Democracy in Action V (DiA5)

working title: DEMOCRACY AND INTERNET

1. Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:29:22 +0730

To: ispo@www.ispo.cec.be

From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)

Subject: RE:IS Forum (IS = "Information Society")

... I suggest that there is a need for a thorough inquiry and public debate about how democracies, as they now exist and function, should or can be improved.

_______________________

2. Date: 24 Jun 96 17:30:02 EDT

From: Horace Mitchell <100136.2412@compuserve.com>

To: ispo-discuss a <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

Subject: RE:IS Forum

I agree with Michael Macpherson that its not much good

studying ways to enhance democratic processes in an

online context unless one understands what are the

strengths and weaknesses of existing democratic processes. (........)

______________________

3. Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:49:04 GMT

From: ketlux@ketlux.demon.co.uk (Geoffrey A. Stephenson)

Reply-To: ketlux@ketlux.demon.co.uk

To: ispo@www.ispo.cec.be

Subject: Re: RE:IS Forum

"I presume 'voting' implies 'directing action'. IMHO the idea that

citizens should directly vote on issues misses the point of the type

of democracy we have developed, 'representative' democracy." (....)

________________________

4. Date: 25 Jun 96 15:16:49 +0200

Subject: Re: democracy in IS

From: "Alan McCluskey" <amccluskey@access.ch>

To: "ISPO list" <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

"I was absolutely astounded by Geoff Stephenson's confidence in our elected representatives as expressed in his recent posting." (....)

________________________

5. Date: 28 Jun 96 22:59:50 EDT

From: Horace Mitchell <100136.2412@compuserve.com>

To: ispo-discuss a <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

Subject: RE:IS Forum (electronic democracy)

"I agree with Geoff Stephenson, we need to explore the meaning

and possibilities of "electronic democracy" but we should avoid

the assumption that it means a referendum or plebiscite on every

issue and the end of representative democracy." (....)

_______________________________

EDITOR WRITES: Taken fom an earlier e-debate, the following exchange betweeen M Macpherson and W Lusoli (items 7 and 8) raises further questions about the Internet as a medium of political discourse. On some points it may be that MM did not understand exactly what WL was getting at. An attempt to clarify the cloudy points has been made in an "interview" by Prof. Ted Becker, who publishes the teledemocracy electronic magazine TAN+N. (LINK)

7) Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:13:57 +0200 (MET DST)

From: Wainer Lusoli <wlusoli@sun1.spfo.unibo.it>

To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>

Subject: Re: directer democracy

8) To: Wainer Lusoli <wlusoli@sun1.spfo.unibo.it>

From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson) 11th May 1996

Subject: Re: directer democracy

________________________________

EDITOR WRITES: Finally, a contribution by M Owen which connects the the discussion about democracy and internet with wider social issues. In the ISPO e-list, this discussion about democracy presented in this digest overlapped with another which concerned broader issues of modern communication, for instance, concerning which social groups may monopolise and which be denied the chance to participate in "cyberdemocracy". (See ISPO-list archives via <http://www.ispo.cec.be/ispo/lists.html> for this thread entitled "IS forum" or similar)

9)From: t.m.owen@bangor.ac.uk (Martin Owen)

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:04:37 +0100

I don't see any former Microsoft or IBM downsized employee setting up a company called cyberDemos. It is easier to earn money empowering the currency trader, the shipping and airline brokers... and even distance based university education brokers.

______________________________________________________

Date: Mon, 24 Jun 1996 17:29:22 +0730

To: ispo@www.ispo.cec.be

From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)

Subject: RE:IS Forum

Cc: ebrtwski@pvda.nl (Marianne Ebertowski)

Sender: owner-ispo@www.ispo.cec.be

Precedence: bulk

Colleagues, Friends.

A recent post to the ispo listo (reproduced in full below) included the

following suggestion:

>May-be we could start a discussion how we could work to a democratic

>information/communication society in which everybody can participate.

>I don't share Horace's optimism that thinks will work out all by >themselves. PC's and the Net are not like TV's: you do not just switch >them on and watch.

This discussion is already going on. During the past year or so I joined in

by writing to several electronic discussion groups. My posts and replies to them can be found via John Gotze's WWW home page (Democracy in Action, URL below). In the "Democracy in Action" digests there is some debate about the desirability of increased citizen participation in decision making, literature suggestions and links to projects which aim to improve democratic systems in various ways. One of my messsages included the following:

(quote) Request for information, suggestions for study and debate.

"Democracy aided by computer networks" is the subject of many current

discussions and practical, mainly experimental initiatives.

While these are to be welcomed, I suggest that there is a need for a

thorough inquiry and public debate about how democracies, as they now exist and function, should or can be improved.

This inquiry should address democratic systems in their entirety and not be limited only to the present or possibly expanded role of computers.

I am particularly interested in changes which allow citizens to participate more fully and more effectively in political decision making. It would be helpful if someone could summarise what proposals have been made to increase the responsible, "deliberated" participation of citizens in decision making in local, national and international systems. For instance, what is the modern version of a "town meeting"? How could "town meetings" be organised in a metropolis?

(...) (unquote)

Until now I did not get any really satisfactory answers. To my cyber- and off-line attention came numerous initiatives with a variety of features, such as one or more of the following:

1) providing on-line information about election candidates in the "run-up" period (local, regional, national)

2) on-line presentation of different viewpoints (e.g. of parties, lobby

groups, "opinion leaders") about political issues,

3) various on- and off-line projects aimed to improve citizens'

"deliberation" on a controversial issue (such as citizens' juries (small),

panels (large) which may or may not be based on "representative" sampling of participants),

4) promoting various types of "interactivity" (e.g. citizen - citizen,

electronic group communication, citizen - politician - citizen) for purposes of political communication

5) offering on-line connections to other media (e.g. local radio,

newspapers, minority group publications),

6) various forms of electronic voting.

A comprehensive documentation, analysis and evaluation of this field is IMO urgently needed. And, as I wrote above and have suggested before (see: Democracy in Action II, via URL below), a more fundamental study of how democratic systems function now, especially regarding representativity and citizen participation, would provide a firm basis to help assess the need for and potential effectiveness of electronic or other reforms and innovations in collective decision-making.

I continue to look for cooperation partners who would be interested in

setting up such a study. (It may be that the type of work recommended above has already been done or is in progress. If that be the case, then an evaluation and enthusiastic introduction of the findings to the public

arena is needed.)

On 21st June 1996 Marianne Ebertowski wrote

<quote>I agree with the basic criticism that the IS Forum is too much "top down". Still, at least, it includes representatives of trade unions,

Organisations of Disabled People, Consumers' organizations and Members of the European Parliament who are supposed to represent "the people". But, yes, I know from experience that a lot of them haven't got a clue how the Internet works. But, it's a step forward since the "Bangemann-situation" in which the captains of industry proclaimed the "information society". (By the way, I hate this expression. I'd rather talk about a "communication society" which is what it all is (could and should be) about. ) May-be we could start a discussion how we could work to a democratic information/communication society in which everybody can participate. I don't share Horace's optimism that thinks will work out all by themselves. PC's and the Net are not like TV's: you do not just switch them on and watch. You have to know how to work with them and what you can and want do do with them. It's not only a matter of how much they cost. Any brilliant ideas around? I'd like to hear them. I'm afraid the "it's all oppressive, racist, sexist, whatever.." approach won't get us anywhere, neither does it help the people who are at risk from being excluded from our wonderful IS.

Marianne <unquote>

Sincerely,

Michael Macpherson.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dr. Michael Macpherson,

Integral Studies,

Derfflingerstrase 17,

10785 Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany.

tel.: +49 30 262 3768

e-mail: mjm@berlin.snafu.de

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

World Wide Web addresses (URLS):

1) Hosted by John Gotze in Denmark:"Democracy in Action":

http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~itsjg/macpherson.html (until March 1998).

2) INTEGRAL STUDIES: proposals, opportunities to co-operate:

http://www.snafu.de/~mjm/

Date: 24 Jun 96 17:30:02 EDT

From: Horace Mitchell <100136.2412@compuserve.com>

To: ispo-discuss a <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

Subject: RE:IS Forum

I agree with Michael Macpherson that its not much good

studying ways to enhance democratic processes in an

online context unless one understands what are the

strengths and weaknesses of existing democratic processes.

Like any application of computers etc, application to the

democratic process will be governed by market forces not

by logic. Just as today's democratice machinery is governed

by history and current market forces, not by logic.

Michael seeks:

<<a more fundamental study of how

democratic systems function now, especially regarding representativity and

citizen participation, would provide a firm basis to help assess the need

for and potential effectiveness of electronic or other reforms and

innovations in collective decision-making>>

An interesting start point is to ask whether very "old" constitutions

that have evolved sluggishly over centuries are outperformed

(in the sense of providing better democratic processes) than

relatively "newer" ones. For example, is the process in the USA

(which started a couple of centuries since) inherently better

than the one in the UK (which has evolved mainly over the past

four centuries? Is the current German one (adopted after the

last European war - at least lets hope it was the last one in

Western Europe) inherently more effective than the USA one?

Its illuminating to contrast all the European/N American ones

with some of the even newer African ones.

IMO the enhancement of the democratic process is about:

- relative maturity of societies

- relative stability of societies

- education level of electorates

No amount of electronic "participation" will fend off dictators

in a society which is inherently immature and unstable. Better

to focus on educating the citizen so that he/she is motivated to

participate, before putting too much energy into encouraging

participation?

Horace Mitchell.

Date: Tue, 25 Jun 1996 08:49:04 GMT

From: ketlux@ketlux.demon.co.uk (Geoffrey A. Stephenson)

Reply-To: ketlux@ketlux.demon.co.uk

To: ispo@www.ispo.cec.be

Subject: Re: RE:IS Forum

In message <v01510101adf401cc5370@[194.121.231.28]> michael macpherson writes:

>

> 6) various forms of electronic voting.

>

I presume 'voting' implies 'directing action'. IMHO the idea that

citizens should directly vote on issues misses the point of the type

of democracy we have developed, 'representative' democracy. We vote

at elections for representatives - people who we trust to reach

decisions on our behalf after looking at the facts, debating issues,

thinking about the problems - instead of doing these things ourselves.

We spend our tine doing all the other things that make up life -

working, playing, etc. The list of candidates is made by political

parties (plus some independent candidates) who choose people who are

sensible, unbiased, ... (of course no system is perfect).

To give the mass of prejudiced, ignorant, ... people (like me) the

right to make decisions on important practical questions - how much to spend

on the police, who should be taxed, whether to go to war, whether to

allow immigration... - when we do not have the time or (in the case of

most non-politicians) the inclination to research the individual

questions would be to return to decision making by clique, by vested

interest etc. A lynch mob is democratic in the sense that the

majority of people present agree to hang someone from the nearest tree.

But I wouldn't want to be governed by a lynch mob. The fact that electronics

gives us the capability to vote individually, doesn't mean that we should

do so. Nor should we overload our representatives with our own individual

prejudices on every subject about which we happen to feel strongly -

another recipe for disaster. They need time to think about problems -

something we can do, but computers can't -information overload is

no aid in decision making.

--

--

Geoff Stephenson at ketlux@ketlux.demon.co.uk fax to +352 318154

All thought draws life from contacts and exchanges. Fernand Braudel

Date: 25 Jun 96 15:16:49 +0200

Subject: Re: democracy in IS

From: "Alan McCluskey" <amccluskey@access.ch>

To: "ISPO list" <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

I was absolutely astounded by Geoff Stephenson's confidence in our elected representatives as expressed in his recent posting. I really thought that widely publicised incompetence and scandals of all sorts had done much to shake such myths. Apparently not for everyone.

Geoff goes on to compare direct democracy to a lynch mob. Making such a vile and unjustified comparison is what is called "reducto ad absurdam". It is also the stuff that fanatacism is made of. Maybe Geoff should read Edward de Bono's book "I'm right. You're wrong" which, amongst many other things, talks about how some people destroy other people's arguments by likening them quite unjustifiably to negative things. He might also do well to talk to Swiss nationals about their direct democracy system in which they regularly vote on key issues.

Underlying this whole subject is the question of the changing role of the

individual in society. I am currently writing about this subject. One

aspect of the mutation of the indidivual's role is that many a citizen

thinks his or her job is finished when he or she has shifted the

responsability to someone else - the elected person - and has nothing

further to do or to say till the next election. This abdication is one of

the failings of the current democratic system. Elected representatives DO

NOT understand all issues. Far from it. Especially when it comes to the

so-called Information Society. See, for example, recent events about

censorship in the States. It is our job as citizens to keep them informed.

Networking tools are a great help in this. Of course, as Marianne points

out in another posting, having such tools raises other problems, in

particular those of exclusion. Geoff is afraid of our cherished representatives being flooded by individuals' points of view, which he promptly invalidates as a block by treating them as "prejudices". He says nothing of the powerful lobby of industry and commerce applying n-fold pressure on elected representatives with the sole aim to increase their profits often to the detriment of everybody else and society in general. He says nothing of the stereotyped political party view that is totally inadapted to a rapidly changing, unpredicatbale world...

The fall of the Berlin Wall and the concommitent end to Communism and the subsequent triumphal cock-crowing on the part of the non-Communist world should not lull us into thinking our democratic and economic system is satisfactory. It clearly isn't. It can't handle unemployment. It can't handle exclusion. It can't handle corporate and individual violence. It can't handle fanatacism...

It is in this context that I see the Information Society as a chance to

question and re-model structures such as our demcoratic system. Clearly

such is not the intention of those who see the Information Society

essentially as an instrument to keep profit margins up.

(... no doubt to be continued ...)

All the best Alan.

e-news

" ... a CyberCitizen's View of the World ... "

http://www.access.ch/e-news amccluskey@access.ch

Phone: 41.38.63 03 44 Fax: 41.38.63 03 48

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Message created and sent using the Cyberdog mailing system

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 96 22:59:50 EDT

From: Horace Mitchell <100136.2412@compuserve.com>

To: ispo-discuss a <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

Subject: RE:IS Forum (electronic democracy)

I agree with Geoff Stephenson, we need to explore the meaning

and possibilities of "electronic democracy" but we should avoid

the assumption that it means a referendum or plebiscite on every

issue and the end of representative democracy.

Here in England we have seen in the last week the depths to which

tabloid newspapers will sink to sell a few extra copies. Unfortunately

these papers sell a few extra copies because there are still many people in

our democracy who like the kind of stuff the tabloids produce -

simplification of every issue into monosyllabic and extremist snippets.

For at least a generation I suspect that "electronic democracy" means

an opportunity for a larger minority to discuss political issues in

greater depth, and maybe to influence our elected representatives.

It certainly doesn't mean every citizen participating in

the decision process - at least I hope not. And I do hope that is a

politically incorrect thing to say :-)

None of this means I disagree with Alan. of course our elected representatives

include some corrupt and venial people, after all they are elected to

represent venial and corrupt citizens as well as upright ones. And of course

our elected representatives are ignorant, again they represent the rest of

us. And of course we must lobby and inform them. This medium males it

easy and cheap for gangs of individual citizens to conspire to lobby them

in competition with industrial corporations - good thing too. But none

of that means that it would be better to get rid of representative democracy

and have the citizenry vote on every issue. Unless you make voting

compulsory that would mean giving yet more power to the chattering

classes and less to the silent majority. And if you do make it compulsory

to vote the probable result is a dictatorship of some kind.

Please don't lets treat this as a simple and obvious issue, since its difficult

and complex. And please lets explore its ramifications rather than taking sides

and throwing aspersions at the opposition - after all we already pay our

elected representatives to do that :-)

Horace Mitchell.

_______________________________

Date: Wed, 8 May 1996 13:13:57 +0200 (MET DST)

From: Wainer Lusoli <wlusoli@sun1.spfo.unibo.it>

To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>

Subject: Re: directer democracy

(....)

Dear Michael,

you could be probably counted among the very few people

who recognise the value of Internet as a "complete"

political tool.

The ongoing debate about "electonic democracy" is too often focused

on the "informational" virtues of the Net, forgetting the "organizational"

powerful applications that the Net involves.

Critics now:

1 What about the necessary role of the governments in developing

the microsocietal (even tribal) use of the Net? Privates hardly

have any will of spending money for "political participation", if they

don't even vote, and it's free...

2 What is the role of informatic lobbies in the process? Who will

pay for it in the long run?

3 Democracy consists of Opinion and Interest. What is the auspicable

share of both, in the communications era?

Thank you for your stimulatig letter.

Waiting for enlighting answers.

Wainer

To: Wainer Lusoli <wlusoli@sun1.spfo.unibo.it>

From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson) 11th May 1996

Subject: Re: directer democracy

Cc: jg, cyberted, fins@access.digex.net, <manfred.lexa@koeln.netsurf.de>

Wainer,

thank you for your kind remarks, made in your message of 8th May 1996.

I will respond to your questions although i am not the best person to help you here.

>The ongoing debate about "electonic democracy" is too often focused

>on the "informational" virtues of the Net, forgetting the "organizational"

>powerful applications that the Net involves.

>Critics now:

>

>1 What about the necessary role of the governments in developing

> the microsocietal (even tribal) use of the Net?

I have not gone into this question much. I simply use what tools are available in order to promote, e.g. citizen participation in societal/political decision making, and encourage other people to do the same. So much could be achieved if just a few % more people engaged their minds and hearts, using computers or other means of social and political communication. I agree that government policy vis a vis support for and control of the Internet and related nets is important. I know a little more about this struggle and debate in the USA than in Europe. Vigdor Schreiber (VS, below) has collated materials about USA. I heard that the UK government even refused to provide free on-line access to documents of the public "information" service, the "Her Majesty's" Stationery Office. I suspect that in FRG there will be further efforts to censor the Internet. Also, it seems that the FRG academic world, in cahoots with government, is building an "electronic ivory tower" (contrast much of Internet where interaction of academia with citizens is often achieved.) Denmark looks better, their parliament seems amenable to debate. Sure, i agree it's important for citizens to watch and change if necessary what their governments are doing here, to force them towards open government in centre and periphery.

Privates hardly

> have any will of spending money for "political participation", if they

> don't even vote, and it's free...

I do not exactly understand this bit. By "Privates" do you mean private persons or companies? If you mean private persons, and refer to low voter turn-out at elections, then i think the Net may provide a partial antidote to apathy, alienation. People may gain a sense of efficacy, having a voice to be heard, even be empowered to political action.

>2 What is the role of informatic lobbies in the process? Who will

> pay for it in the long run?

Just now there is (in FRG) rapid growth of low-price Internet connections offered by private small and large companies, citizens show much interest, students use University Internet facilities more. Trend seems to be "more communication for less money"? As far as high-powered projects at government and supra-govt. levels are concerned, i do not know much. John Gotze (JG, below) knows more. You could ask him.

>

>3 Democracy consists of Opinion and Interest. What is the auspicable

> share of both, in the communications era?

I would have to write a couple of book to answer that question. As we agree, improving the flow of information in citizen-manageable systems is essential to allow opinion to develop, become widely more sophisticated. Interest: a well known promoter of creative social change in post-war Germany agreed when i said to him a couple of years ago: our (creative, humanitarian) elites (referring at least to Britain and FRG) have never managed to reach the great majority of fellow citizens. That's one challenge. Further: Usually, if people hear interesting things, and they not oppressed, highly stressed or mentally traumatised, they'll listen. And respond, resonate to humanitarian motives.

>

>Thank you for your stimulatig letter.

>Waiting for enlighting answers.

>

>Wainer

_______________________________

Date: Tue, 2 Jul 1996 12:04:37 +0100

X-Sender: eds023@mailhost.bangor.ac.uk

Mime-Version: 1.0

To: <ispo@www.ispo.cec.be>

From: t.m.owen@bangor.ac.uk (Martin Owen)

Subject: Information Society

Sender: owner-ispo@www.ispo.cec.be

Precedence: bulk

Adrian norman writes:

So, Martin, you do have a choice of regulatory mechanism but only in the short term. In the long run, markets work for the overwhelming (sic) majority. We need to help the overwhelmed minority to afford what the market offers, not waste scarce resources trying to rig the market.

___________________________________

I have yet to find a market that is not rigged by some socially

constructed convention in the first place. The idea of a unrigged market is why I referred to a "mythic hand of the market". It really depends on whose hands are on the levers and what levers you choose. Price is a strong lever, but a poor one.

That governments get it wrong... seems to go without saying, but so do

investment bankers and their analysts. The world does not work- even though the prevailing paradigm is the "free market". I would cite the threat to the eco system, hunger, starvation and deprivation in large parts of the world.

It is quite possible for the rich to continue to trade amongst themselves

(exploiting the rest/the earth as they go) in quite a self contained system that maintains itself as a "free market".

Freedom is an important factor, but it must be more evenly distribute...

not distributed on the basis of wealth.

To be in (cybernetic) control one needs : autonomy... the ability to act ,

communication : to know what basis of your action is, and recursion... to

appreciate what the results of one's actions are.

I f autonomy depends solely on the money you possess, if communication is controlled a filtered through other agencies, and your recursion is inhibited by the lack of adaptability in the institutions that manage... we are in an unsustainable (or repressive) situation. Many people in the world are in that situation .

We need the IS to create opportunities for new forms of participation. For the development of new levers and new communications. I agree electronic plebiscites are not the answer ... and electronic samizdat is not an answer either (although both may form parts of answers).

What IS should be able to do is to increase transparency in systems at all levels. Making them much more open to inspection. That should mean that governing systems should be much more responsive to people, and people should have much more power to influence the management. Price should not be the only determining factor in the communication system. Money is not the only communication/information channel.

Can ICT be an amplifier of variety?.. Without having the ready answer I

think we should have a go.

We know that ICT could devolve "power" much closer to the citizen... when it comes to managing your own local environment, ICT can provide a lot of the management tools that would allow decisions to be taken locally. We know ICT can provide the means of coordinating action between many actors.

However we have classic chicken and egg scenarios. Of course it isn't worth developing an information system if the people who will pass information around do not have informatics. They, too, are not likely to acquire informatics systems if they do not see the relevant and empowering information moving about the system .

Social cohesion and a sustainable society have a price tag. It is not a

price tag that investment bankers are willing to fund. I do not think that

there is sufficient variety in the free market price mechanism. I don't see any former Microsoft or IBM downsized employee setting up a company called cyberDemos. It is easier to earn money empowering the currency trader, the shipping and airline brokers... and even distance based university education brokers.

It could be that the EC really wants to fund a cyber Democracy initiative

and to map out parameters, links , connections etc. Plans made by the best bureaucrats ( this is a very pejorative term... most EC Functionaries I know are intelligent, thinking and knowledgeable people) can go wrong. I recognise from my familiar EC Programmes , that the Programme's regulation ( driven by the need to protect the European taxpayers money) can limit the very creativity they want to foster; but that does not mean we should not try.

I was fortunate to spend part of this weekend sitting outside the College

of Europe in Brugge rereading Friere's Cultural Action for Freedom. Friere discusses the profound impact of giving people an authentic voice for their own aspirations. We can all possess a voice... but only a few can bring money to market.

Martin Owen

T.M.Owen@bangor.ac.uk

Director, Project REM

School of Education Yr Ysgol Addysg

University of Wales, Bangor Prifysgol Cymru, Bangor

Deiniol Road, Ffordd Deiniol

Bangor Bangor

Gwynedd

LL57 2UW

Voice/Llais +44 1248 382 943

Fax/Ffacs +44 1248 371 187

URL: HTTP://weblife.bangor.ac.uk

REM is a EC DGXIII Telematics Education and Training Project