A friend tweeted the article linked below at me a few weeks ago, I didn't have time to think about it until today, but here are my quick thoughts.
Here is the link to the article: http://techpresident.com/news/23658/backchannel-open-government-working
The author shares some interesting thoughts, but I first want to make a comment on how 'open government' is framed at the beginning of the article:
The author is excluding all the other aspects of what I consider 'open government.' She excludes the other goals that are present in addition to holding government accountable. For example, there is a lot of potential for collaborative and participatory approaches that could create better solutions that government, citizens, and other parts of society can achieve. I don't think the success or failure of these types of open government initiatives can be determined by whether the accountability mechanisms between government and citizens are stronger. It should be measured by whether something better is created - like a solution to a previously unsolvable problem.
Yes, accountability of government to citizens, is a component of open government, but equating the two is neglecting to consider the other aspects.
Ignoring this though, because the author asks good questions about the accountability piece (that can also be used to think through success/failure of the other goals of the open government movement), I have a few comments about what she shared.
I believe that she is correct on her comments about on the focus of number of tweets, data sets, etc as measures of success or failure. The efforts have been too activity or output focused and not enough have been impact focused. We need to address this. There is evidence that an individuals participation in civic activity, leads to more civic activity. But, I do wonder if participants in these activities, "visualizing, hacking, and democratically minded, merrymaking" as the author puts it, see what they are doing as a civic activity. If they don't, then I doubt that the civic activity they have participated in, is leading to another one.
The question of: "How then can open government initiatives realistically engage both citizens and governments to work toward better outcomes?" is a great one. She talked about there being a lot of focus on either citizens or government, not both. I agree with her assessment. In many conversations I have had (although not all), among government officials and citizens, there are two main points that come out: a lack of confidence in the others willingness to do more (or even do things differently), and a treatment of the other group, whether citizen(s) or government, as an unknown entity that they don't understand, and too often think negatively of. It's like the two groups have never interacted before and see each other as some strange monster they don't understand.
I think both parties need to begin thinking of the other as both a partner, and to use business language loosely, as a customer. How do we design our open gov projects and instruments to fit the world of the other group/customer: whether government or citizen? How can we change our designs to fit the constraints, culture, etc. of citizens or government? We need to understand the position of the other group and design our projects to both push the bounds but also fit the bounds of how they operate and what they can do.
I suggest you take a look at the article, and share your thoughts as well. Here is the link again: http://techpresident.com/news/23658/backchannel-open-government-working
