There’s been a fair amount of discussion about the impact new technologies will have on the upcoming UK general election. There is widespread belief that social media sites, mobile phones and online video will impact the ways people vote in May (or June) of this year, but as to how these gadgets will influence people’s voting patterns, is still up for debate.
Some people have pointed (cringingly) to Gordon Brown’s YouTube address, the increasing number of MPs and government departments with Twitter profiles, and the online blogging platforms of the major parties, as evidence of an increasingly tech-savvy political class that will wage it’s election battles on virtual platforms, rather than in constituencies and on television debates.
But the problem with this is that most of government (with some important exceptions) just don’t get social media! If it’s seen as a free broadcast channel, it is unlikely to have any additional impact, beyond that of the traditional press, and may further disconnect them from the people they represent, if used solely to disseminate messages. The groundbreaking nature of these technologies is in their ability to connect people and facilitate conversations, two traits which have traditionally run against the grain of mainstream politics.
Technology will have some impact on this coming election, but not (primarily) because politicians are starting to get on-board.
Technology will impact the election most significantly because of what is being said by those using it outside of the political institutions. The fundamental shift that social media is starting to enable, relates to what blogger and academic Hannah Nicklin describes as a ‘wikipolitic’; the process through which public opinions develop a collective expression via various online platforms, and are then manifested in action – by people themselves or the politicians who are mandated to represent them. Fundamental to this, is the breakdown of the interface between people and political institutions (initially through online technology) and gradually, the connection of people – including politicians – to each other in the development of the policies that impact our lives. (Read Hannah’s blog for more on ‘wikipolitics’).
My thoughts on David Cameron (or Gordon Brown, or Nick Clegg, for that matter), can now float into cyberspace and immediately connect with the thoughts of those who agree with or oppose them – on a truly mass scale. For that matter, if I was to capture a video on my mobile of one of the above leaders contradicting a key campaign message, or come across an email that included potentially offensive language about a particular people or constituency, I could share them with the world within minutes … or say, if I – or you – had an especially relevant take on one party-or-another’s election manifesto, we could become the tipping point of the 2010 general election!
…Or… Or… Or…The list could go on…
So when we talk about the impact technology will have on the upcoming election, I recommend turning our social microscopes away from the press-released YouTube videos of Parliament and Downing Street, and towards the places where people are discussing the issues that will affect them. To the Twitter feeds, blogs and viral videos that are increasingly providing the narrative of life in Britain in 2010 and what we want the people we vote for to do with the power we have given them.
Of course, ‘wikipolitics’ and ‘e-campaigning’ only matter, insofar as they can enable greater communication and discussion of political ideas; we can’t let new technology sweep away the importance of sound policy. Many factors will influence this – like every other – election; I’m interested in how we, as people, can play a more central role than we are often credited in playing, as we decide who will lead this country into this next phase of history…
Liam is Learning and Development Officer (Campaigning) at NCVO, he is chairing the Social Media workshop at the Campaigns Conference
Hi Liam
While I think your overall argument is right I thought I’d add my opinion that your analysis is a bit too black and white. There are some good and bad elements of social media use by both parties….
Yes, Labour’s/No 10′s Gordon Brown video was bad but that was mainly GB. The idea of using YouTube to bypass the news cycle and speak direct to the public was a good idea. Plus No 10 do fantastic work on building dialogue using Twitter. Equally, David Cameron’s first Webcameron with him washing up using Ecover and stopping to chat with his kids was equally cringy but again following the right idea.
The Conservatives are doing lots of interesting ‘wikipolitcs’ stuff at the moment – http://www.makeITbetter.org.uk is a great example and they opened their draft health manifesto to the public online via Google Moderator last week which was also a smart move.
But then don’t forget David Miliband was the first Minister to blog and also tried to co-create environment policy using a wiki.
The bottom line is, I guess, that there’s lots of good stuff happening at a granular level. What we need is for someone to pull it all together – maybe the next election’s the moment in histroy when this will happen
Hi Simon – Thanks for the comment…
I don’t think we disagree – there are definitely good pockets of government-related social media usage – as well as (I think) much bigger ones of poor usage… My argument was more-so about shifting the debate away from focussing so much on what politicians and civil servants are doing, towards what people, more broadly are doing and the enabling power of social media to enable people’s views and actions to have fundamental impacts on politics, in a way we have traditionally not seen.
I think it’s really great that some politicians are getting cued-in to the social media shift, I’m just not convinced we need to focus as much on what they are doing, when there is more and more that we’re increasingly able to do on our own…
Are you drawing comparisons I wonder between social media and its focus on people ie the narrative of Britain to the Public Sphere of the 17th and 18th centuries…
When people debated how they wanted to govern and be governed rather than being told what they were going to be given!
A radical concept, I know, Caroline;)
There are parallels; technology is starting to break-down some of the problems that emerged as societies got ‘too big’ for traditional models of participatory democracy. Tech will never be the whole solution, but it is definitely starting to shine a light on participation/dialogue models that could be at the heart of the ever-ellusive solution to democratic deficits in Britain and elsewhere.
These are exciting times!
Loving the concept and agreed, these are indeed exciting times!
@ Liam – I think we do agree. You raise an interesting divide between two elements of contemporary democracy which I think many people conflate but really are quite separate (and radical).
The divide you allude to is between direct democracy (what we’re seeing with social media) and representative democracy (what we currently have).
Yes, people are organising themselves politically and achieving things they couldn’t before. This is scary for politicians as they’re starting to realise that the role of a political representative – as proxy for direct democracy – is becoming less relevant.
@CarolineW – Habermas’ idea of the public sphere is oft quoted when it comes to the internet. There are some parallels, but in a way social media takes the pblic sphere to the next stage. As well as discussion how they want to be governed people are using social media to govern/organise themselves.
[...] NCVO’s Learning and Development Officer for Campaigning, Liam Barrington Bush, asks the question: does it matter what politicians and political parties do with social media? After all, social media is increasingly empowering the public to self-organise and achieve great [...]