Yesterday a new website launched, Action London 2010, providing Londoners what promises to be a textbook perfect case study on dos and don’ts of civic engagement in the digital age. They say (and have demonstrated they are) working to improve the site quickly, to their credit. I wasn’t going to post this but I eventually decided to lay out my thoughts coherently while still fairly fresh — hopefully just once — because this is applicable to every civic engagement initiative (e.g. one I’ll be discussing with others on Thursday). We’re all learning the same lessons.
In an article about the site in the Free Press, the group’s spokesman stated there’s “no hidden agenda.” Since then we’ve learned (through pressure) it’s backed by a group of associations and coalitions mainly representing development, construction, and manufacturing, plus Nash Jewellers. Formally, the online interactions I’ve seen were handled by a PR company.
Maybe there isn’t a hidden agenda, but they seemed to begin by doing all the right things to make it look like there was. When a website with opaque backing calls itself “grass roots,” I think the chances are pretty high that it’s astroturf:
Astroturfing denotes political, advertising, or public relations campaigns that are formally planned by an organization, but are disguised as spontaneous, popular “grassroots” behavior.
Come to think of it, I’m skeptical every time I hear the word “grass roots.” It’s like the rule-of-thumb I’ve heard about people who brag about running with biker gangs: if they feel like they have to say it, they’re probably lying (or just confused about the meaning of what they’re saying).
Don’t get me wrong. Everyone’s entitled to promote their interests in a democracy. And don’t automatically count me as opposed to the interests this group represents — in fact, I’m eager to learn more about them; I’ve never really been able to figure out what I think about how and where development should occur [for example]. I’m personally more of an urbanite by nature, but I’m hard-pressed to impose my sentiments on my friends and family who like large lots around the outskirts, at least not without really knowing what I’m talking about — which I don’t (as far as that issue is concerned… but on the issue of openness, on the other hand…).
Note that this isn’t just a matter of principle. Looking at it strategically from their own self-interest I think it’s the wrong play because it gives their opponents something really substantial to discredit them with — coincidentally happening at about the same time that genuinely open government initiatives are growing more prominent on the radar in Canada, and front page news from the U.S. brings lessons on the futility of opacity.
People are getting wise. People deserve a lot more credit. You can’t protect this kind of information anymore. It’s going to get out — and then some: there’s also a lot of extra information laying around that people can use to speculate erroneously about even more nefarious intentions. Don’t even give people the opportunity to imagine. Better to invest in generative strategies that increase accountability, reputation, and genuine trust. Better to educate people.
And if for some reason you expect an openly informed public to be a losing scenario for you, then maybe the best strategy is to start unwinding and cutting losses or radically reconceiving your assumptions now before the real changes come.
Ultimately I can’t oppose any initiative that at least moves us further ahead on the learning curve, and I welcome the opportunity to learn and participate in the conversation — if people are willing to meet on common ground, with few conditions and full disclosure.
Pingback: Local Blogs – 2010/04/25 – From My Bottom Step
Pingback: Learning to Be Open By Default | Brian Frank