None of the above

So the debates can be conceptualised and made more useful. But will people be motivated to take part? If, as argued above, disengagement is not the same as apathy, what factors might explain it?

Daniel Finkelstein of The Times has set out one reason why members of the public may choose to let most political debate pass them by. Summarising comments from Smell the Coffee, a book by senior Conservative Party member Lord Ashcroft, he wrote:

"In his invaluable book on the last election campaign, Smell the Coffee, Michael Ashcroft provides the result of polling he commissioned to track the impact of Conservative campaign activity. For two months in the run-up to polling day, voters were asked: 'Has there been anything in the news about what the Conservative Party has been saying or doing that has caught your eye this week, whether on TV or radio or in the papers?' Most of the time the proportion who could think of nothing hovered around 90 per cent.

"And, Lord Ashcroft adds: 'Even some events that were covered prominently in the news were recalled by almost nobody.' Recall for most Tory promises peaked at 2 per cent. 'The central campaign messages of cleaner hospitals and school discipline peaked at 1 per cent.'' ^[i]

Finkelstein suggests there is a misconception that people are constantly re-evaluating their position. "At a few big moments they might pause and think again; the rest of the time they let events float by, or at best reinterpret them to fit with their existing views," he adds.

"But out of all this, surprisingly, something heartening emerges... Because people don't know, aren't following and don't believe politicians and their promises, they can only judge them on one thing. Whether what politicians do works.

"Political ignorance isn't stupidity, it's economical use of time." ^[ii]

So there may be a rational explanation for disengagement, and one that does not necessarily hinder the ability of voters to hold politicians to account for their policies.

This point also holds a lesson for the possibilities of microgovernment. If citizens are able to focus on what policies are working, they should be just as able to select these policies directly as they are to allow the policies to be selected for them by political parties.

However, this point will be strengthened if there is evidence of a distinction between people interested (or uninterested) in the activities of political parties and those interested in politics more broadly.

Footnotes:

[i] Finkelstein, D. (2009), 'Which Queen? Which speech? Who cares?',  The Times. Available at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6920714.ece [January 17, 2009].