If you have been following my blog for some time, you know that I am relatively old (born in 1965), and that I saw since my childhood political campaigns- before being part of my first ones as a teenager.
I will give details on that on the other, personal blog first- then will be here 
Suffice to say: I was used to politics done spending time, walking around, and, yes, preparing printed material and licking stamps to send letters…
… and from 17, first in the European Federalist Movement (I was in the youth organization, eventually becoming town secretary) and, at 18, also with Democrazia Proletaria (but I never accepted to get a party membership card: my purpose was just to get a real opposition party in the Italian Parliament- and we had a helluva of a success).
I call this- long-run politics.
Because it requires time, effort, sometimes money, and does not necessarily produce a result.
The guiding principle? Self-motivation, often linked to ideology (e.g. the European Union project of the time, or getting an opposition in the Italian Parliament).
Fast forward, 1990s.
I was in Italy, in my hometown, and I heard the soundtrack of a Japanese cartoon that my younger brother was fond of in late 1970s/early 1980s, Jeeg Robot: in the streets. And really loud.
And I saw the new crop of “politically engaged teenagers”: strolling and walking behind a truck with a powerful sound system spilling out the music, chatting with each other, and lazily carrying some banners.
Fast forward, Facebook era. Today.
I have “friends” and friends (i.e. people that I know, and people that I know only virtually) who sign up for one, ten, one hundred causes.
The interesting part is that some of them (age is now irrelevant: from teenagers to retirees) use a messaging-based approach to politics (see for more information my posting on 2008-10-30, on the President Obama campaign).
What I call: instant gratification politics.
They sign up for plenty of causes- but then actively follow only a few.
Becoming a “virtual hub”, connecting point, for a specific cause in a specific location.
Sometimes the location is physical: e.g. their university or office.
Sometimes the location is virtual: e.g. they represent a group of people, and act as a filter on that cause for their group of people.
The interesting part is the instant gratification issue.
While old time politics was a long-term commitment (at least theoretically), the new one is grown from specific initiatives, and then becomes a group activity.
Often, the instant gratification is simple: counting how many people join the cause. And then do nothing.
I mean nothing. No donations of either time or money. Just join the crowd.
As I explained in my posting on social networking security, in my business experience I saw that the only way to keep people used to this “instant gratification” model focused on longer term activities is to give them part of what they want.
Which means: build instant gratification events, or “let’s count how many we are” groups on facebook or elsewhere, or “let’s donate a tiny amount” (what in UK was called “guilt money”, coming from the guilt of not doing something more practical on the specific issue).
And use each event or initiative as a feed-back to reinforce and inform on the value of the underlining cause.
Most people will just focus on the specific event.
But some will get into more and more events, and maybe start becoming involved in the underlining cause.
And start actively promoting it.
This turns upside down the old model of politics.
As I wrote in my posting on 2008-10-30, few years ago I was introduced by a Japanese contact to the concept of ExtremeDemocracy.Com.
I might disagree with specific points, but technology allows a “disintermediation”, i.e. direct and visible influence of ad-hoc group of citizens, that can influence the political debate.
This could obviously create some issues (as discussed in my posting on communities online and offline), when the public receives distorted information from groups with a vested interest (see the movie thank you for smoking for a funny description on how to spin any story: better than ten business books).
And no, this risk is not limited to the favourite evil of the XXI century, the corporation: also supposedly “progressive” and “consumer friendly” groups stretch the truth or “select” information when they want to push their own agenda.
Read my posting on Crisis and conflict management) for some bibliographical references and a detailed discussion.
When I was a kid, in Italy you were supposed to choose a “political party”, and then stick with them, whatever they were doing (I have never been a card-carrying member of a political party, not even when I was campaigning: if you want, the current model of politics is closer to my natural instinct 
).
I know that some “compulsive fence sitters” (people who just observe, and never make a choice- but reserve the right to always criticize whatever choice made from others) see this “cherry picking” approach to democracy as a decay- to me, means a sign of maturity of the democracy system itself.
Because implies that the voters are not satisfied anymore with the “cast your ballot and forget” approach, where you are called to vote (in some countries, voting was and is a compulsory activity, once registered).
Instead, they are a constant potential nuisance, reminding that, if things evolve, not only their representatives, but they themselves can change their mind.
If every voting citizen becomes a potential influencer (yes, we are back to the Political animal), you have to ensure that they get the information they need to make informed choices.
Interesting.
Maybe it is time to consider news reporting as a basic right, and news distribution as a basic service available to every citizen?
Tags: campaign, democracy, donate, gratification, instant, network, obama, political, politics, social