Online Democracy And e-Governing

We are currently witnessing a hype of idealism online. Social networks and crowdsourcing initiatives seem to thrive on and propel unprecedented amounts of karma. How are governments fitting in?

This is the prime issue to address if you want to find out whether the increased idealism is actually resulting in higher levels of democracy. e-Government sites offer good measurement tools. You might find cool devices from the corporate sector too, but these tend to inform you of one thing only; brands and their impact. The latter is increasingly being seen as an important democratic indicator and perhaps this is a good development. After all, if our choices increasingly reflect decisions that we're taking, being part of entire production/manufacturing processes, our notion of democratic input is accordingly spreading from the realm of politics only to the realm of production too.

Brand measurement per se is not my cup of tea; I have no desire to find out what the hell the latest crisp brand is doing on my kitchen shelf. I am an avid crowdsource platform participant, but I ain't that convinced that my attitudes are changing to the level of crisp awareness... There is a dynamics involved in crowdsourcing which incites consumer choice and which is tilting the balance toward consumer decisions. That dynamics takes activity away from the producers, so it's pointless trying to capitalize on the type of democracy consumers are ontologizing. Completely different issues are important in democratic input in the production spheres.

Government initiatives at (e-)democracy for the time being make a lot more sense because they are that much more open to suggestions from the ground. Plus whenever you search for studies, you get more diverse, sensical, headlines. 'Does promoting community participation in governance help build social capital?', is such a headline.

The study behind it, carried out in the UK on behalf of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, draws on a rigorous review of academic evidence and original research. The researchers, a team from Demos, went to two deprived neighbourhoods in the UK (- Ely and Careau in Cardiff, and Benchill in Wythenshawe, Manchester) trying to find out the answer to this question.

In doing so, the researchers temporarily place the government at the total opposite end of the spectrum as the corporate sector. By picking a virtually impossible field (less than 1% of the population in these areas have healthy government links), the outcome is likely as predictable as the measurement studies of corporate sector driven researchers are. However, the government sponsored studies are as direly needed as corporations' efforts are wasteful and annoying.

The logic of modern life is at best ironic. The Rowntree study found the neighborhoods to be tiny microcosms of a world where the rich get richer. The key factor influencing the low level of participation in governance turned out to be that those already well-connected tended to get better connected.

The researchers devised ideas to improve the situation, building on the notion that there's growing evidence that some social networks enable citizens to work together to tackle problems for themselves. The project was a test of the limits of 'social capital'.

They focused on a concept known as 'linking social capital'. The theory is that involving people in the governance of services, government/community members' relationships are built.

During the fieldwork, researchers identified six core influences, which worked in interrelated pairs, grouped under the umbrella terms inequity, exclusivity and dependency.

Inequity
Preferential attachment: The networks surrounding participation tended to have a few nodes only.
The rich get richer: Participation confers benefits which do not necessarily 'trickle down' to non-participants. Individuals who gain 'linking social capital' through participation in governance increase their likelihood of continuing to gain more linking social capital.

Exclusivity
Closure: The value of linking social capital may come from preventing others from accessing it. It can suit public sector partners to work with some community representatives rather than others, and it can suit those representatives to be the community voices that public sector partners listen to in decision-making.
Self-exclusion: The study found at least three reasons why people opted out of activities in which, in theory, it served their interest to be involved. Some people simply decided that governance was not for them.

Dependency
Community dependency: "Those who shout loudest get somewhere," said one of the interviewees. "But who is going to ring up those people who weren't at the meeting and ask them if everything is ok?"
Institutional dependency: "There is a tendency to over-use the key people", one community activist said, explaining how institutions themselves also play a key part in fostering a culture of dependency on a small community elite. "As soon as you start going to one meeting or other the vultures come in," she said. There is often a temptation to go for the quick fix of recruiting an existing community participant who is a known quantity, rather than to invest scarce time and resources in attracting new people who may not end up participating fully or who may drop out.

The project was conducted in two of the UK's poorest areas and the researchers staked a very odd sounding claim in their study; that if the government could achieve a goal of a 1% participation rate, this would build some (instead of none) social capital. It gives you an idea of the situation.

Mobilise participation by 1 per cent of citizens and something of a viral element might be spiralling into effect; "Embed this [1%] in the wider rhythms and routines of community life", the researchers suggest.
They added seven ideas illustrating how the solution might work;

- Backing social entrepeneurs
- Disconnecting and reconnecting (to remove the barriers)
- Building trust gradually
- Involving other citizens
- Long-term capacity building for participation
- Making participation a national priority
- Refashioning the role of local councillors

Other democracy inspired initiatives such as People and Participation are online and list lots of different community projects that show an idealism of the first order. These initiatives are mostly new. The great thing is that aside from providing an impetus that works interdependently, many of the projects are likely going to be measured too.