I have two remarks to this interesting debate - leaving aside the question of who is delighted (or not) for what reason ;-) @petitioning without deliberation Well, even when discussion spaces are missing, having something like public petitions online does make the current petitioning system more transparent and accessible - let's not forget to note that - which feeds well into new forms of more deliberative democracy as well because other deliberative arenas (e.g. media, or those alternative discussion spaces Stephen suggested) may pick up the petition issues and carry them into the public sphere, that in turn can exert "argumentative control" over the political administrative system (in a siege-like manner, to speak in Habermas' terms). However, the lack of discussion spaces on http://petitions.pm.gov.uk is a disappointment * given that it would be more convenient for citizens to discuss the petition issues on the same site (and they would probably want to be listened to in most direct ways), * given that state bodies need to transform themselves into more deliberative institutions as well to meet the challenges of democratic development * given that the e-petition-forerunner-system, http://www.e-petitioner.org.uk, has a discussion space, and * given that Matthew Taylor himself, the (or an?) outgoing No 10 Strategy adviser, has recently called for more deliberative spaces rather than more channels for citizens to express their demands: http://partnerships.typepad.com/civic/2006/11/the_challenge_f.html @consideration of ePetitions The flood of petitions (500+ in the first few days) may be viewed as a success. However, knowing how much ressources it takes to process petitions, it also undermines the credibility of the e-petitioning-system at No 10. It is beyond imagination that the No 10 administration can pay attention to an extra 500 petitions that stream into No10 every couple of days on top of the paper petitions even at the most rudimentary level. That is, they must have filters in place, such as number of signatures received or the like, which they need to make transparent to maintain credibility - and credibility is probably the most important ingredient for success in this realm. On a further note, which explains my interest in this issue, I want point you to the e-petitioning system at the German Parliament, which Zebralog is currently evaluating: Public Petitions at the German Parliament: Zebralog evaluates pilot project http://www.zebralog.de/en/000195.html Greetings, Matthias PS: I'm going to post this thread to do_consult (http://groups.dowire.org/groups/consult/index.xml) as well as people there should be interested in reading this -- Matthias Trenel Zebralog e.V. trenel@zebralog.de http://www.zebralog.de/en/ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ildiko Kaposi <pphkai01@phd.ceu.hu> Date: Nov 18, 2006 11:31 AM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Petition Tony Blair, online that is To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Stephen, I believe Wainer's 'delight' was ironic at best, even sarcastic - precisely because he senses political spin behind the initiative. The more I learn about it, the more it seems like the site is an exercise in electronic populism. I thought the idea of push-button/point-n-click panacea for democracy was passe, but your government appears to think otherwise. It is hard to make predictions, but if this is an empty exercise, devoid of deliberation or obligations for the PM to take the petitions into consideration, it will probably not be a lasting success with British citizens. Ildiko Kaposi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stephen Coleman <S.Coleman@leeds.ac.uk> Date: Nov 18, 2006 10:33 AM Subject: [Air-l] Petition Tony Blair, online that is To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org I don't share Wainer Lusoli's apparent delight at the arrival of the Ten Downing Street e-petitions tool. From a political perspective, one might ask why citizens are being urged to petition the Prime Minister, when the UK's system of government is not presidential, but parliamentary. More significantly, this technology has been built so that people are only allowed to sign petitions, but not discuss them. Unlike the Scottish Parliament's e-petitions, public deliberation is prohibited. This leads to a narrow notion of democracy without discussion in which petitions can claim neither representative nor deliberative legitimacy. >From the perspective of internet research, this is an interesting illustration of how political design can undermine technical potential. Contrast this with the great tradition of political petitioning that has existed in Britain since the late thirteenth century. The Chartists of the mid-nineteenth-century did not make a political impact by collecting signatures, but by holding mass meetings to discuss the cause of their petition. Imagine iif the Chartists - or the disarmament movement of the 1960s - had been allowed only to plead with the Prime Minister rather than assemble, deliberate and develop their own convictions. Citizens sending petitions via this new e-tool should be encouraged to subvert its intended restrictive use by setting up an alternative web space in which propositions can be openly discussed and revised. Stephen Coleman, Professor of Political Communication, Institute of Communications Studies, University of Leeds ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: W.Lusoli@lse.ac.uk <W.Lusoli@lse.ac.uk> Date: Nov 17, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Petition Tony Blair, online that is To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Hi Ildico - thanks for this. well, a number of reasons really. First that the PM is a self-confessed technophobe; then because the Tories and Labour are waging an escalating war on who is reaching out more to the public using ICTs [Webcameron, Osborne, conservative blogs, Labour' new campaign space]; then because the website had 500 [500 !!] submissions in two days; then because it all looks soooo transparent, but is it; etcetera, etctera and etcetera once more. My eyes are now sore for the rubbing Cheers Wainer ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ildiko Kaposi <pphkai01@phd.ceu.hu> Date: Nov 17, 2006 3:31 PM Subject: Re: [Air-l] Petition Tony Blair, online that is To: air-l@listserv.aoir.org Wainer, What's the reason for your disbelief? I took only a cursory glance at the sight, so I'm not well-informed. First of all, I don't know what the online petitioning implies exactly, i.e. whether there are any obligatory consequences for the Right Hon. Blair or government policy. But online petitioning as such is practised elsewhere, and e-democracy has been something of a priority for the UK government, so this seems to fit the pattern. Am I misreading the initiative? Ildiko

...

...

"Wainer Lusoli" <w.lusoli@lse.ac.uk> 11/17/06 1:56 PM >>> http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

Still rubbing my eyes in disbelief Any thoughts, anyone? Wainer -------------------------------------------- Wainer Lusoli http://www.lusoli.info http://del.icio.us/lusoli http://www.i-pol.org -------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/ _______________________________________________ The air-l@listserv.aoir.org mailing list is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org Join the Association of Internet Researchers: http://www.aoir.org/