New media and Democracy

New media and Democracy Does the Internet make any real difference to democracy? GrahamYoung Executive Director National Forum 3rd June, 2005

Who am I? • http://graham.nationalforum.com.au/

What motivates me ?

And…

What is Democracy? • “…government of the people, by the people, and for the people…” – Abraham Lincoln Speech, 19 Nov 1863, dedicating the national cemetery on the site of the Battle of Gettesburg • “Democracy means government by discussion but it is only effective if you can stop people talking.” - Clement Attlee Anatomy of Britain (Anthony Sampson), ?1960 • “…democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” – Winston Churchill Speech, Hansard 11 November (1947), col. 206

“System of Government where decisions are made on the basis of a vote of all those belonging to that unit.” • It involves: • A problem or need • Discussion/Debate • Resolution of the discussion into a proposition or series of propositions • Determination of a majority position on the proposition • Consent of the governed • Action

The actors are: • Legislators • Individuals • Community • Media • Courts • Police and other enforcement agencies

What is e-Democracy? How is it different? • “The medium is the message. This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium...result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves or by any new technology.”McLuhan, Marshall Understanding Media, Ch. 1 • “Backing into the future”Graham Meikle Future Active Media Activism and the Internet

Democratic “market” 50 years ago • Homogenous/ Mass Market • Loyal/Tribal • Hierarchical • Relatively Passive • Not mobile • Community defined by geography • Decentralised and small scale

Democratic “market” now • Differentiated/Niche Markets • Volatile • Flat • Demanding • Mobile • Community defined by interest • Large scale

Technologies that have effectedthe political market

What is e-Democracy again? • The use of Internet-based technologies in the democratic process as a means of communication, discussion, organisation, influence, or decision making. • It is NOT “e-Government” which is the implementation of government administration via the use of Internet-based technologies.

Paradigms of e-Democracy • Direct or plebiscitary democracy • Online Communities • Government use of online techniques as a means of gauging public opinion • Online public engagement in policy deliberation • e-Activism • Electronic News Services (Points 1-4 from Bowling Together:Online Public Engagement in Policy Deliberations Hansard Society http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/)

How is internet likely to change politics? • Increase market differentiation • Make electors more volatile • Further flatten hierarchies • More demanding • Increase numbers of communities of interest • Scale will be less relevant

What are the advantages of e-Democracy? • Cheap to produce, publish and distribute material • Interactive – vertically and horizontally • Low barriers to entry and involvement • Ability to target market • Lessens effect of geographical, sexual, physical and other disadvantage • Able to be quickly responsive to events

What are the disadvantages of e-Democracy? • Clutter – too many sites • Lack of authority • Anarchic • Difficult to find and classify participants • Difficult to talk to the uncommitted • Digital Divide • Security and privacy of information

How are governments meeting the challenge? • Victorian Electronic Democracy Inquiry • NSW Community Builders • Queensland Government e-Petitions • Senate will accept electronic petitions • Webcasting of federal parliament, hansard online • US Environmental Protection Agency - community consultation with 1066 participants • English Parliament - bills up for scrutiny and comment • Government Online Directory (GOLD)

Democracy OnlineEPA Project • Large number of people participated, creating complex communication dynamics. (This involved 1,166 people from all over the country. 40 to 60 3.43% to 5.16% posting each day). • Participants were highly satisfied with the process. (70% rated as positive while only 9% rated as very or somewhat negative). • The process increased the number of voices heard, but the voices were not necessarily new.

Democracy Online cont... • Communication was good, but many found it difficult to participate. • Participants learned much, networked a little, and felt they would have some influence on EPA policy and practice. • EPA accomplished its goal of garnering broader input about what it does right and wrong. It also opened up new lines of communication with the public, encouraged a few more formal comments on the Public Involvement Policy, and generated some public good will.

Features of government efforts • Tend to be only interactive to the stage of consultation (Jensen). Not much conversational interactivity, or “intercreativity” (Berners-Lee via Meikle) • Experimental • Tentative • Not user-focussed • Project based, not on-going

How are Australian politicians meeting the challenge? • Email (70% according to Chen) • Online consultation (64% according to Chen) • 40% support online voting and 30% opposed (Chen) • Political parties rate the Internet as equal or best medium for getting their message out (Gibson and Ward) • Mostly static information (Gibson and Ward) • Amount of interactivity low. Prefer one-way communication (Gibson and Ward)

But… • Helen Razer (ABC Presenter) couldn’t get one party, apart from the Greens, to respond to her offer of assistance during the last federal election • Liberal Party didn’t maintain its mailing list from its site properly • Only online consultation ALP did for Hawke/Wran Review was on a Labor 21(Carmen Lawrence site apparently now defunct) and On Line Opinion • Prime Minister only responds to email via snail mail

How are interest groups meeting the challenge? • e-Activism • Email (S 11, WEF, MAI) • Websites (www.cis.org.au, http://www.hizbollah.org/english/frames/index_eg.htm) • Portals (http://www.oneworld.net/)

But... • Generally lack interactivity beyond the registrational (Jensen) • Lack of Promotion /Visibility • Strategic expertise lacking

What are other groups doing? • Minnesota e-Democracies (http://www.e-democracy.org/) • Indymedia sites (http://indymedia.org/) • www.onlineopinion.com.au/domain • www.onlineopinion.com.au • BBC iCAN • e-Parliament

Meeting in the middle Community • A problem or need • Discussion/Debate • Resolution of the discussion into a proposition or series of propositions • Determination of a majority position on the proposition • Consent of the governed • Action Government

What sort of public sphere • Jed Miller – Toward an Interactive Democracy If citizens have become more engaged online, but remain isolated in narrow beakers of single issues and circumscribed activities, then the challenge for revitalising the public sphere is to create cauldrons big enough to support deliberative activity on a large scale, building on the power of compelling context, urgent popular narratives and grassroots outreach to gather strangers, foster trust and describe prospective outcomes that motivate participation.

National ForumWhat is it? • Town Hall • Public Open Space • Shopping Centre/Market of Ideas • Producers’ coop • Project to combine discussion and action

National ForumWhat are its benefits? • Combines discussion and action • Community Owned - public, advocacy groups, research/policy groups, politicians and governments. • Information rich context - peripheral vision • Order e-Democracy clutter • Give individuals and sites profile

Closing the loop • From chat to action • Submission to Victorian eDemocracy Inquiry • Background paper on petition sites • http://onlineopinion.com.au/petitions

Conclusion Time required before new technology substantially impacts on democracy: • Radio - 40 years • TV - 20 years • Internet - ? How? • The medium really is the message • Reinventing the Past

New media and Democracy