Pols Make Strange Webfellows

‘Why did so few people follow the Republican convention on the Internet?” the moderator asked earnestly as I sat on a panel about government and the Net at the recent Democratic National Convention. “What does that say about the value of the Internet?”

“What does it say about the value of the Republican convention?” I countered to enthusiastic applause.

But the Democratic convention fared little better. Despite all the attention--and funding--given to Internet coverage of national politics, few people participated. Although about half the U.S. population uses the Internet, only 1 in 30 Americans spent more than a few seconds looking at Internet-based convention material, and only about 1 in 500 participated in a convention-dedicated site, according to a study by Harvard’s Shorenstein Center.

Why do so few people follow politics on the Internet? Because national politics is not interactive. It’s that simple.

Most Americans are happy enough; their lives won’t change dramatically no matter who is president. Others are unhappy, but they don’t believe that national politics will change their lives dramatically, either. A Webcast that is as passive as a TV broadcast isn’t going to change anything.

But that doesn’t mean the Internet isn’t a good medium for participating in national politics, local government or for civic involvement. In fact, it will help people throughout the world get more involved in government, just as it makes it easier for would-be entrepreneurs to get involved in business.

Let’s look at how it should happen:

A parent hears about the condition of the bathrooms in the school from her child. She e-mails another parent. The second parent copies the e-mail to the mailing list she keeps for her daughter’s swimming team. Together, they volunteer to come in the next Saturday with brushes and soap.

But the taps are rusting and the porcelain is cracked; this needs more than a group of volunteer parents. They write a nice letter to the school administrator. No answer. They post the letter on the comments page of the local newspaper’s Web site and provoke a rash of commentary, most of it not as polite as the original letter. Now the administrator answers.

Or take another, less cheerful, example. A hotel advertises for workers. Several people in one especially poor neighborhood decide to apply, but there’s no way for them to get to the job. They write to the local bus company. No answer. Then one particularly entrepreneurial would-be worker decides to organize a car pool, using the community Web site to post pick-up times.

Now there are two possible scenarios: In one, the car pool evolves into a successful alternate transportation service, and it begins to supply local needs well beyond the initial group of hotel workers. In another version, the local bus company shuts the car pool down because it lacks a license. Then the workers get angry and start to lobby the Legislature, using the Internet to reach the relevant politicians.

The point is that politics and government do not have to happen only through official channels--just as one can be religious outside a church or temple, or charitable outside an organized charity.

The Net--through chat groups, e-mail, Web sites and the like--can help you find people who share your concerns and collaborate with them.

As in business, some “social entrepreneurs” will fail, but many will succeed--not in building financial empires or in being elected president or prime minister, but in changing the world immediately around them. That experience will inspire them and others to do more. If you can start a bus service, why not get your local high school to offer training for bus drivers? If you can clean the school bathrooms, why not lobby--and raise money--for new plumbing?

As people gain experience and see returns on their efforts, I believe they will begin to make more such efforts. That experience--of feeling empowered--will change their attitude about interacting with government.

How will government respond?

Governments are monopolies in their own geographical territories: Their “customers” cannot simply choose another vendor. But with enough effort, politicians can be voted out and new ones elected, and even civil servants can be exposed and replaced. Of course, it’s not easy, but it’s easier than it was.

Because of this reality, and because of individuals’ increasing power to organize and make themselves heard through the Net, governments over time will become more responsive. Politicians will start to answer voters’ e-mail, whether by themselves or through staffers, and they will learn that “Thank you for writing and sharing your concerns” is not a sufficient answer. Voters’ comments must be addressed specifically.

It’s important to remember that many people in government grew up with e-mail and instant chat, people who sincerely want to do a good job, if only their systems would allow it.

Government has been inherently inflexible, one-size-fits-all. Now, with computers, government policies can be made more flexible; it is easier for a computer system to design policies and to specify exceptions or special cases explicitly. When you allow bureaucrats to make exceptions, you introduce flexibility--but you also allow for favoritism, unfairness and corruption.

Which comes to the differences between business and government.

Whereas business fosters so-called “one-to-one marketing,” where each customer is treated as an individual, and those likely to spend more are treated better, government is not supposed to treat people on the basis of their ability to pay. They are presumed to be equal, although individuals may have different needs and preferences that can be addressed.

The challenge then is for governments to move beyond simply counting votes--the equivalent of a business simply counting receipts--to actually listening to what citizens say. And even, as many large businesses are discovering, to dealing with competition--such as citizens running a bus company for their neighborhood--and letting it flourish if it does a better job than the government can.

What will politics on the Web look like in a few years, when the next presidential campaign takes place in the U.S., or Brazil, or even Russia? I hope it will look like local politics grown broader in scope, rather than like a Web-ized version of these just-concluded, very commercially sponsored, political conventions.

*

Esther Dyson edits the technology newsletter Release 1.0 and is the author of the bestseller “Release 2.0.” She is also chairwoman of the Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers. Send comments to edyson@edventure.com.