Coding a Better Government

"Coding a Better Government" is a TED talk by Jennifer Pahlka in which she describes how the development of simple apps helped government link citizens together to help each other and the community. This is entirely different to Interactive Democarcy. But ID could point app developers in the right direction, by offering a forum that highlights problems and offers suggestions.
Perhaps, instead of employing government programmers to write the code, volunteer experts or students may develop the apps to solve problems. I'd like to see the government recognise such people, perhaps with some sort of award or certificate.

Proportionality of Power

One of the arguments against PR is that it gives more power to the MPs from fringe parties: for example, the independents and those from single issue parties. This is because the government may need to win over their support to carry a motion or form a government. The fringe thus has a disproportionate amount of power.

But lets be clear, each seat in the House of Commons has the power of one vote, no more, no less. Rather, the influence of the marginals comes about because main party MPs can't act independently, purely in the interests of their Constituencies, because they are governed by the power of the party whips. So, from this perspective, it's not that the fringe parties have more power than they deserve, it is that average MPs have less.

Furthermore, with fair electoral boundaries and PR that allows more than one MP per Constituency, each MP is likely to have the support of similar numbers of voters, underlining the fairness of each MPs appointment.

Whether you agree with this analysis or not may depend on your perspective: if you cast your vote for a party to form a government or you cast it to get a local MP representing local interests. It may be impossible to have both!

Short Cut to War

Clare Short told the Iraq Inquiry about how cabinet was "misled", Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had been "leaned on" and Parliament was just a "rubber stamp" (you can read the BBC report here). It's a frightening indictment of our government and democracy.

Some may say that Interactive Democracy would be manipulated in similar ways, but perhaps they have forgotten the mass protests against war. I suspect that the issue by issue democracy that ID could deliver would enhance the debate, put pressure on politicians not to be seen to be manipulative and slow the headlong rush to decisions. It may have prevented us going to war in Iraq, it may have delayed it until the end of the summer, giving the UN more time to avert catastrophe, or it may have re-focused our attention on Afghanistan. Who knows?

Many would be right to assume that truth in Government, in Parliament and in the Media is an important ingredient for a functioning democracy. I'd like to see laws in place that punish those that lie. More here.

Like kids in a sweet shop

In a system of direct democracy, would the majority want everything, like kids in a sweet shop, spending every penny... and more?

It must be the role of the government to manage the budget, which puts them in the difficult position of saying "No!"

This paints a picture of voters with the maturity of children. I believe that this is far from the case. The typical adult often makes complex personal financial decisions and can easily understand that governments have finite resources and that wants are virtually infinite and must be prioritised.

That's not to say that the government (and opposition) shouldn't be offering leadership, explaining the limits of what can be afforded, the consequences of decisions and the rational for their own preferences.

Desire for Power

"The sad truth is that a desire for power is hard-wired into human DNA. Politicians, like other members of the species, like being in control. What holds them back is an elaborate political structure based on checks and balances and the dispersal of power. Without such a structure, all governments would be like Zimbabwe's. Such structures do not evolve on their own, and a tiny number of people, whether historically or geographically, have been lucky enough to live under them.

"The natural tendency of all governments, being flawed and human institutions, is toward the agglomeration of power."

Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party

J Norman et al

Interactive Democracy re-defines the power balance to help keep governments in check, but it's real purpose is to allow individuals to better express their democratic will and to enhance public debate.

Lies

Free and fair debate is crucial to any type of effective democracy. Lies corrupt the very essence of this ideal and I think we should be considering how to use the law to combat lies in public life.

What is a lie? It is a statement, presented as fact, that is unsupported by evidence.

An un-truth is not a lie if the person communicating it believes it to be true and has evidence which in fact, turns out to be wrong. Plato wrote about this in Theaetetus (360BCE) and it is known to philosophers as the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge.

Could the law be used to punish liers? Or is the scale of the problem just too vast?

I don't think we should be punitive about off the cuff remarks, which, due to the sloppy nature of our spoken language, can cause misrepresentation. But perhaps we should be more demanding of prepared statements made by individuals in positions of authority and by organisations.

It may also be useful to split the issue into three areas:

1. Politicians and public servants
2. The Media
3. The Internet

It seems to me logical that we should be stringent about the truth of statements prepared by politicians and public servants. This would include prepared statements made in the House of Commons or to the media and simple verbal statements of fact (Did you do that? Yes or No.)

We should also be careful about the power of the media to corrupt debate with falsehoods. This does not mean that they will necessarily have to reveal their anonymous sources, who may have a secret truth that it is in the public interest to reveal, but it does mean that they may have to qualify their statements with "According to several sources..."etc.

The Internet is perhaps the thorniest problem because individuals can so easily publish whatever they want and some of the written content may be very conversational in tone. It is also an international media and it may be unclear where an author resides and, therefore, which jurisdiction appertains. However, British organisations and authority figures could easily be held to account for their online communication.

Interestingly, the ease with which the Internet's wide range of sources can be searched is perhaps one of its saving graces, as evidence can be gathered quickly, using a search engine, that proves or disproves suspect statements. And news media organisations, publishing on the Internet, who are threatened by legal proceedings against their dishonest statements, will become more trusted sources of information than"Joe Blogs".

How would such a system work?

Perhaps it requires an "Authority" like the Advertising Standards Agency, who could take note of complaints, decide if a case is to be answered, demand a public apology and a re-statement of the culprits position and, if necessary, prepare a case for the civil courts. I'd hope that few cases were brought, but the deterrent would be strong.

Never The Twain Shall Meet

"The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." Mark Twain.

This ideal, this myth, is such a part of our collective subconscious that many accept without question the concept of government as servant of the people. Yet in today's Parliamentary Democracy we elect rulers who have no way of knowing what the will of the majority is. No way of taking orders. They sometimes, but not always, pursue their manifesto commitments. They sometimes, but not always, try to represent their constituents. MPs sometimes, but not always, follow their own consciences. They more often vote in accordance with the Whips. Interactive Democracy is closer to Twain's ideal.

Public Service Announcements

Could public service announcements be created by government to sway the public's vote on an issue? How would Interactive Democracy deal with the prospect of a government using public money to get their point across?

For example, does something as simple as warning the public of the health problems associated with smoking have an impact on possible future ballots about smoking on the streets, tax on cigarettes or smoking near children?

I don't believe it matters, so long as the adverts are factually correct. If they aren't, then the government should be held to task by the Advertising Standards Authority (backed up by public power exerted through Interactive Democracy).

6 Sigma Government

"6 Sigma" is the title of a quality management system and refers to being almost defect free (3.4 defects per million). Its procedure for the management of improvement is DMAIC:

1. Define
2. Measure
3. Analyze
4. Improve
5. Control

In Interactive Democracy any issue receiving sufficient support is already defined but may need to be clarified by the elected parliament. They should define the measurements required to identify success and gather the data (White Hat Thinking); analyze the data and present it to the public; improve the issue by writing the law and seek approval by public vote. It is then the governments responsibility to use Control to ensure success.