Veche 2.0
Let's start with two theses - “the people have the power they deserve” and “the new is the well-forgotten old”.
The legislative system in most countries has long become a gigantic, tangled network of poorly interconnected contradictory laws, terminators, acts, orders, and other waste paper. We will not find out now who benefits. For now, just stating a fact. It is very comfortable with the current government, the people do not rock it, all is well. However, such a system appeared, let's say, not an enemy, but, at least, an ill-wisher. And his name is the Internet.
If not so long ago, I, as a simple man in the street, was forced to listen to what they say, and if I was impatient to figure out the legality of something — to drag into a bookstore, library, read official files of official newspapers, or go to a lawyer, to check which almost impossible.
')
Not so long ago, this situation began to change. First appeared offline information systems, and then online directories. That is, now, I have to spend much less time and effort on finding the law I need, whether it is an article of the constitution or an order of the city head. This is good, convenient, but still unidirectional. I am very well informed, but only. My opinion about this or that masterpiece of our (by the way, elected) legislators does not interest anyone.
Now, as an experiment, the authorities are mastering a "dialogue with the people." Conferences and live broadcasts are organized. You can ask a question by mail, by phone, on the website and even in the personal blog of some representatives of the authorities. It may of course seem that the authorities are exclusively in good faith with the crowd, but this is not so. The ideal, from the point of view of the ruler people, this herd of dumb, moaning approvingly at the sight of its president / monarch / chancellor and the approving wave of the hands of those who meet every new tax.
Therefore, all these advances in “communication with the people”, although unpleasant for the authorities, are inevitable. This is the inevitable path of development of such a society. But a nightmare, forcing the deputy to jump up at night and drink validol, is the participation of the very people in the lawmaking process. After all, this will prove to be a litmus test for all those who are now not so much a representative of the Truth, but its creator. In a more or less collective discussion of a legislative act, say, in a deputy’s blog, the level of his or her deputy, intelligence, will quickly become clear.
Well, if you think about it, then in general the existence of such a number of all sorts of thoughts, legislative assemblies and federal councils is in question. It will be enough to have a couple of dozens of intelligent minds, and then, not to create laws as such, but only to suggest the need for the existence of a regulatory act.
At first glance it seems that this is the purest ochlocracy. Well, what can make up a brainless crowd? .. Everyone will pull the blanket over himself, and in the end it will turn out porridge worse than the existing one. But this is only at first glance. In fact, to take part in lawmaking on a more or less permanent basis, there will be no more than 10% of people. And even less. But it is those who, firstly, are interested in this, and, secondly, are educated enough to do this.
Current technologies no longer require the joint discussion of having participants at one time in one place. The organization of a set of laws in a wiki format has a bunch of weighty advantages and a small number of irrelevant minuses.
First of all, anyone who is interested can go to the site and see the law of interest. Secondly, you can always ask a question directly to the authors of the act, if something remains unclear. Thirdly, in the presence of a sufficient amount of intelligence, one can propose amendments to the legislative act or the act itself, in the absence of such.
Secondly, as it does not sound rude, the Internet will exclude those whose participation in such a serious process is undesirable. These are children, pensioners and personalities not burdened with intellect.
The downside of online lawmaking is the need for moderating incoming edits. But, judging by the many years of experience with open source software developers, this is not such a serious problem.
Summarizing, we can say that the above concept certainly requires serious work. But the fact is that the transition to such a system is inevitable. And how society comes to it - whether through revolutions or by peaceful means, depends solely on the people.
The legislative system in most countries has long become a gigantic, tangled network of poorly interconnected contradictory laws, terminators, acts, orders, and other waste paper. We will not find out now who benefits. For now, just stating a fact. It is very comfortable with the current government, the people do not rock it, all is well. However, such a system appeared, let's say, not an enemy, but, at least, an ill-wisher. And his name is the Internet.
If not so long ago, I, as a simple man in the street, was forced to listen to what they say, and if I was impatient to figure out the legality of something — to drag into a bookstore, library, read official files of official newspapers, or go to a lawyer, to check which almost impossible.
')
Not so long ago, this situation began to change. First appeared offline information systems, and then online directories. That is, now, I have to spend much less time and effort on finding the law I need, whether it is an article of the constitution or an order of the city head. This is good, convenient, but still unidirectional. I am very well informed, but only. My opinion about this or that masterpiece of our (by the way, elected) legislators does not interest anyone.
Now, as an experiment, the authorities are mastering a "dialogue with the people." Conferences and live broadcasts are organized. You can ask a question by mail, by phone, on the website and even in the personal blog of some representatives of the authorities. It may of course seem that the authorities are exclusively in good faith with the crowd, but this is not so. The ideal, from the point of view of the ruler people, this herd of dumb, moaning approvingly at the sight of its president / monarch / chancellor and the approving wave of the hands of those who meet every new tax.
Therefore, all these advances in “communication with the people”, although unpleasant for the authorities, are inevitable. This is the inevitable path of development of such a society. But a nightmare, forcing the deputy to jump up at night and drink validol, is the participation of the very people in the lawmaking process. After all, this will prove to be a litmus test for all those who are now not so much a representative of the Truth, but its creator. In a more or less collective discussion of a legislative act, say, in a deputy’s blog, the level of his or her deputy, intelligence, will quickly become clear.
Well, if you think about it, then in general the existence of such a number of all sorts of thoughts, legislative assemblies and federal councils is in question. It will be enough to have a couple of dozens of intelligent minds, and then, not to create laws as such, but only to suggest the need for the existence of a regulatory act.
At first glance it seems that this is the purest ochlocracy. Well, what can make up a brainless crowd? .. Everyone will pull the blanket over himself, and in the end it will turn out porridge worse than the existing one. But this is only at first glance. In fact, to take part in lawmaking on a more or less permanent basis, there will be no more than 10% of people. And even less. But it is those who, firstly, are interested in this, and, secondly, are educated enough to do this.
Current technologies no longer require the joint discussion of having participants at one time in one place. The organization of a set of laws in a wiki format has a bunch of weighty advantages and a small number of irrelevant minuses.
First of all, anyone who is interested can go to the site and see the law of interest. Secondly, you can always ask a question directly to the authors of the act, if something remains unclear. Thirdly, in the presence of a sufficient amount of intelligence, one can propose amendments to the legislative act or the act itself, in the absence of such.
Secondly, as it does not sound rude, the Internet will exclude those whose participation in such a serious process is undesirable. These are children, pensioners and personalities not burdened with intellect.
The downside of online lawmaking is the need for moderating incoming edits. But, judging by the many years of experience with open source software developers, this is not such a serious problem.
Summarizing, we can say that the above concept certainly requires serious work. But the fact is that the transition to such a system is inevitable. And how society comes to it - whether through revolutions or by peaceful means, depends solely on the people.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/16048/
All Articles