The challenge of conversational democracy

Return to full list of Think Pieces

Stephen Coleman

Stephen Coleman is Professor of Political Communication and Director of Research at the Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds. He was previously Cisco Professor in e-Democracy at the Oxford Internet Institute. He has served as specialist adviser to the House of Commons Information Select Committee inquiry on ICT and public participation in Parliament, and policy adviser to the Cabinet Office. He is undertaking research into the adaptation of democratic institutions, processes, and cultures to digital interactivity.

The challenge of conversational democracy

Whereas in the nineteenth century democracy was regarded as a rather subversive, oppositional force, threatening the stability of long-established autocratic regimes, in the twenty-first century an unprecedented number of states claim to adhere to the principles of representative democracy. On the surface, at least, democracy is alive and well in in countries such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom. But, beneath the surface there are some serious concerns about the disconnection between political representatives and represented citizens.

There is now abundant survey and qualitative evidence to suggest that citizens feel insufficiently involved listened to and respected by current structures and processes of political representation. They do not want to abandon existing institutions, such as parliaments, councils, parties and policy consultations, but they want to update them, often looking towards digital technologies, such as the internet, mobile phones and interactive TV, as ways of creating a more dialogical representative relationship.

What, though, would a closer, more dialogical democratic relationship mean in practice? First, the public wants to be heard. Recognising the bankruptcy of paternalistic modes of governing, associated with the post-war welfare state, government now professes its commitment to 'consulting' the public about issues and policies. Alongside established polling and survey techniques, many have made use of new democratic procedures, such as citizens' juries, standing citizens’ panels, online consultations, electronically facilitated open-space events and town-hall meetings. Too often, such consultations are undertaken for form's sake, with government consulting, but not listening. Representatives have a crucial role here: in promoting and encouraging consultation; in mediating between the consulted and government; and in accounting for themselves or for government when it fails to act in line with the recommendations of those consulted.

Second, the public want a conversation, not a just consultation. 'Consulting the public' tends to mean inviting them to respond to pre-established policy agendas, when the public want to be engaged in a two-way conversation in which the public and representatives steer the content between them. On an everyday level, the most common act of political participation is talk about politics. According to the Oxford Internet Survey, most British people (61%) say that they frequently (22%) or every so often (39%) discuss politics with friends or family. In the UK, the BBCi political-discussion forums receive tens of thousands of messages each month; in the month of the Iraq war the BBC's online news site received 350,000 emails and postings from people wishing to express their views. But very few of these political talkers ever have a discussion with the people they elect to represent their interests and preferences. It is as if there are two democracies: one operating informally and conversationally in homes, workplaces, pubs and streets, and another deliberating on behalf of everyone else in parliaments, councils and government departments. There is remarkably little interaction or translation between these two discourses. Representatives need to develop ways of joining these conversations up. Sometimes this does occur. It can happen on the doorstep, during canvassing, in MPs' surgeries, 'Question Time'-style public meetings and when representatives take part in e-facilitated conversations. But, too often, the public feels that such political discussion is stage-managed. Some topics can be talked about, some can't. Mobilising, listening to, learning from, mapping and responding to public talk are all underdeveloped skills among contemporary representatives. As well as leading and reflecting public opinion, contemporary politicians need to be skilled facilitators, capable of recognising, encouraging and summarising the diverse and disparate voices of the increasingly confident and articulate public.

Third, the public wants an ongoing, rather than episodic, conversation. Of course, the public understands that politicians are going to pay more attention to what they have to say at election time, but they have come to resent the perceived absence of politicians between elections. Modern government is, of necessity, a large, remote and faceless machine. A key function of representatives is to humanise governance, representing it to people, and people to it, in humane and accessible terms.

Fourth, and finally, the public want representatives who account for themselves. They don't expect representatives simply to play the role of ventriloquist's dummy. They appreciate that representing an electorate entails compromise and trade-offs, and that representatives need room to exercise their own judgement and, on occasion, follow their own conscience. But they do want representatives, as far as possible, to abide by their promises, meet their commitments, and explain why they conduct themselves in the way that they do. Representatives have an ongoing obligation to give account and hear accounts.

Digital information and communication technologies (ICT) are well positioned to facilitate just the sort of close, dialogical relationship that I am referring to as conversational democracy. A narrow interpretation of conversational democracy as little more than the right to send emails to MPs, watch webcasts of council meetings and vote online is a far from enthralling prospect. Making it easier, quicker, cheaper, gee-whizzier to do all the things that have made traditional politics dull and uninviting in the past, amounts to institutional preservation, rather than democratic transformation. Beyond such replicating practices, digital technologies do have transformative democratic potential.

Broadcast technology allowed citizens, in the form of viewer and listener, immediate and vivid access to the political process, but as spectators rather than players. The broadcast agenda of discussion has tended to be set by party communication managers and senior media editors, both locked into a systemic process of mutual dependence and ultimate control over the production of news and debate. Citizens have grown weary with this communicative arrangement.

With the rise of interactive media, the equation between communication and transmission is no longer defensible as the best or only way of serving the public interest. Interactivity communication technologies open up unprecedented opportunities for more inclusive public engagement in the deliberation of policy issues. In practical terms, there is a need for parliaments, elected politicians, local councils and government agencies to engage actively with the publics they represent via online consultations and discussions, blogs, email lists, youtube features and wikis. The risk of doing this is that they will have to listen to what real people experiencing everyday lives have to say. The reward is that citizens will begin to develop greater confidence in democratic politics – in their own role within it and in its capacity to respond to their problems and aspirations.