Andrea Di MaioAlthough I rarely touch on politics on this blog (I am neither qualified nor interested), I found a news that shed some light on the struggles and contradictions of what many define “Government 2.0”.
Tom Steinberg of MySociety, who has been one of the minds behind the seminal Power of Information Report – which started to move the UK Government toward “Government 2.0” – has become an advisor to the Conservative party. Conservatives have been at the opposition for quite some time, through three Tony Blair’s terms and now with Gordon Brown. Some time ago they took some bold stance on cloud computing (see previous post) and now they seem to move full steam toward government 2.0 by hiring a well respected expert like Tom.
Steinberg explained his reasons in a blog post, and got a quite critical answer from Labor MP Tom Watson. Steinberg advised the current government and his move looks like a betrayal to Labor supporters. While he stresses that he remains politically neutral and, more importantly, his move does not concern his company MySociety, it is quite clear that either side can give whatever interpretation they see fit.
What interests me, though, is how people like Steinberg in the UK or like Beppe Grillo in Italy (a comedian and top blogger who unsuccessfully tried to run for heading the largest opposition party) feel the urge to join or take sides with a party, although they have been making independence and grass-root approach their mantra.
What does it mean, if government 2.0 leaders start setting within more traditional organizational boundaries, such as those of a political party? Isn’t that a sign that, does not matter how much we blog or tweet, we have to converge back to established forms of aggregation, be they parties, NGOs or – indeed – government agencies?
Of course one cannot derive such a conclusion from a couple of rather unrelated events. But I think it is worth reflecting about what the end game for spontaneous forms of aggregation – such as online social network – is going to be if we want ideas to stick and actions to take place.
Perhaps going back into existing silos is the price to be paid for moving from vision (and there are plenty around government 2.0) to execution. If that’s the case, though, it is unlikely that part of the vision will be acceptable to those who execute it.
Category: web 2.0 in government Tags: politics, power of information
11 responses so far ↓
1 Tweets that mention Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? -- Topsy.com October 5, 2009 at 6:47 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Andrea DiMaio and Nahum Gershon. Nahum Gershon said: RT @AndreaDiMaio: Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? – http://bit.ly/3zekje #gov20 [...]
2 FutureGov » Useful links » links for 2009-10-05 October 5, 2009 at 9:01 am
[...] Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? nice take on the situation. herierarchy rules ok? (tags: hierarchy bureaucracy gov20 government uk mysociety) [...]
3 Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? « News October 5, 2009 at 10:04 am
[...] this link: Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? Comments [...]
4 Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? « Noya Khobor October 5, 2009 at 10:32 am
[...] Continued here: Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? [...]
5 Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? » words October 5, 2009 at 12:03 pm
[...] Link: Will Politics 1.0 Swallow Government 2.0? [...]
6 dan mcquillan October 6, 2009 at 7:35 pm
interesting post. my response was too long for a comment so i blogged it
. http://www.internetartizans.co.uk/politics1government2.
cheers,
dan
7 Ogov: Voluntad de agitar o reinventar October 9, 2009 at 3:15 am
[...] encontré una noticia que arroja alguna luz sobre las luchas y las contradicciones de lo que muchos definen “el [...]
8 saidimu apale October 13, 2009 at 12:30 pm
> Isn’t that a sign that, does not matter how much we blog or tweet,
> we have to converge back to established forms of aggregation
I’m not certain that is the case. It is rather a sign that just as blogs/tweets were created to enable alternate forms of aggregation, new alternatives need to be created to accommodate the new kinds of execution required.
The alternative: retrofitting new ideas into old structures.
saidimu apale
9 Government 2.0 #FAIL « The Green Dotted Line October 14, 2009 at 2:53 pm
[...] all learn something valuable from failed projects. I think, however, that the presence of politics changes the equation. Gene Krantz’s immortal quote, “Failure is not an option,” [...]
10 Government 2.0 #FAIL « GovTwit October 15, 2009 at 10:18 am
[...] all learn something valuable from failed projects. I think, however, that the presence of politics changes the equation. Gene Krantz’s immortal quote, “Failure is not an option,” is the mantra [...]
11 Government 2.0 #FAIL | GovTwit February 20, 2010 at 12:21 pm
[...] all learn something valuable from failed projects. I think, however, that the presence of politics changes the equation. Gene Krantz’s immortal quote, “Failure is not an option,” is the mantra [...]