Whoever came up with the slogan "Not in my name" was a genius. It is crisp and badge-friendly, while being flexible enough to accommodate the views of widely different anti-war groups.
The slogan also captures an emerging 21st century view of democracy - that our representatives should not have a free hand to act on our behalf between elections. Political scientists talk of a move from representative to deliberative democracy. Even on questions of war and peace, people expect to be consulted.
According to Stephen Coleman, the University of Oxford's first professor of e-democracy, this change in culture coincided with the growth of the internet. He plans to spend the next few years examining the relation ship between the two phenomena.
As the world's first professor in his discipline, Coleman has to put up with some academic sniffiness. "People tend to say: 'I suppose your job is to find out how many MPs have got web sites.' Actually, that's already been done."
Another misconception is that e-democracy means voting over the internet. It doesn't, says Coleman, who is no evangelist for e-voting. (Perhaps to the disappointment of his institute's funder, the network equipment company Cisco.) He chaired the Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods, which last year recommended that multiple methods, including paper ballots, "be maintained for the foreseeable future".
Coleman's definition of e-democracy is: "Using new digital technology to enhance the process of democratic relationship between government and governed, representative and represented."
Obviously, elections are important, he says, but they are only part of the story. His institute's core project is a 10-year study to observe how 20 parliamentary constituencies adapt to internet democracy. There is a precedent for this revolution - the arrival of television.
"If between, say, 1955 and 1965, someone had done the same for TV, we'd have seen an enormous change over those years." In the 1960s, the US beat the rest of the world to producing telegenic politicians. But in the e-democracy revolution, the UK is taking the lead, Coleman says.
"Britain has a cabinet committee on e-democracy, a government commitment to e-enabled elections and the first trials of them. "But to be the first is highly risky. It's quite brave." This May, the government will sponsor the biggest trial of e-voting - part of a desperate attempt to encourage turnout in local elections. More than 1.5 million voters will have the chance to vote on the internet, digital television and by text messaging. But on the broader definition of e-democracy, Britain's record is less good, says Coleman.
"We are lousy at consultation." He is scathing about the Downing Street web site and the abortive Citizen Space experiment on the e-government portal UKOnline. Even London mayor Ken Livingstone's popular touch failed when it came to consulting on the congestion charge. The real sign of e-democracy at work is the anti-charging site, www.sod-u-ken.com.
Surprisingly, Parliament does better. Several committees have taken evidence over the internet. One was the House of Lords study on stem cell research. Conventional wisdom, based on US studies of internet bulletin-board behaviour, predicted that such debates would be polarised by strong enthusiasts and strong opponents. But in this case, the group that dominated discussions was chronic sufferers of disease.
"They tended to post messages in the middle of the night; I realised that people in pain often wake up in the night."
Perhaps parliamentary proceedings put internet trolls on their best behaviour, Coleman says. "The equivalent of putting on your best suit." If both e-voting and e-consultation can be made to work, would the inevitable conclusion be e-enabled direct democracy?
To most political observers, the prospect, with overtones of mob rule, is terrifying. Coleman is relaxed. "First, I don't think people feel an urge towards direct democracy but towards direct communication. Second, I'm in favour of government by experts - but the public are experts."
