Algorithms Democracy., Cyberocracy., Direct Democracy, Erosion of democracy., Government’s., Information revolution., Modern Day Democracy., NEW DEMOCRATIC EMPOWERMENT, old monarchies and governments, Out of Date Democracy, Political Trust
In terms of almost everything, no one can be sure what the next fifty years will hold nor can anyone be sure just what a government will be doing fifty years from now, never mind next year.
As history has repeatedly shown, political systems come and go.
Given our rapid technological and social advances, (a trend we can expect to continue) we will be looking at many different possible futures because there is a new kind of creature that has entered the world.
When we change the way we communicate, in today’s increasingly interconnected world we change society, creating entirely new systems of thought to deal with complex issues like climate change, and by whom/what and how we are governed.
We are in the throes of the digital age with all of its unknown consequences and it along with Climate Change is ushering in a new phase of the world. Perhaps we are looking at democracy being replaced by Cyberocracy. (Computer(s) make the decisions.)
A precise definition of cyberocracy is not possible at present as it is still hypothetical in form, but it may bring a new emphasis on ‘soft’ symbolic, cultural, and psychological dimensions of policymaking and public opinion.
It will be however a product of the information revolution and it may place a premium on gaining information from any source, public or private, radically affect who rules, how and why.
(That is, information and its control will become a dominant source of power, as a natural next step in political evolution.)
In essence, a smartphone could show us how and can train us in the latest developments to increase effectivity, while making sure a human or a group of people are not directly interacting with the information.
In theory a great idea for efficiency but in practice, those in charge will probably use the information to crush dissent and sell the information off to private companies.
Ideally, the point of cyberocracy would be to ultimately overcome the faults that lie in typical bureaucratic systems, effectively creating an artificially intelligent head of state.
Luckily there is a pitfall, in that the control of all gathered information would then ultimately lie in the proverbial hands of a machine, wherein true humanity becomes lost to the legislative and governmental processes.
The consequence of the information revolution may thus mean “greater inequalities. speeding the collapse of closed societies and favouring the spread of open ones.
Algorithms are already undermining the power base of old monarchies and governments, and these same technologies will subsequently “turned into tools of propaganda, surveillance, and subjugation that enabled dictators to seize power and develop totalitarian regimes.
New modes of multiorganizational collaboration are taking shape, and progress toward networked governance is occurring to enable hybrid systems to take the form that do not fit standard distinctions between democracy and totalitarianism.
A double-edged sword that revolves around symbolic politics and media savvy with governments straining to adapt.
For example vast new sensory apparatuses for watching what is happening in societies and around the world. Of all the uses to which the new technologies are being put, this may become one of the most important for the future of the state and its relationship to society.
Each generation must address its own challenges even though it is not yet clear which future will emerge with the current climate crisis.
Policy problems have become so complex and intractable, crossing so many jurisdictions and involving so many actors, that governments should evolve beyond the traditional bureaucratic model of the state.
Only time will tell.
We now have communications tools that are flexible enough to match our social capabilities, and we are witnessing the rise of new ways of coordination activities that take advantage of that change.
Setting priorities among government’s current endeavours need to involve at least four decisions:
Which endeavours should be continued or stopped; Which are most important; Which are the government’s greatest responsibility; and which should have the highest priority?
Back to the present with climate change.
There is one thing for certain that with climate change there will be tragedies not yet imagined. It will drive people into compact groups and we know that if a group of humans get together without some sort of organised leadership they end up killing each other.
So for the good of all humankind, in fact, all life on earth and the earth itself, we need to push ahead in this area. Or else go back to pre-industrial times and abandon modern life as we know it. Staying the course we are on will lead only to ruin.
Government’s greatest priorities of the next fifty years can be found in their greatest disappointments of the past.
My point is, the government doesn’t remind us of the good things in life, not often. When it works, we barely notice, but when things go wrong, the glaring deficiencies of the system present themselves everywhere.
As a result, the Government used to be for the lack of a better word the parent of the group/ nation hated some days and loved other days.
Should they now be limited to the implementation of certain social norms desirable for holding the structure of society in place?
I want to see some politicians with the forethought and imagination to understand this.
That’s because I need to be reminded of what I’m living for, not an Algorithm of everything, not a government elected on lies, false news, predictive algorithms which is a two-way relationship manipulated by social media platforms, owned by monopolies that are no longer trusted by the citizens they represent.
Without knowing how decisions are taken or who the decision-makers are, and without knowing how decisions are implemented or to what end, citizens feel undervalued and disenfranchised. They do not believe that the government is listening to their concerns.
So where are we?
The freedom that we see emerging from the networked environment allows people to reach across national or social boundaries, across space and political division. It allows people to solve problems together in new associations that are outside the boundaries of formal, legal-political association like governments.
If the past is prologue, however, the government will continue to the extent that a society is measured by what it asks its government to do.
Sure the information revolution will foster more open and closed systems; more decentralization and centralization; more inclusionary and exclusionary communities; more privacy and surveillance; more freedom and authority; more democracy and new forms of totalitarianism.
Yet setting priorities is not just about addressing past failures. It is also about protecting past achievements.
To solve the problems and understand the role and limitations of government, will require a new way of thinking and working and a new level of trust and understanding of people.
The revolution in global communications thus forces all nations to reconsider traditional ways of thinking about national sovereignty.
A longer view of history provides little assurance that the new technology favours democracy.
Firstly, governments must be seen as capable and effective in carrying out their activities. Secondly, the government must be seen as treating all people equally and impartially, without favouritism or discrimination.
And thirdly, the dimension of human concern and personal connectedness: government must be seen to be sincerely caring about each person’s welfare.
Digital is offering a great way to respond to this at a service level but is only part of the answer when it comes to mending and building relationships with people.
Even in the best of times, delivery is hard for governments: objectives are not always clear; they change in response to events or leadership transitions.
An endeavour cannot be a top priority, or a priority of any kind if it is not worth pursuing at all. The term “greatest” does not mean either “most successful,” or “most important,” or even “most appropriate.” Rather, the greatest endeavours of the present are the ones in which the government has made the greatest investment.
This fact base speaks for itself.
The first step, then, is to choose three to six priority outcomes—any more will be too many. They can’t all be equally important.
These priorities must be written into the constitution of a nation so they cannot be tampered with.
And establishing the right metric for each priority to ensure it does not yield unintended, negative consequences must be set by citizens assemblies rather than relying on leaders political instincts.
People must feel ownership of the plan by agreeing on criteria for continuation funding.
Communicating is only the beginning.
Stakeholders must be engaged all the way through to delivery of the promised outcomes. Accountability is established,outcome-based budgeting, so that funding is directly linked to and contingent on the delivery of key outcomes.
This, as we know, is notoriously difficult to pull off in a world of silos, disparate agendas, and competition for funding. But a small number of priorities will go a long way toward securing the support required.
Government achievement ebbs and flows with changing economic, social, and political circumstances, with the mere passage of time.
The worst form of government is the tyrannical form, where all power is with one man, a leader who rises from the chaos of democracy, thirsting for power but not having the wisdom or learning to use it wisely.
With the issue of government Citizens, bonds targeting citizens funding will resolve this problem. They could unite as a human race and get our priorities in check so we can find out what’s really out there and perhaps where we really came from.
Their performance should be measured against agreed international benchmarks a portfolio of targets at varying levels of ambition.
Who would set the levels?
The U.N. is essentially an incredibly weak confederacy it should be disbanded, and a new, better UN made, with a written Constitution. All member countries hereby agree to uphold and abide by all constitutional clauses upon entry to the United Nations and any violation of any of the several clauses herein will be punished with the full force of each member state.
And finally, here are a few endeavours.
Reduce Carbon emissions.
Continue reducing nuclear weapons.
Reduce discrimination, pollution, poverty, and inequality.
Expand health care.
Devolve digitally responsibility to promote and protect democracy with the right to vote by electronic voting.
Create a Digital government performance platform.
As to which type of government is the best for mankind, well, if only we had the answer to that…Hierarchy does not end.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.