Session Idea: Political Theory 2.0

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Paul Evans on January 19, 2009 at 1:50pm

I think that it would be worth doing a session like this. I certainly think that we are all, sometimes, tempted to look at the availability of interactive tools and say to ourselves "wouldn't it be cool if everyone could just have their say in how government works.'

- Machiavelli would probably have advised his Prince against blogging (but would have told him to lurk and listen)
- Hobbes would probably have said that Machiavelli had a point
- John Stuart Mill would have wanted to see your qualifications before he read your comments
- Tom Paine would have wanted you to be elected before you had any influence
- Edmund Burke would have wanted to be assured that pressure groups had no ability to do anything apart from provide evidence that the elected representatives could sort through
- Schumpeter would have annoyed absolutely everyone in the e-democracy sphere

Even Hayek would have been less interested in a lot of e-particpation exercises than a quick reading of him would suggest. And modern-day writers like James Surowiecki would have been very concerned about 'groupthink.'

(OK, I know all of these bullet points are simplistic and debateable - but you get the picture?)

My concern is that a lot of e-democracy projects are specified in ignorance of the arguments for representative democracy, or - more worryingly - are part of a project to sidestep representative democracy. One is often left with the impression that it will be succeeded by a shinier new form of governance and that it is irrelevant.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Dave Briggs on January 19, 2009 at 3:23pm

Don't forget Rousseau and the Social (Media) Contract.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Evans on January 21, 2009 at 6:35pm

Tim - I don't know what you think to this - do you think that there is possible scope for a bit of compositing with this session?

http://ukgovweb.ning.com/forum/topics/session-ideadeepening-local

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Simon Field on January 22, 2009 at 9:35pm

Tim - I agree there are some interesting things to pursue in this topic. Does collaboration enhance or undermine accountability? Does it improve or threaten trust? Does it enfranchise, or disenfranchise people? If it moves beyond just talking and "consulting" to collaboratively designing or delivering services, there are some real questions we need to think through and answer. I'd like to join such a discussion.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Phil Green on January 23, 2009 at 11:19am

I'm keen to take part in discussion which tackles the kinds of questions Simon puts.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Evans on January 26, 2009 at 3:14pm

Phil Green said:

I'm keen to take part in discussion which tackles the kinds of questions Simon puts.

Is there likely to be anyone at Barcamp with experience in collaborative design - either education or planning / architecture?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Clarke on January 26, 2009 at 11:15pm

will definitely pitch in from the sidelines, but I think I might have my hands full with some of the other stuff we're bringing along to be able to get more involved...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by RenZephyr on January 27, 2009 at 12:01am

A bunch of people, a few of whom might be at BarCamp, having been attending Emerging Democracy Workshops arranged by Charles Armstrong. We have touched on some of these issues. In short that the process of democracy is based around physical limitations of voting which ICT might be seen to get over. There are practical questions about who votes on what, the nature of representation etc.

I'm not sure that the core issues are touched on so much, so would be interested to find what others think. Plato's objection to democracy was that the stupid and un-informed get to vote - this is still the case. As I've argued elsewhere I think that there is a common basis in other political philosophies that is based on a rational bargain of elements of freedom in exchange for protection of the body. While online communities flourish this basis bargain and the other roles of the state persist, online societies supervene upon these. I'd be very interested to hear arguments that go beyond processes around the notion of the state and de-construct that notion, or start to bring practical equivalences between ones online-social groups and ones national ones.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tim Davies on January 27, 2009 at 8:23pm

Hey all.

Some great themes emerging here. I think we've probably got two session ideas:

1) Start from the theory and see what it has to say about practice.
Exploring the big issues like what type of democracy are we building? What are the theoretical underpinnings of what's going on in e-democracy and e-government?

Ultimately exploring a question along the lines of: are we building towards 'the good'? Or do we risk heading off on the wrong track?

2) Starting from the practice and applying critical reflection to it
Exploring how collaborative working and e-democracy ends up operating and identifying who, in our society given all it's current flaws and challenges, it ends up enfranchising or empowering.

Ultimately asking questions about whether, given diverse ideas of the good we might implicitly have, our efforts are really as effective as they could be?

I'm really interested in both - from the perspective of positive constructive critique that helps the field develop. However, would suggest, depending on demand - we try to see them as two strands.

I'm happy to propose (1) directly at the BarCamp. Any ideas for a good method to get this particular discussion started are welcome. I was thinking perhaps just throwing up a few quotes from political theorists to frame and act as stimulus for a fairly free flowing discussion?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Evans on January 28, 2009 at 2:57pm

Tim,

I think that (1) is the most manageable discussion, though I'm sure that the question of "how collaborative working and e-democracy ends up operating and identifying who, in our society given all it's current flaws and challenges, it ends up enfranchising or empowering" would fit into that nicely.

Surely the big question here is a fairly simple one: We have a slightly foxed model of representative democracy in the UK, though it is sometimes muddied by the use of referendums and an poll-watching politicians. Increased interactivity has the potential to....

a) Make representative democracy work more effectively
b) Damage representative democracy without offering any improvements elsewhere by way of compensation
c) Allow for deliberative elements to be bolted on to representative democracy - giving representatives the benefits of crowdsourced intelligence while not diminishing representative democracy at the same time
d) Allow for more direct participation in policymaking.

Leaving aside the technology, if political scientists were simply told that 'we've identified a social change the has resulted in a greater enthusiasm and capacity for civic interaction' twenty years ago, their answers to these questions would broadly have been the same as they are now.

I think that a session that supported a discussion of what those answers are likely to be - along with a recognition of the need to promote this understanding - would be a good use of the session.

Tim Davies said:

Hey all.

Some great themes emerging here. I think we've probably got two session ideas:

1) Start from the theory and see what it has to say about practice.
Exploring the big issues like what type of democracy are we building? What are the theoretical underpinnings of what's going on in e-democracy and e-government?

Ultimately exploring a question along the lines of: are we building towards 'the good'? Or do we risk heading off on the wrong track?

2) Starting from the practice and applying critical reflection to it
Exploring how collaborative working and e-democracy ends up operating and identifying who, in our society given all it's current flaws and challenges, it ends up enfranchising or empowering.

Ultimately asking questions about whether, given diverse ideas of the good we might implicitly have, our efforts are really as effective as they could be?

I'm really interested in both - from the perspective of positive constructive critique that helps the field develop. However, would suggest, depending on demand - we try to see them as two strands.

I'm happy to propose (1) directly at the BarCamp. Any ideas for a good method to get this particular discussion started are welcome. I was thinking perhaps just throwing up a few quotes from political theorists to frame and act as stimulus for a fairly free flowing discussion?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Paul Evans on February 2, 2009 at 11:35am

I've added the quotes that I used in the session to this site's blog - here:

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This