Government 2.0 -- Revolution in democracy or American Idol for Congress?
Tim O'Reilly, the CEO of O'Reilly Media and noted open source advocate, is at the forefront of movement for radical change in how Americans interact with government. As noted in a great post by Ariana Huffington, O'Reilly suggests that government go beyond supplying reams of content to become a supplier of platforms.
O'Reilly observes that the most disruptive innovations -- the PC, the iPhone, even the Internet -- were platforms that a variety of companies and interests advanced and refined. What if government acted that way generally? (The Internet was a government project, after all.)
O'Reilly advances the simple yet radical idea of government as a process rather than a holy writ crafted in DC and delivered, fully-formed, to the states. What if citizens learned to use social media to connect, discuss and figure out how to implement policies at a local level? At a time when the federal government seems unable to get anything right, this is an engaging view of a better future.
Huffington notes the success Newark Mayor Cory Booker is having with community-based social media that connects government with both need and citizen resources. Maybe this is a crude metric, but when a mayor in a city of 250,000 citizens has over million Twitter followers, he's likely onto something. (And if you have been been to Newark, you can only say "God bless you, Mr. Booker.")
I see several potential threats to the promise of Government 2.0. The first is a vast ramp-up of astroturf and other forms of faux grassroots through social media. If the details of regulations will be set in citizen-lead laboratories outside of Washington and state capitals, then interest groups impacted by those regulations will surely -- and appropriately, I would argue -- seek to be involved. But will they do so in the transparent, authentic manner required by social media, or will we see the Web 2.0 version of fake coalitions?. Personally, I've had enough of sites like www.we're-real-people-we-swear-to-god.org. The delivery of a message by a non-existent person is the very antithesis of ethical social media. But would people who craft fake coalitions recognize this?
I'm also concerned that being more closely tied to very vocal constituents could lead public officials to become overly concerned with public opinion at its most superficial level. Politicians have for decades tried to read polls like tea leaves, sometimes being willing to shift their core philosophies to stay in step. (Want to bet Obama's support for domestic drilling was poll driven?) How many politicians will take a similar finger-in-the-wind approach to Government 2.0 and focus only on the latest, hottest trend? At its worst, we could end up with government by American-Idol-style feedback. This could undermine the development of consistent, long-term policies on the really complex issues of our time.
But I'm choosing to be optimistic. This fall's Government 2.0 Summit focuses specifically on complex issues: "better health care delivery, cyber-security, financial regulation, and the future of learning."
Seems to me that a more participatory, inclusive approach to government could force public officials to recognize when policies aren't working -- and harness the wisdom of crowds to put us back on track.
I'd vote for that.
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first.
Leave a Comment