The 2011 Hansard Society Audit of Political Engagement takes an in-depth look at British attitudes to various forms of political activity and engagement.
Its conclusions and data offer a few pointers to both why eDemocracy is important and the difficulties it has to overcome (these are really two sides of the same coin).
The challenge is summed up in this quote from Peter Riddell in the foreword to the publication.
"Whereas the 2010 report was dominated by the impact of the expenses scandal, this one was overshadowed by the May general election and the creation of the coalition.
"One result is that perceived knowledge of politics and Parliament, and interest in politics, have risen this year, notably among 25 to 44-year-olds.
"However, this has not been driven by any increase in participation levels since political activity is no higher than in years without an election. People are happy to be spectators rather than players.
"Moreover, despite the increase in knowledge of Parliament, fewer are satisfied with it, 27 per cent, compared with 33 per cent a year ago."
So despite 2010 being a general election year, for most people political engagement did not get beyond what the report terms the "entry level action" of voting.
"An election does not seem to act as a spur to encourage wider political or indeed civic activities."
So the failure of the political system as it stands is that more interest and knowledge about politics and democracy is resulting in lower satisfaction and stagnant participation rates.
Satisfaction with Parliament declined by six points to a record low, with just 27 per cent saying they are very or fairly satisfied with the way that Parliament works and only 30 per cent agreeing that Parliament is 'working for you and me' (a drop of eight points in a year).
The research also provided some further evidence that the 'pure' representative model of democracy is not sufficient for most people, who think politicians should continue to consult between elections.
In the discussion groups that were held as part of the research, a "sense of contact and communication" was important to many participants and they "actively wanted MPs to engage with them".
"For example, on the whole they wanted MPs to consult regularly with their constituents before making decisions in Parliament. Many felt that as an MP is there to represent the views of their constituents – to be the 'voice of the people' – it was important they find out what the public think about an issue in hand; that unless they consulted with them the MP would be in no position to act on behalf of their constituents."
The emphasis on MPs being the "voice of the people" rather than supporting the party and its manifesto or following their own consciences is an interesting example of what happens when public expectation and constitutional theory don't quite align.
Still, the findings suggest a degree of support for what Labour MP Stella Creasy has called "perpetual engagement" by political parties rather than the usual "perpetual campaign".
Yet this engagement clearly has to take place outside of the normal party structures (Update: See this tweet from Stella Creasy for clarification of her view).
The Ipsos-MORI polling data which accompanied the Audit shows that only two per cent of people say they will definitely spend time doing voluntary work with a political party in the next few years, and five per cent say they probably will. And while 11 per cent say they may do work for a party, 33 per cent say it is not very likely and 48 per cent are certain they won't.
So of the potential ways to engage those who are not committed to party politics, online communication has to be the option with the lowest barriers to entry in most cases.
And having low barriers to entry seems important, because the Hansard Society report also has a useful chart showing the take-up of different forms of political engagement.
As the report says, the chart "conveys the extent to which there is a tripartite division of activity predicated on the degree of sustained commitment and time required to undertake each particular activity".
So the most common activities, voting in a general or local election, require the least amount of time and effort.
Then there are activities such as discussing politics, donating money to a charity or campaigning organisation and signing a petition which "require only cursory time and attention".
But then grouped together at the bottom of the chart are the deeper forms of participation like doing voluntary work or holding discussions with a politician.
To me, the ability for the internet to simplify the journey from shallow forms of engagement into deeper ones is perhaps the most important aspect of eDemocracy.
In the world of eCommerce, the 'people who purchased this also bought this' links prove effective.
In the world of eDemocracy there should be far more 'people who signed this ePetition are also campaigning on this issue and discussing it in this forum'.
So we should use the broad but shallow forms of participation as entry points into deeper forms of engagement.
Although the technology has its many critics, this should be one of the great benefits of eVoting.
When so many people are focused on democracy and politics and the choices facing the country, just for that brief moment, it is a fantastic waste that the place where most cast their votes usually provides no information about further engagement.
If there were online options for voting then the potential to conclude the process even with just a list of opportunities for volunteering with local charities could make a big difference.
Recent comments