E-petitions should fire political debate

The prime minister’s e-petitions scheme is a good idea. But it needs work.

The plan could be cast as IT enhancing the democratic process, bringing the spirit of one person, one vote into the technological age and helping overcome the ennui and inertia sweeping modern politics.

Notwithstanding the fact that more than 5,000 people signed a petition to replace the national anthem with Gold by Spandau Ballet, or that 4,000-plus agreed that the PM should stand on his head and juggle ice cream, the British public clearly also has strong views on major policy issues.

E-petitions protesting against road pricing and ID cards garnered 1,808,086 and 28,023 signatures respectively, provoking a ‘personal’ email from Blair to every signatory.

But because policy has not been changed, e-petitions have faced charges of being merely window dressing.

Such expectations and disappointment is missing the point. The internet may seem to be the answer to democracy’s prayers, but the reality is different. Referenda are simply too blunt an instrument for the subtleties of the modern world.

For a start, the answer depends too much on the question. Reducing the complexity of, say, long-term energy security, to a simple yes or no, and making policy on the basis of the answer, is to enter a truly terrifying world of Fisher Price government.

Second, referenda tend to poll the overall popularity of the government – which may be useful in testing support, but not for setting policy.

Third, the rationale behind representative democracy is that the complexities of the modern state require full-time attention. This is not to say that the person in the street does not or cannot understand the world, or that our opinions are not valid. But 21st century governments face knotty compromises rarely covered by a simple with-us-or-against-us slogan.

E-petitions should not argue for immediate changes in policy. But nor is a single email sufficient response.

Nearly two million signatories should be the beginning of the conversation, not the end. The PM has replied on road charges, now Downing Street needs to follow it up.

Have people, enlightened by the government’s reasoning, come round to the plan? Or are there different compromises that citizens are more willing to make?

The government’s rhetoric is about dialogue. So let’s talk.