Talkin' with the People
There's a certain high-geekiness factor to this post (you have been warned!) but it does fall under 'democracy.'
Phil Windley, CIO of the State of Utah, has a weblog. In a recent entry, he talks about eGovernment maturity and he says that there are four levels to the development of eGovernment the way it ought to be (he has tables and everything--you should go check it out). The first level is a simple website, the second level is 'online government' including some online transactions, and the third level is 'integrated government,' which starts to move beyond department-based transactions. The fourth level he calls 'transformational government' and describes it thus:
In the fourth level of eGovernment maturity, the services offered are built from the citizens' viewpoint to service individual requirements and needs...the organization of government has been subjugated to the service need of the citizen.
My boss says you can't describe level 4 because we're not there and that if it is truly transformative then we will be transformed, too, and thinking differently than when we were building level one or level two or even level three. So, it will be different (level 4) than we can imagine in our pre-transformed state.
What I think is that there's a fifth level that takes us beyond service, which is what all these initial levels are about--providing first-class service from the government to you, the citizen. Life in a democracy is more than that, though, and interaction with government is more (or ought to be more) than getting quick feedback when you fill out a form.
Level 5 is where we talk and listen and are heard. Level 5 is about dialogue. People need to have more interaction with 'government' than voting on the first Tuesday in November. Service, even first-class service, gives us, the recipients of that service no power except in griping. That and voting are our only ways to be heard in a government that believes it's all about 'serving' us. But, it's our government--you know, of the people, by the people, for the people--there ought to be more.
And we need a voice.
Not, to agree with all decisions. Not, to complicate the process even further. Not to create a direct democrary rather than a representative one. To participate in the discussion, to be more to elected officials than conglomerated numbers in a poorly-written poll. It'd be difficult, figuring out how dialogue would work, how to avoid the tyranny of the loudest voices, how to help people articulate their thoughts and feelings in productive ways, how to encourage enough participation to generate an ongoing synergy. I think technology can help, can continue what it does now outside government, improve our opportunities for conversation.
Not everyone wants 'the people' to have a greater voice than they do now. And some will say, well, you know, people will never agree on this or go against their self-interest on that, or understand all the nuances of this other thing. But, that's not the point. The point is being part of the complex, endlessly gray-shaded process. The point is the conversation.
Because when people participate, when they know, in particular, that they've been listened to and considered, they can often not only accept the final decision, whatever it is, but participating in the process increases trust and understanding and builds social capital that helps us handle the next big thing even better than the last one.