Paradigm Shift

The application of Information Technology to make democracy more egalitarian, as is described here, may be considered a Paradigm Shift.

Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", wrote about how scientific ideas have developed. He questioned the notion expressed by Isaac Newton: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Kuhn argued that scientists operate within a common world view or paradigm. They operate within the established theory, struggling with its anomalies. Then, perhaps quite suddenly, someone looks at the evidence from a new perspective, outside of the current paradigm, and realises that this new view better explains the evidence. For example astronomers struggled for years with the Ptolemaic Earth Centred world view before adopting the Copernicus heliocentric system and Newtonian Mechanics was quite quickly superseded by Quantum Physics.

Could it be that Interactive Democracy would unstick our thinking that may, at present, be locked into party political struggles for power, and allow new ideas to grow, with the support and encouragement of others, into brilliant new paradigms?

Planning Permission

Could Interactive Democracy be used to aid planning permission?

Perhaps a developer would enter a proposal on the ePetition system and then approach the neighbours to seek their support. Could they be bribed? Or would they launch their own campaign against the development, utilising the ePetition system?

The Council would need to assess the technicalities of the development: the impact on parking, the environment, drainage, lighting etc. They should consider the wider public requirements, not just local opinion. But it would seem strange if they ignored strong public sentiment expressed through ID

Similarly, it may be prudent for the Local Council to use the same system for developments of their own.

"Who Runs Britain?"

Robert Peston, the acclaimed BBC Business Editor, writes in his book "Who Runs Britain?"

"... it would be to ignore all history to presume that the super-rich, or their trust-fund children, or their plutocratic children's children won't endeavour to convert a fraction of their fortunes into control of the media, sponsorship of lobby groups or seats in Parliament. Their big financial boots will become big political boots. It is irrelevant whether you think that they will do ill or good with their new political power. The accumulation of vast wealth by a growing class of super-rich - who owe no allegiance to any state - is a regressive trend for the distribution of power. It will taint governance and distort democracy."

Interactive Democracy helps counter balance the problem of economic power becoming political power: 1 issue/1 person/1 vote dissipates political power amongst the electorate, making it much more difficult for money to surreptitiously influence policy; and, at the point of casting their vote, the electorate will be presented with a list of the pros and cons of each argument, generated by MPs and citizens, undermining the influence of the media. I think it would be sensible to have laws against lying, too. (For more please see this post.)

Please click here for Robert Peston's blog.

The Trojan Horse Strategy

Nick Griffin of the BNP (British National Party) is often accused of hiding his parties real views behind a cloak of more respectable language, to garner votes that will lead them into power. Once there, they will be in a position to implement other, more radical, policies.

Is this type of Trojan Horse Strategy carried out by other political parties?

Interactive Democracy provides a safeguard against any party using such maneuvering.

Interactive Democracy for Organisations

The ePetition aspect of Interactive Democracy could be usefully employed for generating suggestions and measuring support for them in areas other than politics. For example, the military could use this system to get feedback and ideas from personnel at every level. Political parties, unions, or any other organisation may also like to take advantage of this aspect of the system.

There could be a small charge for organisations to use the Interactive Democracy infrastructure, but the content generated would remain confidential, open to its members or perhaps only to senior management (the military would need to be especially careful about security).

How would it work?

An organisation would supply a database of approved members who could then use standard security settings to access private areas of the ID site. The organisation may decide in advance if the system is to allow anonymity, or not.

Truth and Balance in the Media

It is a concern that the media can skew the political debate with dishonest or unbalanced output: Truth and balance are essential ingredients for democracy and are especially important for Interactive Democracy (ID).

The Libel Laws are sometimes employed by individuals against the media, but Truth, in the type of Interactive political debate I am advocating, may have no champion to defend her. I suggest that the law should be tightened in this matter by appointing a Truth Commission, with legal powers, to investigate complaints against the media and politicians.

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to ensure entirely balanced reporting as media pundits have their own opinions to express and it is impossible to present every shade of opinion in any one output. The wide diversity of media types (Print, TV, Radio, Internet) will help. But it is important to ensure that media power does not lie with a small oligarchy: the Monopolies Commission should always be keeping an eye on the large media companies.

Another way of ensuring balance is for the ID system to list arguments for and against each proposal. These should be generated by MPs and, separately, by the public adding their comments to the site. It would not be difficult to do using tools developed for the Internet. The advantage of this system would be its accessibility on the user interface that is used to cast your vote. It thus supercedes media generated opinion by its immediacy, authority and egalitarianism.

"Who Runs Britain?"

In " Who Runs Britain?" Robert Peston's writes:

"We've witnessed in the past decade the way that all the main political parties have been prepared to grant access and influence to those with the wherewithal to fund their operations. Even with reform of the system of funding political parties, the wealthy will always find a way to buy political power - whether through the direct sponsorship of politicians and parties, or through the acquisition of media businesses, or through the financing of think tanks. To put it another way, the voices of the superwealthy are heard by politicians well above the babble of the crowd."

In the ID system I would expect the superwealthy to continue to use money to exert their influence, perhaps by "buying" politicians, perhaps through manipulating the media and also through advertising spend. Ultimately, however, Interactive Democracy allows us individual voters to express our power on each issue, as it arises, and the superwealthy influencers must persuade you and me.

Contageous Distrust

Consider the situation: the party in government breaks their election manifesto pledge, or they are caught lying, or they display profound incompetence, or immorality. You want to punish them; to change the government. Yet the opposition parties supported some of those decisions and they appear, in many obvious ways, both superficial and profound, to be cut from the same cloth.

The general election comes around and previous misdemeanours are obscured by argument, rhetoric and time. The incumbent is re-elected.

So, every Political Party sees that they may judge what they can get away with, depending on the balance of their own political capital, good deeds versus bad, the imminence of the next election and on the weakness of an all too similar opposition. In short they see that they can get away with it.

Thus the public consider every party, and all politicians, with a degree of scepticism.

Interactive Democracy allows the public to act in opposition to the government, powerfully and immediately. They act as political outsiders, unsullied by cosy relationships; foreigners in the Westminster Village. This, in its self, introduces a strong discipline that is lacking in today's politics.

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.

Common Ground

Interactive Democracy has much common ground with Parliamentary Democracy, it builds on what we've got:

• The right to vote
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of the press
• The need for debate
• The importance of facts
• Inclusiveness
• Fairness
• A balance of power
• The need for Government
• The need for a Prime Minister and a Cabinet
• The need for a democratically elected Parliament
• The Judiciary
• Law and Order
• Security
• Human Rights

Relativism

Darius, King of Persia, c500BC, was reported to have asked the Greeks at his court if they would eat the bodies of their ancestors, as the Callatiaens did. They were aghast. He then asked the Callatiaens if they would burn their ancestors, as was the custom in Greece. They were horrified.

Thus he showed there is no wrong or right answer. The poet Pindar wrote "Custom is king of all".

"One man's meat is another's poison" is the core of relativism. Like Darius, two and a half thousand years ago, our system of government must integrate the perspectives of millions of very different people in a widely multi-cultural society. Back then, the king held the power and his word became law. Today, the power rests with Parliament. It could just as well reside with the majority of constituents, using Interactive Democracy and widespread debate to integrate all their perspectives into a national view.

Super Capitalism - The battle for democracy in an age of big business.

In his book "Supercapitalism", Robert Reich writes

"Democracy means more than a process of free and fair elections. Democracy, in my view, is a system for accomplishing what can only be achieved by citizens - to determine the rules of the game whose outcomes express the common
good.

"... supercapitalism has spilled over into politics. The money... companies are pouring into Washington and every other major capitol gets in the way.... The challenge for us citizens is to stop them from setting the rules."

Interactive Democracy pulls political power away from those who secretly and insidiously buy political power, and gives it back to voters. Instead, the supercapitalists have to persuade us by the merit of their arguments.

Professor Robert Reich, University of California, Berkeley, was America's 22nd Secretary of Labour. Please click here for his blog.

Freedom For Sale and Democracy Kills

In this Guardian Book Review, Martin Woollacot comments:

"It is a sign of these worrying times that Humphrey Hawkesley and John Kampfner, using the insights and experiences gained from much travel and reporting abroad, should have simultaneously set themselves the task of charting what has gone wrong. These two good journalists adopt similar methods and come to a similar conclusion, which is that an alliance between politicians and the better-off is, in almost every country, undermining democracy by limiting rights and excluding the poor."

(Emphasis, mine.)

Interactive Democracy is a step back towards one person/one vote and the importance of good quality debate, rather than politics fuelled by the overbearing power of money.

Democracy Kills

In his book "Democracy Kills - What's good about having the vote?", Humphrey Hawksley comments on what is required to get a functioning democracy:

"Firstly, leadership..."
"Second... The really tough part is building the institutions. There needs to be a free and responsible press; uncorrupt and efficient public services; an independent judiciary that closes cases and makes decisions; a disciplined police and military; a strong election commission; a banking authority; and education, health and transport organisations, all of which can be held to account."

Humphrey, a respected BBC foreign correspondent, writes of his experiences abroad and of the struggle to bring democracy to the less developed regions of the world. However, the above quote is a reminder of what we have and the foundations that Interactive Democracy can build upon.

Shareholders Bill of Rights

The financial crisis has inspired American investors to call for more rights for shareholders. In particular they want voting rights for nominations to the Board and their pay. This is something that an Interactive Democracy infrastructure could facilitate. Please click here for their other suggestions.

Conference 365

Political parties may consider using the Interactive Democracy infrastructure for internal debates and ballots which would be hidden from none members. It would be like running a conference 365 days a year, 24/7.
In the same way, businesses, unions, civil servants, pressure groups or any other organisation may also use the ID system, which should be considered part of the national infrastructure in the same way as the roads or rail system. There could be a small charge for access.

Journalistic License

Last Sunday, Andrew Marr's guest, Telegraph journalist Andrew Pierce, claimed his description of Neil Kinnock falling "headfirst" into the sea on Brighton's beach, was journalistic license. It was certainly an off the cuff remark, but what is journalistic license and how often is it used?

Colourful writing undoubtedly enhances a story, conjuring up strong images for our entertainment, but how does that marry with the facts of the matter? Does it tarnish the truth? Can we trust what we read?

This last question has an enormous impact on democracy. As does The Sun's claim to switch its support to the Conservatives today.

Interactive Democracy (ID) may employ various strategies for counteracting this:

1. The ID Internet interface should allow voters to list the plus, minus and interesting points for each proposal, as an interactive document, supervised by the web master. More on this here.


2. There could be a legal requirement for the news media and politicians to tell the truth, using a system similar to the Advertising Standards Authority. More on this here.

Party Power

The size of political parties and pressure groups gives them more power in Interactive Democracy, should the leadership be able to persuade their members to vote in unison. This may be accomplished quite powerfully by emailing their members to advise/persuade them on how to vote.

Is this a bad thing?

I don't think so. Party leaders have little real power over how their members vote, except by persuasion. (Votes are cast in secret, so the leadership should never know how individual members are voting.)

However, this poses a potential problem for the introduction of Interactive Democracy because those parties with smaller numbers of members, but many seats in the House of Commons, may use their political power to oppose it. That is to say, they may prefer to hold on to power rather than make democracy more democratic!

(The above graph is shown here, in an article about BNP membership.)

Chanting "This is what democracy looks like"

On BBC's Panorama programme about policing protests there was a brief scene showing someone chanting "This is what democracy looks like". A quick search reveals the lyrics to this song by Sara Marlow (published here). It reveals an attitude, a confrontation and a power struggle in a better way than I can express:

"Now we are raging on the front lines, 50 000 strong this time

We've got a world to win

Struggled our whole lives against this

It's the fight we wouldn't dream of missing

So get off your seat and hit the streets, it's time to begin

This is what democracy looks like

This is what democracy looks like

Now they hide behind their barricades, uniforms and pepper spray

We know we got them scared

They hide behind the walls they made, but no fence can keep away our anger

And by any means we're going to make them hear us today

This is what democracy looks like

We're going to show them what democracy feels like

If you'd open up your eyes, you'd see why we're fighting

But you hide behind your lies, we're going to have to make you listen

Now IMF and WTO, you're going to see us everywhere you go

This is a promise we've made

SAPs and FTAA, we're not going to live that way

You can **** your fence, your tear gas and your pepper spray

Cause they're not what democracy looks like

We're going to show you what democracy looks like

If you'd open up your eyes, you'd see why we're fighting

But you hide behind your lies, we're going to have to make you listen

Now we're energised, electrified, found our power sis-by-side

So-so-solidarite dans la rue

Turtle kids and working class, together we can kick their asses

When we're fighting unified, there's no way we can lose

This is what democracy looks like

This is what democracy feels like

We're going to show them what democracy looks like

This is what democracy feels like"

This is what democracy looks like?

There's got to be a better way

Let's get Interactive Democracy today!

You can visit Sara Marlow's site here.

The Cost of Protests

According to this BBC report the week-long climate camp near Kingsnorth Power Station cost Kent Police about £5.9million pounds! 100 arrests were made and 29 complaints received!

I don't know if Interactive Democracy (ID) would make such protests irrelevant, and I would hate to see the right to lawful protest hindered in any way, but if those police resources were spent tackling burglaries or terrorism, I'd be happy. What ID would do is give protesters a legitimate democratic channel for pushing change, perhaps acting as a pressure release valve and preventing this sort of protest.

Scotland's Illegal Immigrant

While opposition politicians are clamouring for the resignation of Baroness Scotland it seems she is to keep her job and pay the £5000 fine for employing an illegal immigrant.

Chris Huhne declared "Law makers should not be law breakers" - well none of us should, but if we don't know what the law is, can we really be held accountable?

The coverage of this case is the first time I've heard that it is an employers duty to check the passport of prospective employees and that a National Insurance number is not sufficient evidence of a right to work. I never imagined that it would be my legal requirement to demand to see the passport of a window cleaner or gardener (Is it?). Yet it is a common tenant of law that "ignorance is no defence". Not that that defence would be feasible in Lady Scotland's case, as she was partly responsible for the creation of this very same law.

Perhaps it is the role of the police to apply the law with common sense; perhaps it is the role of the Judge to consider mitigating circumstances so that hard laws are implemented with wide consideration. That may work well. However, my objective in raising this here is to point out that if we were all involved in the development of laws through the Interactive Democracy system, then awareness of the issues, and of our responsibilities, would be so much greater amongst the population as a whole.

More here from the Guardian online.

Undermining Foreign Policy

Would discontented voters undermine government initiatives, especially foreign policy, by demanding changes through the Interactive Democracy (ID) process? Sure, people can protest today, but it may be difficult for foreign powers to easily understand the extent of British public opinion. Interactive Democracy votes are counted and can be found easily, on the web. Changes in the votes may be monitored as events unfold and may strengthen our enemies resolve!

On the other hand, supportive votes may have the opposite effect.

Ego Inertia

Those that seek to persuade others (salesmen) get locked into their point of view. This isn't just because they have a whole pile of products to sell, which have a cost that needs to be recovered, but because we would prefer that our psychological commitment to a point of view were not for nought. The Id (ego) wants us to be right.

In politics ideas are peddled with great effort and politicians seldom want to be perceived as being wrong. There is a political cost to their ideas, measured in terms of credibility. This means that controversial points of view may not be raised as the associated risks to credibility and ego are too great.

Interactive Democracy allows the general public to push controversial ideas forward. They have little to lose in terms of political credibility. Politicians can at first watch the debate from the sidelines without committing to one side or the other, only later becoming involved in Parliamentary debate. This dynamic, very different from today's political system, may lead to more creativity and diversity in the range of public policies from which we may choose.

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.