All posts in the topic TheyWorkForYou campaign launches today (Short link)
Summary
- There are 3 posts — by 3 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by paul canning at Mar 27 02:45 UTC
Hi All, Some of you might already have seen this, but I thought you might be interested in our new campaign focussed around getting Parliament to publish bills properly. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/freeourbills/ If you'll forgive me, I thought I'd muse on the meaning of this campaign in a way which I hope interest you a bit: 1. mySociety has traditionally worked on the assumption that it's basically impossible to ever get any part of any government to do anything of any real significance in the field of edemocracy, or in the wider field of greater access to data. As a result we've always tried to pick projects that work as well as possible for the citizen without requiring government to do anything it didn't do before (think FixMyStreet, or WriteToThem). Picking a project that requires a bit of government to move a single inch in order for your project to work at all is a sadly proven path to failure. Unfortunately, our need to campaign today is a validation of this highly pessimistic approach. It is absurd that this campaign is even necessary, given that we tried so hard to do it the 'nice way' with meetings, gentle encouragement and nicely written word documents in Whitehall-speak explaining why it was useful and cheap and non-threatening. But where it counted the unelected officials who hold the relevent power here just weren't persuadable for reasons that we're having to FOI to find out. 2. Most evaluations of edemocracy projects and the impact of the internet on democracy in general are described in terms of what they don't achieve, their still-small-compared-to-TV audiences, their lack of deep engagement in the democratic process, and their inability to extract truly transformational democratic reform. This would seem a relevent observation if any parts of government had actually tried very hard to change, or invested more than a single day's worth of budget for running the HMRC computer systems into this field. But they've not, so this sounds a bit like complaining that the monkey you've got chained to a typewriter still hasn't written anything like Shakespeare. 3. What we need is a new approach to studying edemocracy that focuses on pressure points, chinks in the armour where improvements might be possible, whether with the consent of government or not. We need a study that is much better at picking up very subtle steps forward (ie I was disappointed how few people spotted the unusual nature of some of the compromises we got from No10 over the petitions design, ie showing rejections) because the developments we're likely to see in the edemocracy field in the near future are very small and slow - a long way from the major online deliberation platforms hooked brilliantly and transparently into offline policy making processes that I know so many people had in mind when they started working in this field. The fact that Parliament's historic Hansard is being hosted on a non-parliament server should be considered *Big News* in a field of small, inching improvements. We need to get better at picking up these details, rating and sharing them, and less worried about who's form of deliberative polling is more theoretically sound. Anyway, if this seems like a counsel of despair, it isn't supposed to be. I'm just saying that being realistic about the nature of actual progress in our field (tiny, incremental, currently peaking with things like TheyWorkForYou and Stemwijzer.nl ) makes for more interesting, useful discussions than comparing everything to the Holy Grail of True, Mass Scale Deliberative Democracy. And talking of small but positive signs, check this http://snipurl.com/22kj7 ta ta,
Whilst I sympathise with Tom in many ways, I think we have to remember that our non-existant constitution promotes representative democracy and whilst most of those involved in e-democracy campaigns support the consultative/deliberative variety this doesn't apply to all those who put themselves up for election, and it is those along with those they employ who have grown up with only one puppet-master (although I frequently wonder who is pulling whose strings) who promote this institution. Mick Member profile for Mick Phythian: http://groups.dowire.org/contacts/mickphythian In the meantime for info (its nothing to do with me) and apologies for any cross-posting: DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRACY WORKSHOP Friday, 4th April 2008 Research Beehive room 2.22 Old Library Building Newcastle University PROGRAMME 12.00-12.50pm - Robert Talisse (Vanderbilt), "Democracy, Ignorance, and Folk Epistemology" 12.50-1.00pm - Coffee break 1.00-1.50pm - Ian O'Flynn (Newcastle), "Deliberative Democracy, the Public Interest, and the Consociational Model" 1.50-2.00pm - Coffee break 2.00-2.50pm - Thom Brooks (Newcastle), "Is Plato's Political Philosophy Anti-Democratic?" 3.00pm Close SPEAKERS Dr Thom Brooks is Reader in Political and Legal Philosophy at Newcastle University and Editor of the Journal of Moral Philosophy. His books include The Global Justice Reader (2008), Hegel's Political Philosophy: A Systematic Reading of the Philosophy of Right (2007), The Legacy of John Rawls (2005, 2d 2007), Locke and Law (2007), Rousseau and Law (2005), and Punishment (forthcoming). http://www.ncl.ac.uk/gps/staff/profile/t.brooks Dr Ian O'Flynn is Lecturer in Political Theory. He is the author of Deliberative Democracy and Divided Societies (2006), editor of Power Sharing: New Challenges for Divided Societies (2005), and a number of articles on democratic theory. http://www.ncl.ac.uk/gps/staff/profile/i.j.o'flynn Professor Robert B. Talisse is Associate Professor of Philosophy and Political Science at Vanderbilt University and Editor of Public Afairs Quarterly. His books include A Pragmatist Philosophy of Democracy (2007), American Philosophy: An Encyclopedia (2007), Aristotle's Politics Today (2007), Democracy after Liberalism (2005), Dewey's Logical Theory: New Studies and Interpretations (2002), John Dewey's Essays in Experimental Logic (2007), On Dewey (2000), On James (2004), On Rawls (2001), Sidney Hook on Pragmatism, Democracy, and Freedom: The Essential Essays (2002), and Democracy and Moral Conflict (forthcoming). http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/philosophy/faculty/talisse.html HOW TO ATTEND Please reply to Dr Thom Brooks () if you intend to attend the workshop so that appropriate catering arrangements may be made. Participation is free. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.0/1343 - Release Date: 25/03/2008 19:17
Posting
Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.