I don't usually respond to the correspondence I get from WDDM. Most of the time I find that its members cannot break away from the mindset of "vigorous" debate, which is perceived to be such an important feature of any democratic system. It goes around in circles.
The problem with this is that, this type of debate focuses on trying to prove the other person wrong and it's an essentially egotistical reflex. If Democracy does not break down this vicious cycle then no amount of democracy is going to change the World, the way we do business, the way we perceive each other and our role and status in society... and if we don't do that, it doesn't matter what political system is in place.
The human mind constantly focuses on outcome and it does not accept that outcome, more often than not, is beyond its control. There is a
difference between someone who does the right thing and someone who does the right thing because they want to go to heaven.
How does this apply? Consider the option of not focusing on how to ACHIEVE the most democratic outcome and instead search for ways to LIVE more democratically. I know it sounds like some hippie, post-modern, esoteric concept but I have thought long and hard about this and realized that there are two things that prevent us from even thinking (let alone living) more democratically: Representation and the interference of identity.
From the moment that anyone fighting for DIRECT democracy embraces the concept that anyone should be allowed to speak for someone else, failure is inevitable. Secondly, no matter how objective we think we are, if the origin of any process of initiative (a core value of DD) can be traced to an identifiable demographic, our individual ability to judge becomes
tarnished. It might even become tarnished by our need to think of ourselves as open-minded, tolerant individuals, rather than it coming from open mindedness and tolerance.
So what's my solution? Get away from outcome. If the supporters of DD focus on gaining power they will become corrupted by that pursuit. Do not attempt to shadow any existing structure like your national parliament or the way that a political party engages with it. It is not the parties that make the system, it's the system that makes the parties. The very first thing a party requires is representatives who obviously have a public profile and individual identity.
A lot of you agree that education is a crucial part of bringing the change we hope for about. As long as our decision making process is based on the cult of personality, we cannot get closer to the democratic ideal. If we make decisions based on whether or not "I like this guy",
based on the candidate's personality, ethnic background, political affiliation (party) and appearance, we are failing... the worst thing is that we are not capable of not taking those factors into account, the brain will not allow us. Solution: No more candidates, no trusting someone else to take on our individual responsibility for us.
I support the idea of a Civil Service. A group of paid administrators who, like accountants, administrate out society but who have no decision making powers. If you want to really change something, the most important thing is to make democratic living a popular choice. It doesn't even matter if people are aware of the theory behind it.
Look at how popular any online trend becomes. Do you realize that the number of people who actively pursue direct democracy is probably less than 0.01% of those that use
Myspace? Do you realize that there are more people who play Guitar Hero than there are people thinking about these issues? This is the reason why I laugh when I see the ego creeping into the emails I get from WDDM. Like a bunch of fleas fighting over whose dog it it.
Let us create an online game, something that is fun, interactive and appealing to a wide audience. The word "democracy" doesn't even have to be used. Just make sure that the process of interaction is democratic, which, by my definition means participants should remain totally anonymous and unable to form any kind of sub-group. The prize/goal of the game? To collect enough points to earn a "Citizen of the World" passport.
The two main pillars of the game: 1) Participation, 2) Weighted voting. What does this mean? Well, quite simply, regular and consistent participation is rewarded whilst interruptions in participation is punished. (reward
and punishment in terms of points). WEIGHTED VOTING is the process by which you take a multiple choice test on the topic on which you are about to vote and your vote is worth that. If you get 65%, your vote is worth 65% of a full vote. The point system should reflect this. The "perfect" player should take no less than 2 years achieve the citizenship status and collect his passport.
Now, here is the beauty of it. Obviously the game is some kind of political system to run a virtual society. If the game was popular, it can generate advertising revenue, which becomes the community's budget, to spend however IT sees fit. Imagine that in 10 yeats time, the game had become so popular that 10 million people had these passports. Would that still be meaningless? The virtual society would have its own laws, its own character. It would BE a democratic community... a big one. Would it buy some land from the Australians and create its own
"not so virtual" World citizen nation? How big would it grow?
Now. I appreciate you taking the time to read this and I hope it inspired you on some level, but please don't respond, don't write back to say you agree, disagree, think I'm crazy or anything else. I don't want to spark a debate. I just wanted to share an idea. If you have the intellectual means and the skills to put this online game together, then, yes, please get in touch.
Thank you for having me in your forum Lata Gouveia
|