Petitions bite back

16. June 2008 – 12:06 by Fraser Henderson - ICELE

Petitions, on-line and off-line, have stirred-up a frenzy of debate recently with the advent of two important milestones in the UK. Firstly the preparatory stages of an ePetitioning system for UK Parliament and secondly a possible ‘duty to respond’ for Local Authorities. Let’s not also forget a possible EC ePetitioning venture.

The proposed UK Parliamentary system would be scoped from scratch, cost an estimated £0.5 million and is likely to replace the tarnished No.10 ePetitioning site. However, despite being a proven democratic lever there is concern that such exercises in eDemocracy are nothing more than an electronic registering of dislike. Equally that, contrary to claims of engaging with the public, online petitions could, in the words of one Parliamentarian, “produce disaffection, as people register their dislike … and then nothing happens”.

These are valid points, particularly as there are no current powers to force an answer from a British central government department on the back of a petition. Focusing on what you ‘don’t like’ is in some way dis-empowering. Focusing on what you ‘can-do’ is proactive and empowering. Being part of the solution, not the problem, seems like the best way forward. That’s why Pledgebank is, in my view, a better empowerment tool in many ways.

It would seem we’re back to the age-old problem of managing stakeholder expectations – a problem that applies to almost every eDemocracy activity. Tom Steinberg, founder of the No.10 site, suggests the solution for ePetitioning is a simple disclaimer - “You are registering your voice that but you won’t necessarily get what you want”. But perhaps this is a problem of granularity; that a persons ‘circle of concern’ is more likely to be locally focused and the probability of influencing a local decision or concern is much higher.

ICELE have been the advocates for local ePetitioning for a number of years now. It stands to reason that ePetitioning offers a more structured approach to petitioning in general - and it is clear that a number of local authorities still have no formal process for dealing with traditional petitions. However, while a ‘duty to respond’ seems like a good idea the administrative burden cannot be ignored.

My view is this - that we should first abandon the emotive word ‘petition’ which stirs-up the feeling of a ‘right to action’. Secondly that we focus on local mechanisms, in favour of retaining some input by actors of representative democracy. Thirdly that we recognise petitioning as ‘democracy lite’ yet also a favoured way to participate. In view of this we should consider how ePetition sites can be built which focus on taking participants up the ladder of escalating empowerment.

Unfortunately a pan-European petitioning system has all of these factors stacked against it. Does anybody have any ideas about a more suitable name? How about a ‘citizens’ lobby’?

Tags: ePetitions