, , , ,

When you look at the state of the Planet is it time for world Governments to have   a third level of Governance.

Our political discourse is shrinking to fit our smart phone screens.

( If we don’t open our eyes we will be governed by natural-born troll, such as MR TRUMP who is adept at issuing inflammatory bulletins at opportune moments, he’s the first candidate optimized for the Google News algorithm.)

A pro active house of power with non political representatives immune from lobbing that know what they are talking about.

Such a house would address the long-term views about family welfare, social conditions, the environment, crime and virtually every aspect of our lives that our national government policy effects.

“When you’re up to your ass in alligators, it’s difficult to remind
yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.”

Our political actors can only focus on a few core issues simultaneously, the construction and selection of the problems on the agenda constitute a key phase of the policymaking process.

It is far more effective and cheaper to prevent problems from occurring than to let problems grow and then try to solve them.

A proactive approach to change is needed to avoid a potential future threat or to capitalize on a potential future opportunity.

It would not be effected by the political strategies surrounding the construction of insecurity or the currently political needs of focusing on the acquisition and retention of power.

Unfortunately, as human organizations or societies get bigger, older and more complex, “Destructive Achievers” tend to become dominant. They are promoted or elected to power because they are willing to satisfy the short-term desires of the most powerful members of the group, even at the expense of the group’s long-term health.

Every political power has to go through the media.

These days it is impossible to deny the significant role of the media in the life of societies it influence the opinions and beliefs prevailing in society through content management – which is more difficult now with social media , however, to categorically determine the nature of this impact.

While this maybe true political actors wanting to create and maintain their place in the media must comply with the policies of the mass media, based primarily on the desire to garner the greatest possible interest in the message.

Hence, politicians in their activity must adapt not only to the needs of potential voters, but also to the needs of the media, among which the most prominent ones are the sensational nature of the content and availability of the politician.

As a Result the politics presented is superficially world that is reduced to news, schemas and scandals.

A pro active Chamber may cause in the electorate the expectation of integrity, reliability, conscientiousness from their potential political leaders.

Is such a suggestion feasible or foolish?

Both the development of transmission technology and dissemination of information, increased strength and importance of the media in society. As a result political discourse is contaminated.

Reactive Vs Proactive Change 119

It would be feasible if all decisions from this house were electronically vote on by the electorate before submission too Parliament for approval.

The Internet revolution has transformed the way knowledge is disseminated and how people unite over causes.

It is now more than ever necessary to understanding some of the most influential social and political processes of our time. Social networks are playing a key.  It is and has transformed elections.

In the 1920s, radio disembodied candidates, reducing them to voices. It also made national campaigns far more intimate. In the 1960s, television gave candidates their bodies back, at least in two dimensions. Today, with the public looking to smartphones for news and entertainment, we seem to be at the start of the third big technological makeover of modern electioneering.

This shift is changing the way politicians communicate with voters, altering the tone and content of political speech. But it’s doing more than that. It’s changing what the country wants and expects from its would-be leaders.

What’s important now is not so much image as personality.

Social media favors the bitty over the meaty, the cutting over the considered.

It also prizes emotionalism over reason.

The more visceral the message, the more quickly it circulates and the longer it holds the darting public eye.

In something of a return to the pre-radio days, the fiery populist now seems more desirable, more worthy of attention, than the cool wonk.

In my eyes, social media is one of the most important global leaps forward in recent human history. It provides for self-expression and promotes a mutual understanding. It enables a rapid formation of networks and demonstrates our common humanity across cultural differences. It connects people, their ideas and values, like never before.

It is in its infancy.

Once we truly learn how to harness this new technology and these new ways of communicating, we will feel the full impacts of social media.

It is responsible for the roots of the Arab Spring in the Middle East, Twitter, YouTube, Facebook and others have played not just an important role, but also an instrumental one.

The truth is the fear that some governments have about truly empowering their citizens through these new technologies. They are afraid of power of human connections online forming communities of interest because they are self-monitoring, with their own norms and expectations.

In China, the government of President Xi Jinping has expressed concern about the real power that social media has to spread information

From the printing press to the telephone to the Internet, each of these tools has been a way to organize and activate — to give people the voice they want and deserve.

Forward-thinking governments will listen to those voices and empower them. Others will be fearful of the voice of the people and remain on the losing side of history.

Today’s society, in a similar manner to liquid, adopts various unstable forms under small amounts of pressure. They are incapable of stabilizing in a consistent form, which results in consequences to social relationships and politics.

Meanwhile, political parties, bureaucracy and institutions seem to remain firmly in the 17th Century.

Democracy has to reinvent itself in accordance with this new “liquid society” where collaboration happens between many millions of people directly.

Leadership is not vertical, as in the past, but horizontal.

There is no time and space limitation for public accountability on the Internet.

Creative commonality is standard and does not resemble the authoritarian style of the dead communist experience.

It seems that it is no longer society’s obligation to understand legislation, it is a duty for governments to be understood by their people.

More than ever, the citizen is now part of the solution. Decision-makers must take advantage of technological tools to listen to the people and raise public awareness of controversial debates. If society has logged out of the virtual world it is time for government to realistically log on in an effective way to chat with citizens.

Ultimately, the discussion is all about what government is doing to the people, as in France in 1779, Russia in 1917 and 1991, in addition to many other uprisings in past. After all, it is much easier to listen to people now.

Open government is what politics will be in the Future.

While the possibilities are promising, there is also risk and danger.

It is now evident that there is no such thing as privacy. Google is omniscient of what people search for and do. Facebook has over a billion subscribers meaning Mark Zuckerberg has personal information about one in every seven people on earth. USA, Brazil, Mexico, India and Indonesia are at the top of that list.

Companies collect and negotiate information about customers and often without permission. There have been notorious cases of non-authorized government investigations on people, from autocratic regimes to alleged democracies.

Evgeny Morozov calls for a cyber utopia of ingenuity with the perspective for digital technologies. The dark side seems closer to scenarios depicted in fiction such as 1984, A Brave New World or, more recently, the Guy Fawkes face mask borrowed by the Anonymous movement from the V for Vendetta movie that has become omnipresent throughout the latest uprisings in Turkey, Egypt, Brazil and the United States.

President Obama is the best-known politician to be exploring the possibilities of new technologies to converse with the people.

Others must follow his lead and innovate. It is inevitable.

Facebook´s average user is 22 years old and the digital world continues to evolve bringing greater potential. Soon, every protester will have a smart phone with an HD 3D camera. The ascension of mobile caused Steve Wozniak to announce the end of the personal computer, which he himself invented with Steve Jobs three decades ago.

Politics needs to adapt. Like it or unlike it.

The technology is just scratching the surface of its promise.

Smartphones are cheaper than computers and will become ubiquitous; Everyone will be connected through phones.

Afficher l'image d'origine

A major effort needs to be made to educate voters about proactive vs. reactive approaches to issues.

It’s not just about economics. Afficher l'image d'origine

We are dealing with the mechanism of the spiral of silence, which pulls individuals into a paradox of sorts: to ensure social acceptance, he or she resigns from forming own thoughts and views on certain topics, withdrawing from discussion

The culture of diversity removes any moral (good/bad) and evaluative (positive/negative) dimension that justifies the political, social and ethical associations linked to the dynamics of diversity.

Of course, I’m open to suggestion!