Lydia Howland

I found James' article very interesting and agree entirely with his analysis. The emphasis very clearly should be upon e-participation as a vehicle for civic engagement and renewal in the broadest sense, and the government's current preoccupation with all things 'e' as a potential cure for a political disengagement demonstrates they have missed a bigger trick.

That being said, I do think there are issues about how we mainstream the kind of 'civic hacking' that James is suggesting. I am 100% in favour of the government enabling people to undertake this kind of online communication and participation for themselves, but we don't want to create a two tier democracy where one strand plays itself out in Westminster and Whitehall and the other (no doubt more dynamic) strand operates in a virtual 'citizen space', and the two do not meet in the middle.

This brings us back to the representation argument. If the internet is to become the new medium for political participation, then it must be integrated into the mainstream of government, for the sake of democratic legitimacy. New applications may well 'help make participatory democracy seem useful too' but that step-change in thinking may not be automatic.

In effect I think there are two projects here that should be pursued, and they should be pursued in tandem. The government's currnet strategy is not wrong - rather it is insufficient or misplaced. James' proposals would be a major step towards addressing the imbalance but unless the two strands of action can be yoked together, the wider benefits of both enterprises will be overlooked.

k-9 k-9

It was very interisting.I have a question though were did you find the hacks at.