Power to the person?
How times move on. Launching one of its headline initiatives, the new coalition Government is asking us all to put forward our views on which laws should be scrapped. So far so nothing new.
What’s interesting is that this consultation (surely a word that is shortly destined to become as over-used as ‘current economic climate’) is being managed via a website.
The website [http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/] draws on a model that has become common in recent years and one which, arguably, was initially particularly led by Amazon. It typically has three components: Post, Comment and Rate (PCR). Words that have all taken on new meanings as they’ve entered our daily lives.
Will it work? That’s the big question. The approach shows a willingness to embrace technological and cultural shifts. It feels relevant, modern and inclusive. It makes it easy to participate and this tactic gives individuals a greater sense of their own voice and contribution.
So far, so good. But the Government is not immune to the same perils of opening the door that face other, very different sites doing the same thing.
Firstly you get the cranks and the humorists. When it’s easy to submit a response and when your views are open for all to see, it’s tempting for some to be less than serious. We can all accept that the Government is not likely to scrap the law of gravity, despite some calls for it to do so.
But where do you draw the line? At what point does a response move from being silly to being seriously proposed and who makes that judgement? Once you move beyond attempting to overturn the laws of the universe it quickly becomes less clear. There is a certain added emphasis on a government to listen to all responses. Its premise is inclusivity and an open mind after all.
Like any political activity in a democracy the simple rule of popularity can then becomes a determining factor. Which is where comments and rates come in. Comments can help to gauge the wider public views on the post, while rates attribute a more quantifiable measure to popularity. So, in theory, the more stars a post has the more popular it is.
This system is useful, but by no means foolproof. When you visit any one of the millions of consumer review sites it’s up to you how you judge the posts. While ratings are a good benchmark, you are also free to disagree and ignore. The posts provide a narrative that can help you make decisions and influence actions.
And here’s the critical challenge facing the Government. The sheer wealth of information it has to sift through. There are at least 4,710 individual suggestions and easily over 15,000 comments.
And you thought it was hard enough deciphering reviews on a book or a camera or a pushchair!
The PCR system is a powerful enabler and creator of communities and can provide collective intelligence and views. But it requires effort and skill to interpret and the interpretation varies from individual to individual.
It’s one thing to build and launch such a system, it’s a whole different ball game to make sense of what comes back.
Along with a series of slightly vague commitments [http://yourfreedom.hmg.gov.uk/about_the_dialogue] the website states:
“We promise to read and respond to your ideas and comments, although we won't be able to respond individually to everything submitted.
But we won’t only respond to the most popular ideas (those ranked the highest or those with the most comments). We may also respond to and make use of ideas that are less popular but which we identify as having clear value.”
In other words the Government intends to act much as an individual would – using the ratings as a guide but not being bound by the majority. It makes perfect sense to those used to navigating the world of PCR environments.
But it could actually represent quite a departure for a government. That it may make use of less popular ideas which they think have value rather flies in the face of blunt democracy.
What it seems to be saying is that there is a chance that one suggestion put forward by one person has a chance of being actioned, even if it’s not as popular as others.
That’s a strong claim and one which has the potential to change the dynamics of politics if not fundamentally at least on the outskirts.
Which is why it will be very interesting to see what happens next.