*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** Below is a longer contribution to the "Parliamentary Oversight and Scrutiny" online consultation hosted by the World Bank. Steven Clift Democracies Online Available in the message archive from: http://www.worldbank.org/devforum/forum_oversight.html Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2001 02:55:07 -0500 Author: "Victor Perton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Parliaments, the Internet and Public Participation Body: What impact will the Internet have on Parliaments? I believe the Internet will change everything, including the way we govern and are governed. We have only seen the beginning. Writing in 1982, the great management teacher, Professor Russell Ackoff, said, Change has always been accelerating. This is nothing new and we cannot claim uniqueness because of it. There are, however, some aspects of the changes we are experiencing that are uniqueFirst, although technological and social change have been accelerating almost continuously, until recently this has been slow enough to enable people to adapt, either by making small occasional adjustments or by accumulating the need to do so and passing it on to the next generation. The young have always found it easier than the old to make the necessary adjustments. Newcomers to power have usually been willing to make changes that their predecessors were unwilling to make. In the past, because change did not press people greatly, it did not receive much of their attention. Today it presses hard and therefore is attended to. Its current rate is so great that delays in responding to it can be very costly, even disastrous. Companies and governments are going out of business everyday because they have failed to adapt to it, or because they have adapted too slowly. (Ackoff, Russell A, Creating the Corporate Future) We are now in the midst of a revolution. The information age and fast developing communications and information technologies are driving our lives and careers in unimagined ways. Our economy and society are literally being transformed by the changes wrought by the global information industry. Change will accelerate as internet connections increase in developing countries and the internet delivery is delivered by broadband. The feature of "always on", with no more need to "dial-in", will redefine the use of the Internet in ways we don't even yet imagine. When wireless and pervasive computing makes its full impact, the changes will accelerate further. Wearable computers, new personal devices, intelligent appliances, and the wired, artificially intelligent internet houses and offices will inexorably alter our lives. The barriers to consultation with the whole community on difficult and vexing policy issues are being removed by a lower cost of the transmission of ideas, inexpensive storage of information, data-mining tools and the advent of practical artificial intelligence tools. Provided that issues are communicated in common terms, there ought to be no barrier to the ordinary citizen contributing ideas and energy to the political process. The energetic Canadian author, Don Tapscott, wrote, We are at the dawn of an Age of Networked Intelligence - an age that is giving birth to a new economy, a new politics, and a new society. Businesses will be transformed, governments will be renewed and individuals will be able to reinvent themselves - all with the help of information technology. A New Democracy? Today in Australia, there is widely expressed public contempt for parliamentarians. Similar sentiments are expressed in most countries with a free press. There is contempt for a parliamentary system in which televised highlights focus Government and Opposition Leaders perpetually at war. Almost all reform is met by negativity and/or carping from the other side. The institution of Parliament is one that is steeped in tradition and symbolism. The Westminster system as we know it today has a history which dates back four hundred years and is the descendant of a much older manifestation, which has its roots in the medieval tradition of baronial counsel and consent. (J Goldsworthy, The Sovereignty of Parliament, Clarendon Press Oxford p 28) Today, Westminster parliaments may be considered to be excessively adversarial. The Westminster institutions, which are premised on an ideal of adversarialism as the key to reaching informed outcomes and compromise between all sides of a debate, had almost fully matured by the mid-18th century. As they prepare to enter the 21st century, the systems are showing signs of stress. While our economies, societies, corporations, education systems and executive governments are all moving from the industrial age to the information age, many of our parliamentary practices remain mired in the pre-industrial age. Surely in 2001 we are entitled to ask whether the trial-by-combat approach is appropriate for a knowledge-based economy? Truth is usually better found through collaboration than confrontation. Parliamentarians have the power to reform the processes of Parliament. The processes as we know them are intended to ensure certainty and accountability, however these systems are a product of a period predating the advent of modern telecommunications, when the printing press was the dominant form of communications technology. The ability of present day processes to function and deliver what they should is being fundamentally called into question. The social researcher and commentator, Hugh McKay, wrote in July, This is a time of widespread disengagement from many of the issues that cry out for debate; the electorate simply isn't paying attentionThe opinion polls merely show that if you ask a question, you'll get an answer. As democrats do we continue to accept this situation or do we strike out in new directions to renew our democracy? Given that members of Parliament are now able to gain access to the entire world via the Internet using laptop computers in the chamber, and the government is becoming increasingly open by including its own publications on the Web it would seem to be a time for change. If the process does not change, in a few years when the Internet is in practically every household there will be an irresistible push for a high-tech Swiss model of direct democracy on public policy issues. Several years ago, an independent candidate for the American presidency, Mr Ross Perot, scored almost 20 per cent of the vote on that platform. The 21st century provides us with a phenomenal opportunity to revive liberal political life. Even central bankers are excited. Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the US Federal Reserve has said, The flood of investment in technology which we have seen over the past few years will lead to a once or twice in a century phenomenon that will carry productivity trends nationally and globally to a new higher track. So, too, in political and civic life there is the opportunity to lead the nation to a higher track. The public doesnt believe their political leaders Listen. They want political leaders to hear and respond. Parliamentarians can legitimately say that very few people send them their views. The people might respond with, I would, if I thought they would listen. In a knowledge economy and society, the ideas of our people are our most valuable resource. How much of this is lost as discussions and ideas are not transmitted to those with the power to implement change? How many people have their most creative ideas under the shower rather than at meetings, how often have you been to a dinner party where over four bottles of wine the group has come up with the solution? Today, most of these ideas are lost because they are never transmitted. Even if the general public sends in ideas, they are lost because there are not sufficient resources to properly analyse the merit of the idea. Of course, in many cases, ideas are not given sufficient weight because they come from people not connected to the political process or a business/trade-union/NGO community. Most of us say we believe the little people have wisdom too, but we havent built the tools to deal with large-scale transmission of their ideas. Most political and government offices would be easily overwhelmed by an substantial increase in innovative ideas from the community each politician and their staff are so appointment and deadline driven now they could not cope with an increased demand for analysis and response. In a knowledge economy, the fundamental resource is the intelligence, knowledge and wisdom of your community. As the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has said, Weve heard a lot about knowledge nation. Knowledge of itself is a very important commodity. It is indispensable. It is part of the very essence of our being as humans. But knowledge itself is not enough. Unless a nation has a capacity to convert knowledge into income and jobs, it cannot fully fulfil the human needs of our modern society. And the goals of government must there be to create to the maximum extent possible what Ive often described in the past as a can-do community. The knowledge and creativity of the people can be harnessed through some creative and sensible use of Information Technology. However this needs major reform in the way information and knowledge is utilised in the departmental structure of government. Most policy suggestions from outside organisations and individuals are processed within a single department or agency; many ideas, which have application across government, are not given sufficient attention across government. I believe that a single cross-departmental database for government policy-making can be created both at every level of government Federal, State and Local level. Who knows, in time maybe the databases of all three could be merged. Simple data mining, and increasingly advanced intelligent agents, should be able to find synergy between ideas sent to disparate departments and agencies. In that environment, cost-benefit analysis would more accurately identify reform which have high benefits across government with costs more rationally allocated across the governmental budget. If we called the project Harvesting the Knowledge of Australians for Australia , who knows what enthusiasm we would unleash. The public could be encouraged to send their ideas in by email/web; faxes and typed letters can be scanned pretty accurately to text. Handwritten ideas are more labour intensive but as they may come from an older but wise population segment, means could be found to transcribe the ideas. Call centres and voice-recognition systems could increase the flow of spontaneous ideas. Importantly, in many cases, contributors with synergistic ideas could be invited to meet together to further develop their ideas. It wouldnt be hard to give them access to relevant budget materials and existing programs to help them better develop their ideas before public service resources would be applied to them. Who knows precisely why so many Australians volunteered to help in the Olympics? I dont think the passions demonstrated are restricted to sport. If the object of the exercise is contributing to the development of our nation, if ideas are seen to be valued and there is visible action (which may include the convening of like-minded citizens) there may be a genuine flourishing in public participation. This new invigorated democracy would give us the opportunity to ask everyone their opinion and views on any issue. This should not lead us down the track of the referendum on every issue. John Stuart Mill warned against simple majoritarian rule minorities need to be protected, complex issues sometimes dictate decisions based on experts advice. The Ross Perot vision of the electronic town hall constituted by a yes/no question immediately after the television news conjures up nightmares rather than a dream. We mustnt be afraid to share the complexity of decision making with the public. While the television news and modern newspapers seem incapable of portraying complexity, the web and email allows us to give the knowledge and information to the community on complex decisions. Not all will participate, but how much stronger would our society be if 5-10% of the population studied and participated in complex problem solving? Governments and parliamentarians need to alter their methods of consultation. Today, most governments produce discussion papers that they advertise and ask for "submissions." In todays busy world most of us dont have the time to finish the newspapers much less read and respond to difficult technical concepts in a discussion paper. We need to ask people questions in their own language and we should permit greater informality in their response. I understand that in Sweden, there are experiments with storytellers rewriting government documents and legislation. As far as possible options papers and discussion papers should be accompanied by a video presentation whether on tape or the web. I have received an excellent submission to a parliamentary inquiry from an illiterate man who sent me a video in his case showing graphic evidence of the truth of his testimony. By way of further example imagine the sunsetting and remaking of a set of environmental regulations requiring food shops to safeguard the environment by keeping a grease trap (serviced regularly), an air emissions filter and a prescribed system for recycling food scraps. Most food shop operators work very long hours and, today, are very unlikely to contribute to the regulatory process. Imagine if we could send the thousands of food shops a single page by email/fax or hard copy in one paragraph setting out the reasons and the direct impact and asking two questions - Have the regulations disrupted their business in any way? Is there any way you can think of achieving these objectives better. You may only get a handful of responses but one extraordinary insight from someone deeply immersed in running a food business might revolutionise the way the issue is handled in future. To conclude, open policy making processes are inherently beneficial as they recognize that any individual in society no matter how busy with their work or family responsibilities has something to contribute to societys decisions. In my experience, bureaucrats with power often oppose them as they disrupt existing power structures and information flows. The results may be unpredictable but I believe the risks are worth it. The new opportunities in politics were well summarized in a speech by Australian author Bryce Courtney, who said: ""Dare your genius to walk the wild unknown way." *** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE *** *** To unsubscribe instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE *** *** Please forward this post to others and encourage *** *** them to subscribe to the free DO-WIRE service. ***
