[EM] Time of trouble? Or put a lid on it?

[Juho Laatu]

--- On Tue, 3/2/09, Michael Allan <mike at zelea.com> wrote:

> > >   3. Eventually reason prevails.  The dwellers in
> the favelas and
> > > the peasents in the villages (despite long
> suppressed bitterness
> > > and anger)
> 
> Juho Laatu wrote:
> 
> > No need to be suppressed nor angry. Some
> > may be but better results could be
> > achieved if everyone just understands how
> > the system might benefit better all its
> > members.
> 
> You premise an ideal.  To see the danger, we must premise
> facts and
> probabilities.  The crucial probability is a popular direct
> democracy
> (DD).  Here is a "proof" of it, in summary of the
> original post and
> thread ("The Structuring of Power"):
> http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2009-January/thread.html#23872
> 
> Where:
> 
>   DD = direct democracy
>   FS = free speech
>   IT = Internet/information technology
>   PD = public sphere decision-making
>   RD = representative (modern) democracy
> 
> FS is a constitutional fact.  IT is a technical fact.  From
> the
> original post (section 1), it follows that PD is probable:
> 
>   (a)  FS + IT ~= PD

Some new (temporary) definitions:
   PC = public sphere communication
   PO = public sphere opinion-formation

In this framework one could say that
   FS + IT ~= PC

But it is not yet guaranteed that
   PC => PO
and
   PO => PD

> 
> PD is a formalization of speech.  It is separate from
> power, and is
> not a "democracy", nor any other kind of
> "-cracy".  But PD is also a
> primary electoral/legislative mechanism, and RD is a
> constitutional
> fact.  From the original post, (sections 2 and 3), it
> follows that DD
> is probable:
> 
>   (b)  PD + RD ~= DD
> 
> Note: this is an *effective* DD.  The qualification is
> necessary
> because the public sphere cannot (by its nature) hold
> power.  Although
> it can express decisions, it cannot take action on them. 

DD and RD are often defined as two
alternatives. Here DD (= *effective* DD)
seems to refer to a RD that works as if
it was a DD (= *actual* DD) because of
the impact of PD.

One possible problem with the equation
above is that PD may remain as a
"discussion club" that the RD politicians
may ignore at the same level as they
ignore media and poll opinions.

If PD is tied more tightly to the
formal/actual decision making process (RD)
(to make it stronger than a "discussion
club") then it becomes part of RD, or maybe
an *actual* DD. In that case PD is no more
separated from the power (and the dynamics
will change accordingly) (I'll skip further
speculation on this).

> Only the
> private sphere (individuals and families) and the
> admininstrative
> systems (of government, business, etc.) have the necessary
> power
> (force and threat of force) to act.  Nevertheless, the
> effect is
> largely DD - effectively the public sphere will force
> action.  It will
> begin to do so in the near future, and it will do so
> deliberately
> (such is its nature).

In a way public discussion, media and private
discussions do set the opinions and they do
force action, but the chain of consequences
may be so long and complex that it is not
possible to master it. The decisions may get
corrupted and unrecognizable on the way. RD
and *actual* DD have clear procedures for
decision making but informal discussions may
be interpreted in various ways, and PD may
have alternative competing branches, and as a
result people (e.g. RD representatives) may
justify many different decisions/conclusions
based on the non-uniform non-agreed input.

It is thus also easy to find ways around the
potentially unwanted PD input and the
situation may remain much the same as today
(with FS, free media, influencing via parties
and other organizations and movements).

> 
> > - With the "strength of the masses" the
> > modern (post 18th century) society with
> > high number of rich and independent
> > consumers (= commercial decision makers,
> > often with less political interest) (I
> > mean, what the society in rich countries
> > is now after the turmoil of industrial
> > revolution and related extreme capitalism
> > and socialism) is just a bit more complex
> > to control than the old and simpler
> > "cultured gentlemen" approach. One must
> > take a positive approach and trust that
> > we find good ways forward.
> 
> Better to be skeptical.  Better to take a negative outlook
> and to
> venture forward with eyes wide open.  Accepting the
> probability of DD,
> what are the dangers ahead?  What bad things can happen?

The problem that I referred to above
consisted mostly of the complexity of a
"widely democratized" society that has large
number of different opinions coming from
(rather rich and independent) people with
different needs, education, culture, and
level of interest in decision making. That
is no more a club of "cultured gentlemen"
(as Russell maybe saw it).

> 
>   1. Class strife.  The majority of the world's people
> are
>      economically marginalized, and will use their votes to
> (i) attack
>      the wealthy, entrepreunerial and middle classes and
> the economic
>      infrastructure that supports them; while those classes
> (ii) will
>      attack back.

That already took to some extent place as a
consequence of the industrial revolution and
its uncontrolled side effects. There sure
will be again some turbulence when/if the
differences grow and when those people who
don't like the system have sufficient power.
Maybe the conflict between Muslim
fundamentalists and the USA is one part of
this set-up.

> 
>   2. Instability in quasi-democracies.  Introduction of PD
> in
>      quasi-democracies (like Russia) will threaten the
> authorities,
>      resulting in (i) the imposition of open tyranny (to
> suppress FS);

This happens in many places. (Also the most
developed countries may have some (voluntary
or semi-forced) limitations.)

IT can not be controlled easily and is
likely to offer some relief by destroying
some attempts to limit FS.

>      or (ii) the retreat of authority, a power vacuum, and
> civil
>      strife to fill it.

Certainly there will be this kind of cases.
Maybe we will learn something from them and
can avoid their worst forms and worst
consequences later on.

> 
>   3. International war.  Direct democacies are aggressive
> and
>      unpredictable.  They will fighten skittish
> non-democracies (like
>      China) and ultimately provoke an international war.

*Actual* and *effective* DDs may make populist
decisions. On the other hand also RDs may make
strange decisions in isolation from the public
opinion, after representatives taking more
power than they should, after some levels of
coup or other misuse of powerful positions,
and even against the will of the people.
Representatives may also be efficient in
creating propaganda and logic to justify
their (violent or other non-acceptable) acts.
(This happens all the time in the "civilized
world".)

Since both approaches have risks I must
conclude that it may be more important to
maintain the societies sound with the help
of education, good morale, direct contacts
between decision makers and regular
citizens, good laws and judges,
representatives that are good examples to
all, citizens that don't let the quality of
the society go down (by at least behaving
themselves right) etc.

Juho




> 
>   (others? please add your own)
> 
> Mitigating factors:
> 
>   A. Slow adoption of PD to underprivledged classes owning
> to
>      inaccessiblity of IT.  So eqn (a) is dampened and
> delayed.
> 
>   B. Unelected upper assemblies can block action in
> defiance of the
>      public and their elected counterparts.  So, at least
> in some
>      states, eqn (b) is dampened and delayed.
> 
>   (others? please add your own)
> 
> -- 
> Michael Allan
> 
> Toronto, 647-436-4521
> http://zelea.com/
> 
> ----
> Election-Methods mailing list - see
> http://electorama.com/em for list info