Co-creation over the top? Dutch political party engages online communities to write their party manifesto
Written on March 26, 2008 – 12:00 pm
Eric Bun, business innovation consultant
Yesterday, a new political party ‘Proud of Holland’ launched its party manifesto in the Netherlands. Or to be precise, postponed to launch its party manifesto because it will develop an online platform where people are involved in writing a new party manifesto. Visitors of the - to be launched - website will be asked to vote on polls and to help define a new strategy on an online forum - a wiki-like format.
Co-creating a new political strategy
Sounds as a good initiative, doesn’t it? Take the pulse of the rank and file of the party and ask the people what they actually want and how they think about particular topics. Certainly if you consider the rise of utilizing the wisdom of the crowd. Co-creating a new political strategy together with the people whom are - in fact - affected by the outcomes of that co-created strategy. However, I have my doubts for a number of reasons.
- DIGITAL DIVERSITY | There is still is digital diversity nowadays and therefore you might be asking whether or not the party’s program will reflect the opinion of the complete grassroots support.
- CHANGING THE STRATEGY | The political leader don’t want to elaborate on what she will do when the outcomes of the co-created strategy are not in line with her own vision. In other words, will she adapt her own vision or will she change the outcomes of the strategy defined by the wiki in the case they are not in line?
- LIFE HACKING?! | Online polls and wiki’s are sensible for fraud and underlying software can easily be hacked by people that want to affect the strategy. The process of defining a strategy is therefore not transparent.
- COMPLEXITY | In the science of public, there is a continuous discussion whether or not people are able to take decisions on political issues. Politics is continuous balancing the pros and cons for the whole society. It is not about defining the most promising and optimum strategy and solutions are an outcome of a political process. Besides, political leaders are paid to do their job, to make that though decisions and as a society you vote on a specific party because you believe in their vision and you think that party is capable of making the decisions which affect your life and the life of your children.
So, I have my doubts about the practicability of a wiki-like format to define new political strategies. We vote on political leaders because we think he or she is able to make the tough decisions with respect to the rank and file of the party and you don’t want to be bothered again and again on particular issues.
I hope you like that post!
Do you have a start-up that we should write about? Contact us! Thanks for visiting and hope you come back again!
Email
Facebook
Netlog
Linkedin
Twitter
The Next Web Blog is closely associated with The Next Web Conference which is held annually in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. At this event speakers from all over the world come together to talk about, and show of, the future of the Web. (
By Mads Kristensen on Mar 26, 2008
We had this sort of thing in Denmark. It is called ‘Ny Alliance’ (’New Alliance’) and its a party in the middle of everything. They tried this out, when they first came to existence. People were extatic. But it quickly become apparent that when people try to work together on something like this, it still gets messed up in special interests, and the result is - well, not very much.
The party started out looking at 20 seats in the Parliament. When the election came they got 5 seats because no one really knew what they were about, and not they’re polling at around 0,2 % of the popular vote and is thus fast approaching oblivion.
Crowd sourcing may be clever. But are real people there yet? I doubt it very much.
By Eric Bun on Mar 26, 2008
Nice response Mads, thank you. Interesting to hear that other countries have tried similar settings which finally resulted in nothing. I do agree with your statement ‘no one really knew what they were about’, because I think that’s the crux. You are able to involve your consumers - or in this case the society - but you have be aware on which topic you engage them and have to ask youself critical do they want to be engaged on this topics or decisions on the long run. I don’t think so.
By Jorn Wemmenhove on Mar 26, 2008
Interesting article and I think especially #4 is important to keep in mind. I don’t believe the mass has the vision to be able to co-create the political agenda in all cases. Politicians should be the real leaders again showing the crowd the road to take. It’s the decision and responsibility of the voter to follow that direction. In my opinion there is enough space for personal choices in this model.
The rise (and fall) of Pim Fortuyn in The Netherlands has shown that it’s important for politicians to listen to the people. But that’s not the same as writing a party program based on the wishes of the masses, like Wilders’ PVV and Verdonk’s TON are doing. The fact that those parties are popular at the moment are in my opinion an extra argument making clear that the opinion of people is not always the way to go.
By Maarten on Mar 26, 2008
I share you doubts. But political communication through internetpolls and wiki’s might help the communication an policy creation within political parties. But only between members of the same political group.
Some political parties e.g. The Chistian Union in The Netherlands use internal polls as a form of feedback from the members.
http://www.vvd-west.nl
By Rebecca Rijnders on Mar 27, 2008
Good to see her ideas at least generate discussion. Verdonk will talk about her Politics 2.0 experience on e.day 2008. (http://www.emerceeday.nl)
By Daan Jansonius on Mar 27, 2008
Hmmm….interesting concept from the stranges source. She’s got the loudest mouth and is most opinionated of all Dutch politicians (especially now Wilders has decided to stay quiet), yet she wants her ‘fans’to vote on issues?! Seems like another ‘popular’thing to do to try and please disgruntled fans who feel disconnected with current politics, but I can’t see this be a sustainable effort.
Will she ask people to vote on every topic? Maybe she could twitter from parliament to poll certain topics?
A bit off topic, but she was already getting paid for not showing up at parliament because she is too busy ‘connecting’ with the people and now she is also expecting her fanbase to write her campaign manifesto for her? Those network parties and money begging sessions must be really taking a toll on her! ;)