Direct democracy without slaves and the messy conversations that get in the way

Categorised in:

   


The Internet has made everything participatory. We read books, we listen to the radio, we watch TV but we use the Internet. These days, newspapers are shamed if they don't allow comments on their online articles and, in this age of Twitter, we're not even sure there even exists a special class of 'journalists' any more.


Unsurprisingly then, the Internet has helped revive the old dream of participatory democracy, where everybody plays an active role in government, instead of just writing 'X' every four or five years. The Greeks had it three millenia ago, why can't we?


Well, quite a few reasons actually. Athenian citizens had slaves and wives to do the boring work and free up plenty of time for politics. Give modern citizens real power via referenda, as has been tried in some US states, and they tend to vote for more schools, hospitals and prisons, and for less taxation. But there is at least a strong argument for providing more effective channels for citizens to raise their concerns and be given some real power. Why has progress in this area been so limited?


The answer becomes quite clear from a quick glance at the few tentative steps that have been taken in that direction. Just before he was inaugurated as president, Barack Obama's team created an online forum on which the American public were invited to comment on his policies. On one level it was an enormous success, with thousands of people commenting in a matter of days. But this very success only served to illuminate the major pitfall on the road to the digital democracy: thousands of people commenting amounts to an enormous mass of undifferentiated text which only the most dedicated researcher can be bothered to sift through. It wasn't anything like a coherent debate. It was just lots of people airing their particular grievances and a few short-lived one-on-one debates which petered out and then reoccurred with different participants who hadn't noticed the same debate 50 comments earlier. It's what happens on all popular Internet forums: overwhelming mess and endless repetition. The Internet has allowed huge numbers of people to come together at the same time, but we haven't learnt how to actually talk to one another on that scale. We can't have any kind of mass-participation in government unless we solve that problem.


Fortunately, it is a problem which, I believe, can be solved. The Internet is still new and we need time to evolve new tools and new ways of thinking which are fully adapted to the brave new world of mass-participation which the Web has created. Then we can start thinking about participatory democracy again.


I hope the discussion tool I co-created, Yoomoot.com, will be a part of that evolution. It's essentially a new way of having long and complex discussions which is suitably adapted to mass-participation. By creating certain limitations and by offering certain features, it allows massive debates with many participants to be rapidly scanned and understood (see http://yoomoot.com/articles/why-use-yoomoot/  for the details). This is the key to having meaningful debates on a massive scale.


Here in the UK, we've just enjoyed a series of televised debates between the three men who hope to become our prime minister in a few days time. I hope that one day, the focus of the nation will not be on televised "leaders' debates" but on genuine "citizens' debates". I hope that that the default term for talking about people as they relate to government will not be "voters" but "participants".


About Yoomoot:
Yoomoot is a small startup with a tiny budget, we have big ideas and we need your help.
If you like what we are trying to do please spread the word or at least
"Like us" on Facebook:   https://www.facebook.com/yoomoot
We are currently working on redesigning Yoomoot to make it easier to use.