On democracy in the information age
Hello, habrasoobschestvo.
Some time ago I saw several publications devoted to the issues of the “truly democratic” structure of society, achievable thanks to the existing technology. And these posts made me think about where we should strive.
Before thinking about democracy, we must remember its types and goals. It is not difficult to do, because the type of democracy is only 2: direct and representative. And the goal is quite obvious - democracy is intended to express the political wishes of the majority.
What kind of best achieves this goal? Of course, direct, if you can find out the opinions of all. But, unfortunately, this approach degenerates from “Referendum 2.0” into an ochlocracy. We do not need this.
But representative democracy is not perfect, it is banally obsolete. I am not the first and not the last one who thinks so. This idea was also expressed by John Naisbitt, and our president spoke in this spirit. I will try to briefly substantiate this statement. About 200 years ago, when there was not even a normal means of communication, and democracy was already, the only way to take into account the wishes of the people was the choice of their representatives. This method itself is largely justified to this day, but it has a serious drawback: voting for any party, we can choose a political bias, maintain the list of deputies and their program, but we cannot give preference to specific laws. A voter may worry about a specific decree, but he has a choice only between parties, not laws. We can absolutely not worry, the left candidate or the right, we may be interested in a specific resolution, but we have the opportunity to choose only the entire batch. Our opinion is taken into account in the elections, but it is taken into account extremely limited, although modern means of communication and information processing far exceed the connection of the times of Washington and allow everyone to hear the voice. And that's bad.
It turns out that neither direct nor representative democracy can achieve the goal of democracy quite well. What do we do? It makes no sense to change the fundamentals of the constitutional order, and the existing parties do not suit us - it means that we need to make a party that suits us. And this party should differ significantly from the traditional ones; it should allow us to participate in the legislative process. This party should be open to the common man, who is not interested in observing politics, but wants to influence what is important for him.
What is the traditional party for the average person? Black box, closed hierarchical corporation. It can have any degree of internal democracy, it can spread any information about itself and put forward any programs. But for the average person it is something closed, which he cannot influence in any way. He will not join it, why? Full of the same "black boxes", and in none of them can he change the program.
But for all of us, thanks to modern means of communication, there is an openly universal information field in which we can create an open community on any subject. Why not create a new type of party, in which everyone can initiate a vote on those issues that are important for him, put forward projects that everyone will like? This movement will be able to take into account the interests of everyone. Such an approach will overcome the lack of ordinary representative parties.
')
Why is the existence of such a party better than direct democracy? That the former political system in which professional politicians work is going to operate. If a question is put up for a referendum, then the profane vote for it. If the open party defends the interests of the people in parliament before the “professional parties”, the decisions will take into account the interests of the majority more than they do now. But mindless decisions on the momentary desire of the crowd will be impossible.
What are the principles of building such a party? In this post I will not go into details, there are too many of them. But there are a number of mandatory points:
- the party should be completely open, it should be possible to initiate any initiatives, study any information without restrictions (the only possible restriction is age, only it can be justified, and then only for voting).
-to make any decision on the party program there should not be a minimum of participants.
The party should not engage in propaganda in any form.
-one of the most important moments: such a party should be only one. First, it is harmful to disperse forces, this will weaken all similar open parties, if there are several of them. Secondly, this concept serves the majority, and the majority is one.
You can consider this entire post an ordinary political campaign. But who should build the information society, if not IT workers? To develop a publicly accessible structure, protected from both spam and cheating, and from internal dictatorship? Only we can do it, and only together.
I would be glad if you like this idea.
Some time ago I saw several publications devoted to the issues of the “truly democratic” structure of society, achievable thanks to the existing technology. And these posts made me think about where we should strive.
Before thinking about democracy, we must remember its types and goals. It is not difficult to do, because the type of democracy is only 2: direct and representative. And the goal is quite obvious - democracy is intended to express the political wishes of the majority.
What kind of best achieves this goal? Of course, direct, if you can find out the opinions of all. But, unfortunately, this approach degenerates from “Referendum 2.0” into an ochlocracy. We do not need this.
But representative democracy is not perfect, it is banally obsolete. I am not the first and not the last one who thinks so. This idea was also expressed by John Naisbitt, and our president spoke in this spirit. I will try to briefly substantiate this statement. About 200 years ago, when there was not even a normal means of communication, and democracy was already, the only way to take into account the wishes of the people was the choice of their representatives. This method itself is largely justified to this day, but it has a serious drawback: voting for any party, we can choose a political bias, maintain the list of deputies and their program, but we cannot give preference to specific laws. A voter may worry about a specific decree, but he has a choice only between parties, not laws. We can absolutely not worry, the left candidate or the right, we may be interested in a specific resolution, but we have the opportunity to choose only the entire batch. Our opinion is taken into account in the elections, but it is taken into account extremely limited, although modern means of communication and information processing far exceed the connection of the times of Washington and allow everyone to hear the voice. And that's bad.
It turns out that neither direct nor representative democracy can achieve the goal of democracy quite well. What do we do? It makes no sense to change the fundamentals of the constitutional order, and the existing parties do not suit us - it means that we need to make a party that suits us. And this party should differ significantly from the traditional ones; it should allow us to participate in the legislative process. This party should be open to the common man, who is not interested in observing politics, but wants to influence what is important for him.
What is the traditional party for the average person? Black box, closed hierarchical corporation. It can have any degree of internal democracy, it can spread any information about itself and put forward any programs. But for the average person it is something closed, which he cannot influence in any way. He will not join it, why? Full of the same "black boxes", and in none of them can he change the program.
But for all of us, thanks to modern means of communication, there is an openly universal information field in which we can create an open community on any subject. Why not create a new type of party, in which everyone can initiate a vote on those issues that are important for him, put forward projects that everyone will like? This movement will be able to take into account the interests of everyone. Such an approach will overcome the lack of ordinary representative parties.
')
Why is the existence of such a party better than direct democracy? That the former political system in which professional politicians work is going to operate. If a question is put up for a referendum, then the profane vote for it. If the open party defends the interests of the people in parliament before the “professional parties”, the decisions will take into account the interests of the majority more than they do now. But mindless decisions on the momentary desire of the crowd will be impossible.
What are the principles of building such a party? In this post I will not go into details, there are too many of them. But there are a number of mandatory points:
- the party should be completely open, it should be possible to initiate any initiatives, study any information without restrictions (the only possible restriction is age, only it can be justified, and then only for voting).
-to make any decision on the party program there should not be a minimum of participants.
The party should not engage in propaganda in any form.
-one of the most important moments: such a party should be only one. First, it is harmful to disperse forces, this will weaken all similar open parties, if there are several of them. Secondly, this concept serves the majority, and the majority is one.
You can consider this entire post an ordinary political campaign. But who should build the information society, if not IT workers? To develop a publicly accessible structure, protected from both spam and cheating, and from internal dictatorship? Only we can do it, and only together.
I would be glad if you like this idea.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/98512/
All Articles