Meritocracy

Some would argue that the Party Political system of democracy that we have here today is a meritocracy: the best party members are promoted by their peers to become candidates, Members of Parliament, Members of Cabinet or even the Prime Minister. Even though budding Machiavellis, lady luck and human bias conspire to distort the ideal of meritocracy, Interactive Democracy (ID) does not prevent this time honoured process of appointing politicians. To this meritocracy of people, ID adds a meritocracy of ideas. Each one reviewed by the populace and parliament, promoted or declined, one at a time.

Technocrats

Many decisions in society require detailed knowledge and expertise and must be done by technocrats of one form or another. Consider the NICE committee that advises the NHS on the validity of new drugs (amongst many other things). Often senior doctors, they make decisions after analysing the clinical evidence and in light of the affordability of the treatment, using sophisticated metrics to compare the likelihood of providing quality of life years for patients. They make tough calls that can result in refusing patients with terminal illnesses the treatment that they need, because that money could be better spent elsewhere. The plight of these patients may tug at our heart strings.

Interactive Democracy may be used by campaigners demanding drugs that NICE have refused. They may garner much support through emotional appeals that ignore the hard hearted rational of the technocrats. Is this a bad thing?

In a democracy this should be a debate worth having. It may alter the rules that the technocrats employ to make their case by case decisions. But Interactive Democracy can not replace them; they are still an essential part of society. I don't believe that the public, through ID, could consider such complex decisions and vote frequently upon them.

Pressure Groups

Recently I heard one pundit on the BBC comment that No.10s ePetition system was a bit of an own goal, as it was dominated by pressure groups. I don't see this as a bad thing. After all, political party members can use it too. As can labour unions, charities, rail customers, cancer victims, super heroes or newspaper campaigns, to name but a few. Surely the essence of democracy is expressing your opinion to enhance the debate.

Sure, the ePetition system is more open to abuse than the proposed Interactive Democracy system, by people using aliases to boost the numbers of signatures (an address is required, but is it checked?). But I applaud No.10 for providing this service. It's an experiment that Interactive Democracy can learn from.

Bristol Vote on Graffiti

Bristol, the home city of Bansky, the elusive and acclaimed artist, is allowing its residents to vote on the removal of graffiti. This democratic process will be a stand against crime for some and a vote for freedom for others.

Shouldn't property owners have the first and final say on graffiti on their buildings? But assuming that that hurdle is cleared, perhaps because the wall is publicly owned, there are other complications. As each piece of graffiti may have its own merits, not just because of its creative content but in relation to the surface it was painted on, whether it is a bland concrete fence or Georgian facade, surely votes should be cast on each work - an administrative nightmare for a conventional ballot. Interactive Democracy could help streamline this, especially if a photo file was attached to each ballot. It could also automatically favour votes by residents of the area, the immediate postcode, ahead of the wider population of the city, who may only be given half a vote each!?

More from The Guardian here.

Making the Media Interactive

I hope that the media, especially the press, radio and TV news, would see the merit of publishing details of ePetitions and Public Ballots. These could include new ePetitions, the top 10 by number of signatures and all upcoming Public Ballots. I think it would add immeasurably to the success of Interactive Democracy and to the content of their services. It may even attract more readers, listeners and viewers and therefore more advertisers.

This will provide endless topics for their opinion leaders and political analysts.

Perhaps because of political bias, the media may not agree with this. In which case the government may consider to wield its power and legislate that news media must publish or broadcast these details. Or they may demand that it is only mandatory for the BBC.

You Don't Have To Be An Expert To Start A Petition

Inevitably, Interactive Democracy will be inundated by half baked ideas from amateurs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because off-the-wall suggestions may inspire others to write their own, better informed, Petitions. In this way the ePetition system may act like an enormous brainstorming system. (One of the rules of brainstorming is that any idea should be recorded without criticism, as it may inspire other, better ideas.)

Crazy ideas are unlikely to garner sufficient support to be put before parliament, but even if they were, our elected politicians must debate them, look at the counter arguments and associated issues, and form realistic and workable choices to put before voters.

Votes from Abroad

Nationals who are working or living abroad will still be able to vote using an Internet based Interactive Democracy (ID) system in the same way that we can access our Internet bank accounts. Perhaps a more difficult challenge would be to ensure that military personnel on active service have sufficient access to the Internet.

Several aspects of the system will help to facilitate votes even though access to the voting system may be infrequent:

• Votes may be cast well before the ballot ends, perhaps months in advance
• Liquid Democracy can be used to delegate votes on certain subjects to respected individuals
• You may allow your spouse or a trusted friend to access your ID account (by giving them your user name and password) and cast the vote on your behalf. Perhaps you would direct them by telephone.

The ID system would simplify the administration of General, EU and Council Elections for those working abroad and could provide substantial cost savings compared to the present system.

Perceptual Contrast

Whenever there is a choice between two solutions we should be aware of the Perceptual Contrast Effect. Humans automatically compare similar things and find it very difficult to compare those choices with a third, separate standard.

This may be used by any sales person to steer a decision in the "right" direction. It could be used by Members of Parliament to bias the outcome of a referendum if they offered an obviously contentious option instead of a more moderate alternative to a proposal that they favoured.

In the Interactive Democracy system, the electorate may want to wield their power against the politicians responsible for such deception.

Halos and Horns

The Halo Effect describes how we assume that people who are successful in one field may be successful in another. It may manifest itself in many ways and encourages us to support our leaders.

The Horns effect may be considered as the opposite. We dismiss the opinions of those we don't respect.

Neither the Halo or Horns effects may be valid as success or failure in one area does not mean that an individual will perform well or poorly on a different issue. So maybe we should be more skeptical of our leaders and more open to ideas from the average person. Interactive Democracy facilitates this point of view.

Cabinet's Commitment

It is understood that the Cabinet has specific roles:

• Share information about government departments and the progress of policies
• Coordinate between departments
• Resolve conflicts of policy
• Confirm government policy

Individual freedom of expression is required for effective debate but cabinet members are expected to present a united front to the outside world.

The Prime Minister (PM) has sole responsibility for appointing cabinet members and (s)he may expect their loyalty. The PM has the authority to set the agenda and chair cabinet meetings.

With Interactive Democracy I would expect the cabinet system to continue to exist in its present form. However, the agenda may be influenced by the demands of the public, expressed through Interactive Democracy, and ministers may have to take into account a much more powerful electorate.

Improving the Quality of Parliamentary Debate

Could it be that Interactive Democracy could apply pressure to improve the quality of Parliamentary debate?

Within Interactive Democracy, Parliament should present all the arguments, effects and interesting observations about any issue that is about to go to a national ballot. This should represent all the points of view of every Member of Parliament and may be written as a secure wiki type document. It may be constructed on-line before and after the debate in the Commons. The format may be De Bono's PMI (plus, minus and interesting points), perhaps as a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) or any other "thinking tool". Because this analysis would be presented to every voter when they come to cast their vote, it would put pressure on Parliament to do a good job; the electorate would be in a position to appoint or dismiss MPs as they do today.

The PM's Office

The PMs office is split into 4 departments:

• Private Office
• Political Office
• Press Office
• Policy Directorate

Under the Interactive Democracy (ID) system I would expect that this structure would continue. Much of the governments agenda would be set through the ID system and I would imagine that the Political Office and the Policy Directorate would work closely together to encourage votes from party members, in order to create a majority that would push the desired policies through the public ID system. Us voters would decide if we liked them or not.

Prime Minister's Questions - PMQs

Would it be useful to allow PMQs from the public?

Perhaps Interactive Democracy (ID) could be used for this. Perhaps the 10 questions with the most votes would have to be answered by the PM in the House of Commons and on the No.10 web site.

Or would this absorb too much of the Prime Minister's time?

Public PMQs may evolve once the ID system is in place.

Presidential Prime Ministers

In the past we have had Prime Ministers with many different styles of leadership; some have been criticised for surrounding themselves with "yes men" and steamrollering their colleagues. By appointing loyal and grateful politicians to cabinet positions, PMs can reinforce their own power, undermine collective cabinet government and become more presidential.

Interactive Democracy introduces a different power balance. This power is much more immediate than in a Parliamentary Democracy that is dominated by infrequent General Elections and it can be wielded precisely on specific issues. At any time the electorate will be able to call for a change of government, sack individual ministers or call for a change of government policy. This counter balances presidential power.

The ID system may be less appealing to egotistical Prime Ministers who want to exert their will, because much of Parliamentary business will be driven by voters. However, the public can still have a Presidential PM, if that is what the majority wants: they can vote in a Presidential figure and allow him or her to set the agenda.

Counterbalancing the Prime Minister's Powers

The Prime Minister has the power to

1. Appoint ministers
2. Chair cabinet meetings
3. Set the agenda
4. Appoint senior civil servants
5. Award peerages
6. Decide when to call a general election
   

I'd expect most of those powers to continue. However, the governments agenda would in part be set by the demands made by the public through the ID system and partly by national and world events. And without a House of Lords, peerages will not have the same relevance.

With ID the PM would need to keep a watchful eye on public opinion while making decisions because a majority could, in theory, countermand his/her decisions and ultimately call for a general election or the sacking of ministers and senior civil servants. These sanctions would likely only be employed in extremis, but their existence would be an influence on No.10's operations, without voters continuously meddling in the day to day operation of government.

Law Lords

Could Interactive Democracy (ID) take over the role of the Law Lords?

There are 12 Law Lords who used to sit in the House of Lords (but have now moved) and are the highest court of appeal in the land - the supreme court of appeal. They are experienced senior judges and have a wealth of legal experience.

Even if ID eliminated the need for a separate House of Lords (counter balancing the power of The Commons and saving £60m a year), I would expect a continued requirement for the Law Lords to operate the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Technology Savy Demographics

Interactive Democracy has an inbuilt bias for those with Internet connections and IT skills. Information Technology facilitates cost effective voting but it is essential that everyone has reasonable access to both the equipment and training needed to make ID work. I suspect that that point has almost come, given the access to public libraries that we can all enjoy, each with an Internet facility. Undoubtedly this technology favours those who are familiar with it. However, I make no apology for the natural bias ID offers to those demographics that own a computer and know how to use it. There has always been this type of bias in democracy, a bias for those that could read in the early 20th century, those that owned a wireless in the 1930s or a TV set in the 1960s. Always a bias for those with the mobility and the time to get to a polling station.

Citizen Journalists

As we have seen after the Iranian general election, anyone with a video camera and an Internet connection can air footage that can effect political debate. Any blogger can express their opinion. However, this information, for all its impact, may not be verified as a report from the best journalists would. Reports may actually be corrupt interpretations or may even be orchestrated by those with hidden agendas.

I don't believe that such concerns are a significant problem for Interactive Democracy, which balances public opinion with Parliamentary expertise and Bloggers with Professional Journalists.

It could be argued that a deluge of information from citizen journalists may add diversity to the debate and thus enhance it. Even though no one person could view every report, a large number of individuals may collectively absorb the information and act accordingly, the Interactive Democracy system collating their opinions.

Donations to MPs

Donations made to MPs, exceeding £1000, must be declared, but there is always the worry that money can "buy" policy. Interactive Democracy may make such corruption meaningless as the public have the final vote on new laws.

Two Job MPs

It has long been the case that MPs have been able to have two jobs and lucrative sources of second income, sometimes associated with their Parliamentary responsibilities. One of our best loved leaders, Sir Winston Churchill, wrote several successful books that provided him with extra cash.

It may be argued that MPs' second jobs anchor them in the "real world", forming a connection to the general public that can so easily be lost in the Westminster Village. For example, Sir Paul Beresford has continued to practice as a dentist. The counter argument is that MPs should really be concentrating on politics and their Parliamentary responsibilities, not using their position to make more dosh as nonexecutive directors and the like.

Interactive Democracy feeds everyones' real life experience into the political mix. Every type of democracy needs politicians to be professional and responsible law makers, focused on their jobs as Parliamentarians.

For an Independent article about MPs' second jobs please click here.

MPs Attendance

It is important for Interactive Democracy (indeed any democracy) that MPs attend debates and ballots - that's their job. Perhaps they should be payed for attendance? Or perhaps a record of attendance should be published on the web?

But Cabinet Ministers are also MPs and if they attended every session in Parliament, who would govern the country?

Lords that Govern

Peter Mandelson, among others, have positions in government, not through election but by appointment. They are Lords that govern.

George Bernard Shaw said, "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." Yet the "many" aren't as incompetent or ill informed as in Shaw's day. Today we are far better educated and have access to a wide range of sources of information and opinions. Interactive Democracy is a form of government that substitutes the will of the educated majority for the appointment of the corrupt few.

John Gardner

"The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." John Gardner, founder of Common Cause.

Noam Chomsky

"States are not moral agents, people are, and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions." Noam Chomsky.

Interactive Democracy gives people the power to impose those moral standards.

Time Limits

The No.10 ePetition system allows you to select how long you would like your petition to run, up to a maximum of 1 year. The Interactive Democracy system requires no such time limits as whichever petition has the most support goes before Parliament. This has the advantage that ideas can hang around long enough so that they may reach a tipping point where support suddenly blooms; they may quite suddenly have their day as new and unpredicted events focus public interest.