Democracy YouTube style, or just broadcast politics as usual?

Twentieth-century political communication has been described as a “oneway conversation”. Instead of inclusive deliberation — the substantive element of democracy — professionally produced and polished declarations of policy were released for public consumption via mass media. For most people political debate was perceived as something to watch – or switch off.

YouTube is trying to change this by creating an interactive forum for engaging today’s youth in the political process. For starters, YouTube is giving interested citizens have the opportunity to submit questions to presidential candidates via YouTube videos over the course of the summer. CNN’s political team will then select “the most creative and compelling videos” to feature in the first Democratic debate on July 23rd. The same opportunity will be available to citizens who wish to query Republican candidates on September 17th.

YouTube is calling it “political history” which is a wee bit of an embellishment if you ask me. Having CNN screen/select a handful of citizen entries to be presented to presidential candidates is hardly an innovation in political communication.

To be sure, providing a trusted third-party venue for political debate (like CitizenTube) is a step in the right direction. But we don’t need CNN’s political team to make judgments on our behalf. Why not let the community decide which are the most relevant questions to pose to candidates. And why not compel political candidates to provide their answers on YouTube where the community can openly debate which candidates posed the most meaningful and credible answers, and where candidates can join the conversation in an active an ongoing way.

Real deliberative democracy requires a new conception of citizenship. Strengthening representation through a process of ongoing, digital discussion and consultation is not about simply giving citizens a better hearing – although that in itself would be a good start. It is about giving citizens ownership of their representation. It is about citizens as shareholders in power rather than consumers of policy. It is also about the responsibilities and obligations of being a democratic citizen within a networked society.

As New Paradigm has argued in the past, we are not envisaging a citizenry that is constantly engaged in decision-making, as would be required by a direct, plebiscitary democracy, but citizens who have learned to use the democratic muscles which have atrophied during long years of exclusion from the deliberative process.