Technology exists today to allow a much more direct form of democracy than is currently the case, with people being asked to vote on important matters on a very regular basis. However, even in a place like Switzerland, where there can be up to 4 referendums per annum, the idea of “eVoting” is viewed with a high level of suspicion. The general view seems to be that the security risks of a vote being rigged are far too high.
Really ? With every business pursuing a “Digital Transformation strategy” (whatever that means !!!), we consumers are expected to place our trust in “online security” in virtually every aspect of our daily lives. But, at the same time, we are expected to accept that its not a safe place for us to express our democratic wishes. Let me say that again - because it suits business, I am expected to trust my life’s savings to digital security but, at the same time, I am expected to accept that the same technology isn’t considered secure enough for electing a government. Furthermore, I am expected to accept that a safer alternative is to stick bits of paper in a box and then get a load of volunteers to count them !!!
Something doesn’t quite add up here – and, to work out what is going on, you have to step back and consider how you view democracy.
One view of democracy is that it is a sign of an advanced society – in other words, the more advanced a society, the more democratic it is. Where we find ourselves today is on some sort of “continuum” or evolutionary path from the monarch having sole power, through Magna Carta and then the early days of Parliament, the various Reform Acts of the 19th Century and the suffragette movement. I would suggest that this is the most commonly held view and, if you ascribe to this view, you would expect that advances in technology will ultimately lead us to a much more direct form of democracy than we have today.
Maybe, in the future, people will leave work and, whilst their car drives them home, they will sit and cast their vote on the list of issues that will be decided the following day. This is what I would call “Digital Transformation” – using technology to reduce costs and increase agility. Brexit would have cost a fraction of what it will end up costing, it would have been resolved in a week or so and nobody can convince me that the outcome would have been any better by "leaving it to the experts" !
However, the “continuum” view of democracy ignores the fact that there isn’t necessarily that strong a relationship between how advanced a society is and how democratic it is. Furthermore, within particular societies, the level of democracy varies over time and the trend is not always towards greater democracy. A cursory study of the history of the Senate within Rome clearly demonstrates this point.
Viewed through this lens, the current period of “democracy” could be seen as nothing more than a reaction to the social revolutions of the 18th and 19th Century. As the middle classes became more educated, the idea that somebody, purely by accident of birth, was somehow better qualified to run the country was called into question. When the ruling elite resisted the pressure to share power in a more democratic way, bloody revolution followed in many countries – Britain was an exception in this respect but the ruling classes lived in continual fear of revolution throughout the 19th Century.
However, the reality is that the ruling classes had, and still have, no intention of sharing power but, by appearing to embrace democracy, they have retained control of power whilst avoiding having their heads surgically removed. This could be termed the “control” view of democracy.
Its worth considering something as topical as Brexit in this context. Was a Referendum held because the government was really interested in what the people thought or was it held in expectation of a “Remain” vote that would have relieved the growing pressure on the government to push for reform of the EU ?
Whatever your view, recent events, most notably the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump, have shown that, when you ask the people to vote, they won’t always give you the answer that you want. So, whilst technology now exists to allow a far more direct and agile form of democracy, the ruling classes will be questioning whether asking people their opinion is actually such a great idea after all.
It will be fascinating to see how this plays out – will history look back on 2016, the year of the Brexit vote and Trump’s election, as the beginning of the end of this latest dabbling with democracy. It seems insane to even suggest this but history does have a habit of repeating itself and, in this sense alone, the “continuum” view of democracy doesn’t really stand scrutiny.
Or will we, in the very near future, be able to use technology to vote on a whole raft of matters of national importance – maybe the votes will only be “advisory” in nature, which incidentally was the constitutional status of the Brexit vote, but it would make it increasingly difficult for government to follow policies that don’t align with the will of the people.
I know where my vote is on this – but I suspect that nobody really cares what I think !!!
Comments