The cornerstone of the democratic system is its participatory nature. Governments in democratic nations are formed by the people, of the people, and for the people. Here in Australia we’re famously relaxed about our engagement in the political process, but along with the rights that we take for granted come certain responsibilities. Some of those responsibilities are compulsory (like voting) and some are somewhat expected and implied.

One of those more implied responsibilities is participation in the democratic process; it is widely held that one of the measures of the strength of a democracy is the level of the electorate’s engagement. Participation in your country’s democracy can take many forms, and recently I’ve gotten to thinking about the scale of democratic participation and especially where blogging might fall on that scale.

But first, the scale. At the lower extreme of that participation scale there’s probably the bare bones of participation: a citizen’s simple awareness of political news and debate. At one step higher there might be thinking about that political news and debate. At another step higher there might be contributing to that debate by talking about it with another person.

At the upper extreme of the participation scale there’s probably being an elected representative in Parliament. At one step lower might be immediate advisors to the most important politicians. At another step lower might be public servants who work in ministries.

But then where do journalists, lobbyists, celebrities who don’t shut up, bloggers, and Steve Fielding fit? Taking just bloggers as an example for discussion, there are lots of different variables to take into account. Let’s start with three hypothetical examples.

Blogger A dutifully plugs away at a political blog to a regular readership of bugger all. The blogger approaches political matters seriously but without enormous depth or knowledge. The blogger’s work is mainly opinion, mainly based on anecdotal opinion.

Blogger B maintains a political blog with a large and dedicated readership. The blogger approaches political matters seriously, backing up their opinions and conclusions with data and evidence.

Blogger C maintains a political blog with a reasonably large readership. The blogger approaches political matters from a satirical angle with not much depth. The blogger’s work is mainly opinion and there is no real evidence of research.

On the face of it, there’s no real doubt that Blogger B would be placed higher on the participation scale than Bloggers A or C, and it’s likely that Blogger C would be higher than A due to the greater readership. But there are two specific factors that occur to me: influence and intent.

How do we measure the influence of a blogger? I’d say that influence is apparent and measurable in the size of the regular readership, the number of (serious and on-topic) comments, and the amount of links back to a blogger from other blogs. Less apparent and measurable manifestations of influence might be the effect that a blogger’s work has on readers. If a blog post inspires a reader to talk about the issue with others away from the Internet, or causes the reader to change their mind about an issue, or even just think about an issue, then it can be reasonably said that the blogger has had influence.

Looking again at the three hypothetical bloggers above, let’s take two of them and make a slight change: Blogger A attracts a reader by chance who is so taken by the body of Blogger A’s work and Blogger A’s opinions that the reader changes his or her allegiance from major political party X to major political party Y. Blogger B’s readership is fairly homogenous, and while they are passionately engaged in political argument and debate, nothing that Blogger B has written has ever significantly changed a reader’s thinking. How would these new scenarios change our assessment of the bloggers’ participation in democracy?

The second specific factor I thought about was intent. Taking hypothetical Blogger C, let’s assume that he or she has no actual intent to influence political debate because they’re only concerned with having a good laugh. But if one of Blogger C’s readers changes their political allegiance upon reading a satirical blog post, does that change Blogger C’s positioning on the participation scale?

And one final hypothetical example for consideration: Bob stands on the side of a main road for eight hours a day, seven days a week, for the three years between federal elections. Bob waves at motorists a variety of placards bearing topical but partisan political messages. Bob’s intent is clear, and the time and effort he put into attempting to influence other people is significant. Meanwhile, Sally studiously maintains a political blog for that same three years but her readership never really takes off. A couple of people drop in for long and serious debates about political issues but there is never any real regular readership. Is it Bob or Sally who has demonstrated greater participation in their democracy?

So some questions and discussion points for you, dear readers:

• Is it possible to broadly place professions and activities on a scale of democratic participation, or are there so many variables to take into account that each individual case must be assessed individually?
• If broad categorisation is possible, and democratic participation can be measured on a scale of one to ten – one being the bare minimum awareness of political news and debate, and ten being elected as a political representative – what else counts as democratic participation and where does it fall on the scale?
• What are your thoughts about the democratic participation of the three hypothetical bloggers?
• Are intent and influence important factors for consideration, and are there any others?
• Who is the greater participant: Bob or Sally?

Let’s talk.