e-Petitions: Power to the People?

News emerged in the past week that MPs will debate the two e-petitions to have successfully amassed 100,000 online signatures.  On 13 October, in the first such debate to materialise from the government’s latest e-democracy experiment, the House will debate controversial calls to remove benefits from those found guilty of involvement in recent riots that swept the country, while on 17 October the topic of discussion will be the somewhat less contentious issue of releasing documents relating to the 1989 Hillsborough disaster.  High speed rail, however, will not feature on the agenda after the petition presented by campaigners against the £34bn project, despite accruing more than the requisite number of signatures, was deemed to be void as only half were gathered online.

In the previous meeting of the Commons Backbench Business Committee, the first since the e-petitions website went live a mere two days prior to the summer recess, no Member broached either of the issues dominating online activity.  Accordingly, the Committee, tasked with discussing the merits of e-petitions surpassing the 100,000 signature mark and deciding whether or not to assign a Parliamentary slot, did not allocate any time on 15 September to their discussion.  Despite far exceeding the levels of online support deemed necessary to trigger a Commons debate, discussion by MPs in the Chamber was effectively postponed until after the Autumn Party Conference season at the earliest.

This failure to act was broadly criticised; claims that omitting to allocate time to debating issues raised through official channels confirm that e-petitions are a light-touch gained momentum.  Furthermore, following the HS2 ruling, others viewed e-petitions as failing in their quest to produce a richer democratic framework, being detached from other forms of participation rather than promoting a joined-up system of participation.  How much truth there is in these assertions will only become clear once the procedures and infrastructure mature, though if history is to be our guide, such allegations may prove correct.  Contrary to contentions that the entire notion cheapens democracy, relegating Parliamentary tradition to ‘X Factor style politics’, such a failure would be a missed opportunity for broadening democratic engagement.

The notion of petitioning Parliament dates back centuries and, in its purer paper form, has long been an accepted means through which to convey opinion to the government of the day.  Digitising the process arguably overcomes logistical barriers posed by narrow localism, encouraging participation in the political realm across a wider geographical area and reinvigorating a little-understood and neglected mechanism through the application of twenty-first century technology.  Indeed, with paper petitions being deposited behind the Speaker’s chair in a plastic bag upon receipt, John Bercow has suggested that placing petitions online will enhance legitimacy and the seriousness with which they are taken, in turn enriching democracy by encouraging participation in the political process.

To be sure, online petitions are not an innovation of the Tory-led coalition; Hollyrood began experimenting with cyber suffrage as early as the turn of the new millennium, while localities such as Bristol and the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames joined the progressive e-democrats in 2004.  This is not to mention the Number 10 e-petitions website that was suspended immediately prior to the general election in 2010.  Significantly, according to Fergus Cochrane, clerk to the Public Petitions Committee at the Scottish Parliament, e-petitions now outnumber their paper counterparts, confirming the benefits to be had from providing greater participatory opportunities.  

It is important to recognise that any debate emerging from an online petition is not intended to coerce the government into action: the popularly held belief, propagated by the e-petitions homepage, that e-petitions are a simple means to ‘influence government policy’ is misguided.  This is a reality that the government needs to address in order to avoid disengaging those it seeks to galvanise, having been a primary failing of the previous Number 10 petitions website.

Instead, as noted by Peter Riddell, the underlying objective is to enhance public engagement and facilitate debate on issues of popular importance.  In this respect, e-petitions do not bestow upon the public the direct ability to force the government’s hand, and rightly so.  They do, however, allow a degree of influence over the political agenda and provide an additional channel of involvement.  Such is the nature of representative democracy.  Consequently, given the tight limits on Parliamentary time and the deficiency in the number of days allocated to Backbench Business Committee matters, not every petition achieving the 100,000 signature target will be deemed worthy of a full-length debate; some may be adequately dealt with by a ministerial statement on the issue in the House, while others may not warrant any action.  With this being a logistical necessity rather than a broader indictment of e-petitions, it is unfortunate that this reality brings the e-petitions website dangerously close to the failings of its predecessor.

In an interesting contrast to the Westminster model, the Public Petitions Committee in Scotland offers advice and feedback on issues such as wording and topicality, promoting relevance to government business and maximising the potential for success.  With the Committee reacting to petitions covering issues within the Scottish Parliament's remit rather than relying on the court of public opinion to gauge suitability as per the Westminster interpretation, the Hollyrood model provides greater scope for intelligent and inclusive agenda setting, albeit in a less than democratic fashion.  However, this brings the benefit of avoiding strictly populist issues that often verge on the absurd – the petition on the Number 10 petitions website to install Jeremy Clarkson as PM, receiving almost 50,000 votes, is a prime example.

With e-petitions not handing the electorate the unqualified power to determine the legislative process that many thought the process promised, opining that the entire notion is failing to empower citizens has become an attractive proposition.  Democratic arrangements in Britain,  however, coupled with the already-manic Parliamentary timetable, preclude such an aim.  Nevertheless, in excess of a million digital signatures have thus far been collected, and debates have been scheduled in the Chamber on issues arising directly from e-petitions.  Broadening the scope for participation in such a way undoubtedly strengthens democratic credentials, with the ability to shape the political agenda, and potentially legislative discourse, empowering citizens with greater leverage.  While the system may not be perfect (the arbitrary 100,000 signature requirement, for example, may require future adjustments), any means that promotes participatory potential can only be good for the health of democracy.

Freedom Of Speech In Post-Riot London

Announcing a 30-day blanket ban on marches across five London boroughs (Tower Hamlets, Newham, Waltham Forest, Islington and Hackney), Home Secretary Theresa May yesterday derailed plans for English Defence League (EDL) demonstrations on 3 September.  Following a request from Scotland Yard Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin, May took the decision to ban ‘all marches’ after having ‘carefully considered the legal tests in the Public Order Act and balanced rights to protest against the need to ensure local communities and property are protected’.  Is this a step too far, illegitimately restricting free speech, or is there a genuine call for pre-emptive action on grounds of preventing public disorder?

Adding another dimension to the already thorny trade-off between liberty and security is the similar ban that May sanctioned in Telford on 13 August amidst similar fears of disorder.  The Met, citing receipt of ‘specific intelligence’ which led it to believe that ‘serious public disorder, violence and damage could be caused by the presence of marches in these areas’, suggested that a ban was the most effective avoidance strategy and cemented a dangerous precedent.  With many such demonstrations resulting in some degree of violence, both with opposition demonstrators and amongst EDL sympathisers, the argument that all future EDL demonstrations should be outlawed on similar grounds will gain momentum.  This would be a clear violation of free speech principles; while the outlook being championed may be abhorrent, such a reaction, flying in the face of liberal democratic values, would prove equally objectionable.  Furthermore, drawing attention to the ban not only allows the EDL to portray an image of a subjugated group, but also retracts some of the rope, through prevention of negative press coverage, afforded to the group with which to hang itself.  In this respect, an outright ban appears counterintuitive.

With Stephen Lennon, the EDL's founder (also known by the name Tommy Robinson), proclaiming that the EDL would ‘still show up’ in Tower Hamlets, vowing to hold a static demonstration and ‘have our voices heard’, the potential exists for any disorder to be amplified by the ban.  While a statement on the EDL website claimed that ‘[n]owadays, the anti-extremism aims of our organisation are clear, and there is no reason to think that an EDL demonstration would contain any dangerous elements’, such contentions are easily refuted by Lennon recently being charged with common assault following an altercation at a demonstration.  Similarly, the assertion is fundamentally flawed insofar as the EDL was formed with the specific objective of protesting against the alleged spread of Islamic extremism; with Tower Hamlets playing home to the sizeable East London Mosque and a large Muslim population, any such action is destined to stoke tensions unless it is starved of the oxygen of publicity.  Indeed, Lennon has already acknowledged that ‘the police have told us that it will be the most hostile environment they have seen. … They say marching through there will be absolute suicide’.  The question then arises as to whether a static meeting similar to that which eventually took place in Telford would pose a greater threat of public disorder than the initial demonstration, with the latter at least having the strategic benefit of wayfaring brevity.

It is indisputably true that disorder in London, in the wake of recent events, would be even more unwelcome than usual.  Nonetheless, rumours that budget constraints limiting further police overtime played a part in deliberations, coupled with favourable consideration for a police force under immense strain, would be detestable if proven.  Indeed, with the threat of a static demonstration, about which the Met are powerless to act, a visible police presence will likely be required regardless.   Equally, spurious links between Anders Behring Breivik and the EDL should not be allowed to carry any weight: many a convicted criminal will undoubtedly have (proven) sympathies to legitimate political groupings.

It would appear, then, that Peter Tatchell was accurate in labelling the blanket ban a ‘complete overreaction’, suggesting that such action has the potential to be vastly counter-productive and correctly asserting that anti-democratic groups can only be defeated through ‘exposing… bigoted and violent views’.  (However, his favouring of ‘mass counter protests’ would perhaps be undesirable in this instance, given the history of EDL disorder and the ethnic composition of the area in question.)  Indeed, the key to overcoming such divisive views in the long run is a policy of engagement and education, promoting tolerance of all views and allowing those based on prejudice and intolerance to be shown as such.  As Thomas Jefferson famously declared, ‘error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it’.