I've just read Joi Ito's paper on Emergent Democracy which looks at how Internet technology could be used to support and encourage direct democracy. To summarise with some quotes from the paper:
"...we are on the verge of an awakening of the Internet. This awakening will facilitate the anticipated political model enabled by technology to support some of the basic attributes of democracy, which have eroded as power has become concentrated within corporations and governments. It is possible that new technologies may enable a higher-level order through emergent properties, which will enable a form of emergent direct democracy capable of managing complex issues more effectively than the current form of representative democracy."
"If information technology could provide a mechanism for citizens in a democracy to participate in a way that allowed emergent understanding and management of complex problems... direct democracy would be not only be feasible, but superior to our current representative governments, which are unable to control or understand many of the complexities of the world today."
"The world needs emergent democracy more than ever. The issues are too complex for representative governments to understand..... Emergent democracy has the potential to solve many of the problems we face in the exceedingly complex world at both the national and global scale..... We must encourage everyone to think for themselves, question authority and participate actively in the emerging weblog culture as a builder, a writer, a voter and a human being with a point of view, active in their local community and concerned about the world."
The paper is certainly interesting. I am supportive of its underlying ideals: broader democratic particpiation, greater community involvement, and improving our ability to understand and deal with increasingly complex social and political issues, locally and globally. However, it immediately prompts a number of questions - not as counter-arguments, but as a genuine attempt to see how an emergent direct democracy would succeed.
- Human social structures are emergent phenomena. Who could predict nation-states, global corporations and mass media from a starting point of small pre-agricultural kin-bonded groups? Representational democracy is emergent democracy - it is one of the political structures that has emerged as human social interaction has scaled way beyond its relatively recent (in evolutionary timescales) origins. It is a result of innumerable complex interactions between individuals at a small (neighbourly) scale. What Joi Ito's paper discusses is a potential to change the rules of interaction in the hope of a transition to a different type of emergent democracy. But by definition, emergent patterns are not predictable from their starting conditions or an understanding of their micro behaviours and motives. So what confidence can we have that we can either direct such emergence or that a transition to a new emergent pattern would be an improvement?
- Will direct democracy necessarily be "superior to our current representative governments" and "capable of managing complex issues more effectively than the current form of representative democracy"? How do we prevent direct democracy from becoming the rule of the mob? The metaphor is telling - Howard Rheingold talks of smart mobs, but we also see many cases of stupid mobs, groups where anger, fear and excitement lead us to actions that we would not individually condone in our more reflective moments. There are some majority opinions (for example, the re-introduction of the death penalty in the UK) for which I am glad that our representatives vote on their own conscience rather than majority opinion. At its best, representative democracy vests power in those we have asked to represent our ideals - at its worst, they represent (and encourage) our bigotry and ignorance. How do we ensure that what emerges is preferable to what it replaces?
- For emergent democracy in Ito's sense to occur, "We must encourage everyone to think for themselves, question authority and participate actively in the emerging weblog culture as a builder, a writer, a voter and a human being with a point of view, active in their local community and concerned about the world." Leave aside for the moment the narrow focus on weblogs (or even technology in general) as a tool of emergent democracy. What facets of human nature, human society and human history give us any confidence that this level of enlightened participation in local democracy, let alone global democracy, is feasible? Certainly in the UK, the level of participation in the political process at both local and national levels is shamefully low. Admittedly, people may not participate because they perceive their voices and actions as carrying no weight. Increased participation may be an outcome of an increased sense of influence. But Ito's vision of emergent democracy is predicated on much greater levels of involvement, both intellectually and practically (ie you need to both understand the issues and do something about them). How do we turn this vision of broad participation into reality?
- I can envisage an increase in the potential for direct democracy having an impact at a very local level (with local meaning both geographical and within an area of personal interest). There are some things close to my home and close to my heart that I have strong beliefs, feelings and opinions about. But neither my interest not my attention scale across all issues to national or global levels. I will therefore be unlikely to voice my opinions or participate in action on a wide range of potential issues that should engage me. In doing so, I am allowing these issues to be appropriated by a vocal minority that have the time or interest to engage. Direct democracy potentially loses my voice even more rapidly than representational democracy. With the latter I have, at least in theory, a voice to speak on my behalf on many issues that I cannot or will not engage with directly. (Making that voice more representative and more answerable to the interests of the community it represents is a separate question - but the tools of direct democracy may be powerful here.)
- Following from my inevitable lack of interest and attention across all issues, if I do speak or act outside of my narrow interests, mine will be the voice of ignorance not the voice of reason. There are many issues on which I have no reasoned opinion - should I be silent or should I speak foolishly? If we are silent, we privilege those who have the understanding or the passion to speak - if not, we risk a democracy of fools, charlatans and scoundrels. This may be just but will we prefer to live there?
- Representational democracy balances the power we give our representatives with responsibility. We can and do hold them answerable for their actions. We can justly punish those who misrepresent us - with less justice, we also punish those who simply let us down. Who do we hold responsible within direct democracy? Ourselves, of course - but how do we ensure that we feel the weight of a responsibility that is spread so thinly? How do we balance rights with obligations? What interaction and feedback at a personal level will allow a democracy that we value to emerge?
- Considering the mediation of tools such as weblogs and the Internet, how do we ensure that emergent democracy does not become the privilege of an educated and techno-capable elite? If the price of entry is expressing opinions, arguing issues, persuasion and discussion, we immediately risk giving more weight to those who are better able to speak their piece and defend their opinions. If everyone must "participate actively in the emerging weblog culture as a builder, a writer, a voter and a human being with a point of view", we need to protect the voices and viewpoints of those who cannot participate as effectively as others. We must not dispossess those who are unable or afraid to speak up for any of a myriad of reasons (lack of access to participatory tools, lack of confidence to make themselves heard, lack of skill in explaining their opinion or understanding that of others).
My questions only peripherally concern the tools of an emergent democracy, although the Internet in general and weblogs in particular are a focus Ito's paper. I don't doubt we have the ability to develop and deploy these tools. The questions relate to harder and less concrete problems of human nature, society, politics and morality. We will need answers to these and many other questions if Ito's vision of emergent democracy is going to become a practical reality. And as emergence is by definition unpredictable (you need to run the experiment to see what happens), we will need to keep asking these and similar questions, and keep refining our answers and the actions they suggest as we go forward.
3:44:11 PM 
|
|
