Lewd Leadership

The phone hacking scandal, a boil that has finally burst, runs the risk of missing a central point about how the media provides leadership for our country and our culture. In the case of News of the World, and several other newspapers, they realise that "sex sells" and celebrity sex sells more. So a good number of their stories "out" the private sexual exploits of the rich and famous, celebrities and politicians. They pander to base human instincts and debase our culture in the process: they provide lewd leadership.
Until now the political powers have been feeble in their response, despite the Human Rights Act, which states:

1. "the right to respect for private ... life"
2. "freedom from ... degrading treatment"
3. "the right to liberty"
4. "freedom of assembly and association"
5. "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property" (including mobile phones?)
   
6. "the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms" (celebrities v general public)
   

To increase the quality of the leadership that the media provide I think it is essential that we curtail their power to exploit and manipulate, while strengthening the sector as a whole. After all, investigative journalists do some good stuff, but enquiries are often expensive with uncertain rewards.
One way of limiting lewd leadership would be to use the Human Rights Act, perhaps as a class action. Another is to limit media monopolies.
To strengthen print news (including electronic print) perhaps we should be considering some sort of financial support from our taxes: despite not paying VAT, some papers run at a loss. Perhaps we should also curtail the BBCs involvement in web-print and focus their attentions on iPlayer services instead, so that newspapers can better compete on the Web and Kindle.
(This post from January comments on phone hacking.)

Morality, Democracy, Leadership

The question is "Are the majority more or less moral than the ruling elite?"

In 1887 Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, wrote "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." But why should this be so? Is it that leaders have to make tough choices that can always be perceived by some to be immoral? Tough choices lead to hardened hearts! Or is it that our leaders are sustained by large egos that blind them of empathy for the "little man"?

We could assume that the majority of common folk are averagely moral. Interactive Democracy gives them power. Could it be the case that they could countermand the immoral tendencies of despots yet be enriched by the teachings of greater folk, thus improving the moral sentiment of the nation? History suggests otherwise (Hitler's Germany, Israel's democracy).

I think the best we can say is that the majority are neither more nor less moral than rulers.

For more on how situations lead to brutal behaviour, please see "The Lucifer Effect".

Self Interest

Would self interest be the dominant ethic when voting on issues within Interactive Democracy?

Though I don't doubt that this may be the core morality of some, I suspect the vast majority have some degree of empathy for others and aspire to live by the Golden Rule, which is at the core of most teachings about morality:

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others... As you yourself desire standing, then help others achieve it; as you yourself desire success, then help others attain it." Confucius, c500BCE.

"So in everything, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the law and the prophets." Jesus, c30CE.

"Hurt no one, so that no one may hurt you." Muhammad, c630CE.

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done by." Karl Popper, 1945CE.

And for many there is a voice of conscience, too. As Adam Smith wrote in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments (1759), "the man within the breast, the great judge and arbiter..." provides "the desire of possessing those qualities, and performing those actions, which we love and admire in other people; and in the dread of possessing those qualities, and performing those actions, which we hate and despise in other people."

The danger faced by any national democracy is that people feel small and impersonal in comparison to the scale of it, and they risk losing their empathy for other faceless souls, lost in the crowd. This is where leadership must come in. Especially leadership by those who can tell of their direct experiences of the topic to hand and how those issues have effected them; leaders who give political issues a human face.

The Stupidest Person in the Country

In Interactive Democracy the stupidest person in the country has the same voting power as the brightest person in the country! Is this bad?

This unfortunate individual should have the same human rights and be treated with the same decency as anyone else. If they possess a little IQ it does not mean that they don't have emotional intelligence, sound morals or unique experiences from which to draw in reaching a decision.

And, should their vote be considered somewhat random, you may think of it as the noise on the signal of the national intent. Noise that is likely balanced by a random vote in the opposite direction, leaving the winning argument to emerge, clearly.

"IQ minim" is perhaps more likely to be swayed by strong persuaders and it is the role of effective political leadership, the media savvy and eloquent, to win him/her over. There will always be a role for intelligent leadership. The danger, as in any election, is manipulation of their vote by close associates.

The ideas engine (or ePetition) provides an opportunity for good solutions to emerge, allowing society to capitalise on the intelligence of the brightest. This is an area where "IQ minim" is unlikely to shine, unless their situation sparks ideas in others.

Link to a BBC article about votes for the mentally ill.

The Importance of Leadership

Leadership, to galvanize people into action on important issues, is essential to all political processes. Interactive Democracy isn't a leader-less system: A government must still be formed, yet it allows others to be opinion leaders on all sorts of different issues. This may actually reduce the difficulties that political parties face in tailoring policies to appeal to the majority of voters, without risking appearing "wishy washy".

This article explains the difficulties of politicians moving their position in order to seek the centre ground.