Why are we so hard on our politicians - and ourselves? A postscript

In an earlier post I asked why were so hard on our politicians, suggesting that this was damaging democracy itself.

There was a short session on ABC Radio National tonight in which Anthony Moran reported on a new book written by he and Judith Brett. (Ordinary People's Politics: Australian's talk about their life, politics and the future of their country, Judith Brett and Anthony Moran, Pluto Press ISBN 1 86403 257 X) . I quote in part:

When commentators argue over what ordinary people think and feel about politics, their focus is often too narrow. It has become a cliche of Australian political commentary that ordinary people aren't interested in politics anymore, that they are disengaged from public life and institutions and focused instead on their private concerns, and that they can't stand politicians. Well, if it's true that they don't like or trust politicians today, it's also true that they never liked or trusted them very much in the past either. Declining trust in politicians since the 1970s closely mirrors declining trust in other professions such as bank managers, lawyers and journalists - and the reasons for that include a citizenry more questioning of all kinds of authority and expertise. Political engagement waxes and wanes, depending on the times and the pressing issues. In fact, evidence from surveys points to a citizenry that is more informed than ever before, and levels of political apathy are not as high as they were, for example, in the 1960s.

I found Anthony's brief remarks interesting. They draw out the way in which changing attitudes towards politicians are a sub-set of a broader pattern of change. We all know this, but it is still a helpful reminder. I also find it interesting that so much of the discussion about social change including changing social attitudes keeps on coming back to the seventies as the key decade.

Anthony's comments also suggest a pattern of political engagement and interest that is far more complex than the simple question of direct involvement in formal politics. I think that this is right and it's an interesting issue.

Take blogging as an example. The proportion of the population that reads blogs is small, the proportion actively blogging smaller still. Many bloggers are still very defensive about the activity. Yet when we stand back and look at the overall pattern some very interesting features emerge.

The first is simply the law of large numbers.

The proportion blogging may be small, but the absolute number of blogs is substantial simply because the population is large. If only half of one per cent of Australians have blogs, then this equates to 100,000 blogs. I have seen numbers suggesting that up to 4 per cent of the population has/has had a blog. If true, this equates to 800,000 blogs.

Many of these blogs are inactive, a number strictly social, a way of sharing photos and chit chat. However, again the law of large numbers comes into play. If only half of one per cent of existing Australian blogs involve regular reflection, analysis or commentary, then we are still looking at somewhere between 500 and 2,000 blogs.

Of course, if bloggers simply write for themselves without readers (a common fear among bloggers), then the story ends here with 500-2,000 active but unread commentators. In fact, and I find this the really interesting part, there appear to be clear patterns in the way in which ideas and information spread among the blogging community, both writers and the larger readership group.

Here I am not talking about the so-called A list bloggers, those who have established major world wide audiences in particular areas, but about the way in which individual blogs carve out often small niches of influence. These niches overlap, so that in the case of the Australian reflective/commentator blogs we have, say, 500-2,000 overlapping circles of various sizes adopting very varying positions.

Often, conversation occurs among people with like ideas. Arguably, the main effect here is to reinforce common positions, but there is also an energising effect that does have direct political impact.

Beyond this, conversation also takes in areas of overlap between different positions. Individual effects may be small. Neil's expertise on education and the Higher School Certificate causes me to change some of my own views. A small change at individual level. But multiply this across the total blogging audience and the aggregate impact can be substantial, again because of the law of large numbers.

I accept that bloggers are almost by definition an unrepresentative group. But each blogger knows a circle of people outside blogging, so that the blog discussions get carried out into a wider circle.

Linking all this back to my opening point, Anthony's suggestion that the pattern of political involvement and interest is far more complex than the simple question of direct involvement in formal politics. I think that the blogging case shows this very clearly.

Which actually leads me to wonder just how blogging is starting to affect the political process. But I think that I will leave this hanging for the moment.