Post in Gathering input from one million people

Mar 06 20:36 UTC

Steven Clift wrote:

> ... so assuming something real might happen, what advice does the
> world's largest collection of e-participation experts have?

I'd advise, in reply to Michael Wills, that his concessions might not
be needed.  He said:

> ... Hence the surrendering or limiting of the power of the executive
> ... to make policy development a collaborative venture between
> government and citizens, instead of a top-down exercise which can
> only be accepted or rejected at elections with no in-between
> options, and giving citizens greater opportunity directly to monitor
> and scrutinise the delivery of policy.

From the understanding I've gained (last month or so), I doubt the
necessity of a power transfer.  Executive power and authority - and
the whole formal structure of government - could remain the same.

Guy Aitchison (Our Kingdom), echoes the concerns that are behind
Wills's concessions:

> Wills's misgivings, I'd suggest, reflect a much broader anxiety on
> the part of government towards the power of the web - something
> memorably brought home to them last year with the huge success of
> the anti-road charge e-petition. For government, the challenge is to
> use new technologies for deliberation and engagement between
> elections, whilst ensuring that, what has been called, the
> "mainframe" remains intact. Is this possible given that the
> mainframe belongs to a previous age?

I believe the answer is 'Yes, the mainframe can remain intact'.  To
see why, consider that government makes several kinds of decisions:

   i. affecting the interests of the governed community

  ii. affecting other parts of society, such as economy and culture

 iii. purely administrative, affecting government itself

It may be possible to remove community decision-making (i) from
government, without also removing other decision-making (ii and iii).
The transfer to communities might be entire (all type i decisions),
yet nevertheless involve no transfer of power or authority.
Communities would gain nothing but the ability to *reach* independent
decisions, in matters where their own interests were at stake (and
possibly in other matters, if they chose).

Government would then be free to act on those decisions (where its
action was needed), but only if it chose.  And there would be a
dialogue, of course, between government and community.  The two would
negotiate.  But at no point need the community surrender its right to
make decisions, nor the government surrender its right to wield power.

As regards authority, the authority of government would probably be
enhanced whenever it chose to act on a community consensus.  And so
would its effectiveness - the wheels of government being apt to turn
more easily in the direction of a consensus.  (At other times, its
authority and effectiveness would remain what they are today, more or
less.)

The structural changes would occur entirely in communities.  They
would gain an institution for decision-making - the embodiment of
whatever process is developed for this purpose.  It would exist side
by side with other institutions in society, such as legislatures,
courts, universities and business firms.  But it would not operate
according to the same rationale as those other institutions - not
according to power, nor jurisprudence, nor science, nor wealth - but
according to the rationale of communities, which is one of free and
open discourse.

(The exception to the rule of 'no structural change outside of
communities' might be the political party.  There is reason to believe
that parties would no longer be needed, once communities have their
own decision-making institution.  It would be employed for ballot
nominations, and for the expression of interest.  Parties would be
weakened by this change.)

If the structural power changes feared by Wills aren't needed, if
fixes to government, in general, aren't needed, then - contrary to
what we suppose - the system was never broken.  Rather, it was the
community that was broken.