Napoleon's Balancing Act

Never before has there been such a potential for two-way participation in government.  Of all government systems that have come before, no matter how democratic or free, none have had the benefits that internet access brings.  Communicating with representatives and other leaders has never been easier or faster; information can be spread throughout the country to inform citizens virtually everywhere.  It's unprecedented, really.  So, it's difficult to look to the past for good examples of open government, because there is no comparison to the current situation.  However, it is essential to understand past national leaders and how they ran their countries in order to evaluate success and failures in government.


Napoleon Bonaparte's system of government was paradoxical in many ways.  After the French Revolution, the people demanded a greater level of equality than what they had experienced under a monarch.  Napoleon, on the other hand, wanted to be an absolute ruler.  Therefore, he had to do a balancing act: while granting many liberties that the nation had fought for in 1789--such as freedom of religion, protection of private property, careers open to talent, and abolition of serfdom--he also created a centralized government that had control over education, strictly censored art and literature, prevented trade unions, and oppressed conquered nations.  He spread positive propaganda about himself, and had spies throughout the country that made sure any criticism of the government was stopped.  Napoleon had to keep up good appearances, so although he was a dictator, he built roads and did away with feudalism.  In this way, the emperor of France prevented anarchy and revolution.


There are still laws in France and throughout Europe that incorporate Napoleon's civil code.  The freedoms already discussed made France better than it had ever been before, and they made Napoleon's empire famous.  That is where he succeeded.  His ambition, however, became his downfall when he tried to conquer Russia. 


Napoleon's government had many good points, such as equality and unity, but his desire for absolute power prevented the nation from becoming truly open.  When people's ideas and opinions are censored by the government, information is unreliable.


http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/lecture15a.html

Output/input

This is my section for the government chapter so far.  To see sources, go to the annotated bibliography,

If indeed the American government is of the people, by the people, and for the people, public involvement in government must be ensured.   All US citizens need both to be well-informed and to participate.  In order to do this, US citizens must be able to easily and accurately learn about and comment on government procedures.  Government officials need to be able to share information and ask for input from the public, while the public shares ideas, comments, or complaints with the government.  The system of the United States government was formed with the idea that all men are created equal.  This means that all men and women should have a say in how the nation is run, both locally and at the Federal level.
           This is open government.  It means citizens have the right to have access to the governmental process, including documents and proceedings.  Furthermore, it means the citizens should be able to comment and participate in government processes with ease.  The Obama administration has been trying to increase openness with the public.  The White House’s official website is whitehouse.gov/open, and it has a blog on open government, and also a link where citizens can create and sign petitions.  There's also challenge.gov, which calls itself "the central platform for crowd sourcing US government challenges, contests, competitions and open innovation prizes."  Basically, government agencies can ask for submissions/solutions to challenges/problems and the public can give their ideas.  Unfortunately, very few people actually use the site.

This is a general problem.  Although government officials are taking steps towards openness, the public is not participating.  So, if the American system is a government of the people, by the people, for the people, it must provide a way get the word out and help everyone in the nation get in on the online conversation.

There are several examples throughout history of leaders who tried to increase awareness about Federal procedures.  First are Franklin D. Roosevelt’s fireside chats.  These actually started when Roosevelt was governor of New York, and he often used them to ask for help to get his proposed measures passed.  The public then wrote letters to the state legislature in support of these measures.  As President, he gave regular addresses over the radio to reassure the public during the Great Depression and WWII, thereby increasing the federal output of information and reaching a wide audience.  Since then there has been a regular address by the President.  President Obama has moved from a weekly radio broadcast to an audio and video form available online on YouTube and whitehouse.gov.

Although these weekly reports do not reach the entire nation, President Obama's hangouts on Google+ and YouTube videos interface with modern culture.  FDR used the radio, which was popular in his day, and Obama has switched to a medium that more people use.

Other examples come from our nation’s birth.  Thomas Paine’s Common Sense pamphlet argued for American independence from Britain by challenging the monarchical system.  He wrote in simple language that the common man could understand.  Later, The Federalist Papers, written by John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton, promoted the ratification of the Constitution.  They were printed in three newspapers in New York, and Hamilton encouraged their publication in newspapers outside of the state as well.  Again, we see that when leaders use a popular medium, and write in a way that can be easily understood, it has a greater influence on the public.  Also, government output should encourage the public to act in some way.  Open government is not simply about learning the issues, but having citizens make a change.

           On the other side, an example of increased public participation is the civil rights movement.  African Americans wanted to have their voting rights restored--after the 15th Amendment was passed, laws in the South still prevented many African Americans from voting--and to have a more equal society.  Through non-violent protests they added their voices to the conversation.  Also, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech was televised and had a huge effect on the nation.  Civilians don't always have to share their ideas through technological advancements, however.  The Montgomery bus boycotts sent a message to the government just as much as the televised march on Washington.  When the public are unable to give their voice (such as when there is discrimination or limited suffrage), they will find a way to be heard.
           So, it seems that the government must use a medium that the public uses.  That means it can't limit itself to only Google+ or Facebook.  However, that doesn’t necessarily mean creating a new product to be used universally.  Francesca Barrietos and Elizabeth Foughty write, “Government doesn’t need to invent new Web 2.0 tools or be the next Google—it just needs to use already proven tools” (Barrietos, 35).  The public already have many online resources available, but they may not know about them.  Rather than have the government try to come up with some new interface (which always run the risk of bugs in the system), they can use proven, popular tools already in place.  However, they will need to increase awareness about these sites and how to use them in order for them to be effective.

Conversely, the public must have an easy, simple way to share ideas with the government or they will have to resort to more drastic means.

           Another problem is that people simply aren’t sure how to share their ideas.  They want to add their voice to the conversation, and even to make a difference, but they don’t know how.  There are several online government forums and social networking sites that can help with this, including govloop.com, govcollab.wikispaces.com, collaborationproject.org, govsocmed.pbwiki.com, and others.   There are many blogs that give opinions on current legislative policies and movements, and also ideas on how to get involved.
           For example, one blogger on govloop.com has proposed an idea for how to decrease corporate influence during elections and in legislative measures in a post titled “Nationwide Grassroots Project Will Amend U.S. Constitution to End Corporate Power in Elections.”  In this case, this blog is not necessarily communicating directly with government representatives, but telling the public to send messages to Congress members to order a convention.  The author has a purpose and a proposed means of achieving that purpose.  She tells her audience simply what they can do to create a change by interacting with government officials.
           That's an excellent example of how to increase open government participation.  Have a goal and a way to achieve that goal.  Teach simply and give clear direction.  Really, that's a good way to increase participation in any area.

However, as helpful as these social networking sites are, if no one knows about them or where to find them, the site may as well not exist.  In order to really increase participation and collaboration in government, we must educate people on how to do it.  If the public is going to participate online (which, as mentioned, means both consuming government output, and then commenting on that output and connecting with government officials), the public must be informed about how to participate.

           There are several ways to achieve this.  Perhaps there could be advertising on billboards, magazines or newspapers in order to get those who are not participating online to go online.  Or, maybe classes might be offered in public schools and in community programs to help those who don't know how to use internet resources to become familiar and comfortable with using them.
           Many high schools already require classes such as US Government and Citizenship for graduation.  One learns about the Constitution, basic Federal procedures, the voting process, political parties, and so on in these classes.  It would be very simple to include a brief section about websites and other ways to stay connected with the government in a class like that.  It's already mandatory, so every graduating student will have passed through it, and if there was just the smallest part dedicated to teaching about where citizens can find out about government procedures, what resources they have available to learn about how to get involved, and ways they can contact representatives, it would influence an entire generation of citizens.  Furthermore, a class like that could be offered at the college level, or at community centers.
           Although we are not “engaged in a great civil war,” the words of Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg address are still true.  We must “highly resolve that… that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."  In order to do so, we must increase open government participation.  This means using a digital communications medium that is easy for citizens to use and access, and educating the public on how they may better participate in the online conversation.

Open Government: An Annotated Bibliography.

Open Government: An Annotated Bibliography.

I did most of my research through simply typing key words into the Google+ search bar and BYU's Harold B. Lee Library search bar.  One or two sources were found by looking at the sources I already had (Kim Hart, for instance, was found on Tim O'Reilly's Google+ feed).  Our group asserts that through two-way participation in government (that is, the government shares information with the public, and the public comments on and critiques that information, and even collaborates with leaders to improve government), democracy can be improved.  The below sources give some examples of how the government has been influenced by the online public, how to improve and build open government participation, and what may happen in the future, all of which are relevant to our section.

Further Reading

Kim Hart.  "Pols Fear 'SOPA backlash.'"  Politico.  2012.  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73802.html  This article comments on how technical industries were able to stop legislation (specifically, killing the SOPA/PIPA initiatives).  Grassroots and business movements can have a powerful influence on government, especially when done in mass, which is more possible now than ever before.  [Found this article on Tim O'Reilly's Google+ feed.]

Joanne Caddy, Christian Vergez, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.  Open government : fostering dialogue with civil society.  OECD Publishing.  2003.  http://books.google.com/books?id=CH8DehH5lmcC&hl=en  This book discusses open government in general in several countries.  One of the chapters includes a really good panel discussion about why citizens should participate in open government, and how to build open government.  One of the arguments is increasing awareness about the issues, which requires the government to share credible information.  [Found this book on the BYU Harold B. Lee Library website by typing Open Government into the search bar]

Francesca Barrientos, Elizabeth Foughty.  "Web 2.0 in Government."  Interactions. 16.5.  Oct. 2009.  http://delivery.acm.org/  This article explains some of the risks involved in open government (such as security problems), but also suggests ways on how to resolve these through collaboration between Web 2.0 leaders and policy makers.  One of our sections is on how open government will affect the future, and security risks are one of the things we will have to face.  Also, the authors suggest that government officials use communication tools that are already available instead of inventing new ones.  This goes right along with our argument that government officials must use technology that everyone is already familiar with.  [Found this article on the BYU Harold B. Lee Library website by typing Open Government into the search bar].


Thought Leaders

Tim O'Reilly - (http://radar.oreilly.com/gov2/) Founder and CEO of O'Reilly Media.  Computer book publisher, conference producer, internet activist.  O'Reilly has several links in his Google+ feed and the above website about open government. [I found O'Reilly by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.]

Alexander Howard - (radar.oreilly.com/alexh) Government 2.0 Washington, D.C. Correspondent for O'Reilly Media.  Also writes for Huffington Post.  Very involved in writing about open government, on his blog and for O'Reilly Media. [I found Howard by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.]

John Moore - (govinthelab.com)  Founder and CEO of Government in the Lab.  Moore is devoted to open government and the above online magazine includes writers from around the world who provide information about politics and government.  Lots of great articles on the above site about open government.  [I found Moore by typing Open Government into my Google+ search bar.] 

US Government and Citizenship Class

This week I'm mostly searching for more current open government sites and more examples of historical events that increased government participation.

It kind of reminds me of the
Subway trademark.

I found this blog post on gov.loop.com.  Whether or not I agree with the author's opinions is irrelevant.  What's important is that this woman has proposed an idea for how to decrease corporate influence during elections, and in legislative measures in general.  nationwide-grassroots-project-will-amend-us-constitution  In this case, this blog is not necessarily communicating directly with government representatives, but telling us to send messages to our Congress members to order a convention.  The author has a purpose and a proposed means of achieving that purpose.  She tells her audience simply what they can do to create a change by interacting with government officials.

That's an excellent example of how to increase open government participation.  Have a goal and a way to achieve that goal.  Teach simply and give clear direction.  Really, that's a good way to increase participation in any area.


I am more and more convinced that in order to really increase participation and collaboration in government, we must educate people on how to do it.  I found govloop.com itself after someone showed me this online slideshow http://www.slideshare.net/.  Without someone else helping me, I wouldn't know where to start.  If the public is going to participate online (which, as I've mentioned, means both consuming government output, and then commenting on that output and connecting with government officials), the public must be informed about how to participate.

When I was in high school, I took a mandatory class called US Government and Citizenship.  I learned about the Constitution, basic Federal procedures, the voting process, political parties, etc.  And, hey, I took that class online!  How easy would it be to include a brief section about websites and other ways to stay connected with the government in a class like that?  It's already mandatory, so every graduating student will have passed through it, and if there was just the smallest part dedicated to teaching about where citizens can find out about government procedures, what resources they have available to learn about how to get involved, and ways they can contact representatives, it would influence an entire generation of citizens.  Furthermore, a class like that could be offered at the college level, or at community centers.

So far, education sounds like the best route.  The slideshow linked above explains that we move from education to observation to broadcasting to participating to building relationships to collaborating.  The first step is to educate.

Hindsight is 20/20

I just want to clarify that when I talk about increasing participation, I mean both ways: the government gives/shares information or asks for input from the public, and the public shares ideas, comments, or complaints with the government.

Continuing with the question, how do we increase participation in open government, I decided to take a look back at history.  The fist thing that came to mind was FDR's fireside chats.  I found out these actually started when Roosevelt was governor of New York, and he often used them to ask for help to get his proposed measures passed.  The public then wrote letters to the legislation in support of these measures.  As President, he gave a regular address over the radio to reassure the public during the Great Depression and WWII.  I didn't realize that since then there has been a regular address by the president.  Obama has moved from a weekly radio broadcast to an audio and video form available online on YouTube and whitehouse.gov.  In this case, Roosevelt increased the federal output of information and reached a wide audience.

I think another example is the civil rights movement.  African Americans wanted to have their voting rights restored and to have a more equal society.  Through non-violent protests they added their voices to the conversation.  Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I have a dream" speech was televised and had a huge effect on the nation.  Civilians don't always have to share their ideas through technological advancements, however.  The Montgomery bus boycotts sent a message to the government just as much as the televised march on Washington.  When the public are unable to give their voice (such as when there is discrimination or limited suffrage), they will find a way to be heard.

So, it seems that the government must use a medium that the public uses (President Roosevelt used the radio, which was a common means of communication in his day, while President Obama has moved to the internet), and the public must get their message across in a way that is noticeable.  One example of this is the recent Kony 2012 video.  Although controversial, it is certainly getting a lot of attention.  If the government is to reach the entire nation, it must communicate through a medium that everyone uses.  That means it can't limit itself to only google+ or only Facebook.  And the public needs an easy way to share ideas with the government or they will have to resort to more drastic means. 

All in all, we need something universal: something everyone can access to receive and share information.  The only trick is to maintain individualism at the same time.

Of the people, by the people, for the people.

I am almost hesitant to quote Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address because it is to beautiful it feels irreverent to use it in a blog about digital communication, but the other part of me loves it so much that I can't resist quoting it.  So, for a moment forget the subject of this blog and just think of the significance of these words.  Lincoln said in this address that the men that had fought and died at Gettysburg had already dedicated that ground, and all that he and the rest of America could do was increase their "devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Lincoln, more than anything, was dedicated to the American cause: "A new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."  He could not allow that nation, that experiment in democracy, to fall.

Here's where I shift to digital civilization and feel irreverent.  If indeed our government is of the people, by the people, for the people, we need to ensure that the people are involved in the government.  We need all of our citizens to be well-informed and to participate.  We may not be engaged in a great civil war, but if our civilians are not involved in the government, our nation isn't truly democratic, and the American experiment fails.

Open government means citizens have the right to have access to the governmental process, including documents and proceedings.  Furthermore, in my opinion, it means the citizens should be able to comment and participate in government processes with ease.  whitehouse.gov/open is the White House's official website, and it has a blog on open government, and also a link where citizens can create and sign petitions.  There's also a link to challenge.gov, which calls itself, "The central platform for crowdsourcing US government challenges, contests, competitions and open innovation prizes."  Basically, government agencies can ask for submissions/solutions to challenges/problems and the public can give their ideas.  Unfortunately, as far as I have seen very few people actually use the site.

This is a general problem.  Although government officials are taking steps towards openness, the public is not participating.  Another example is President Obama's hangout on google+ and weekly reports, akin to President Franklin D. Roosevelt's fireside chats.  Although this is a great example of openness and connecting with the nation, you need to have access to these hangouts and reports.  I didn't even know how to find these and I have a google+ account.  Once again it goes back to the digital divide.  Even those who have internet access may not have all the resources they need to truly participate in open government.

So, if we're to have a government of the people, by the people, for the people we need to find a find a way to get the word out and help everyone in the nation get in on the online conversation.  Perhaps this means advertising on billboards, magazines or newspapers in order to get those who are not participating online to go online.  Or, maybe we should offer classes in public schools and in community programs to help those who don't know how to use internet resources to become familiar and comfortable with using them.

Whatever we do, we need to reach everyone, not just a few people.  Democracy includes everyone.

The Master Switch

I just started reading The Master Switch by Tim Wu and I'm already really excited about it.  Wu explains in the introduction his idea of "the Cycle."  Basically, throughout the 20th Century, new information technologies were created and a utopian, optimistic view of how the innovation could affect the future follows. 

After a while, the flaws and limitations of the invention are revealed, and consumers are disappointed.  A mogul then comes along and takes control, improving but also monopolizing the industry.  This happened with AT&T with the telephone industry, NBC and CBS with radio broadcasting, Hollywood studios with film, and others.  Often government organizations aided in this monopolization, like the Federal Communications Commission helped NBC and CBS shape the television industry.

Over time, however, these monopolies are broken up.  It can be caused by a new innovation coming along, or, ironically, by the federal government which had actually aided in centralizing the industry.  The internet is a huge example of an innovation that disrupted several industries, opening up communication lines that had been closed and controlled for so long.

When you control the mail, you control... INFORMATION!

Unfortunately, the Cycle inevitably restarts with whatever innovation it was that decentralized communication.  Wu points out AT&T's uncanny ability to come back again and again and monopolize new industries.  No matter how amazing or promising the invention, information technologies always get caught up in the Cycle and someone takes sole, or nearly sole charge of it.  And those who own the industries control information.  Wu quotes Fred Friendly of CBS and says, "Before any question of free speech comes the question of 'who controls the master switch.'"  Wu further explains, "We sometimes treat the information industries as if they were like any other enterprise, but they are not, for their structure determines who gets heard."

Wu's concern is that the internet as we know it, open and wild and full of free speech, will eventually fall into this same Cycle.  If one corporation has control of the internet, the information we consume will be filtered.  He states, "It is an underacknowledged truism that, just as you are what you eat, how and what you think depends on what information you are exposed to."  By the way, I just want to point out that that totally goes along with my Tweethis.  Anyway, when there's a monopoly on a communication industry, the consumers will have their minds changed due to the information they are given.  We need a decentralized, open internet to allow people to get the truth.  Otherwise, the person who controls the master switch will also control our society because they will control our information and therefore what we think.

I'm a little more accepting of openness now.