History shows us that broad changes in political philosophy are generated in response to political stasis (see the original Greek). Whether it was the Greeks (particularly in Athens) or the British in the 17th and 18th centuries, the philosophies that come to frame political discourse are born out of the tensions and struggles by people to deal with real political challenges. They do not in the initial instance precede dramatic political reconceptualization (unfortunately for those of us who love “philosophizing”).
Right now, with the clamor of gov 2.0 discussions and the impressive experiments in using social media and other ICT to create new “civic media,” we’re are participating in a push by citizens and advocacy groups for greater transparency, accountability, and responsiveness on the part of government. Not anything new, but the thanks to the new ICT being employed, the effort is empowering citizens in entirely new ways. Individuals can now organize themselves and others, access and share incredible amounts and slices of data, reach government officials, and act as their own media outlets to rally and bring visible pressure on government officials and agencies. Demonstrations in front of town hall have nothing on the cacophony that today can be almost instantly pumped through countless channels to focus official attention on issues of importance to motivated citizens.
writingonthewalls.com
The older terms created to label the application of ICT to government, such as e-government, and the electronic-born hopes for real democracy (e-democracy) have fast given way to new terms that may have similar foundations, but are driven by a new sense of the possible. “Gov 2.0,” “civic media,” and “participatory-n” are the new terms of the day, and they are animated by legions of citizens who are no longer just “on-line,” they are now shaping and designing their daily experiences, as enabled by the Web and web-based tools. So it’s very interesting to wonder at what this most recent and widespread push for reform in government (for that is what it really amounts to) will yield in terms of both new governance architectures but also the new political philosophies that will emerge to justify and celebrate them.
Citizens are not globally interested in all policy issues of collective importance. They can only really focus on one thing at a time, and they are only individually passionate about a very small number of issues. Thus, they are naturally “episodic participants” in governance. While this may pose a challenge to general democratic theories and designs, the new civic media applications being developed, and the increasingly explicit concept of governance over just the institution of government, may be well-suited to accommodate this aspect of human political behavior.
The combination of emerging civic media tools on top of what we will come to recognize as a robust civic infrastructure, potentially enables a form of governance architecture I will call reactive democracy. In such a form, society is not constantly steered by the entire assembled (organized) political community. Rather, citizens have the right to choose their moments for full participation, and when they choose not to, they accede to other more motivated citizens and to other elements of government.
In such a form, government remains a critical institution, but other, formal and valid governing arrangements are nested throughout society. Citizens are able to participate in governance when they are motivated to do so. Government, on the other hand, always participates, being the “last line” ensuring security and stability. But new governing relationships, new “receptor sites” are designed across the institution of government to provide constitutionally legitimate interactions for joint government/citizen governing.
The issue of constitutional validity is important. In this emerging age, where, as demonstrated continually in just the recent gov 2.0 discussion, citizens are networked individuals, maintaining multiple identities and interests that often have little to do with spatial dimensions. Whereas once civil society might have referred simply to the very local, geographic neighborhood governance conducted by citizens rather than the “government,” now citizens are active on issues of collective interest that not only cross geographic boundaries but also impact people all over the country. In such a complex, networked age, accountability and transparency will apply not only to “government” but to all the other new governing actions as well. Constitutional legitimacy, or the authority to exercise judgment and participate in decisions of collective interest that will affect lives beyond one’s own neighborhood, will be even more important in the decades ahead.
Considering these things, I wonder if the push for more participation now, even perhaps the emergence of a from of reactive democracy, is an intermediate step between classic representative government and genuine democracy. Is it a new political plateau, an end state for this age, or is it merely one of may adaptive experiments to come? How will political philosophy change to account for the new tensions, experiences, and solutions (whatever they may end up being)? What will become the new norms, the new assumptions about the nature of citizenship and the design of governance?
Whether it was the Greeks, the Romans, the British, or the Americans, individuals and groups throughout history implemented new governmental innovations (often termed “reforms” at the time) as attempts to address practical issues facing them, and only later did the “successful” experiments come to reframe political discourse.
It’s going to be an interesting future history.