*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://www.e-democracy.org/do *** I am working up my comments for World Futurists Society <http://www.wfs.org/2001progmainpage.htm> international conference next week in Minneapolis. Over the last few months I have been telling people that I am ten years into my fifty year plan. I really wonder what will come of our efforts to improve democracy in the information age by the time I reach 72. My current presentation plan is to point out a number expectional "democracy online" activities that are major expections to the rule (currently) but will become pretty much universal in developed democracies within 10 to 15 years. OK, that is easy, someone else is doing the work, I'm just sharing some stories. Now the hard part. Assuming current trends, what might optimistic, dark, and pragmatic democracy scenerios look like 40 years from now? I figure I should really have a fifty year plan if I say I do. ;-) My plan is to highlight a few "truths" or emerging political and social trends and try to imagine what might happen. Can anyone with ESP or quick access to some Tarot cards help? Perhaps you know of a good method to distill this or existing research worth a quote or two? Comments to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I often find when looking forward it is useful to look back and ask why the visions of those netizens before us have come true or still have a long way to go. So from a little web surfing I offer a couple links that may be of interest. Steven Clift Democracies Online From: http://www.cpsr.org/publications/newsletters/issues/1992/WinSpr1992/civill.html ... clip ... Democracy and Networks The first panel addressed technology's role in enhancing or inhibiting the ability of small groups to effectively work in the political process. The thesis was that today's fr agmented society makes small group meetings difficult to organize. This places representative governan ce at risk by limiting direct governance at the local level. Charles Firestone, of the Aspen Institute opened the panel by noting that "cyberspace is the horse and citizenship the cart." He said that local civic networks should be design ed to maintain balance among three forms of democratic rule: the direct vote, communitarian work towar ds the common good, and, most important, pluralistic debate leading to consensus. A local civic co mputer network should help people gather and analyze information from averse sources, organize polit ical efforts at the grassroots and coalition levels, and directly influence decision making. Firestone o bserved that electronic media is a means to these ends, but cautioned that technology is only the means an d not the end itself. Dave Hughes, a self-styled "computer-populist" from Colorado, disagreed. Hughes pointed out that any method of communicating is in itself a political act. He said it is time to update the famous phrase "the media is the message" to "technology is the politics." Hughes stated that information access and voting issues are largely resolved but what has atrophied is discussion, "the de bate leading to consensus." He noted that in the mass media "the network anchors have become the debater s, not the public." Hughes closed by saying that "None of these technologies can do it all. Online, debates are insufficient. Debates must be based in action, which takes place off-line. This must be done in conjunction with media. Media is good for mass distribution. Bulletin board systems (BBSs) are good for quality discussion. Neither is sufficient, both must be used to the end of action." Judith Perrolle, a sociologist from Northeastern University, proposed tha t multimedia technologies may be a way to bring emotional cues and a sense of intimacy to on-line s mall-group discussions. She said that much of democratic practice is not merely voting but rather a p rocess of exchanging views and feelings, which are imparted, for example, by raised eyebrows, not long s trings of text. She noted that people can correctly interpret about a thousand facial gestures, "most of which can't be captured very well by low resolution graphics." Although we should not "ask technologie s to fix our biases," she pointed out that people are often discriminated against based on visual o r auditory cues that are missing over text-based communication systems. Such bias might well return in a m ultimedia environment. However, she said, "Until we can get this subtle kind of flexibility that people use in real small groups to reach decision-makers, to make them feel a part of something together, we'll have trouble getting people organized on computer networks to go out and change the world." Richard Sclove, a democratic theorist and activist from Rensselaer Polyte chnic Institute, made six points about the use of technology in democratic action. First, he said, if there is no opposition to a proposal one should wonder what's wrong with it. No innovation should be implemented without the participation of the people who will be affected, particularly the most d isadvantaged among them. People should be wary of technical solutions casting about for a problem, and there may be non- technical ways to solve a given problem. The disadvantaged need power mor e than they need information, said Sclove--organizational tools are needed most. He argue d that "teledemocratic" initiatives should not displace face-to-face encounters. And, finally, he advocated that all initiatives be organized on a local, trial basis. Pilot projects should include a partic ipatory process for evaluating successes and failures. Jim Warren, chair of CPSR's first Conference on Computers, Freedom and Pr ivacy, described his use of voter records to begin a grassroots campaign against policies that affect ed the unincorporated community where he lives. He has also been posting important bills from t he California State legislature on The Well and taking the feedback to the appropriate legisl ative staff in Sacramento. Some of these staffers have now joined these on-line discussions and have even implemented some suggested changes in the wording of bills. [The above section was from 1992.] And from a previous DO-WIRE post in 1999 I pointed out some late eighties resources: http://www.tmn.com/netweaver/edemocracy.html >From there you can find: http://www.tmn.com/netweaver/nw8712-5.html Netweaver - December, 1987 Title: ONLINE NETWORKING BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES: A TECHNOLOGY FOR LEADERSHIP AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL Author: Frank Burns Recent articles in NETWEAVER have focused on applications of computer conferencing which support "Electronic Democracy" at local levels and on the potential of the technology for supporting participatory politics. In this election year, we have an opportunity to look at how electronic networking can contribute to national-level campaigns. The proper functions of a campaign are to REFLECT public opinion AND TO LEAD IT -- by creating WITH the voters (1) new visions that attract public attention to the collective opportunities, (2) new channels for citizen excitement that involve them directly with democratic processes that achieve observable new outcomes, and (3) new stories containing self-fulfilling examples of how SOMETHING NEW AND EXCITING IS ALREADY HAPPENING. Each of these functions can be enhanced dramatically by taking advantage of the latest in electronic mail and computer conferencing technology. Candidates for President can use this technology now as a new tool for national leadership -- and in the process, lead the country into a new era of "electronic democracy." The implementation framework we recommend contains three different levels. These three levels are both additive and complementary, as outlined below: LEVEL ONE -- NETWORKING THE CAMPAIGN ORGANIZATION ------------------------------------------------- The most immediately useful application of online networking is to improve -- significantly -- internal communication in the campaign organization itself. With its own online computer conferencing system, a campaign organization can link its national headquarters staff with: (1) the traveling candidate, (2) the campaign staffs at field offices in key states and cities, and (3) key campaign strategists and speechwriters. Getting started at this level is as simple as opening three computer conferences. One can be for everyone involved in the campaign organization and can serve as a central clearing-house for disseminating campaign information -- newsletters, position statements, policy announcements, events, and travel schedules. A second computer conference can be dedicated to the "real" management processes of running any organization -- staying clear about who, what, when and why. A third conference can serve the key "issue-oriented" people in the campaign -- the candidate, the campaign manager, the strategists, and the speechwriters. LEVEL TWO -- ELECTRONIC TOWN MEETINGS ------------------------------------- Candidates with the "clearest channel" to local voters and party organizations will win in the primaries -- and the party with the clearest channel to the most voters will win in the national election. Town meetings -- interactive by their nature and therefore a very clear channel of communication -- provide a powerful link between voters, political leaders, and the media. Using computer conferencing technology at this level involves the sponsorship of issue-oriented public networks ("computer bulletin boards") at local, state and national levels. In ways not possible through ordinary polling methods, these "electronic town meetings" can provide candidates with a clearer understanding of popular opinion AND improve citizen and media understanding of the candidate and her or his positions. LEVEL THREE -- ELECTRONIC THINK TANKS ------------------------------------- In their dual role of both reflecting AND LEADING public opinion, candidates for public office must formulate positions and agendas for their leadership that are based on an understanding of WHAT'S REAL AND WHAT'S POSSIBLE over a wide range of complex issues. The technology of computer conferencing permits the creation of "electronic think tanks" -- computer-linked networks of "citizen-experts" who work interactively with campaign managers and candidates in scanning issue-related information, analyzing alternatives, and developing positions and strategies for action. With the right composition, these electronic think tanks can also play a central role in planning and implementing post-election transitions. --------- Author's note: Frank Burns is President, Metasystems Design Group, Inc. in Arlington, VA. MDG is currently working with two presidential candidates who have set up networks to support their campaigns. *** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE *** *** To unsubscribe instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE *** *** Please forward this post to others and encourage *** *** them to subscribe to the free DO-WIRE service. ***
