acidlabs

The text and slides below are for my ses­sion at Pub­lic Sphere #2 – Gov­ern­ment 2.0: Pol­icy and Prac­tice which is being held at Par­lia­ment House tomor­row. The talk is just 10 min­utes long, so I don’t go into any real depth — but it is a nice, quick overview.

For some­thing organ­ised quickly and on the enthu­si­asm of vol­un­teers and the power of whuffie, it’s going to be quite the event! Make sure you watch the twit­ter stream for #public­sphere, the live blog and the video stream (all details at the link above).

UPDATE: Video now avail­able.

Pub­lic Sphere: Gov­ern­ment 2.0 — Stephen Collins from Kate Lundy on Vimeo.

In our mod­ern democ­racy, the abil­ity for mem­bers of soci­ety to par­tic­i­pate in some way is a fun­da­men­tal and accepted right. Indeed, we use the term par­tic­i­pa­tory democ­racy to describe one in which con­stituents are empow­ered to engage in the polit­i­cal decision-​​making process.

There has until recent times, been a bur­den of activ­ity and where­withal required that has meant only those with a sin­gu­lar desire to engage with the process of democ­racy — either at the leg­isla­tive or exec­u­tive level — have truly been empow­ered to do so. Whether that has meant by lob­by­ing, protest or civil unrest, letter-​​writing or even the bur­den­some process of being elected to some form of leg­is­la­ture, it has been a task that took real effort.

How things have changed.

In the 21^st Cen­tury the old, largely broad­cast model has been bro­ken. The abil­ity for peo­ple, any­where, to par­tic­i­pate has shifted thanks to a medium, the Inter­net, that is ever more ubiq­ui­tous, more social, and rel­a­tively cheap. We really are all a part of a huge melt­ing pot posessed of the capa­bil­ity to par­tic­i­pate. One-​​to-​​one and one-​​to-​​many com­mu­ni­ca­tions are no longer the opti­mum modal­i­ties. We are now the inhab­i­tants of a many-​​to-​​many world.

In recent times, as we have seen in the near-​​instant dis­tri­b­u­tion of news in China after the Sichuan earth­quake and in the coor­di­na­tion of polit­i­cal action in Moldova, Egypt and most recently, Iran, the capa­bil­ity for pro­duc­tion and par­tic­i­pa­tion has been bol­stered by the easy avail­abil­ity of net­works where each par­tic­i­pant is both broad­caster and receiver. A desire to par­tic­i­pate, an increase in real or sought-​​after free­doms, rel­a­tive ease and low cost of con­nect­ed­ness and the ever-​​accelerating power of tools that con­nect peo­ple online now means that there is a mas­sive supply-​​side sur­plus to the abil­ity of peo­ple every­where to engage actively and mean­ing­fully in the polit­i­cal process.

The power of net­works is such that for every new node — each new per­son — the power of the net­work increases expo­nen­tially. We are hyper­con­nected and there is no going back. In fact, we are leap­ing ahead at pace.

It is more than time for our social insti­tu­tions — for gov­ern­ment — to join in. They are no longer the broad­cast­ers, apart from the con­ver­sa­tion. They, and we, are of the con­ver­sa­tion.

But there is a problem.

Gov­ern­ments are largely used to mostly talk­ing at the con­stituency rather than with the con­stituency. It’s not their fault. It’s sim­ply the way things have always been.

So why is it a problem?

It’s a prob­lem because in today’s hyper­con­nected world, a leg­is­la­ture and an exec­u­tive that isn’t engaged in a close, many-​​way con­ver­sa­tion with the pub­lic it serves is no longer fit for pur­pose. Both risk rapidly increas­ing irrel­e­vance if they fail to adapt to the new world; one in which the pub­lic can, will and has done for itself where bureau­cra­cies are too slow to respond to emer­gent needs and changes in opin­ion. In a hyper­con­nected world, to invoke Gilmore’s Law is easy — the con­nected com­mu­nity will route around the dam­age and do what needs to be done with­out the help of government.

There are atten­dees here today whose organ­i­sa­tions are liv­ing, breath­ing exam­ples of this very action — Ope­nAus­tralia, the Cen­tre for Pol­icy Devel­op­ment, TweetMP. We’re all empow­ered to do more than we could be in the past by our com­mu­ni­ties and our connectedness.

Today’s event is called The Pub­lic Sphere. The term, coined by Ger­man philoso­pher and soci­ol­o­gist, Jür­gen Haber­mas, defines a place, phys­i­cal or vir­tual, where open dis­cus­sion of issues preva­lent in soci­ety can take place and polit­i­cal action to rem­edy those issues can be formed. A strong, civil pub­lic sphere is a fun­da­men­tal under­pin­ning for a func­tional and suc­cess­ful lib­eral democ­racy.

Mem­bers of gov­ern­ments here, in the UK, in New Zealand and most par­tic­u­larly and pub­licly in the US, say many of the right things about par­tic­i­pa­tory gov­ern­ment under­pinned by a con­nected and engaged soci­ety. This is a much needed first move. But it is only the first. It is far from the end game.

In a soci­ety as con­nected as Aus­tralia, where accord­ing to recent research from For­rester, ³⁄₄ of Aus­tralian adults online use social tools, ¹⁄₄ cre­ate their own con­tent, around half are mem­bers of social net­works, gov­ern­ment needs to be present in online com­mu­ni­ties, lis­ten­ing and respond­ing and some­times talk­ing. A pub­lic ser­vice that is dis­con­nected from the pub­lic it serves through the gov­ern­ment of the day is no pub­lic ser­vice at all. Rather, it is a bureau­cracy. Impen­e­tra­ble. Byzan­tine. Inscrutable.

The leg­is­la­ture and the pub­lic ser­vice need to take action to par­tic­i­pate online in a more sophis­ti­cated way than pre­vi­ously. This will require a fun­da­men­tal shift in views on open­ness, risk, con­ver­sa­tion, com­mu­nity, col­lab­o­ra­tion. A shift in the who, the what and the where. This will be a dif­fi­cult task. But it is one that we must do soon if Aus­tralia is to be truly the clever coun­try we have claimed to be for so long. There are well-​​evidenced ben­e­fits to inno­va­tion and cre­ativ­ity from col­lab­o­ra­tion of all kinds.

It is a mis­quo­ta­tion to use it here, Churchill will no doubt spin in his grave, but it seems apt. A pub­lic ser­vice not engaged in active, ongo­ing con­ver­sa­tion with the pub­lic “is a rid­dle, wrapped in a mys­tery, inside an enigma; but per­haps there is a key.”

That key is a change in culture.

Aus­tralia is arguably a few steps off the pace with respect to the pub­lic sec­tor being com­fort­able, and often, even pre­pared to engage with the com­mu­nity in a con­ver­sa­tion aimed at col­lab­o­rat­ing on mak­ing our democ­racy better.

In this case, one of two things hap­pen, and occa­sion­ally both. First, the pub­lic sec­tor risks being inad­e­quately informed of the needs and wants of the pub­lic and risks giv­ing bad advice to gov­ern­ment result­ing in bad pol­icy, pro­grams and leg­is­la­tion. And sec­ond, the pub­lic may grow increas­ingly frus­trated with the pub­lic sec­tor, and through it, the gov­ern­ment, for not heed­ing their mood.

I doubt any­one here today con­sid­ers either of those out­comes desirable.

The right moves are being made at high level. But too slowly and not pub­licly enough.

The APSC has had a doc­u­ment in draft, Cir­cu­lar ²⁰⁰⁸⁄₈, since Decem­ber last year that lays out a largely work­able set of guide­lines for online engage­ment of pub­lic ser­vants. But why is it still a draft seven months on? The APS Com­mis­sioner who is speak­ing here later today, recently gave a speech to the John Curtin Insti­tute of Pub­lic Pol­icy that laid a frame­work for a much richer engage­ment with the pub­lic that squarely places the cit­i­zen at the cen­ter of gov­ern­ment. And the most recent State of the Ser­vice Report makes spe­cific men­tion of the need for gov­ern­ment and the pub­lic to engage more closely.

When I speak with pub­lic ser­vants as I often do, too few of them at any level, are aware of these doc­u­ments, the poli­cies they embody, and the strong push for this new open­ness and engage­ment. In con­ver­sa­tion, I hear many argu­ments against open engage­ment between gov­ern­ment and the pub­lic. Too hard. No skills. Man­age­ment resis­tance. Not allowed. It’s not the way we do things.

We need to take action to remove what­ever it is that causes these blocks.

There are many pub­lic ser­vants at all lev­els of gov­ern­ment who stand ready, will­ing and able to engage directly with the pub­lic if only you will let them. They are knowl­edge­able and capa­ble and proud of their work. They will help you gov­ern and help you develop and deliver bet­ter gov­ern­ment by being deeply con­nected into the com­mu­ni­ties they serve. By being a trusted, real and human part of those com­mu­ni­ties. If only you will let them.

We need to actively encour­age change within our par­lia­ments and our pub­lic sec­tor that removes the resis­tance to this engage­ment. It is far eas­ier to point out the size of the chasm than to start build­ing a bridge over it.

As politi­cians and pub­lic ser­vants we should be ensur­ing our col­leagues and our staff at all lev­els are empow­ered to par­tic­i­pate and pro­vided with the skills they need to engage with the pub­lic openly and on an as-​​needed basis within their spheres of expertise.

And we need to do it urgently. Urgency does not imply haste, it sim­ply implies rapidity.

And this cul­ture change is urgent. Of this have no doubt.

As a for­mer pub­lic ser­vant, as some­one who works with the pub­lic ser­vice today and as a mem­ber of the pub­lic, I, and oth­ers like me, believe this is a mat­ter of national impor­tance and that we must act soon and decisively.

And, as peo­ple who under­stand how both the pub­lic sec­tor and the online world work, we want to help.

Together, we must reboot the model for engage­ment between gov­ern­ment and the pub­lic to make it more open, more human, more fre­quent, more of a reg­u­lar con­ver­sa­tion focused on lis­ten­ing. And we must empower pub­lic ser­vants at all lev­els and not just offi­cial com­mu­ni­ca­tors to be those that engage.

If we make that change, our gov­ern­ments and our pub­lic sec­tor can be more rel­e­vant to the peo­ple; enact­ing pol­icy and pro­grams and deliv­er­ing ser­vices that really mat­ter and work­ing hand-​​in-​​hand with an engaged, informed pub­lic par­tic­i­pat­ing in government.

Not only Yes We Can, but Yes We Must.

Related posts

• Wake up! (3)
• Public engagement. Public empowerment. (59)
• Government 2.0 — reinventing eGovernment or something different? (9)
• Connect.ed — The story of a girl (7)
• BarCamp Sydney #4 — Saturday, 15 November 2008 (0)