New style of government or new style of gimmick

As the ever-interesting (and I do mean that) Dizzy informs readers last week, the Conservatives are clear winners in engagement online. Whether this is old versus new, so there is more interest in the Conservatives because Labour have been around, and in government, for a long time, is a question? It could be that the engagement tools are the right ones, or that people want to engage more with the Conservatives, perhaps as they are seen as the next government, this is not an analysis of the audience unfortunately beyond simple indicators of engagement.

But the party seems to have a new strategy, one that will allow greater public participation in government. They want someone to design a platform, and will offer £1 million, that will create an online public sphere. If you are wondering about the idea of the public sphere, this should be autonomous (possibly in this case), inclusive (definitely), political (as before - and clearly) and rational. A space where people are able to find solutions to common social problems. Such ideas are surrounded by much hype and are attached to many ideals of democracy. There are two ways of looking at the notion of creating public spheres, it can be hailed as a means for getting people empowered and in touch with government, as in the case of this article by Tim Bonnemann, but there are dangers.

It is easy to source a crowd online, after all this was achieved to create the UK's Christmas number one single, or at least to block Simon Cowell. But what sort of crowd will be sourced? You can find a crowd that will decide that hanging is the best deterrent for serious crime, would that be good policy though? Would this allow minority opinions to be voiced? Or just those of extremists? Would it break the spiral of silence or create a new silence, of the majority perhaps? Most worrying would it abrogate the responsibility of a government over decision making, or indeed would a government be tied to the crowd by the terms and conditions of participation. Of course these negative outcomes can be avoided, to an extent, but they need to be considered. Initiatives that bring the governed and government closer together are all worthy of support and encouragement, the danger is though that these initiatives can be ill-considered gimmicks rather than real proposals for public participation in the democratic process. It may take more than £1 million to not only build the interface but also to ensure all the checks and balances are in place; that or we may find a place for consultation and participation that becomes unusable as anything but to embarrass the government that thought it up and paid for it.

My jury still out on Jury Team

Since my first comment on the Jury Team I have wavered in my thinking. Am I in favour, am I not. I am in favour of the idea of widening participation in politics. While parties are perhaps necessary in terms of having a strong unified government (the fragility of coalitions highlights this point), they are also closer to cartels than they should be despite years of reform. I also think that independent MPs, either party members of true independents, are a great asset to politics. Love or hate George Galloway and what he stands for he is a positive force within democracy and pluralism. But I also have reservations.

Although I think it is unlikely, what if they were elected? Would there suddenly be new cartels, what would make them better than those we have. While parties may not vet candidates always in the way we would like, who is vetting the Jury Team? If anyone can stand then is that more dangerous? (I do think some are standing just to get publicity - one leading candidate in the South West region Miranda Banks has all of 37 votes but promotes her professional website which offers 'mind coaching')

Then there is the X Factor text voting. Anyone can only vote once from any one phone, but it would not take much for someone to stack the deck in their favour by getting a lot of mates to send texts. Finally there is the issue of the number it takes to select them. An interchange via Twitter highlights this: Jury Team argue "if we involve more people in choosing our candidates than the Parties do, our candidates'll have greater legitimacy"; but as their questioner Fabienne notes "Just seems 2 undermine the venture somewhat where interest is so visibly seen to be lacking... a winner w/ 20 primary votes = embarrassment, no?" Yes it does, that is the problem.

So I am still undecided whether the Jury Team will have the intended, positive effect. If they can start a debate, and there is indications that the media are interested also, then perhaps they can; but fundamentally I think it is the parties that need to respond to this debate. They need to take on board the argument the Jury Team are making and put that at the heart of reforms of the system - not just that of expenses - that gives people a sense of ownership and power within politics. The Hansard Society have released the latest Audit of Engagement, the story is the same, interest is strong, participation is weak, efficacy is low; my problem is I am not convinced that Jury Team offer a viable solution.

Marketing Analogies and the Political Consumer

Nick Robinson creates some interesting analogies in his post of 8.30 this morning. Entitled the political marketplace he firstly links popularity with share value, so arguing that if Gordon Brown was a plc we would now be selling his shares and his value in the marketplace would be in free fall. He then moves on to suggest that the voters are buyers and sellers, and elections are a little like trading stock; is this an accurate reflection of the way the electors view democracy or is it a disservice to civic duty in Britain?

There are perhaps two issues here, one is the treatment of citizens as consumers by the parties and the media. While interesting and not for the consumption by the news audiences, Nick's metaphors seem to reflect observations that voters/citizens are passive, reactive and contributing to politics only through polling data and the ballot box. This can reinforce this behaviour and maintain audiences and reactors rather than participants. More importantly perhaps is the nature of democracy in Britain. While we can all say that participation is facilitated more than it ever was it reaches a small minority, few seem to be part of the new Web 2.0 democracy in reality. So the only chance to participate is a vote that may have little effect on the outcome and is unlikely to because at the local elections seats remain uncontested or so safe there is little point in making the effort.

But that does not make us consumers as consumers have choice. Perhaps what we are witnessing is not the rules of the marketplace filtering into politics but some of the attitudes, when there is no choice but two or three tarnished brands the product sector is ignored and alternative purchases are made: hence the shift from party politics to issue and cause based activism or transferring political ideologies to the consumer marketplace where we are seen to have power. When there is no perceiving benefit from participating, or from government actions, the voice of the dissatisfied consumer emerges: especially when high taxes do not equate to value for money. But there are citizens out there, it is not the case that we have a consumer society that wants individual benefits from market-oriented parties, they want that as well as the best politics for society (this is based on research findings); but they do not find that so become spectators of the political marketplace, where support goes up and down, but unsure who is setting the prices.

Cynics or Sceptics and why?

Last Thursday and Friday I attended a conference on Political Socialisation organised by Universiteit Antwerpen, it was all fascinating stuff but one paper in particular made me think. That was offered by Henk Dekker, based on research into young people's political attitudes in The Netherlands. It discussed two important themes, firstly the nature of cynicism and secondly the sources.

Dekker made an important distinction which is often overlooked in studies; that is between scepticism (the rationale questioning of communication), and cynicism (the rejection of communication due to a mistrust of the communicator). The media often conflate and confuse the two on the basis that politicians are mistrusted so any questioning of campaign communication or manifesto promises are contingent on that mistrust. This may not be so and so cynicism may not be a widespread as is commonly believed. It is a question worth asking, particularly if studies look for cynicism as opposed to having indices for both cynicism and scepticism.

The second aspect that Dekker proposed is regarding one key source of cynicism, low self-esteem. Dekker argued that those individuals who feel they have not realised their own potential are more likely to blame others and create conspiracy theories to shift blame onto broader society and structures of power. So perceptions of powerlessness and feelings of low self-efficacy can result from personally not doing anything but the blame for that is easier to shift on the political structure than accept.

So, for example, non-voters may find it too difficult to make a decision, or even motivate themselves to go and vote, but may later feel guilty for failing to exercise their democratic duty (a feeling that may inspire low self-esteem). Their excuse however is shifted onto the political system by repeating negative press reports and claiming all politicians are the same and every vote is worthless.

Clearly there are rationale arguments for being cynical, and research of media coverage can suggest there is an effect between cynical reporting and cynical public attitudes. but this is a fresh perspective worth some consideration. Perhaps we should consider whether data such as the graph (right) represents healthy scepticism or a cynicism that is corrosive to democracy. So perhaps what I take from Dekker's paper is a suggestion that research into non-voting and the causes of cynicism should be a little more sophisticated to attempt to assess how deeply the cynical attitudes are within the public psyche as opposed to accepting that cynicism is really rife and is a prime cause of political disengagement.