| Articles on Contemporary Democracy |
Our over-hyped democratic process is deplorably outdated. It is simply not keeping up with the technology. If it were, we would all but dispense with the practice of voting to select our leaders/representatives. The so-called “popular” vote, so lavishly (and lamely) touted as the very gem of democracy, is not only deceptive, but highly resistant to the wide-open spectrum of opportunities that technology’s dynamic is forever providing us.
When we take a hard and honest look at it, voting is little more than an instance of throwing the proverbial doggie a bone. Only the wealthy may run for office, but they require the support of the plebes to make their popularity contests respectable. By extending the almighty vote to us common folk, they dupe us into believing that we are actually playing a significant role in their elitist game. If we were truly enlightened, we would stop participating in this charade concocted by and for the rich, and demand, perhaps through some sort of referendum, that everyone, rich and poor alike, not only be permitted the privilege of serving in public office, but occasionally be required to do so.
We [in the United States] just don't seem to get it. We don't need other people to manage us (call them representatives or what you will). We need technology. And we have more than enough at our disposal. But it seems to be characteristic of the species to always lag behind the current technological repertoire, in much the same way that it is unable to divest itself of its religious quirks, those superstitious chains that actually enslave souls more than it releases them.
I am not suggesting that we relinquish our use of human leadership, only the way we select those leaders and/or lawmakers.
I take some solace in the fact that we have already begun to allow some fairly simple technology to exercise at least a modicum of governance over us. In fact, we've been doing it for quite some time. I am referring to traffic lights, those ubiquitous directional signals that we all take for granted. Yes, we may get a little irked at them at times, but even when we do, it is not the light itself (the machine hanging from the wire), it's the circumstances. We are not upset with the light. We're upset with the circumstances of our timing, of which the light is merely an indicator.
I truly believe that we would be much happier if machines (actually the software that operates them) were managing the political dynamic, in much the same way that we are more content when a mindless traffic light is managing the highway. We have all noted how much worse it is whenever a light has malfunctioned and a human being is sent to the location to direct the traffic, which always gets backed up for what feels like miles. But all the while the machine is in charge, the traffic just keeps moving right along, like the proverbial clockwork.
But how could we take it up a notch and turn over the political process (which is now driven by voting) to machines? Well, as a matter of fact, we've already begun doing that too. Have you ever been selected for jury duty? If so, how do you think you were chosen? Do you imagine that a group of people sitting in a room at the courthouse poring over the list of registered voters (or everyone who holds a driver's license) just somehow picked your name?
There is absolutely no way that the judicial system could properly function if we did not use computers to make selections like this for us. A computer is programmed to choose prospective jurors. Do we hear anyone bitching and moaning about this, in the way that we hear the endless criticisms of our elected lawmakers? We blithely accept the use of computers to select citizens to participate in the judicial process, and for the most part don’t give it a second thought.
Since we are already allowing (indeed, depending upon) a computer to randomly select us from a qualified pool of candidates to serve on a jury (where we could very likely be called upon to decide the direction of someone's life), why can we not take a similar step and permit a computer to select us (again, from a pool of qualified candidates) to serve in the state, or national, legislature? We can be chosen at random to be jurors, so why not legislators as well?
Why do we have to bother with the expensive, absurd (not to mention sometimes embarrassing) popularity contests that only the wealthy may participate in? Just because they happen to be wealthy, does that mean that they are - ipso facto - also more qualified to make the laws of the land than those who do not have the requisite wealth?
If all men are truly created equal (an idea that we hold as virtually sacrosanct), then they should be considered as equal in capacity and judgment (which is what we are truly implying whenever we assure ourselves that we are all equal). The qualifications for selection for service in a legislative body should be limited to citizenship (in good standing of course) and literacy, not how much money you have in the bank, or can raise to pay for advertising to run a campaign. To be qualified for public service, in other words, you should only be required to be a legal adult and know how to read and write.
And any citizen who did possess the requisite qualifications, would be fully aware (just as we are now aware of the possible responsibilities of jury duty) that the current privilege of public service would be an obligation (again, just like jury duty).
Technology has the power to completely level the playing field in the arena of public service, to fully eliminate the lopsided social-status requirement that is currently in effect. Technology is the only way to ensure that the poor and middle class participate in the legislative process, the only way that we can change what is currently a privilege (for the rich) of public service into the obligation that it should be for everyone.
It is all too obvious that politicking (politics as usual) is not working. We are greatly deluded if we truly believe that any of the current candidates running for the highest office in the land is truly going to make a difference, to make the much-touted changes that they keep carping about. Politicians do not make changes. They make promises, usually empty ones.
Science and technology (and their ensuing wealth of information) are what changes things. If we had the proper computers in place, randomly selecting legislators (in much the same way that they currently select jurors) to serve in the various state houses, as well as the House in Washington, we could liberate ourselves from all the divisiveness (not to mention expense) of partisan politics.
Technology should be used not only to enhance our ability to produce, and provide for, socio-economic needs on an equal basis, but also to improve the effectiveness of our human leadership. In fact, the two dynamics may have to happen at the same time. It is nigh inconceivable that technology would be in place, ensuring the egalitarian society we all love to envision, while, at the same time, politics as usual was still being conducted. No matter what the candidates or special interest groups say, the only real political issues are centered in resources, their use and/or allocation. (If there were no oil in the Middle East, would we care one iota about panhandling our democratic system to them?)
By completely eliminating political parties (and the special interests they always seem to engender), which would be the primary benefit of the technology-based selection process, future lawmakers would be virtually unimpeded in their efforts to create and implement laws that would be truly beneficial for everyone. In other words, technology-providing-for-everyone is equivalent to technology-selecting-everyone (for public service). It is a corollary to the old saw regarding rights and responsibilities.
The only exception to the technocratic solution might apply to the Senate. It would be a fitting compromise with the current system to keep the Senate just as it is - an elected body. That way we could have our cake and eat it too. We could still exercise our precious right to vote (a deeply entrenched belief in the minds of most), and at the same time support a system that would not only make a way for everyone, rich and poor, to be involved in public service, but make it a requirement.
Wayne Holland has a BA in History from Southeastern University. Moreover, he has written ten books, which can be accessed at www.wayneholland.org.
We agree that candidate inclusion in western democracy has generally become exclusive to wealthy individuals and/or candidates from dominant political parties like the U.S. Republicans and Democrats. The exclusion manifests itself of domination of the political arena including mainstream media, in which other candidates and their political parties virtually stand no chance of political success.
However, we question the solution of having a random of selection of adult citizens in good standing and who can read and write.
It is questionable that an adult citizen in good standing and can read and write, will make a good political representation. Hence, we support an evaluative approach whereby candidates are evaluated by citizen evaluation committees, and wealth and party connection play minimal roles.