Discussion of Principle 4

From Theconnectedrepublic

4) Empowered Citizens: Government 2.0 will enable citizens to do more for themselves, either individually or collectively, as co-producers of services and shapers of public policies.

General Comments

It is easy to assume that citizens want to be empowered, but it is probably worth exploring when and why this is most true. Here we probably need to distinguish between: policy decisions (should we built more nuclear power stations etc); budgetary decisions (how much should we spend on education rather than health); administrative decisions (detailed decisions about the operation of specific public sector organisations); and decisions affecting the individual citizen (my personal interaction with public sector organisations). In general, my guess would be that most citizens would be moderately interested in a bit more input into the first three types of decision but generally at a minimal cost of their time and effort (but some will be happy to get more involved in a broad range of areas, and many may at some point want to get quite involved in a specific area), while it is in the last area they are likely to be most keen on empowerment. In other words, the type of empowerment they are keenest on is doing things for themselves or doing things at the time and in the manner of their own choosing.

Within democracies important decisions in the first two areas are typically handled by elected representatives, so citizen empowerment in these areas is generally about enabling citizens to input into and/or making more transparent the decision-making process of democratically-elected bodies. (In principle, it could also involve moving some decisions to a more direct form of democracy, but this is not currently a mainstream demand - partly because of fears that online direct democracy would be systematically unrepresentative and partly because even if it was representative there are other concerns about direct democracy). In relation to the third area, there is a huge range of decisions where the process could be made more transparent and citizens involved more. Typically, this may also be an area where non-representativeness is less of an issue - e.g. if a poll about library times was hijacked by students who voted for all libraries to open from 20.00-24.00, publishing this outcome in a few other fora (e.g. the local newspaper) could help the local authority determine whether or not this was an accurate reflection of local preferences. --Pauljohn 11:45, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Potential Benefits

[Insert your comments here]

--Msweeks 07:50, 1 June 2008 (BST)===Potential Barriers===

Both Principles 4 & 5 will depend critically on citizens feeling that it is Safe to Play, as set out in the Safe to Play position paper commissioned by Cisco in 2007 & available at the TCR White Papers page, http://www.theconnectedrepublic.org/downloads.

Another major barrier is that, if you let people do more for themselves, you have to learn to live with much lumpier and unequal outcomes. Some people and communities will be active, engaged and resourceful, creating opportunities and assets that other communities, perhaps less resourceful or engaged for whatever reason, will therefore miss out on. Presumably we're going to find that outcome 'unfair' and will then want some mechanism to equalise the outcomes or, at the very least, to moderate the spread of different outcomes to which what society will accept as tolerable limits.

A more 'empowered' public policy or public management process is inherently a more unequal policy environment. Maybe that's a good thing...inequality can be a spur to catch-up action and reform.

Maybe the answer is to unleash the creativity and potential of the engaged and purposeful, and to the extent we need to help others catch up or not get left too far behind, we find ways to invest in their ability to pull themselves up to whatever are the benchmark standards?

Governments are getting pretty good at engaging the community, but mostly this is asking questions they want to hear answers for and containing debate. They are not so good at opening up the agenda to completely fresh ideas and views and taking those on board. That's a big hurdle for empowering citizens. Encouraging this risk taking by politicians and bureaucrats could best be achieved in small steps, probably at the start of the electoral cycle. It's worth remembering governments are elected to govern and make decisions so some of the public may be quite happy to be 'disempowered' so long as government gets on with the job of doing the things they were elected to do.

--Msweeks 07:50, 1 June 2008 (BST)I don't think anyone wants to be 'disempowered', but it is right that for many, there is neither the time nor the direct interest in necesarily being active in the debate around a particular issue. But even those who are happy to let governments 'get on with it' will, I suspect, respond positively to evidence that, in 'getting on with it', they are much smarter at engaging the ideas, insights and intuitions of a wider and richer mix of people in coming to the decisions they need to make. I also think there are two issues here - one, which is the risky road to direct democracy, is to let more of the actual decisions be made by the community and by citizens and the other is how we get the conversation involved in those decisions that government is still expected to make more open and susceptible to a wider range of views from a more robust discussion. In the end, people want to see evidence that the discussions are rich and robust and they want to see how government processes the information and knowledge that flows from those rich and robust conversations. For the most part, those two are the key conditions for people to feel 'engaged' and 'included'.

Real-life Examples

Who is Sick? http://whoissick.org/sickness/ This is a neat little mash-up that lets members of the public anonymously post information about their sicknesses so others can see what bugs are going around. (obviously could be extended to all sorts of posting by citizens - from lost cats to graffiti etc). Crossed posted from the principle on openness, transparency, but a good example of citizens doing if for themselves.

Mizpee is a great example of what can happen when internet and mobile technology actually helps with primordial human needs....yes, folks, we are talking about toilets! This site, which you can access via your mobile, will tell you where the cleanest toilet is in the area of town you happen to be in (originally only Los Angeles, I believe) but more importantly will let you add your own rating of existing or 'newly discovered' public access toilets. It even tells you if there is a changing station for your baby. For those who have had the pleasure of cohabiting with people in pampers this is particularly crucial information - likewise, the word "real time" when out with a toddler has never had such deep meaning.... As toilets are a planetary phenomenon it looks like mizpee are poised for expansion: they now cover many other US cities and now....Europe! www.mizpee.eu) --Joanne Caddy 22:30, 10 June 2008 (BST)

[Insert your examples here]