Skip to content
openDemocracy
Subscribe

Networking Democracy - Values and Virtual Debates - Bill Thompson

By openDemocracy Supporters
Published:
| Share

Opening Statements

Discussion threads

---------------------------------

Values and Virtual Debates

Bill Thompson

This is one of the four pieces which initiated this discussion group.

-------------------------------------------------------

The Value of Britishness

As the Government moves forwards with its plan to convene a Citizens’ Summit to contribute to the national debate on a British Statement of Values suggested in last year’s Governance of Britain Green Paper it has been proposed that an internet-enabled debate should be held as a precursor to the Summit itself.

Such a debate could, it is believed, ensure widespread involvement in the broader process, improve access to the debate, encourage people to learn more about the issues and even give the wider discussion more energy and popular appeal. The strong implication is that an online discussion will give both the Summit and any Statement of Values that emerges more legitimacy among the population, who will see that they were forged in the crucible of new technology.

This is not necessarily a defensible position. Online debates are certainly fashionable, and they are occasionally effective: though it is doubtful that the popular power of the 57,505 members of the ‘Save Scrabulous’ group on Facebook (as of February 9 th) is a sign of renewed democratic engagement. However online debates can also be acrimonious, under-populated, divisive, inconclusive and distracting, as any reader of USENET newsgroups back in the 1980’s will testify.

It may still, however, be worth doing. A properly-constructed online forum offers those who might otherwise find it difficult to take part in a discussion – for reasons of geography, personal circumstance or simply preference – an opportunity to engage, and whilst it necessarily excludes those who do not have convenient access to the internet from home, school or work, it should not be dismissed out of hand. As one element of a wider plan to engage public debate around the Statement of Values it can potentially offer many benefits, not least the lure of reaching tens of millions of people and inviting their participation at relatively low cost.

But it must be done well, if it is to be done at all. And if it cannot be done well then it would be unwise to expend what little legitimacy the e-politics movement has within Westminster on a project that will make it difficult for the Government to move forward on a cherished part of its agenda.

What to Debate?

The goal of the debate is to provide a space for discussion that is as inclusive as possible, that gives all voices equal weight and that can feed into the ongoing process in a workable way. But just as with paper-based referenda, the choice of question is central. Not only can it influence the outcome, but with a project where the aim is to engage as many people as possible the choice of question has a significant impact on the success of the enterprise as a whole.

Whatever the core premise of the debate we are not, of course, debating now whether the Summit or indeed the Statement of Values are desirable or even workable. Partly this is because our remit does not stretch that far, and we must be pragmatic about the scope of our engagement; primarily, however, it is because the online debate may well choose to turn to those questions itself - and we should not anticipate its outcomes.

Principles, process, presentation

In considering how to move forward we can look at the plans from the perspectives of principles, process and presentation. By principles I mean the very idea of having an online element of the wider consultation on the statement of values and the ways that debate will mesh with the other elements of the wider programme. Process includes the practical elements, including technology choices and the ways in which the online debate can feed into the Summit. And presentation concerns the way the debate is positioned in the public mind, and how it is perceived.

Principles

As a long time internet user and one of the people who pushed the web into popular consciousness in the early 1990’s I’m keen to encourage its use in politics as well as other aspects of life. But this does not mean that we should do everything online.

But we can surely now begin to think about the way we organise society and the ways in which political power is exercised on the assumption that the network is here and can be used. Not by everyone, not all the time, but to a sufficient degree to make it a core part of the political process just as the telephone and television are.

The debate about a statement of values is potentially vital to all of us, and it would be foolish to exclude online channels for discussion. In principle, then, I think there is a strong argument for an online debate.

Process

Deciding to have ‘a debate’ is one thing. Agreeing on its format and procedures is another. It is clear, however, that the scope of the debate must be carefully drawn as online discussions of whatever form can quickly drift off topic.

In 1998 I helped to manage an online debate on the ‘Third Way’ for the Prime Minister’s Office in my role as technical director of the now-defunct Nexus, a ‘virtual’ think tank (archived here, with a summary here). The keys to its success were

  • Simple, appropriate technology
  • Moderated debate
  • Online archive to allow easy catch-up
  • Time-limited
  • Agreed participation from senior figures – in both originating material and responding to other comments

The world has moved on since 1997 and a system based around email lists and web archive of all postings organised by date/poster/topic is no longer the only simple approach. Web-based discussions can thrive, especially if RSS is used to alert participants of relevant contributions. But whatever is chosen needs to be simple and straightforward.

It also needs to be moderated. The debate hosts set the rules and stick to them, while explaining to everyone whose comments are edited/held. Clearly there needs to be flexibility in interpretation and scope for changing the rules if the community wishes. Hosting a debate is not like running a party conference or a governmental consultation. In order to be successful control has to shift from the setup to the participants, and that shift of power carries with it significant risks.

Clearly we should avoid anything based around a wiki model, where registered users are able to make their own changes to an online document or documents.The US comedian Stephen Colbert coined the delightful phrase ‘speaking truthiness to wikiality’ to mock what happens when texts are put at the mercy of the ‘hive mind’ or ‘emergent consciousness’ of a group of online editors, and I am in no doubt that a wiki-based approach would be a complete failure.

Consensus may emerge, but it is unlikely to have any relation to the reality of people’s views. We see this most clearly on Wikipedia where edit wars are won by the persistent, but the principle is no different from that seen in political meetings where those who put the most time, effort and energy into constantly reiterating their position eventually wear everyone else out. A fundamental question relates to the participants themselves, and ‘Who will be able to take part?’ needs to be discussed at a very early stage. Is the debate for Britons, those living in Britain or just interested observers? If we are to limit participation how is this to be done?

That brings us to another key issue – whether to require participants to identify themselves and if so how confident we need to be in the identities claimed. Do we want a discussion in the open where people are obliged to disclose their real names and real identities, asking for certification or other proof? Do we want to allow pseudonyms so that those who might otherwise feel constrained can speak openly - Rowan Williams might appreciate the opportunity to debate any clause about respect for religious codes of conduct using a less public identity. Do we allow anonymity – and what then if that ‘anonymity’ makes it possible to impersonate someone and post as ‘TonyBlair’ for example? And how do we deal with Tony Blair from Sidcup?

When issues are less important, policies on identity can be less well-defined, but we are considering a debate which will inform a later meeting that could, if the Minister’s views have not changed, create moral and even legal obligations on everyone living in Britain.

Presentation

This is in many ways the hardest part of the whole proposition, because online debates are often seen as just another attempt to jump onto the internet bandwagon, in the hope that some of that good old YouTube/MySpace/Google credibility will rub off onto a boring, ineffectual and ultimately useless conversation.

The web is littered with attempts to encourage discussion, but those that are most active – like the ID card debate – are also the ones where government intransigence means that the effort is seen to be wasted. There are few examples of effective debate having a positive impact on policy, and therefore there is a general (well-judged) scepticism about new attempts to engage web users.

Perhaps the answer is to trust the wisdom of the web, and not try to launch the project at all. Instead of seeking promotion and publicity use a ‘soft’ launch, supported by tools that allow the project to go viral: those who find out about it and are intrigued can join in and tell their friends, but there is no overt advertising. Like the Cadbury’s gorilla, make the raw material easy to share - but don’t try to force it.

Satisfying the Minister

The Nexus discussion on the Third Way was "seeded" by around fifteen individuals who were specifically asked to contribute short pieces or comments to the discussion over the two week period. They included

  • Gerald Holtham, Director of the IPPR
  • Michael Jacobs, General Secretary of The Fabian Society;
  • David Marquand, Principal of Mansfield College, Oxford;
  • Melissa Lane, King's College, Cambridge;
  • Julian Le Grand, Professor of Social Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science

A similar principle could be applied here, especially if we are to do as the Minister asks and “encourage people to take part – especially finding ways to encourage seldom heard voices to join in and ensure it is a representative process” since we can choose ‘seed’ postings from people who will appeal to a wide range of potential participants.

One way to “mitigate against particular groups or individuals overly dominating the conversation” is to begin with a single issue/question and allow it to fork as needed, so that there are more or less populated areas of debate. If everyone is pulled in, the debate is made open, moderation is firm but fair and the community of users is given ownership of the conversation (and not just a spurious sense of ‘engagement’) then this allows all relevant issues to be given due weight.

The need to “analyse and distil a large number of differing comments and views to identify the key issues and concerns” can best be met by using human editors, moderators with experience of managing complex multi-threaded discussions.

Similarly, we can best “find appropriate method(s) of feeding the views generated into a Citizens' Summit so that those taking part in it are presented with coherent approaches and views rather than thousands of individual opinions from which it will be hard for them to draw conclusions” by using well-established methods. In this case we can commission an editor to write a report based on the debate and then make it available.

Finally, I strongly suggest that the ‘evidence base’ - the actual discussions themselves in whatever form – should be opened up as a database to be mined and that we should invite groups to write their own reports/do their own analysis based on the same data: instead of ‘minority reports’ we would have as many as groups cared to offer, but all would have to be grounded in the same discussion.

And Finally

Although I am personally sceptical about the quest for a binding statement of British values in the same way as I resisted the pressure from my daughter’s school to enter into what was clearly an unbalanced and unenforceable ‘home-school contract’, I am in favour of an open, accountable and extended debate on the issue. And I firmly believe that the internet can provide a key element of that debate, offering those with access a simple, straightforward, transparent and flexible means of making their views known and engaging in debate.

Sadly few government IT projects have a track record of being simple, straightforward, transparent and flexible. Anyone who has read about the NHS IT project or who tried to file their tax return online on January 31st will be justifiably sceptical about any proposed debate site. Much as I am in favour of state provision of service, this seems to be a time to call for the non-state actors at MySociety.

--------------------------------------

Comment and discussion on Networking Democracy is taking place on OurKingdom - click here to join in.

---------------------------------

Opening Statements

Discussion threads

---------------------------------

openDemocracy Author

openDemocracy Supporters

All articles
Tags:

More from openDemocracy Supporters

See all