The ‘digital divide’ has now been a topic of debate and discussion for several decades and it’s probably fair to say that the Houses of Parliament has not been at the forefront of the digital revolution. In this context, our founding Director Matt Flinders argues that the final report of The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy – Open Up! – is truly groundbreaking. The huge value of the report, he argues, rests in how it locates the potential of embracing technology at the heart of a far broader programme of parliamentary reform
I am not, have never been, and probably never will be a fully signed-up ‘digital democrat’. As a result I was always fairly cool – intellectually agnostic – about the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy. Imagine both my surprise and joy then when I read the Commission’s final report this week. Open Up! Is a balanced, coherent and potentially groundbreaking report on the future of parliamentary politics. Unlike a significant number of MPs, it’s clear that when it comes to the level and extent of public frustration and disengagement both Mr Speaker and the Digital Democracy Commissioners ‘get it’ and this is reflected in a package of proposals that carefully balance continuity and change.
In many ways the strength of the report comes from the fact that although the capacity of digital processes to breathe new life into politics is at the core of the report, this focus does not restrict the scope of the vision that is in evidence. Put slightly differently, this report is actually about changing the culture, language and rituals of Parliament – and how digital democracy ‘fits’ within that agenda – rather than slipping back into any technological waffle, at one extreme, or dreams of a digital utopia, at the other. What’s more, it’s clear that the members of the Commission have stepped far beyond the Westminster-Whitehall bubble and have listened to the people.
‘Listened to the people! That sounds dangerous and time consuming’ I hear some old-school MPs retort. It’s clear though from the final report that the public are far more sophisticated and interested in politics than many politicians and commentators seem to understand (‘Anti-politics’ is generally ‘anti’ the traditional way of doing politics, not ‘anti’ all forms of political engagement). The views of the public – their frustrations and hopes – permeate every page of the document and it is in relation to this deeper process of listening to and seeking to respond to the public that this report is genuinely groundbreaking.
The question is now whether the authorities – both political and official – that control the Houses of Parliament will listen and respond – will they Open Up!
Do not under-estimate the underlying politics of recommendations that at first glance might appear straightforward and commonsense. ‘Simplify and clarify parliamentary language’, ‘write in plain English’….such suggestions cast a veil over the messy business of politics where blurred compromises are often enacted through opacity and smoke. The suggestions in terms of promoting political education in schools, experimenting with a ‘Digital Chamber’, trying out the use of ‘smart cards’ for Commons votes – the list goes on – are exactly the sort of initiatives that should be undertaken in order to close the worrying gap that seems to be growing between the governors and the governed. The forthcoming restoration and renewal work on the Palace of Westminster – the cost of which is estimated at 2.5 to 4 billion pounds – should undoubtedly (as the Commission argues) be used not to replace ‘like-with-like’ but to replace ‘outdated’ with ‘fit-for-purpose’. It should be an experiment in ‘designing for democracy’ and in many ways this report by the Digital Democracy Commission has sketched out both the foundations and many of the reference points for a new political architecture.
The question is now how to deliver on the potential of this report; to seize the initiative and to move forward with this fresh vision of parliamentary politics as part of a broader ‘politics of optimism’ to replace the glum ‘politics of pessimism’ that currently saps the life out of British politics. The good news is that not only is there a public appetite for greater engagement and participation – both on-line and off-line – but there is also a strong appetite within the Houses of Parliament. Many select committees have been using social media in increasingly innovative ways for several years, senior parliamentary clerks have been supporting and promoting this agenda with vigour and a large proportion of MPs are digitally active. The question is therefore more about infusing this dynamism and energy into the broader culture and procedures of the House in a more systematic manner. The Digital Commission Report provides some excellent answers.
Three cheers for Mr Speaker! Three cheers for the Digital Democracy Commissioners! Three cheers for Parliament!
Bio
Matthew Flinders is Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics at the University of Sheffield. He is also Chair of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom and is Visiting Distinguished Professor of Governance and Public Policy at Murdoch University in Western Australia.
Note: this article gives the views of the author, and not the position of the Crick Centre, or the Understanding Politics blog series. To write for the Understanding Politics blog our deputy director, Matt Wood.
