I have spoken about 'The Present of Democracy'. It is now time to speak of its future.
This is what I personally envision could be the future of democracy as we could know it. I shall roll a lot of concepts into this post and so it shall be likely that not all shall appeal to you.
It sounds cheesy to begin with blockchains, but it is my view that this technology shall be key to bringing about a democracy more true than has ever before been seen.
More-so, the type of democracy that a blockchain could support would be unlike and beyond any kind before witnessed.
As I go through the subsequent points, always bear in mind the role that blockchain technology could have in bringing such about.
We live in a World where people are genuinely afraid to fly their colours. We do so because we feel that we might be singled out. Ironically quite a lot of peoples' opinions can be subdued in this fashion, never aware of the existence of each other.
While it would be ideal to be able to say that such fears would be completely unfounded in a future, such would be a little unrealistic on my part.
What I expect to instead occur is to permit individuals to vote either transparently or anonymously, as well as not at all.
This is made possible through the implementation of side-chains specific to the service of separating an individual's identity layer from their democratic choices made (and much more - but lets keep things simple).
One's political identity cannot exist without one's common identity and any attempt to inject unsupported vote identities would be picked up quickly enough without jeopardizing one's common identity.
We are fast approaching a time where the concept of one's life and experiences being stored upon a disc (in the spirit of the "Tron" movies) shall no longer be the stuff of science fiction but a reality. The main difference would be that any physical representation of such data would primarily serve as a backup or 'cold storage' - as a lot of our data would be encoded into the blockchain.
As a result it may already be feasible to assess one's status or even one's deeds and works and surmise that one's vote upon certain matters should carry a certain wait beyond that of an individual with little-to-no-such history.
How such might take shape is a topic unto itself - but with fast and easy access to information we could far more effectively pull this off than we could just 50 years ago. Every individual still has a vote - but one's vote can be cultivated throughout life to change in weight.
To return to the concept of transparency and security, It would be desirable for a vote to tumble the anonymous votes and their weights together such that only an average is presented, further obscuring from prying eyes those who might want answers.
One step toward mitigating this issue with the present political system is to do away with elections every four-to-five years. Instead, votes are associated on an on-going basis and can be attributed or withdrawn at a whim.
A long time ago I indirectly spoke of this. When politicians or parties occupy the center - little good comes to a given populace - and that populace is at the mercy of the whims of whomsoever should be ordained to stand in the center - in office.
For a fair time I wrested over this question with myself. Should politicians not still exist? Should they not be compensated for their service?
Following much to-and-fro over the matter I settled upon a solution of decentralized politics.
Yes there would still be politicians (and I shall speak on this soon enough) and yes there would be a means of compensation - but both means would be decentralized in nature. What would instead be central would be the issues at hand as well as the slots of policy to be decided upon.
As an aside, yes, this would set up a nation's policies to be akin to that nation's programming with behavior agreed upon to the smallest detail, and all sanctioned and supported by the peoples' votes.
And yes - all would be sanctioned even where differences of opinion exist on how to proceed on any given matter.
Rather than engaging in a 'tyranny by majority', the democracy of the future will be better suited to establish and recognize the rights of minorities, as well as a multiplicity in view.
The mantra here is that 'there is a time and a place and a means for everything' - and this is how such disagreements shall be resolved. This will mean that pockets will arise within society where behavior that would otherwise not normally be considered acceptable is tolerated or even encouraged.
Unlike within current political systems where such minorities are partitioned into districts and other cleverly divisive compartments, minorities under this system would be represented and would not be stifled. Where necessary the anonymous vote will help to protect voters identities and will itself be a gateway for subsequent votes as to where, when and how such a minority view is accepted.
At this stage there may be a back-and-forth over this latter question - but at some point a decision on the matter will need to be made.
Unlike the present day where independents presenting themselves for politics is a rarity, in the future it would be very easy for a small cluster of individuals to take on a political incorporation.
Such an incorporation represents the formalization of a team, and the health of the team shall be important for a lead politician gaining the level of credibility to influence public affairs.
That being said, due to the decentralization of politics, political entities shall be able to choose to address not a ruler but the entire population. At any point an incorporated politician may address the people about any issue or any policy slot.
The reaction gained, quite similarly to Steemit, constitutes the reward for the politician's contribution.
When personal profit is allowed to become a primary motivating factor in getting into politics, it is only a matter of time before the whiff of more money will get a politician to serve the highest bidder - and that is unlikely to be the constituency that s/he is supposedly serving.
This serves as following for the previous point.
Just as the politics can be consigned to blockchain, so too can records of public spending and works be so.
Not only does this enable a fast and accurate picture of how resources are invested into the various aspects of the infrastructure - it could also be a precise driving force towards such.
No longer would funds go into a proverbial black hole where nobody knows what got spent upon what. In this future it becomes possible to ensure that wealth does 'not' get transferred to some centralized point without good reason as well as public approval.
The above is a broad-brush speculation over a new direction via which democracy may be fixed. As such I hope to see plenty of discussion, including that of disagreement. :c) How might you see things working out?
If you have any comments that you would like to share then I will join you down in the comments section below.
Sincerely,
Previous Post: Global Game Jam 2018 Experience - Part I - Digital Fail
