Deliberative Manoeuvres in the Digital Darkness: E-Democracy Policy in the UK

Abstract

Research Highlights and Abstract

This article

Critically reviews e-democracy policy thinking in the UK.

Surveys and evaluates e-democracy activity in key areas, including online forums, open government and data, e-petitioning, and more recent ‘crowdsourcing’ initiatives.

Defends the on-going importance of a more deliberative approach to e-democracy policy and practice.

This paper evaluates the UK Government's e-democracy policy and considers what lesson should be learned for future policy and practice. Despite some isolated examples of success, we argue that policy experimentation in the area has been disappointing overall, especially when compared with the ambitious rhetoric that has surrounded it, and has failed to culminate in a coherent strategy for using the Internet to support democratic citizenship. Our analysis emphasizes the on-going importance of online deliberation in achieving inclusive, informed, and negotiated policy formation and political decision-making. In the absence of inclusive sites and practices of public deliberation, the democratic value of non-deliberative experiments with petitioning and crowdsourcing and recent government efforts to open up public information and data for citizen auditing and evaluation is likely to remain limited.

Keywords

e-democracy deliberation democracy Internet

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

(2006) ‘The epistemology of democracy’, Episteme: A Journal of Social Epistemology, 3:1, 8–22.

Barber

B. R.

(2003) Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for A New Age (Berkeley CA: University of California Press).

Benhabib

(1996) ‘Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy’, in Benhabib

(ed.), Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press), 67–94.

Berry

D. M.

and Moss

(2006) ‘Free and open-source software: Opening and democratising e-government's black box’, Information Polity, 11:1, 21–34.

Blair

(2007) ‘The e-petition shows that my government is listening’, The Observer, 18 February. Available online at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/18/uk.transport (accessed 28 April 2011).

Brabham

D. C.

(2008) ‘Crowdsourcing as a model for problem solving: An introduction and cases’, Convergence, 14:1, 75–90.

Bruns

Burgess

Highfield

Kirchhoff

and Nicolai

(2011) ‘Mapping the Australian networked public sphere’, Social Science Computer Review, 29:3, 277–287. Available online at: http://ssc.sagepub.com/content/early/2010/09/16/0894439310382507.abstract (accessed 2 May 2011).

Cameron

(2010) ‘Letter to Government departments on opening up data’. Available online at: http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/statements-and-articles/2010/05/letter-to-government-departments-on-opening-up-data-51204 (accessed 2 May 2011).

Chadwick

(2009) ‘Web 2.0: New challenges for the study of e-democracy in an era of informational exuberance’, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 5:1, 9–42.

10.

Coleman

(2004) ‘Connecting Parliament to the public via the internet’, Information, Communication & Society, 7:1, 1–22.

11.

Coleman

and Blumler

(2009) The Internet and Democratic Citizenship: Theory, Practice & Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

12.

Coleman

and Moss

(2012) ‘Under construction: The field of online deliberation research’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9:1, 1–15.

13.

Conservative Party (2010) ‘Big ideas to give Britain real change’. Available online at: http://www.conservatives.com (accessed 2 May 2011).

14.

Couldry

(2010) Why Voice Matters: Culture and Politics after Neoliberalism (London: SAGE).

15.

Dahlgren

(2005) ‘The Internet, public spheres, and political communication: Dispersion and deliberation’, Political Communication, 22:2, 147–162.

16.

Davis

(1999) The Web of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American Political System (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

17.

Dawes

S. S.

(2010) ‘Stewardship and usefulness: Policy principles for information-based transparency’, Government Information Quarterly, 27:4, 377–383.

18.

Dryzek

(1982) ‘Policy analysis as a hermeneutic activity’, Policy Sciences, 14:4, 309–329.

19.

Dryzek

(2000) Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

20.

Dryzek

J. S.

and Niemeyer

(2008) ‘Discursive representation’, American Political Science Review, 102:4, 481–493.

21.

Dunleavy

and Margetts

(2006) Digital Era Governance: IT Corporations, the State, and E-Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

22.

Elstub

(2010) ‘The third generation of deliberative democracy’, Political Studies Review, 8:3, 291–307.

23.

Ferguson

(2008) ‘Convergent evolution: The development of online engagement in Westminster and Whitehall through the use of online forums’, Parliamentary Affairs, 61:1, 216–225.

24.

Ferguson

Griffiths

and Miller

(2007) ‘Digital dialogues phase two report, August 2006–August 2007’. Available online at: http://digitaldialogues.org.uk/reports/digital-dialogues-phase-two/ (accessed 2 May 2011).

25.

Fung

and Weil

(2010) ‘Open government and open society’, in Lathrop

and Ruma

(eds), Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice (Sebastopol CA: O'Reilly & Associates Inc.), 105–113.

26.

Goodin

(2000) ‘Democratic deliberation within’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 29:1, 81–109.

27.

Habermas

(1997) Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to A Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (London: Polity Press).

28.

Helsper

(2008) ‘Digital inclusion: An analysis of social disadvantage and the information society’. Available online at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/communities/digitalinclusionanalysissummary (accessed 2 May 2011).

29.

Hendriks

C. M.

(2006) ‘Integrated deliberation: Reconciling civil society's dual role in deliberative democracy’, Political Studies, 54:3, 486–508.

30.

Hill

K. A.

and Hughes

J. E.

(1998) Cyberpolitics: Citizen Activism in the Age of the Internet (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield).

31.

HM Treasury (2010) ‘Government implements saving ideas submitted through the Spending Challenge’. Available online at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_44_10.htm (accessed 12 November 2011).

32.

Project

Impact

(2011) ‘Project summary: Integrated method for policy making using argument modelling and computer assisted text analysis’ (European Framework 7 project: Grant Agreement No 247228). Available online at: http://www.policy-impact.eu/project-summary (accessed 2 May 2011).

33.

Janssen

and Kies

(2005) ‘Online forums and deliberative democracy’, Acta Politica, 40:3, 317–335.

34.

Jeffery

(2010) ‘Has the government's crowdslicing exercise been given the chop?’, The Guardian, 19 July. Available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2010/jul/19/crowdslicing-government-treasury-spending-cuts (accessed 2 May 2011).

35.

Lathrop

and Ruma

(2010) Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency, and Participation in Practice (Sebastopol CA: O'Reilly & Associates Inc.)

36.

Lessig

(2009) ‘Against transparency: The perils of openness in Government’, The New Republic, 9 October, 37–44.

37.

Lindner

and Riehm

(2011) ‘Broadening participation through e-petitions? An empirical study of petitions to the German Parliament’, Policy & Internet, 3:1, 1–23.

38.

Macintosh

Adams

N. J.

Whyte

and Johnston

(2008) ‘Epetitioning in the Scottish Parliament’, in Chen

Brandt

Gregg

Traunmueller

Dawes

Hovy

Macintosh

and Larson

C. A.

(eds), Digital Government: E-Government Research, Case Studies, and Implementation (Berlin: Springer), 487–501.

39.

Maer

(2010) ‘Proposals for a Petitions Committee for the House of Commons’, Standard Note SN/PC/05203 House of Commons Library.

40.

Maer

(2011) ‘Lobbying’, Standard Note SN/PC/04633 House of Commons Library.

41.

Mansbridge

. (2010) ‘The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 18:1, 64–100.

42.

Margetts

(2006) ‘e-Government in Britain—A decade on’, Parliamentary Affairs, 59:2, 250–265.

43.

Mayo

and Steinberg

(2007) ‘The power of information’, Citeseer

44.

Meijer

(2009) ‘Understanding modern transparency’, International Review of Administrative Sciences, 75:2, 255–269.

45.

Miller

(2009) ‘e-Petitions at Westminster: The way forward for democracy?’, Parliamentary affairs, 62:1, 162–177.

46.

Mosco

(2005) The Digital Sublime: Myth, Power, and Cyberspace (Cambridge MA: MIT Press).

47.

Moss

and O'Loughlin

(2005) ‘New Labour's information age policy programme: An ideology analysis', Journal of Political Ideologies, 10:2, 165–183.

48.

Murdock

and Golding

(2004) ‘Dismantling the digital divide: Rethinking the dynamics of participation and exclusion’, in Calabrese

and Sparks

(eds), Towards A Political Economy of Culture: Capitalism and Communication in the Twenty-First Century (Lanham MD: Rowman & Littlefield), 244–260.

49.

Navarria

(2010) ‘e-Petitioning and representative democracy: A doomed marriage?—Lessons learnt from the Downing Street e-Petition website and the case of the 2007 Road-Tax petition’. Available online at: http://microsites.oii.ox.ac.uk/ipp2010/programme/49 (accessed 2 May 2011).

50.

Noveck

(2009) Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful (Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press).

51.

Office of the e-Envoy (2002) In the Service of Democracy: A Consultation on A Policy for E-Democracy (London: HM Stationery Office).

52.

Office of National Statistics (2010) ‘Statistical Bulletin: Internet Access 2010 Households and Individuals’. Available at: http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/rdit2/internet-access—households-and-individuals/2010/index.html

53.

Price

(2006) ‘Citizens deliberating online: Theory and some evidence’, in Davies

(ed.), Online Deliberation: Design, Research and Practice (Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press), 37–58.

54.

Price

and Cappella

J. N.

(2002) ‘Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue project in campaign 2000’, IT & Society, 1:1, 303–329.

55.

Rosanvallon

(2008) Counter-Democracy: Politics in An Age of Distrust (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

56.

Saward

(2003) ‘Enacting democracy’, Political Studies, 51:1, 161–179.

57.

Selwyn

(2004) ‘Reconsidering political and popular understandings of the digital divide’, New Media & Society, 6:3, 341–362.

58.

Selwyn

and Facer

(2009) ‘Beyond digital divide’, in Ferro

(ed.), Handbook of Research on Overcoming Digital Divides: Constructing An Equitable and Competitive Information Society (Hershey PA: Information Science Reference), 1–20.

59.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2001) Republic.Com (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).

60.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2006) Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

61.

Treasury Commons Select Committee (2010) ‘Spending Review 2010’. Para 33. Available online at: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201011/cmselect/cmtreasy/544/54405.htm (accessed 12 November 2011).

62.

Whitehead

(2010) ‘Three lessons from the Treasury's Spending Challenge fiasco’, New Economics. Available online at: http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/2010/07/16/three-lessons-from-the-treasury's-spending-challenge-fiasco (accessed 2 May 2011).

63.

Wilhelm

A. G.

(2000) Democracy in the Digital Age: Challenges to Political Life in Cyberspace (London: Routledge).

64.

Wright

(2006) ‘Government-run online discussion fora: Moderation, censorship and the shadow of control’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 8:4, 550–568.

65.

Wright

(2012) ‘Assessing (e-)Democratic Innovations: “Democratic Goods” and Downing Street E-petitions’ Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 9:4, 453–470.

66.

Wright

and Street

(2007) ‘Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums’, New Media & Society, 9:5, 849–869.

67.

Young

I. M.

(2002) Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press).