In January 2015 the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy will report its recommendations for how to improve British democracy through new new digital technologies. In his final post on the topic this week, Professor Charles Pattie at the University of Sheffield Department of Geography argues that fewer people genuinely want to be involved in politics than digital enthusiasts think. Ultimately, there is no simple technological ‘fix’ for our broken politics.
Among those whose daily lives revolve around the political world, there is often an assumption that the rest of society shares their close interest. From this position, it seems self-evident that everyone wants to be involved in politics, wants to be heard, wants to help shape decisions, and so on. All that is missing, goes the argument, is the appropriate opportunity structure: what holds people back is a lack of readily accessible means of getting involved.
But here’s the truth: many of us don’t have a burning but unfulfilled desire to be politically active. And quite reasonably so: people have busy lives and enough on their plates with jobs, families, and so on. Quite the opposite, in fact. Some fascinating, though in some respects unsettling work by the American political scientists John Hibbing and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse suggests that many people are what they term ‘stealth democrats’. These individuals generally support the idea of democracy, but really do not want to become directly involved themselves, do not want to be burdened with policy debates and details on most issues, and so on. That, say the stealth democrats, is surely what we pay our politicians to do: just as one should not trust a plumber who asks you how best to fix your leaking pipe, should you trust a politician who asks you how best to deal with a complex policy decision? So long as those elected politicians get on with their job of governing and do so with at least moderate competence, stealth democrats, it seems, are content to let them do so.
By 159753 (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
The affinities with Joseph Schumpeter’s famous analysis of modern democracy as a process by which citizens periodically choose between governing elites at elections but then let those elites rule between elections, is clear. The difference is Hibbing and Thiess-Morse are not content with a theoretical exposition but show how many citizens actually hold such a view. Around 70% of US citizens share two or more characteristics of being stealth democrats, by their estimate. A more recent of UK citizens by Paul Webb suggests that around 39% of UK citizens are stealth democrats.
What is more, Webb shows that stealth democrats are not a random cross-section of society. On the whole, they tend to be more authoritarian in their views, less interested in politics (unsurprisingly), less convinced they can make a political difference (also unsurprising), are more likely to be women, more likely to come from lower socio-economic groups, and less likely to be highly educated. Not surprisingly, stealth democrats are over-represented among those groups who are least likely to turn out in elections, least likely to join political organisations, least likely to participate in campaigns, and so on.
This points to two obvious, but still important, conclusions. First, it would be a serious mistake to think that digital democracy initiatives will make active citizens of us all, or even of most of us. Many – especially the stealth democrats – will be impervious to the appeal. But, second, given the stealth democrats’ social profiles, there is a real – in truth a very high – risk that digital democracy initiatives might just re-inscribe already-existing biases in whose voice is heard and whose is not.
Nor should we be too surprised by this. Virtually all previous attempts to provide new means of being politically involved have tended to be enthusiastically embraced by the already politically active, and extensively ignored by those who are not active. It would be remarkable indeed if digital democracy approaches bucked this pattern. The chances are not high.
Final thoughts
I have been deliberately provocative in my comments this week. I am not by any means an out and out sceptic regarding digital democracy. Its potential is clear. But so are its potential pitfalls. It is important, it seems to me, that we go into this with our eyes open and that we do not fall for the hype – for hype it is – of digital enthusiasts. So I have tried to point out to some of the larger pitfalls along the way. None are unavoidable. But all are based on solid social science evidence. These are not scare stories: they do happen.
In 1900, many intelligent people in Europe and North America looked forward to the new century with some excitement. Science was improving living standards rapidly, societies were at peace, democracy was being extended. Surely, they argued, the twentieth century would be a new Golden Age in which new technologies would make life better and better. With hindsight, we know that expectation was naïve in the extreme. New technologies did do much to improve lives. But they also wreaked destruction on hitherto unimaginable scales through two World Wars and other misfortunes. Technology was not, and is never, a panacea. The digital world is no different.
Ultimately, there is no simple technological ‘fix’ for our broken politics. Technology might help or might make things worse, depending on how we use it. The solutions – inevitably partial and with their own problems – have to be primarily social and political. To return to my initial example, the reason the Scottish Independence vote generated such an extraordinary level of engagement was not because the debate was carried on via digital as well as traditional platforms. It was because the debate really mattered. If we want to fix civic life in Britain, therefore, make it matter. Make the content and outcome of political debate consequential. If politics matters again, people will get involved. If it doesn’t, they won’t, no matter how many shiny new digital platforms we put in place to encourage them to do so. It isn’t the technology that creates the effect: it is what we do with it.
Bio
Charles Pattie is Professor of Geography at the University of Sheffield. His research specialism is in elections, political campaigning and public participation in politics, on which he has written extensively.
Note: this article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Crick Centre, or the Understanding Politics blog series. For more follow our twitter discussion #understandingpolitics.
