Problems with the Internet as a Democratic Institution.

Internet is an extremely open, accessible institution and if added to the democratic process, could make the system more deliberative and much more direct. Government forums could be set up, citizens registering for accounts with citizen numbers and secure passwords, reading and commenting upon bills. Comments could be up-voted and down-voted in a manner similar to Reddit or YouTube. Polls could be taken easily on bills. If it wanted to be really radical and edgy, the Government could show tweets with the current debate's hashtag in the chamber. None of these ideas would be binding and force law-makers into decisions, for the Internet is not yet a wholly responsible and safe place, but it would provide clearer indications of public support and concerns.

So what are the problems?

The first is that not everybody can use the Internet because not everybody has an Internet connection. It is unfair that one citizen could have more weight over the democratic process than another (*cough* Donations *cough*). Everyone has an equal right to participate in the democratic process, and the economic means to exercise that right. Therefore, we need to get as many people an Internet connection as is possible before it can be used as a democratic institution.

The second problem is that politicians are unwilling to explore the great frontier that is the Internet. When they do explore, incursions into the world-wide-web normally result in the desire to tame it rather than listen to it. A lot of politicians are scared of engaging with the Internet, because monsters do dwell there. Politicians need to trust the Internet and accept it before it has any hope of becoming a formal, deliberative part of democracy.

However, their fear is not without reason. The Internet could easily turn round and bite this new idea on the ass. Malevolent or irresponsible groups could try and crash the forums, manipulate the comment voting or post hate and vitriol unless carefully moderated. Any moderation could then be criticised as a lack of free speech. Bills could be taken down or the polling process disrupted at critical moments. The Internet, like any other institution, is open to abuse.

This belies a greater problem with the idea, which is that people can be irresponsible, if not downright disengaged, with political participation. A lot of people don't care, providing ample ammunition for those who argue people are too irresponsible for more participation and a more direct system. I see the issue as a chicken and the egg problem. More chances to participate will foster more responsible engagement as people, but many politicians won't return that control until people actually engaged more responsibly.

This stand-off needs to be broken, and perhaps debating adding the Internet to the roster of democratic institutions will do so. I argue those in the law making process have no right to deny us this chance for participation and treat us as children. The Internet could be a direct link to public ideas and strengthen democracy. Instead of packing politicians off every four years through voting, there will be a continuous chance to engage. It will have it's problems, but if non-binding, the system could be tried without serious disaster.