Explaining inactive government forums

As was shown earlier young people prefer participatory and direct forms of politics to representative politics (Henn et al, 2005). Coleman (2005) shows some interesting findings from the Electoral Commission Report (2004) - 75% of UK people want to have a say in how the country is run, but 40% disagreed with: “when people like me get

“any views I express will make little difference to how Britain is governed. Coleman and Gotze(2001) present De Montfort University’s (1998) UK survey results of local

authorities and their view of government participatory activities – 40 % of respondents (council officials) said that such initiatives had little impact on policies. Coleman and Gotze (2001) argue that many citizens currently feel their political views are not taken into account by the political system, and if given the opportunity citizens would indeed like to participate within online policy deliberation although, as was detailed earlier such interest in participation rests on the fact that other factors need to be in place (Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker, 2006).

This is also replicated online; both the Brighton & Hove and Newham forums are two independent local forums which were set up using E.Democracy.org’s Local Issues Forum Guidebook (detailed in next chapter). These two forums belong to a network of similar forums associated with E-Democracy.org, and received funding under the

ODPM’s local e-democracy national project (please see the brief history of local political online forums section). As both forums have no formal links with their respective

councils (local governments) it is unclear how they will connect with local policy

decision making process. Yet in interviews conducted with project managers and citizens the following was found ‘there is a general expectation expressed by many of the

interviewees that the LIF {online forum} must influence council decision-making in some way if it is to be taken seriously… Citizens will lose interest in the LIF if they are not impacting or influencing local policy and decision-making. At this stage it is hard to see how the LIF in Brighton and Newham will be connected to local decision-making

processes. This is clearly an empirical question for future research’ (Coleman, 2006,

p15). Indeed, Wojcik’s (2007) examination of deliberation within 30 forums (supported by French local government) found that forums within her sample did not impact on decision making processes within local government.

So why are local governments’ not permitting online forums to impact on decision making? Street and Wright (2007) argue that when local governments develop public participation mechanisms they tend to commission sites that maintain existing

institutional and cultural practices of the councils (Street and Wright 2007). Maintaining such cultural practices creates barriers for E-Democracy because “the majority of local

government officers are working in more traditional, risk-averse, institutional

environments and therefore face a considerable number of cultural and personal barriers to embracing e-democracy…According to the OECD the UK now "leads the field" in outsourcing public services. This is no different in the democratic engagement field, where government consultations, citizens' juries and e-democracy are very often delivered by external contractors” (Casey and Wilson, 2008). These authors argue that

when democratic services (online and off) are outsourced the culture change that their effectiveness depends on is also outsourced; without such cultural change (in

government) no democratic mechanisms ICT or otherwise will be effective in promoting E-Democracy.

Margette & Dunleavy (2002) reemphasize this point by arguing that there are many cultural obstacles / barriers present within government institutions for the development of

E-Government. Some of these barriers include: organizational negative culture towards ICT, which stems from government officials’ previous bad experiences of failed and over budget ICT initiatives; organizational barriers, which come from the view that ICT will threaten hierarchy within government departments; and channel rivalry, which entails public services not wanting to imperil their position by implementing a new way of doing things via ICT.

In a closer examination of such barriers involving local government and E-Democracy Pratchett, Wingfield, and Karakaya-Polat (2006) explored what local governments in England were doing to enhance E-Democracy. In this process they analyzed all local government websites in England and assessed their democratic qualities. This analysis showed that the potential of E-Democracy was not being fully realized by local

government. The authors then (through in-depth interviews with members and officials from local government) examined the barriers faced by local governments in terms of implementing E-Democracy initiatives.

Four barrier types were identified in the research, the first being “democratic

understanding”, which has to do with the limited conceptual understanding local

government members / officers have of local democracy, its problems and the best potential E-Democratic solutions for these problems. This has implications for using E- Democracy, because weak ambitions within local government for E-Democracy

(reinforcing existing practices) will produce limited E-Democratic initiatives which will do little to reverse political disengagement (Pratchett, Wingfield, and Karakaya-Polat

2006). The problem with this barrier is that “it involves challenging existing

understanding of the way in which democracy works and, possibly, challenging

embedded structures of political power in communities. It is important to ensure that e- democracy does not simply reinforce existing structures of politics and, particularly, does not become a tokenistic form of engagement that rubber stamps political decisions taken elsewhere” (Pratchett, et al, 2006, p35)

The second is “organisational constraints” and these barriers involve both practical problems such as lack of finance, closed political system, and conceptual problems such as the lack of will among members / officers to promote E-Democracy within local government. Thirdly, “Structural limitations” revolve around external barriers such as the impact of central government reform polices on local government workings. Finally, “Citizen restraints” consists of the digital divide and the extent to which there is a desire within communities for E-Democracy. Overcoming these barriers will not be easy and the authors provide solutions to some of the barriers, Lowndes, Pratchett and Stoker (2006) argue that if local government want to make participation work then they can, by changing the attitudes of its members / officers, and by developing a good institutional set of rules (open political and managerial structure). However, they argue that E- Democracy in itself will not change or influence local democratic services within local government, such change and the future of E-Democracy is linked to wider local

government democratic reform processes. In other words, the role of national government limits the role local government has in changing the framework of local democracy (Pratchett, 2006).

As was shown in chapter five it took quite a lot of time and effort to reassure GBC about implementing E-Democracy. The bureaucracy within GBC meant it took time to get approval for the forum. The reason for this was that, although the GBC members had a genuine will for E-Democracy its officials did not. GBC council also had a closed political system, and its members and officials had a weak conceptual understanding of local democracy. However, more importantly, the GBC did not have the ability to implement a direct democratic online forum with full-participatory mechanisms because the power for such democratic change lies with central government. Thus, local political online forums built in conjunction with local government are more likely to be inactive because citizens expect to have a say on local policy decision making in local

government supported forums (as opposed to non-government supported forums) but such forums are not facilitating citizens to impact on policy decision making and they are perpetuating the status quo (liberal thin democracy) which is what citizens are dissatisfied with in the first place (Barber, 1984).