2023 FUTURE OBSERVATORY
2023 FUTURE OBSERVATORY
There have been many solutions offered to bridge the communications gap between politicians and their electorates; and to offer the latter more influence. Whatever the specific solution, the processes they hint at will, most importantly, improve the legitimacy of government. In any case, they will be increasingly in demand as the complexity of government grows.
Thus, experience - not least in terms of widespread use as part of traditional western democratic practice in Australia and in the western parts of the United States - has already shown that referenda can be used for major, crucial issues. Despite politicians' fears, the evidence again is that, in general, the well-informed electorate will approach such referenda with great responsibility. It has usually been the politicians themselves who have been found to have distorted the arguments when the process has failed. It seems likely, therefore, that the use of referenda will grow - especially as the cost of running them will decrease with the growth in the use of computer technology in this area.
Ian Pearson goes even further, to suggest a 'virtual parliament' which uses on-line computer communications to extend voter participation - to voting in the actual debates. In particular, though, he suggests that voters might create an 'electronic shadow' - a computer model, using inference techniques, which would their personal voting preferences - so that instant 'votes' could be taken at any time by consulting this shadow rather than the voter. The individual voter could, of course, modify their 'shadow' voting pattern whenever they wanted to.
But referenda are not the only possibilities. There are a number of other devices which could also be used to encourage direct democracy. One of these, which has a long record of success, is that of the jury. If we have been willing to entrust the life of the defendant to a small group of his or her peers - and the evidence is that this works well - it should not be impossible to use such processes to deal with lesser issues of public policy. This would be much easier to implement - and, in the more specific form of various commissions of investigation (staffed, however, by experts) has been so in the past; though there are no obvious moves afoot in this direction in the major democracies.
Beyond these, the more public use of marketing research could - and eventually should - improve the communications process. It is true that opinion polls have recently earned a rather dubious reputation - not least because of their use as weapons in the political wars - but, properly handled (and once they are respected by those being interviewed), they can give accurate insights into what the electorate in general are thinking. Where you are building a consensus, not least as a means of legitimising actions, such knowledge is invaluable - even if it is only used to map out the changes in opinion you wish to make. The private use, by the political parties, has been growing rapidly. What is not clear is whether such use will become more formal, and become an accepted part of the public domain.
Many of these devices are scarcely revolutionary in nature, and could happily operate within the existing frameworks - and sometimes do - as could a range of other processes. Thus, it would also help improve stability, or at least result in gentler increments of change, if a fifth, say, of representatives were returned each year; rather than all of them every five years. Were this the case, the changes in political climate would be reflected annually, allowing the electorate a say in government that much more frequently. It is a system which is widely used for all but national elections, for the same good reasons which would make it desirable for the latter. Its one drawback is that it would no longer offer the politicians in government a five year holiday before they are forced again to the distasteful process of finding out what the electorate want! In much the same vein, some of the various forms of proportional representation would allow the voices of almost all the electorate e to be heard, including members of minority grouping rather than just the favoured majorities. It seems likely that such approaches will spread from the nations which already use them - with great success - to the laggards (which, unfortunately, include both the US and the UK).
There is a real need to bring minorities into the fold, and offer them some power, since otherwise there is a significant danger that they will act outside of the law. We already have seen frustrated single issue groups do just this; often with considerable success - which does little to dissuade others from following their example, and causes consequent damage to the fabric of society. Less obvious, but perhaps just as important for the future, is that - with single issue and portfolio politics growing in importance - from time to time all groupings will be in a minority! Accordingly, means for bringing minorities together to provide a wide consensus must be created if a political system is to remain viable.
The problems posed by multi-party coalitions in government have been used, by the large parties in those countries where first-past-the-post systems favour them, as a reason for avoiding changes - which would threaten their dominance of those political systems! They do not always report with similar force the problems posed by their own systems. Unfortunately for them, but perhaps fortunately for their electorates, the developments in political processes - away from the traditional compendium parties - are likely to ensure that this issue is addressed.
Despite the emotional objections of the politicians who do not wish to dilute their power, all of these changes are about communication rather than political ideology. Even politicians may seem to agree with this; for they often claim that it is the 'presentation of their policies which is at fault. What they fail to understand, however, is that the most important communication is now that from, rather than to, the electorate. Above all, they must stop talking, and listen! Allowing small groups, and - increasingly - individuals, to communicate with government - indeed encouraging them to do so - is likely to become central to the whole political process. This, then, demands a very different (locally based) relationship with the electorate - even the US representatives, with their large staffs, are more likely to encounter lobbyists from pressure groups than individual constituents. With the advent of widespread computer conferencingg, not least on Internet, it has now become possible for even the most remote community to maintain regular contact with its representatives. This may put pressure on those representatives to listen to the electorate, but that may be no bad thing - where the President of the United States himself (or at least his office) can now be reached via the Internet.
Enacting all of these changes at the same time seems a complex and difficult process - and were they to be unconnected activities that might be the case. The saving grace is that they can, and should, flow naturally from just one change; and that is in the attitude of government. If government wants to listen to its electorate, and if it wants to involve them - thereby legitimising itself, it will positively seek out such changes.
There may be many ways that a government can listen, and involve its electorate, but the prime requirement is a change of attitude - so that the government wants to listen - consolidated over a number of years.
There has been considerable debate about technical changes which would improve the processes of democratic representation - including amongst the futurologists who address the subject (though not all do!), and the comments of our own groups reflected this. There has been almost no debate about changing the attitudes of politicians!
The. The Economist asks the rather provocative question "When the public view can be tested so frequently and easily...why have elected representatives at all?", and goes on to pose an even more fundamental one, "...will representative democracy prove to be merely a 200-year intermediate technology, a bridge between the direct voting in ancient Greece and the electronic voting of modern California”
15 May 2003
Other pages you might like to consider are:
hits
Copyright © 2005 Future Observatory