enabling

[John Wonderlich]

As we advocate technological public access reforms, I often find myself needing to articulate just what it is we're trying to enable.  Presumably, everyone on this list feels that an informed engaged citizenry is good for democracy, and that the Internet will be both the engine and the method for that engagement.

That's a pretty broad understanding of what we're trying to do.

I'd like to start a discussion about specifics, and answer this question: what is it we're trying to make possible?

I think this is a conversation that should happen on this list.  Much of our work involves trying to create novel ways for citizens to engage with political or governmental information; illuminating connections and making the political both accessible and compelling.  Since definitions of politically compelling aren't all the same, I'd like to talk about what we see ourselves as doing.

For example, Mark Tapscott recently wrote on this theme, when he distinguished between "careerist" legislators and citizen legislators he sees as instrumental to healthy democracy, and as an natural extension of an empowered citizenry:

By contrast, citizen legislators thrive on the power of principle and the liberating independence that comes with being outsiders. Their power stems from their cultivation of information to the widest possible audience and the accountability that comes with such transparency. Theirs is the world of Internet-based new media and the collaborative networking that thrives there.

Liza Sabater's Cluetrain Manifesto for People Powered Politics lays out a somewhat similar vision of post partisan political discourse, developed through informed online conversation:

7.  Hyperlinks subvert hierarchy.
10. ...constituencies are getting smarter, more informed, more organized. Participation in a networked constituency changes people fundamentally.
53. There are two conversations going on. One inside the party. One with the constituency.
54. In most cases, neither conversation is going very well. Almost invariably, the cause of failure can be traced to obsolete notions of command and control.
94. To traditional organizations, networked conversations may appear confused, may sound confusing. But we are organizing faster than they are.  We have better tools, more new ideas, no rules to slow us down.

Here's Matt Stoller at the Personal Democracy Forum:

Civic participation is a key tenet of how we built our media and political apparatus. We are demanding low barriers to entry in the political system, a way for everyone to participate, and more open cultural structures, including business, agriculture, and government. We are demanding a global system. We read foreign media, foreigners read our media, and we recognize terrorism, global warming, and communities of expertise as global in scope. An interconnected and global model of politics is built into our tools, so it's built into our politics. And soon, it's going to be built into our governance. Already, you can see the power of the Presidency declining vis-a-vis Congress and other institutions, and that's going to continue no matter who's elected. The broadcast era is over, and it's back to a decentralized model of politics, what was nicknamed in the late 19th century 'the state of courts and parties.'

For me, transparency reform and public access form a positive feedback loop, affecting public awareness, the viability of a corporate media narrative, and, most proximally, the structure of political incentives.  In other words, political awareness encourages itself: a civically engaged public gains the capacity to metabolize political substance, rejects political marketing, and generates a new set of stakeholders and incentives.  New reasons arise to create a transparent accountable government, and political decisions are made with a different set of interests in mind, less based on the input of those with privileged access.

Most fundamentally, I see the effect of political information access as twofold: a cultural shift toward civic empowerment and engagement, and a corresponding realignment of political incentives.

I'd like to know more about what you all are working toward; what are we enabling?  Do you want everyone to understand the monetary cost of new legislation?  Give citizens and legislators a forum to grapple over pending legislation?  Connect news and blog posts with bills as they work through Congress?  Illuminate the connection between money and politics? 

John
--
John Wonderlich

Program Director
The Sunlight Foundation
(202) 742-1520 ext. 234

[Paul Blumenthal]

I wrote a bit about this today in the context of Liza Sabater's "Manifesto". You can read it here:

http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/node/2812

 

Paul Blumenthal

 

---

From: openhous...@googlegroups.com [mailto:openhous...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Wonderlich
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 11:41 AM
To: openhous...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [openhouseproject] enabling

[John Wonderlich]

correction:  Here's the correct link to Mark Tapscott's column.


John