Last week the Prime Minister announced that he would use YouTube to answer citizen submitted questions. Over the past seven days thousands of Canadians have submitted and voted on questions that they would like to Prime Minister to answer.
Is this novel or new? Not really - on a smaller scale politicians have been doing Town Hall meetings for decades and, in the US, President Obama has answered questions posed over YouTube and indeed, some YouTube questions were even inserted into the Presidential debates in the 2008 presidential election.
Is it, however, good? Absolutely. Giving Canadians the opportunity to submit questions to the Prime Minister - and to vote on questions that they think are important - is a fantastic way to let the government (and media) know about the priorities and concerns of citizens. Some will laugh at the fact that the top questions revolve around the decriminalization of cannabis. But then, there is a significant and vocal minority who both feel strongly about this subject and unrepresented by the political parties and the media. I think it is fantastic that they get to ask the Prime Minister their question.
Then there are those who wonder if this YouTube press conference is another death knell for traditional media. Some journalists have scoffed at the idea of citizens asking questions. Citizens don't know the issues well enough or aren't articulate enough to ask questions. Maybe, but journalists should remember that they are talking about their audience. Can one really write for an audience you hold in contempt? Maybe it would be worth listening to them... Underling it all is a concern that the press will be cut out of the picture. If the Prime Minister can connect directly with citizens... what role is left for the press? The fact is there will always be a role of intelligent, informed people to comment on what is going on in Ottawa. Indeed, smart traditional media outlets should welcome this developing. By drawing people into the political process YouTube is growing the audience of people who care about politics and who will want to read about it.
But will the Q&A help the Prime Minister attract voters and even engage citizens? That is a completely different question. Where the journalists have a point is that they - sometimes deservedly, sometimes not - have brought credibility to the process of holding the Prime Minister and government to account. Their job (performed with a mixed degree of success) is to ask hard questions. They bring credibility to the process. What I'm not sure the PMO (or politicians generally) realize is that removing journalists doesn't make the process easier - it makes it harder. Now the credibility of the process lies completely in their hands. If the Prime Minister does not address questions that received a lot of votes - the whole experiment will be labeled a communications gimmick and could end up costing him. Moreover, if he only answers softball questions or doesn't actually engage the tough components of some of the questions posed, he will lose credibility. No longer can the PMO blame the media for spinning him badly, Canadians will now see if, left completely to his own devices, will the Prime Minister actually talk about issues or just issue talking points, reach out to Canadians or firm up his base.
And actually engaging votes will require a big shift for the PMO (or most politicians). As most online experts will tell you, and as Ivor Tossell aptly discussed yesterday, online interactions work best when you actually interact with the audience. Issuing press releases and spouting sound bites over a blog, or a YouTube video, won't cause the online world to take interest, in fact, it will positively turn them against you. But then, maybe this is a constituency most politicians simply don't care about and so simply being online will be sufficient, as it gives the Prime Minister and other politicians the appearance of being online to the offline world...
Some questions I hope the PM answers:
"A majority of Canadians when polled say they believe marijuana should be legal for adults and taxes like alcohol. Why don't you end the war on drugs and focus on violent criminals." (Cause it is the most voted for)
"Sir, the US Government much larger yet they disclose much more information about contracts, grants and lobbyists. When will the Government of Canada disclosure more information to the taxpayers of Canada" (cause I care about open government)
Since research has shown that mandatory minimum sentencing does not deter future crime, what makes you believe this is still an effective way of prosecuting criminals? (cause evidence based public policy matters)
Why is the government not more open about the Afghan detainee issue? Every time a legitimate question is asked, the response is that we should "support our troops" and look the other way (because every Canadian wants this questions answered)
Mid-last year, the CBC stated that the GST cuts introduced by your government have hiked the deficit by as much as $10 BILLION. Since most everyday purchases only end up saving Canadians pennies, why not raise the GST back to previous levels? (a great accountability question)
"Canadians seemed happy about your decision to match donations to Haiti after the devastating Earthquake; however, it has recently been discovered that the money has not gone out. Why was there a delay and when can we expect to see the money spent?" (great accountability question)
"As a gay Canadian, why should I support your government?" (was told about this question but couldn't find it - google, filter failure! - I think this is precisely the type of question the media will never ask...)
To all posts
Twitter: david_a_eaves
Facebook: my profile
del.icio.us: 
Friendfeed profile
Q&A from O’Reilly Media: Gov 2.0 International Online Conference
I know during my session I wasn't able to answer everyone's questions. However, I was able to find a few other questions in the chat and twitter stream. I'm a big believer that everyone should have a chance to ask a question so - with apologies that I couldn't do them live - here are some responses!
@Subbob: How possible is to have real meaty policy discussion within a gvmt internal wiki, given the possibility of leaks, which may lead to a scandal?
Short answer: Absolutely.
Longer answer: I actually think there are two different points you are raising - (a) can you have a substantive discussion in a wiki and (b) can you do (a) under the threat of a leak.
I think (a) on its own, is definitely doable. Indeed, it may be the best place to have a substantive discussion. It allows a diversity of actors (with the civil service - and possibly some invited from the outside?) to participate. The key is creating a culture where people explain the underlying logic of their arguments and avoid positional statements. Lots of stuff I can port in from the negotiation and collaboration theory space here. Take a look at my presentation "Community Management as the Core Competency of Open Source."
The threat of a leak increases the range of choices by which one leaks a document, but not the risk (in my opinion) stays the same. Did the installations of telephones in government employees offices increased the risk of leaks? I'd say it just lowered the transaction cost. But should we tear out the phones from government employees offices? Absolutely not. They need them to work. More importantly, as I shared on the conversation - I'm really disturbed by the unintended consequences of these decision to disallow tools cause of the risks of leaks: what does it say about the trust government has in its employees - and its ability to attract or retain top talent. (I talk about this point in more detail here, little bit about it again here.
Much like 3rd world leapfrogged 1st world in mobile, do you see the same thing happening with Gov2?
Super interesting question.
Short answer: Yes
Long answer... it is more complicated.
First, we are definitely straying on the edges of where I'm knowledgeable enough to talk about this, so take everything I say with grains of salt (of course you should approach everything I say, or anyone for that matter, with a healthy amount of skepticism). I think there is an opportunity to governments in developing countries to leap straight to Gov2. Indeed, some of the opportunities around fighting corruption (not have human tellers for many services, who sometimes demand to be bribed before helping) is driving this in places like India. Moreover, I think the cellphone network in Africa may drive some governments to build themselves around such networks, which could cause them to create themselves in networked as opposed to hierarchical manners.
I see two major obstacles. One structural, one cultural.
The structural challenge is the nature of how democratic systems do (and should work). The accountability model found in democracy often means that strong hierarchical lines of control extend out of the executive. This is even more the case in authoritarian regimes. My suspicion is that even though sometimes weak, emerging democracies or emerging markets have as much "unlearning" to do as we do in rethinking these models. Given they may be smaller this might be easier, but...
Never underestimate the culture challenges. For better or worse the Western World has held up its democracies and government institutions as "the model" against which others should measure themselves (and, we should collectively note, in many cases have tied our development funding to promoting that model). This means that rather than inventing something new, replicating what exists in the west has become the gold standard for democracy and governance. I suspect that in many cases replicating these models is actually the goal of many public services in emerging markets or developing democracies - so the barrier is that those on the ground and a goal that will likely steer them away from gov2.0.
Really tricky question that one... Would love to see what examples of gov2.0 exist on the ground in some emerging markets. What a wonderful opportunity.
What is state of knowledge capture in Canada crown agencies? Earliest SoMe projects in US included use of forums as pseudo-wikis for internal knowledge capture.
Great question and I confess I do not know (for those unfamiliar with the term a Crown Corporation is a company owned by the government but run independently - so, for example, Canada Post, would be a Crown Corp). If anyone knows of some projects in this space please comment or send me an email.
Related posts