2023 FUTURE OBSERVATORY
2023 FUTURE OBSERVATORY
It seems reasonable to say that - at long last - the masses (albeit operating as informed individuals using the ballot box rather than an ignorant proletariat storming the barricades) are coming to demand their rights in government; and, in particular, their rights to participate in it.
Participation - often now described as direct democracy as opposed to (traditional) representative democracy - may be, though, a potentially fraught solution to put into practice, rather than to describe in theory. After all, it is no longer possible to have state decisions decided by everyone - as it was, to some degree, long ago in the golden age of Athens; though some might recommend an electronic equivalent - and even Al Gore - the US Vice - spoke in this context of 'forging a new Athenian age of democracy. In practice, most modern citizens would not normally want such a degree of involvement for themselves - nor the responsibility which goes with it - as you will soon find out if , like me, you ever have to find individuals to stand as town councillors!
There is, therefore, a potential spectrum of involvement. At the upper end this would consist of the whole panoply of existing political appointments; from members of the inner circle of government down to the lowliest town councillor or school governor and those enjoying the patronage of government as members of non-elected bodies. It is undoubtedly the case, as everyone knows (no matter how much bluster there is about bringing in the 'great and the good'), that these positions are currently in the gift of the establishment. They are too often gained by selling your soul to that establishment and often, in addition, undertaking a long apprenticeship; typically as a foot-soldier for a political party, to prove your genuine commitment to its values.
At the opposite extreme is simply a belief that government is being undertaken on behalf of everyone - to use Theodore Parker's words, 'for all the people'. This may not sound revolutionary, but in practice it is! The establishment governs within its own rules. It may choose to do what is best for the masses, and get a warm glow from that act of charity, but it reserves to itself that choice. It definitely governs all of the people - or at least the decreasing number who are willing to remain within the law - but not necessarily always for them. In particular, it often governs in the interest of special. Clearly the supporters of the winning party - be they businessmen or union leaders - expect to gain something from their support; but there are many other groups which are almost as successful in diverting power to their benefit. The Mafia in Italy (and to an extent in the United States) pulls many strings. Surprisingly, considering its small numbers (of just a few per cent of the population), and its constant cries of discrimination against it, the Jewish community in the United States has had a remarkable degree of influence on government there - vastly out of proportion to its numbers - achieved by an equally remarkable degree of unity of purpose (especially in targeting congressmen and senator with threats, bordering on blackmail, of electoral destruction).
Whichever the recipient, it is usually clear - not least to the electorate - that is biased in favour of a chosen few; and against the majority! In addition, the isolation of the establishment has led to it delivering even greater rewards to those it believes are its supporters (as opposed to the 'traitors' who are not!). This bribery of key supporters might have worked in times gone by, but now it merely heightens the sense of moral outrage experienced by the disadvantaged majority.
On the other hand, the very simple - basic - requirement for is that the population as a whole can comfortably accept the often made (but rarely justified) assertion that government really is working on its behalf!
Beyond this, fuller participation will come when the political establishment opens its ranks to anyone with the capability, and the desire, to participate in the processes of government. Such a change is easy to make in theory, but almost impossible to make in practice - when all the gatekeepers have a vested interest in maintaining the power of the elite.
The forces for such change will come from the demands for legitimate representation of the views of individuals. As, and when, failure to respond to such demands is seen to undermine the legitimacy of government it will act - albeit almost certainly too little and too late!
Though the demands for participation in government seem unstoppable, they may be met by a range of answers; the key change, which most governments will probably concede too late to avoid considerable tensions, is simply an obvious desire upon the part of government to positively involve the electorate.
The RSA (Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufacture & Commerce, in the UK) inquiry into the future of business - 'Tomorrow's Company' - thus reflects the public position of such organisations when it reports the 1994 Cooper & Lybrand 'Middle Market Survey' as saying that '73 per cent of companies still favour the adversarial approach in their supplier relationships'. Despite this finding, the RSA inquiry, based on consultations with 8,000 business leaders, came to the same conclusions as ourselves - in terms of future behaviour - "Tomorrow's company values reciprocal relationships and works actively to build them with customers, suppliers and other key stakeholders though a partnership approach...."
Even some key politicians now recognise this. Newt Gingrich, for instance, says "If we are to create an opportunity society...millions of Americans will have to be involved."
Harold Linstone - Editor-In-Chief of Technological Forecasting and Social Change - points out "...at the apex of its glory at the time of Pericles only 43,000 of the 315,000 inhabitants of Athens (14%) were citizens with the rights and responsibilities of democratic rule."
Newt Gingrich says "...the experiment with professional politicians and professional government has failed. It is impossible to hire someone to make decisions for your society then ignore the process and have an acceptable product."
15 May 2003
Other pages you might like to consider are:
hits
Copyright © 2005 Future Observatory