Original Posting: 25 June 2004 Friday 21:00 hrs Singapore
Re-posted from here (http://www.terravista.pt/nazare/6518/d_online.htm)
DEMOCRACY ONLINE
Abstract
In
this letter I propose a new political system that will become possible in a society
where all its citizens will be connected to the Internet. Its main philosophy
is inspired in the free market mechanism, and I will call it semi-direct democracy. The main points
of this model are: i) the substitution of political parties by a set of non-profit
political organisations specialised to deal with most aspects of the executive
and the legislative power; and ii) the introduction of a constant electronic
scrutiny by the citizens of the activities of these organisations. The
emergence of this system will be enhanced by the increasing need for more
democracy and transparency in public affairs, on one hand, and the increasing
incapacity of the actual political system to deal with an increasingly complex
society, on the other.
A new political system is badly needed. People are
looking with increasing distrust and alienation to politics. Political parties
have failed to adapt to an educated society and a global economy, and have lost
much of their power, influence, and even their reason of being. Scandals,
corruption, and lobby influences, only contribute to further widen this gap
between citizens and politicians. The hopeless attempts of governments to
follow public-opinion polling, only demonstrate the agony of this decrepit
political system. But what should be the alternative?
As
the public impatience with governments rises, the inexorable progress of
democratisation, together with the widespread availability of the information
technologies, are turning the people themselves (not the media!) into the new fourth branch of political power, alongside
with the executive, legislative and judiciary. The recent technologies, in
special the Internet, have the potential to greatly increase the democratic
participation of citizens in the framework of new political systems. I present
in this letter the baselines of such a possible system.
The advent of the digital era is about
to change radically every aspect of our society. In particular, the Internet,
with its flexibility, speed, ubiquity, ease of use and feedback capabilities,
is rapidly connecting people and computers around the world. Information is
being set free from the bound of paper, and begins to flow quickly, cleanly,
cheaply, and without any respect for hierarchies or bureaucracies. A few
seconds are enough to share a message between thousands of computers scattered
around the world. It is not surprising to say that the Internet is bringing the
world to the eve of one of the greatest revolutions in history: the information
revolution. Politics will not escape from it.
This revolution is paving the way
towards a long desired, and also feared,
political system: the direct democracy. Although its principle is
appealing, “decisions that concern all
are decided by all”, I have serious doubts about its applicability. The system
proposed in this letter, that I call Semi-Direct Democracy (SDD), was inspired
on the possibilities of a connected society and was designed to avoid the
disadvantages of direct democracy.
What's wrong
with the present political system?
The actual political system is in deep crisis. The
increasing number of absentees in the
election polls (superior to 50% in some cases), is a clear sign of the apathy of the electors for their
representatives. That does not mean that politicians are now more corrupt or
irresponsible than they were in the past, or that people are less interested in
politics. The problem lies in the essence of the actual framework of
representative democracy.
Mainly inherited from the French
Revolution, our political system is tailored to a relatively unsophisticated
and poorly educated society. To a great extent it failed to accompany the
technological evolutions, and its consequent social changes, that occurred
mainly in the second half of this century. While citizens become richer, better
educated, and more demanding, a closed group of politicians continue to do
their business in an old fashioned way.
At the same time, the economy globalises
and becomes more complex, and social problems become more acute. This leads us
to the heart problem of the present political system: its incapability to reach
knowledgeable decisions upon complex problems involving a tantalising amount of
information. In a desperate attempt to solve these problems, politicians were
forced to create heavy and expensive bureaucracies full of kafkian labyrinths.
The consequences are well known: inefficiency, rigidity and lack of control.
On the other hand, we have a more
educated and informed population willing to have a voice in important political
decisions. But practically the only voice they can have is to choose, about
every four years, between a handful of political parties, often very similar in
political content and form.
The system, here proposed, is inspired in the free market
philosophy. A market is basically a "place"
where a set of agents exchange information in order to reach agreement and take
decisions on subjects involving conflicting interests. Provided the agents are
fully rational and completely informed, the free market is the best mechanism to decide on complex issues
involving either common or conflicting interests. Unfortunately, the use of the
free market paradigm in politics has been very restricted.
A political centralised system may be adequate for small and simple
societies. A small tribe may be ruled by a single individual capable to choose
what is best for all members of the community. But, no matter how clever a man
can be, it will be ineffective to manage, in the same way, a modern city. The
solution is to let people decide upon their lives, whereas the leader take hold
only of the legislation and co-ordination activities.
In the same way, if political issues becomes too complex for a
government, the solution is to distribute, directly or indirectly, some
political responsibilities to the citizens. By transferring the decisions to
the population, we are using a market philosophy in politics to accomplish two
goals: i) decisions are more democratic, and ii) citizens will have more
freedom to choose, and higher responsibility and control on politics.
Nevertheless, the free market paradigm
has well known deficiencies. Due to lack of rationality or information of the
agents (or incorrect use of it), the market can easily be settled far from
optimal decisions, and without any external control it can easily become
chaotic, e.g., the Great Depression or the crashes in stock markets. Moreover,
a inherent tendency for the majority of people to choose simplistic and
short-term solutions may well produce highly undesirable results.
So, this brings back the old dilemma:
how to give power to the people without falling in the irrationality and vanity
of the masses? The solution here presented involves the creation of a set of
intermediary institutions between the citizens and the political decision
centres, while preserving the State and some of its institutions, even if with
some modifications.
The Internet is the culmination of a series of
technological innovations that is giving new exciting possibilities to innovate
politics. Take the example of some small cities, like San Antonio, in
California, where a set of comprehensive and interactive WebPages were built to
inform the residents of major activities in the municipality. Moreover, electronic
fora allow citizens to discuss
revelant issues, and, is some cases, they can "vote" directly on
important projects.
If this new concept is helping local
communities to better solve their problems, why not apply it to a whole
country? I believe that an electronic democracy can be implement in some
countries. Up to know, the best known proposal for an electronic democracy is
the direct democracy. The supporters of this model claim that all decisions
should be subjected to a direct referendum on the Internet. I do not foresee
any viability for this system: the issues are too complex, and people have no
time, or knowledge, to decide upon them.
If the free market is the best decision
mechanism but direct democracy is not viable, what is the alternative? I believe
that the model here presented, the Semi-Direct Democracy (SDD), is the answer
to transform the actual representative democracy into an interactive
representative system.
There are two central points in the SDD:
i) the substitution of the political parties, and most public departments, by
specialised Non-profit Political Organisations (NPO); and ii) the possibility
of citizens to have a wider political participation and to exert a tight
control on the activities of these organisations.
Let me clarify some points concerning the SDD. First, the meaning of
"non-profit political organisations". These organisations are paid by
public money (proportionally to the number of votes they received), but at the
same time they have great autonomy to choose its members and to spend or rise
money. These organisations are separately elected to take charge of specific
public departments for a fixed period of time.
Second, the electronic control by the
citizens on these organisations is expressed in two ways. In one hand the
political strength of a NPO is proportional to the number of supporters - this
being continuously revised. On the other hand, by allowing a direct
participation of voters, giving them: more referendum options, the right of
veto, the right to submit bills to the parliament, the right to replace a NPO.
In this way, the SDD is in constant consonance with the citizens.
Third,
although it is necessary to introduce a deep modification in the constitution,
the role of parliaments as a discussion forum for laws will continue almost
unchanged. The number of representatives is proportional to the strength of
each NPO. The main difference from the actual system, is the obligation to
submit to public decision of important laws or political decisions.
Fourth, the Prime Minister, and some
ministers like defence and foreign affairs, will continue to be chosen by
direct election for a fixed mandate. However the remaining government will be
composed by the set of the most voted organisations in each field. Some control
mechanisms may be implemented, for instance the possibility to dismiss a NPO if
the number of supports falls below a certain number.
In my opinion the SDD is a viable system
able to restore the interest and confidence of people on politics. These are the
main advantages:
·
Ministries and public
institutions will be run by specialised and democratically elected institutions
with accumulated know-how, not by ephemeral political figures.
·
Citizens will be closer
to their representatives (more feedback implies more responsibility).
·
The actual political
culture of demagogy will be replaced by a pragmatic culture of efficiency.
·
The influence of lobbies
and pressure groups is largely decreased.
·
While it is still a
representative democracy, it refrains, and relieves, the citizens from voting
directly on every subject.
No political system is perfect. First of all, it
should be mentioned that the SDD could not be implemented in any country. A
small and homogeneous country, with a well educated population and strong
democratic traditions will be the best candidate for the implementation of this
system. Scandinavian countries fit these criteria, but Portugal is definitely
not prepared for it. Furthermore, the introduction of a SDD should not be abrupt,
but smooth and gradual. This gives time for the adaptation of organisations and
citizens.
There are several objections that can be
raised to the SDD system, namely:
·
Citizens are not capable
to wisely decide on many complex issues
·
Lack of a common ideology
leads to perpetuating disputes
·
Increase the strength of
lobbies
·
Populism
A natural objection to this system is
that without a common political ideology, disputes and cleavage between
organisation will turn the country into chaos. This is unlikely to happen since
organisations occupy different niches in the public sector, and in cases of
overlapping, the constant scrutiny of the population will force cooperation
whenever it is necessary. Moreover diverse ideas help the search for
alternative solutions, thus creating a more creative political environment.
There is also a possibility that
strong lobbies, helped by the media, may soon form an oligopoly capable to
control most of these governmental organisations. Clearly this risk exists,
since lobbies have always been present within all kinds of government. The most
efficient way to control the action of these groups is to extend the powers to
a wider public, which is exactly the nature of the SDD. Therefore, I think that
the SDD will strike a devastating blow at the special interest groups and
lobbies who prevail in most parliaments.
Another
objection is that, influenced by the media, demagogy and populism, with all
their irrationality, will prevail. For example, proposals for drastic tax
reduction may well appear, to which a collapse in social security, for
instance, may follow, or a cutting in funding on vital, but apparently useless
services, like science. This risk exists, but I believe that a smooth and slow
transition period for people to adapt to this system will suffice for them to
learn how to avoid these extremes.
In conclusion, let me comment on one of the strongest
objections to a more participative democracy. It is the old argument that
people are not aware of the complexity of the problems, so that they are not
prepared to take wise decisions. This same argument was used against the early
stages of democracy in America, to each I recall the answer of Thomas Jefferson
"If people are not prepared to decide, we have to educate them in order to
be prepared".
Responsibility is the result of freedom
to make decisions and accept the consequences. A society is only responsible
when its citizens participate in public decisions. For the first time in
history we have the conditions and the technological means to bring to reality
a long waited dream: to give everybody a voice in public affairs. Due to the
nature of the free market in which it is inspired, the SDD has the means to
become an effective information oriented system.
The SDD is neither a direct
democracy or the elimination of the State, but a considerable innovation of
representative democracy. I am aware that the scope and applicability of this
system may give rise to strong criticism and discussion. However, I thing that
the ideas here presented deserve reflection, and it is my hope that it may
initiate a much-needed discussion on new alternatives to public participation
in the actual democracy.
Bibliography
1.
Pedro Arroja, Abcissas, Areal (1993).
2.
J. M. Epstein and V.
Axtell, Growing Artificial Societies:
Social Science from Bottom Up, Brookings Institution Press (1998).
3.
L. K.Grossman, The Electronic Republic, Penguim (1995).
4.
Fredrich Hayek, the Constitution of Liberty, Chicago
University Press (1960).
5.
Kevin Kelly, Out of Control, Addison Wesley (1994).
6.
B. Arthur, S. Durlauf,
and D. Lane, Economy as an Evolving
Complex System, Perseus Books (1987).