The lessons of Wikinomics apply not just to corporations but to every institution in society. Arguably, those most in need of the approach we advocate are the institutions of democratic government.
The Web 2.0 provides myriad ways for people to interact and collaborate, and yet the vast majority of our political systems still revolve around a one-way, broadcast model. Every four years, candidates tell you something (and often that something is simply an attack on their opponent), you vote, they go do stuff, tell you about it, and then come back in four years to tell you why they should stay. I for one think that this process does not live up to the intentions or fulfill the potential of democracy.
People often wonder why today’s kids aren’t engaged in politics. Most people assume that today’s youth are apathetic. I’d argue that today’s kids actually care deeply about the world; it’s just that politicians don’t know how to engage young people in a dialogue about the issues that matter to them. State legislator for Utah, Steve Urquhart, is an exception. Through his new site Politicopia.com, people can post and edit information about legislation under consideration in Senate. When colleagues complain about not liking what people have said about their bills, his response is simple - “that’s not my problem.” As he says on the site, this is an experiment in open democracy, and one that’s’ been a long time coming.
The truth is this hardly a new idea. When Bill Clinton was still in the Whitehouse, my company New Paradigm discussed the idea of creating an “open forum for America” where every citizen could engage in a meaningful conversation a key issue (the digital divide) online. Clinton was going to say something to the effect: “we’re not sure what’s going to happen here, and we’re not sure where it’s going to go, but we’re going to engage in a democratic process of consensus building like never before.” Unfortunately Clinton got tied up in the Middle East and he never got to execute his plan before leaving office, but it was a great idea then and it remains a great idea today.
While there may be some hiccups along the way (any open forum is subject to risk of people abusing it), this is an interesting and natural evolution for democracy. In fact, using wikis to formulate policy is just one of many options. Blogs, jams, citizen juries, and digital brainstorms are ripe for the picking. We just need more politicians like Steven Urquhart to sit up and take notice.
Comments RSS
| TrackBack URI
It is precisely that sense of the “broadcast model” engaging us once every few years that makes me completely at ease with all the party switching that has been going on in Canadian politics of late. Whether it was Keith Martin (Canadian Alliance to Liberals), Scott Brison (Progressive Conservatives to Liberals), Belinda Stronach (Conservatives to Liberals), David Emerson (Liberals to Conservatives) or Wajid Khan (Liberals to Conservatives), to name but five recent ones, each of these represents a “between shows” opportunity to reach out to the public with the message that some issue or combination of issues mattered enough to that MP for them to stand up to the party system in some fashion and cross the floor. (I will be charitable and presume that no one crossed the floor solely to receive a Cabinet posting, although in at least three of the cases given a Cabinet seat was not long in coming.)
We do need more issue-based and locally-based members, more members who will not take the whip and vote sheeplike with caucus and party. If this leads to a raft of Garth Turners (banished from the Conservative caucus to Independent status), then so be it.
Big media loves the notion of the party; the party loves the notion of the leader. Is it any wonder that executive power continues to accumulate at the centre (Prime Minister’s Office or Presidency, it matters not) regardless of who or what party gains power? Big everything likes knowing, in point of fact, who the “go to” person is.
Where Web 2.0 technologies come into play is with the ease of setting up little corners. The MP, Congressman, Senator, etc. who truly does chart an independent course in the fashion of Edmund Burke today has far more opportunities to reach out to the community with her or his message. In turn, the attentive MP (etc.) who wants to pay attention to their constituency has thousands of inputs open to them. They need not, like Chuck Cadman (Independent MP for Surrey-North in the 2004-06 Parliament, who voted to uphold the Martin Government’s budget in May, 2005), explicitly survey their constituents on everything, nor need they give precious hours of their life to interest group and special pleader after another - the voice of the community can be found in its blogs, wikis, etc.
One outcome of these technologies that I do expect to emerge over time is that of subsidiarity: decisions will move to the lowest level of government that can make them. Why plead for attention for the city in the national capital - where rural ridings far outweigh the votes of city dwellers, and the city surplus is raked off? - when a city councillor’s ability to tap into the zeitgeist of their community is as good as any MLA’s or MP’s? And so the parties will end not as policy formulators and great brokers of interests, but as brands tout court, as fragile as a dandelion gone to seed and waiting for the breeze - and with far less purpose.
But not until they play out their string this last time in the “pretense” of consultation.
Comment by Bruce Stewart - January 27, 2007 3:15 pm
Hey Don,
Check out http://politicopia.com
It is an interesting little experiment in wikified politics coming out of Utah.
Cheers.
Comment by Ian Ketcheson - January 31, 2007 3:19 pm