Two cheers for democracy?

(starts 0.38 secs in)

"We may still contrive to raise three cheers for democracy, although at present she deserves only two"

E.M. Forster

This is a fantasic episode of The Moral Maze that asks "can you ever have too much democracy?" From the judges on Strictly Come Dancing to congestion charge campaigners in Manchester, there are those people who might say yes.

Have the expectations of the TV phone-in vote generation gone too far? Is representative democracy being undermined by continued government consultation exercises? Or do we need to vote on more contentious issues to encourage people to engage with the political process?

So, democracy - is it the worst form of government except all those others that have been tried from time to time, or does it substitute election by the incompetent many, for appointment by the corrupt few? What is clear is that democracy is not an unambiguous virtue.

The panel of Claire Fox, Clifford Longley, Michael Portillo, Kenan Malik and chaired by Michael Buerk cross examine Matthew Parris, Richard Wilson, Stephen Wilson and excellent Professor Steven Coleman.

Portillo, takes the line we'd expect from such an experienced politician. He's generally in favour of the current democratic model. He asserts his trust in the public concluding that in general elections, even those he's lost, they tend to get the answer right.

Portillo stands in contrast to both Parris and Longley who believe in government for the people and of the people but not necessarily always by the people. Parris sees the virtue of general elections in there providing a mechanism for removing leadership without the use of force and that on the whole the 'proletariat' will reach the correct conclusion. Governments disliked consistently and long enough by the majority of the people will fall. However, Parris feels strongly that individuals and the pubic shouldn't be entrusted with decision making on single issues like whether or not to join Europe or go to war. They're in the car but they can't drive it. A few years back he wrote an excellent feature for the Times on just this subject.

Richard Wilson, Director of Involve, takes a more moderate stance arguing that we need to tweak the processes and the tools to better engage and inform the voting public. Opinion poll politics is dangerous suggesting our leaders lack the confidence to lead.

The absolute highlight of the programme is Professor Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication at Leeds University. His research backs up what any reasonable person intrinsically knows; people who vote in reality TV programmes are just as likely to vote in elections. The anxiety caused is more interesting than the activity itself.

Coleman chides Parris asserting that democracy is no frivolous debate. He builds on Wilson's argument questioning if there is scope, within this major transitional period of democracy, to rethink the way we do things. Are interactive technologies capable of being used to make democracy more meaningful to people bringing them closer into it rather more.

He goes on to question that if the media are cable of eroding social trust are they not equally capable of enhancing social trust? His arguments are compelling and reinforce my personal belief that that we should move away of the grand vision of democracy and look in more detail at it's component parts. How can technology help bring fairness, tolerance and having an equal share of voice are questions worth pursuing.

The more I dig around some of these 4ip themes the more I see people are seeing citizenship as something constrained and limited when compared to media and other areas of their lives. Hence my enthusiasm for what the Obama seems to be up to in the US. Just as TV and Radio became tools of democracy networked, participatory technologies provide us with a rare opportunity to engage the public in political opinions and political parties.

But democracy is precious and delicate. We need to think carefully and prepare thoroughly.

Comments

[Anthony Zacharzewski]

"citizenship as something constrained and limited"

I don't think citizenship is the thing that's constrained, I think that political involvement is not keeping up with the involvement and personalisation that the private sector has been able to deliver. This isn't entirely a criticism of politicians - they have to work with the system they've inherited as much as we do, and that system is fundamentally designed for mass-compromise democracy.

That we aren't in a mass-compromise era doesn't make citizenship itself problematic - it may well require it to be redefined.

[Paul Evans]

I blogged that programme - but only briefly. I noticed the Matthew Parris' comment about things the public are wrong on and googled it - here:

http://blog.localdemocracy.org.uk/2008/12/23/the-public-are-wrong/

... mainly because I thought it was quite funny.

I agree with you about Stephen Coleman - his contribution was outstanding and should be heard by all.

[Daniel Heaf]

Excellent point Anthony and I think we're talking along similar lines. Like you I believe the private sector has fuelled ambition and expectation for the public sector and ciztenship more generally.

[Franks26Sheri]

Don't you understand that this is high time to receive the business loans, which can help you.

[loans]

All people deserve wealthy life time and home loans or just term loan will make it much better. Because people's freedom depends on money.