizens are now increasingly demanding heightened transparency, as well as goods and services that are personalised, flexible, and mobile. The private and third sectors have made significant progress in these areas; only further intensifying expectations in regards to government and the public sector. Youth in particular – whose daily life is dramatically different to that of past generations – have developed a new conception of activism and citizenship that is highly integrated with ubiquitous technologies and online services. Many governments have responded to changing citizen expectations by developing a more customer-oriented approach, moving some services and basic information online, and introducing simple measures of consultation such as online surveys. These measures are generally activities that can be subsumed under the umbrella term of ‘eGovernment’. Yet more innovative governments have come to the realisation that merely transferring the status quo online is insufficient; citizens must be engaged in a meaningful and effective way towards the transformation of those very services delivered [1].
[1] Jones, S., Hackney, R. and Irani, Z., 'Towards e-Government Transformation: Conceptualising Citizen Engagement', Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, vol. 1, no. 2, 2007, pp. 145-52.