Skip to content
Login

Tom Bentley

photo of Tom Bentley

Policy Adviser, Government of Victoria

Tom Bentley will be Executive Director for policy and cabinet for the Premier of Victoria, Australia from September 2006. He was Director of Demos from 1999-2006.

Posted by Tom Bentley at 8:14am on Sunday, 23rd May 2004

George Papandreou, now Leader of the Opposition and President of PASOK, the Greek Socialist Party, launched a new NGO at a conference in Athens this week. Access2Democracy grew out of last year's Greek presidency of the EU, when Papandreou, as foreign minister, regularly took the results of his 'e-vote' initiative to the Council of Ministers as they debated how to handle Iraq, immigration, the environment and so on.

The organisation is dedicated to the development of e-democracy, and how it can help revive and reshape existing political systems, which Papandreou argues are under siege from a range of forces which you would have found in the Demos catalogue over the last few years.

Papandreou's speech (read it on the website) was a powerful statement of the need for a new view of what democracy means, and the need for political institutions to 'reconnect'. It is striking, though, that this initiative should emerge in the 'international NGO' space, with its connections to national political debates less clear. One to watch, though, and with strong connections to Demos' current project on the European elections with the UK's electoral commission.

Comments

1
"... a process of deliberation which reaches policy conclusions which represent the majority?s collective will." Papandreou is clueless. He mistakes majoritarianism for democracy. The purpose of deliberation is to become aware of minority views that must not be ignored simply because they are minority views. Doing so alienates them and leads to oppression and rebellion. The history of instability and near ceaseless war in Europe is a direct consequence of failure to understand democracy and the critical need to include minorities in power, to willingly shape policy in ways they desire and so integrate them into society rather than marginalizing them. Collective will has nothing to do with good governance, that's just social bullying, the crass rule of mobs. The most important thing deliberative processes determine is what must not be done, the limits of useful policy. Everyone should leave the policy feast hungry, unsatisfied, wistfully looking back wishing for more... rather than feeling bitter and rebellious about the crude use of majority force to do more than was necessary at the expense of dissenters.
Posted by Jo Ma  at 2:32pm on Sunday, 23rd May 2004
2
That does sound a bit ho hum, but perhaps a little thought will restore some zest to your political writing.
Posted by Jo Ma  at 1:30am on Tuesday, 25th May 2004
3
Hmm. A strikingly selective reading of Papandreou's speech there from Jo Ma - you might equally have quoted: "...information technology can give a voice to oppressed and minority cultures and ensure osmosis and dialogue in our changing world." Anyway. I do agree with the sentiments expressed, but I wonder whether e-literacy in fact needs more explicitly to be a pre-condition of, and not a parallel process to, e-democracy; the information gap threatens only to exacerbate the democracy gap. Perhaps it's time that we started to see internet literacy as a basic element of a country's statistics, along with GDP, population size and the like.
Posted by Bobby Webster  at 11:50am on Tuesday, 25th May 2004
4
There's truth in that Bobby, Papandreou's speech was a jumble of platitudes that could be selectively quoted to support nearly any position. I selected the "majority?s collective will" bit because it so thoroughly negates all the others and expresses the deepest flaw in parliamentary "democracy" - the will to mob rule and marginalization of dissent. The failure to understand democracy is enshrined in the EU constitution draft which attempts to specify everything and so avoid empowering anyone. The failure to understand either subsidarity or devolution and the difference between them is an indication of how very far the framers are from political maturity.
Posted by Jo Ma  at 4:18pm on Tuesday, 25th May 2004
5
Sure - there are some platitudes. But don't forget, much of what a politician says should be understood not only by the 'savvy' but also those who may be e-illiterate. A balance is not always easy - but introducing new concepts needs to respect those who haven't heard about them. Politics ideally should be an ongoing pedagogy both of the citizens and those who represent them. This may seem very general and non-interesting for the experts. And it often is so. But there is purpose. As to majoritarian rule - if it was understood that what I was introducing was instant majority rule with no respect to other views then I need to correct what I said. Certainly I believe in the expression of minority views as a precondition to democracy as well as e-democracy. I believe that e-democracy can further give expression and hopefully empower minority views that otherwise would be lost or oppressed. As far as the EU constitution is concerned I'd simply like to inform you that I fought for direct election of the EU President and for mentioning the 'citizen' not only the 'nation' and the 'people' as constituents of a future Union. And don't forget EU decisions are a product of compromise of often very different views. Making important decisions thru e-democracy will need to be further studied. That's one reason we launched A2D. thanks for the comments! g
Posted by G Papandreou  at 8:30pm on Wednesday, 26th May 2004
6
Unless I'm much mistaken, Mr Papandreou just demonstrated the potential of online technologies to permit new forms of political deliberation and dialogue between citizens and politicians, within and between nations. The revolution will not be televised. But it might just be blogged...
Posted by Paul Skidmore  at 12:58am on Thursday, 27th May 2004

LOGIN to add comments