There’s been a fair bit of interesting reading about government 2.0 initiatives (the new ‘branding’ for what used to be called e-democracy or e-government) lately; probably prompted by a summit on the topic in Washington DC and the Australian government’s initiative in this area (and, no doubt, in some instances, by a confluence between the two).
Among notable articles are a somewhat sceptical take in the New York Times from Anand Giradharadas and much closer to home, a piece by Tim Watts at On Line Opinion:
It’s all too easy to get caught up in the “cool” factor of Web 2.0. The potential of the technology is so amazing that sometimes we can forget that at the end of the day, it’s still people on either end of the tubes. It’s important to remember that Web 2.0 is all about people. As Michael Wesch has said, “The Machine is Us”. The Government 2.0 Taskforce could do worse than to follow the lead of one of the great political campaigners of our time and hang a sign in the group’s (virtual) war room constantly bringing it back to this fundamental theme. It could read: It’s the Community, Stupid!
Watts’ argument, with which I would agree, might be summed up by the short paraphrase, “if you build it, they won’t necessarily come”. Or perhaps, as I’ve been arguing recently, some decisions have to be made about which populations are being incited to come, and for what purposes; I’ve previously written on some issues around the digital divide in discussing the Australian iniatives.
It seems to me, analytically, that a number of issues have to be sorted out which haven’t always been well thought through in much of the discussion of government 2.0:
(a) Is government 2.0 (in its ‘engagement’ mode) the same thing as community consultation? In other words, is it just a quicker and perhaps more efficient mode of guaging reaction to decisions which have largely been made already, or to tweaking them in the implementation phase? If so, does it have some advantages in potentially enabling a more representative sample of opinion?
(b) Is government 2.0 something which can open up policy debates to a wider range of voices? If so, is this better conceived of as expanding the reach of distributed expertise rather than citizen empowerment per se?
Both questions have political as well as policy answers, I hasten to add.
But the key point, I think, is that we need to think through the social and cultural uses of such tools by government. And to understand that engagement or open information strategies do not either necessarily transform government and decision making nor elicit more interest and participation in politics as such.
As a footnote, for those who are in Brisbane next Monday morning, the Eidos Institute is holding a breakfast with British creativity guru Charles Leadbeater:
THE USER-GENERATED STATE: PUBLIC SERVICES 2.0
On Monday the 21st September 2009, The Eidos Institute Board and Education City will be hosting a breakfast with Charles Leadbeater, a leading authority on innovation and strategy and one of the most influential creative people in the world. He has advised companies, cities and governments, and is former Prime Minister Tony Blair’s favourite corporate thinker. Charlie will be discussing radical innovation in the public services, including the role of co-creation and user-generated services.
Charlie’s presentation will be followed by comments from Dr Nicolas Gruen, Chair, Government 2.0 Taskforce (TBC); and Professor Brian Fitzgerald, Professor of Intellectual Property and Innovation, Queensland University of Technology.
The two discussants, both of whom are probably well known to a lot of LP readers, should have some interesting things to say, I would think. The Eidos Institute is doing some interesting research around questions of public services and citizen involvement, so it would be worth a look in should you have an interest.
“(b) Is government 2.0 something which can open up policy debates to a wider range of voices? If so, is this better conceived of as expanding the reach of distributed expertise rather than citizen empowerment per se?”
Call me cynical, but the government couldn’t even get its bureaucrats to handle the 2020 summit as a policy tool using traditional technologies. Any “web 2.0″ business has to negotiate a labyrinth of internal policies (an extraordinary number conveniently only exist as “in development” and are applied willy-nilly)designed to protect bureaucrats from risk. It’s an impossibility if driven from within the bureaucracy.
“Is government 2.0 (in its ‘engagement’ mode) the same thing as community consultation? In other words, is it just a quicker and perhaps more efficient mode of guaging reaction to decisions which have largely been made already, or to tweaking them in the implementation phase? If so, does it have some advantages in potentially enabling a more representative sample of opinion?”
You seem to have a definite idea of what “community consultation” amounts to – and not necessarily one I disagree with, ie flushing out opposition. But you’re right: government 2.0 might just enable governments to do what they already wish to do more efficiently, rather than radically change the qualitative nature of the government-citizen interface. John Power did a great report on consultation over 30 years ago. The fundamental question is what is “consultation” for? Having answered that question, the secondary issue is how might current technology help us achieve government’s aims
Government 2.0: it’s not a big truck, it’s a series of tubes!
I was thinking about the people I know from my generation and slightly younger (about 50+). Most don’t have email or bother with the internet to any degree or at all. Some go on the net when they want to find information. Some use email for business.
The exceptions would be my elder brother and his wife, who are what you might call politically engaged, and an old guy in his late 80s who has an interest in political issues.
The state seems to fear prediction markets and DDoS attacks…so thats good news. The state should fear the people imho – not the other way round. As Thoureu said – the state that governs least – governs best.
Adam, as a public servant let me acknowledge that we have an innate bias to risk aversion and to secrecy. But that is as nothing compared to our political masters’ attitude that “consultation” consists of spinning to people, and exposing them to alternative policies just gives them tools to criticise the policies you intend adopting.
I note the PM has recently criticised the public service for its closedness and risk aversion – yet he’s the very one who makes it very clear what happens to the career of any public servant who takes a chance that doesn’t come off, or tells the public stuff the opposition can use. I’ll lay quids that the first time Malcolm Turnbull picks up something to use in Question Time from the Web 2.0 site will be the last time that site puts out unbiased information.