"Politics 2.0" that is more than the continuation of politics by other means. It is the promise Policy more by civil commitment, to improve them through participation and collaboration. "Politics 2.0" that is a symbol of our hopes on a new and powerful boost to our flagging democracy.
"Politics 2.0" stands for the connection of politics and Web 2.0 and the term implies a new kind of synergy of politics, technology and social movement, through which it is possible to think about politics differently, so think again - from politics 1.0 to policy 2.0.
be doing so, the media and academic interest in the topic Politics 2.0 easily divided into two areas that I borrow from the actual development in the case of Barack Obama: On the one policy is put 2.0 in connection with election campaign (MYBO), protest movements (Iran, Moldova) and other non-parliamentary involvement, on the other researchers, it is democracy as a way of governance, new forms of deliberation to improve (open government initiative). We can understand policy
2.0 so as a term for "Activism 2.0 and 2.0 Deliberation." The distinction is, as I said, both analytical and historical nature, the initial hype surrounding the election of Obama and the Politics 2.0 has subsided, the debate is now a serious nature, he seeks to science - rational deliberation replaced activism Deliberation Activism 2.0 replaced 2.0.
ie not to say that the activism 2.0 now no attention would be devoted - to the contrary. Only it seems, however, so that, depending on temperament and conviction, you either dedicated to one or the other, divided into two camps Policy 2.0, actually "Policy 2".
Whereas the "Activists 2.0" on the share a page, a liberal values of spontaneity, creativity and rhetorical influence are the "Deliberatisten 2.0" social-democratic nature, they believe in equality, the power of the better argument, and rules that have the guarantee anything.
Thus, within 2.0 of the old policy Dispute over the meaning of "public" reproduced: on the one hand, libertarians who celebrate the public as a zone of anarchist market, on the other side, the Social Democrats haber Mascher character who understand the public as Deliberationsforum. "Agora", which has always been both: marketplace and forum.
Now there is no reason why these both components, activism and deliberation 2.0 2.0, are not complementary to each other could, and both are part of the political process. Unfortunately, it is in reality often the case that, just as shown, both are separated from one another thought. This is so special but lost the Web 2.0, what could be described as a "Silicon Valley-synthesis": the combination of creativity and egalitarianism, of anarchy and rationality. A separation of these elements means, therefore, ultimately, to deprive their own foundation of politics 2.0, momentum, and to rob their inherent political power. Furthermore, this separation leads
to a legitimization of both, the activists need a deliberative forum for their views to transpose to an acceptable format for the policies and the need Deliberativisten activism to gain support even from outside.
So it is, I believe, absolutely necessary, the two phenomena do not study separately from each other; or, if not already possible, but at least think about an effective integration. Only then can policy 2.0 of the many hopes resting on her, possibly meet.
