dumont? charest? boisclair? … can you see them spearheading free wifi? free audiobooks?

in other words: what’s democracy done for me lately? well, not quite - but if democracy is a really shitty/inefficient way to get good things done (say, for instance if you lobbied to get ISF to be an official policy of the Montreal/Quebec/Can govt), then you can’t blame the rest of us for finding other avenues to pursue things we think are good for the world.

And yes, I can blame “the rest of you” if I think that they are undermining the governance system I wish to live in. There’s a lot of people that have a lot of different ideas about what the world needs. Some thing it needs net neutrality, some think it needs more racial purity. Why I like democracy is that it forces different people with their different ideas of “what’s wrong with the world” to engage publicly with fellow citizens to convince them that they should share their concern. What we should be making sure that we are doing is to be improving democratic functioning in our country. Going for fixes for problem “A”, “B” or “C” while ignoring that is short-term destructive thinking.

“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” - Churchill.

And in response to Boisclair or Dumont spearheading free audiobooks or free wifi, it’s true, I can’t imagine them spearheading them. 1) because they are probably ridiculous policies. and 2) because our society has much more important things to be working on. I wouldn’t want my head of state to be well versed in the intricacies of technology any more than I would want her to be consumed with figuring out the softwood lumber debate. I would want them to be legible in the important dossiers and have a team of people implementing relevant strategies for each area.

This reminds me of Udell’s recent post on getting outside of the tech community bubble. I disagree in that I don’t want geeks necessarily to be more effective in being listened to until they become better at listening to others.

For more on how the democracy was totally undermined by the market-based notion of giving the people what they want please refer to the amazing but super-depressing documentary series,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2637635365191428174

There are four episodes, everyone should watch them.

actually, I disagree: dictatorships might be short term effective, but over the long haul, democracies have proven to be far more successful precisely because they are more effective. (which to me is a far more compelling argument against dictatorship than morality).

and note effective does not = efficient.

but in any case, i’d argue democracy’s success is based on its flexibility and ability to adapt and change to better meet challenges; recent changes in technologies have changed the environment in which political systems live, and so democracy will have to adapt - and will be much better able to do so than other systems.

“democracies have proven to be far more successful precisely because they are more effective. (which to me is a far more compelling argument against dictatorship than morality).”

… I have to ask you to explain this a bit more for me. If achieving “moral” societies isn’t a compelling argument for a government system, that what is your criteria? What is a democracy more “effective” at?

And what specific adaptations do you have in mind for democracy? I’m interested in that conversation, but I haven’t really looked at it to carefully. I know that I like representation systems over direct democracy, but I would certainly be willing to look more closely at different forms of democracy. And do you have any ideas about how these changes/improvements to our democratic structure would be encouraged?

I don’t want us to spend all of our time dropping what we’re doing and focusing solely on issues of governance and citizenship, but I’m very uncomfortable with the smartest, most engaged people my age leaving it to the side.

here is a thought experiment: what if increasing individual liberty, abolishing slavery, providing public education (etc) resulted in: mass pandemics, death, misery, and a collapse in the economy. would we see liberty & public education etc as morally good? i’d argue no.

if you read the bible (and, I presume most religious texts), you realize that much of it concerns very practical rules of life (how to build things, how to eat things etc), in addition to more abstract spiritual things … those “rules” are helpful for keeping a society functioning smoothly, and well, and helps us continue to solve problems we want to solve.

so while making “moral” choices is important, to me the compelling argument is that “moral” choices are actually ones that tend to improve lives. (i think this is part of why the religious right is so strong in the USA: our “free” (and empty) society has resulted in people being unhappy … and a set of moral rules (work hard, be honest, help others, be true to your wife etc) helps you get better at doing the things that, over the past 3000 years, have proven to help make people happier, on balance).

by the way, all this comes out of watching LibriVox evolve, where free-form anarchy is employed only to the extent that it helps us make audiobooks, and not for abstract reasons. so when we decide on issues, we measure against making audiobooks, and not against abstract notions of freedom etc. This, i believe, is how societies and morality develop over time.

regarding democracy & political engagement, my personal feeling is that i can accomplish much more outside of the political system right now. the political system is very rigid (like academia). it’s “better” than fascism, but it could become even more responsive to people’s needs, i think, by adopting more small-a-anarchist approaches to problems. i believe eventually i will become re-engaged in the system, i hope in ways that help the democratic system start playing with some of these ideas, to see what could be helpful, and what not. that is, i do not believe anarchist projects are good because they are anarchist, but only if they can be proven to help people do things they want to do (manage a health system, education system, environment etc).

civicaccess.ca is a perfect example of this: idea is: big groups of people with access to data over the net may be better at solving some problems than the government is, and the government should be responsive to exploring where these areas might be, and supporting movements/technologies/ideas that help bring decision-making tools into the hands of citizens, rather than keeping them in the rigid and compromised government systems as they exist now.

as for representative over direct, again, i have no particular preference, except to the extent that one or the other can better address problems I see with the world; which includes protecting small groups from the abuse of big groups.

Democratization - since the process is inclusive of a variety of orgs and individuals (isf, civil society groups, urban gardeners, artists, unions, social workers, schools, academics, librivox, public service, business people, you and me, etc.) as part of the process of democratizing society and culture both in and out of the formal process of governing or government.

I think we currently are experiencing a quasi liberal representative form of democracy. One that is not inclusive of non specialized non wealthy public voices and were many of the people at the negotiating table are representing their or their particular sector’s interests and not ours. I think a really important force and place that needs to be exherted and claimed outside of the formal process of government and governing - democratization. The formal process governing and government is univiting and non-inclusive of public voices beyond those big unelected kids invited to the table to negotiate behind closed doors - corporatists, lobbyists, big stakeholders - and little or no process to include the rest of us citizens and citizens groups besides tokenism. Therefore i believe the process of democratization outside of the formal channels of governing and goverment will yield the formal to eventually take note of what engaged citizens actually do and want. During that process engaged citizens are getting educated in the process. At the moment attention structures are so skewed toward an undecypherable, apathy laden government structure where anything innovative or new is feared as it means more thinking, more work, and more change. That no wonder people are not voting - their representatives are not representative!

I spent lots of time chatting with public servants, really great people wanting to do work for citizens last week and many have experienced so many governments lately who are in the business of change management that they themselves (public servants) are giving up pushing for new and interesting programs as they just get to watch what they build get quashed by yet a new self interested government with its band of particular stakeholders.

I wonder if we could come up with a democratizatin process that would yield something that includes unique forms and processes in some of these: demarchy + social democracy + nicomacean ethics + feminism + non-partisan democracy + equality of right (Thomas Hill Green) + real & equal participatory deocracy.

Sorry, but I’m still not sure what you think “democratization” is, Tracey.

“I wonder if we could come up with a democratizatin process that would yield something that includes unique forms and processes in some of these: demarchy + social democracy + nicomacean ethics + feminism + non-partisan democracy + equality of right (Thomas Hill Green) + real & equal participatory deocracy.”

Have any examples of large-scale governance systems that incoporate these?

From the first book of Samuel.

The backstory is that the Jews, a hardscrabble band of familial clans eke-ing out an existence in the dessert. Got tired of being fucked over by Philistines, ( haven’t we all tired of the same problem) while being asked to worship a distant and elusive deity. They asked the head old prophet Samuel to make them a king so they’d have someone to actually do something about the painful quandary of power ” on the ground” so to speak.

Samuel hated that idea because he thought a King would compete with Yahweh, but Yahweh who had mightier tricks up his sleeve said ” why not, let them have a king and if it fucks up and I am not around they’ll learn a lesson about giving someone too much power.”

So complicated business ensues ( involving lost she-asses, I really didn’t get that part) and Saul who’s only major attribute seems to be that he is taller than most Jews, gets the big prize. Once he becomes kings though, everyone bristles against this new human almighty power too. So he has to do some sketchy strong arming and conniving to keep his throne against possible usurpers.

It is at this point that Samuel gives the” I told you so” speech about power and ideals, which is here;

Schmuel 12

For the first ” I hate the king idea” speech go here;

Schmuel 8

Anyways, it’s just a nice story, but the basic idea is that politics and morals stem from very different systems. Sammy knew it 5000 + years ago.

Regarding your second question no large governance system incorporates all of these but it seems that many elements of these could lead to a more democratic form of governance than the ones we have now. Canada might be more of a social democracy however the states in the Netherlands are far better at that than us, many elements of a liberal democracy are here however the big decisions do not include or encourage engaged citizen participation in the process, i know of no demarchies but like the idea of policy juries comprised of random citizens on a variety of issues - implementation would be hard but not impossible if bias and jury rigging were kept at bay, i know of no feminist states, and most certainly have never heard of any non-partisan states but would’nt that be ideal, as for nicomachean ethics aka a virtue ethics approach to governing that would be revolutionary to say the least, one migh say the Tibetan Government in Exhile is close, this would however require major societal and individual transformation and a long term plan. But just because it does not exist it does not mean it is not possible!

The way we govern now, how decisions are being made in this country and elsewhere, the lack of any evidence based decision making, exclusionary practices, lack of a historical context, where particularists interests are being pursued at the expense of citizen’s interests, the state of the planet, aids, wars and so on are leading me on a bad day to give up, be quiet just garden and hope that when i am old and in a rocking chair i will be taken care of somehow, and on a good day where i am a naive optimist i come up with visions and possibilities for a new governance structure that includes many elements of the above. I sometimes really have high ideals and great expectations in human being’s ability to use their brains and hearts to take care of each other and their home. I just wish that were everyday ;)

It doesn’t seem to be that easy to answer this: the economy as it is, is sometimes the vehicle of utter destruction of lives, of minds, of ecosystems (e.g. deforestation in the Amazon).

Is the concept of economy itself realistic in an age of abundance? Don’t we have plenty of many things, if only we’d have a more egalitarian distribution of them instead of the “rich” hogging all the resources in impractical ways?

As a corollary, are huge sums of money made through unethical business means somehow tainted? If so, then how should we view big chunks of these fortunes given to charity? Or to fund institutions which then help other less-fortunate people. There are real-world examples of this today.

As an aside, the moral and spiritual go hand in hand. M. Scott Peck views moral growth and spiritual growth as the same thing in “The Road Less Traveled”. Living morally makes you grow spiritually.

However, Democracy is a system of governance, Economy is a system of resource-allocation, and as in everything else, because man has a dual nature, every good system will find its flaws exploited by the unethical or evil ones - they ‘game’ the system. Even circles where morals and spirituality are supposedly taught and vehicled are subject to this - and I’ve not even talked of the religious institutions.

And there’s a real-world reason for that too: there’s demand for it. You’ll always find the expression of awe by some people for others who have big money, big houses, a powerful post, etc…

The only good way to have an opinion of somebody is to base it on that person’s morals - nothing else.

So, something like CivicAccess should have been set up by the Government if the latter was for the people and by the people, wouldn’t it?

I’ll let you conclude the subtext…