The Orange report on the future of politics imagines how new technologies can bridge the gap between citizens and their elected representatives. The report recognises the problems for parties appearing out of touch with the interests of citizens, perhaps due to them being locked into a conflict centring on Westminster rather than talking in the right language about solutions to issues that citizens can engage with. Technology offers opportunities for greater participation at both the local and national level, however at the moment the major barrier is that, on the whole, politicians are resistant to letting the public ‘in’.

The proposal is for government, parties and MPs to harness technology to allow the sharing of information with the public and to build connections: MPs to constituents; parties to communities; government to the masses. Citizens will be able to participate in debates they have generated themselves, the power of these forums needs to be channelled by politicians and engaged with. All of this suggests significant changes to the way politics is done.

What might those changes be? Firstly, sharing information and openness suggests a different relationship between the parties in Westminster. To embrace openness means that information cannot be concealed. While New Labour have pioneered openness, the fact that a Conservative MP has recently been arrested for obtaining and leaking ‘sensitive’ information suggests we have a long way to go. Secondly, MPs, parties and ministers can not be the fonts of all wisdom, if the public participate they will want to see an effect. In other words if debates include the public they will want to be listened to and their words acted upon. This changes the power relations between elected and electors and means representatives may be forced to adopt the role of delegate and not trustee. Equally it suggests that citizens will drive the public agenda and the rules of political engagement. Their increased input suggests a different style of government based on an Athenian ideal of direct democracy, where representatives will be reporting back from their constituencies and joining debates with other representatives that will also include members of the public. While the report suggests this presents opportunities to strengthen democracy, it also seems to challenge the very nature of the parliamentary system and the role that government, parties and MPs play.

Furthermore it raises a whole range of questions about the future not just of politics but of society. While Internet access, if we include public access points, may be available to all; not all will take part. The system may not stipulate who a citizen is, as was the case in ancient Athens, but the citizen may be defined by their own willingness to participate. Currently there are clearly more people engaging actively in politics, via weblogs, forums, Facebook wall posts etc. But these are a minority. The report suggests some form of trickle-down effect; that greater avenues for participation and chances to have influence will engender participation and so more and more will take part. However, this will not be the entire electorate, and those who do participate may well skew decision making and a new elite may emerge.

The report suggests many ways for engagement, and the ideas should be applauded. However, the dangers also need consideration and in particular the unintended effects of such moves towards engagement. Barack Obama has opened politicians eyes to the potential of the Internet, however he does not suggest government by his web movement. Rather his campaign allowed the public to engage, not interact; they could participate via public access sites but not co-produce his site or his policy. They can post their aspirations for his Presidency but not shape his political solutions; he will commune via Youtube but will he allow comments? He recognises the problems of offering full participation. The report seems not to take these issues into account, or the issues of how open participation will work in practice and what broader reforms are required to democracy for this to happen. Hence it appears to move towards a conclusion that is rather pie in the sky; if it is intended to start a conversation about new technology that is a worthy ideal but the implications may scare the politicians more than inspire them.