Gordon Brown's "national debate" will work only if he ditches top-down technology
Batten down the hatches, o citizens of Britannia, and prepare yourselves for "a national debate". The reinvigoration of the House of Commons is one thing, but if we are to believe Gordon Brown's 3 July speech, the dialogue will extend beyond Westminster village, and perhaps even as far as the living rooms of British citizens.
Writing in the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland was reminded of the Big Conversation - new Labour's questionable experiment in national consultation of 2003. Speaking to me 18 months afterwards, Geoff Mulgan, one of those involved in pioneering the consultation roadshow, admitted the Big Conversation was likely a "transitional example" of what he dubbed open government. A new kind of open conversation was in theory possible, thanks to technologies and techniques brought about by the internet. But some MPs, he said, were still used to channelling information from the centre to the edges, and not the other way around.
The Ministry of Justice green paper that formed the basis of the Prime Minister's maiden speech to the Commons has suggested that the No 10 e-petition experiment - which proved so controversial back in February, when more than a million people used it to protest against road pricing - be extended so that it can also apply to parliament. No doubt other technical jiggery-pokery will be put forward as a way to engage citizens. But to understand what will work and what won't, it is important to understand Mulgan's directional dichotomy.
Information technology has immense potential to empower citizens. Tools that help individuals engage with institutions, such as e-petitions, or MySociety's TheyWorkForYou.com, its accessible version of the parliamentary record, can qualitatively change the democratic landscape. Online communities such as Netmums, where individuals in similar situations can share knowledge and experience, bring benefits not just to those groups, but also to the institutions tasked with understanding and catering for their needs.
In each of these examples, action from the edges (let's call these people "us") benefits the centre ("them"). The government's role is to listen - no mean feat, if you consider exactly how much it will need to listen to. Indeed, let's hope MPs remember that the first rule of communications is to listen when deciding how to spend their new £10,000 communications allowance. This is a novel role for those in power, and one to which we can expect them to have difficulty adjusting.
The technologies that will help really engage British citizens will be altogether more messy and human than the centralised databases and the carefully controlled online services so beloved of government thus far. But then, wouldn't making politics a little more human be an altogether good thing?
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
