Articles
Interview with GOV2U: Q&A on WhoHub
Whohub is a directory of interviews with professionals in communication, the arts, technology, marketing, and any other activity with a creative flair. They’ve invited us to answer a few questions on our work and expertise – so we did. Here is an abstract.
Q: How do you define your political position? What is the ideology that inspires it?
A: Our political position is not political per se, as it lies not with political parties - but with democratic proceedings. Our work consists of enabling more direct interactions between public officials (be it elected members or public servants) and citizens - which is not to say that we refute the concept of representative democracies in favour of direct democracy, but it consists of binding these two concepts together.
In other words, we work to increase public participation by open channels for more participation and more collaboration in legislative decision-making through information and communication technologies. We believe that it is the only way to preserve and improve our democracies - otherwise, citizens will continue to be alienated from political processes, which will lead to apathy and ultimately, the decay of our democratic models.
Q: What matters more in deciding your vote: the party, the candidate, or the ideas?
A: Without any doubt, the idea should matter most; and this is why our work is to enable ordinary citizens bring forward their own ideas in decision making. Why is that? Many millions of brains, are better than a few thousand, or hundreds of them. What is important is to evaluate proposals for their actual value, not their origin, which is not often the case in today's democracies. If we provide the means to create and decide collaboratively on solutions, our governance models could be much more fluid and adapted to tackle the global problems.
Practicality is always an issue. But if a decision process is initiated, i.e let's say on global warming measures, then, anyone with knowledge and expertise would have the opportunity to pitch in. And the best solution (democratically speaking and technically speaking) would prevail, as everyone would have the opportunity to vote - not simply a few hundred Members of Parliament, with little or no experience in these fields, let alone private agendas, as is often the case.
Q: Do you think religion has a place in politics?
A: Politics and cleavages always tend to form around contemporary societal issues. It has always been the case. This is why we find Social Democrats vs. Christian Democrats in many traditional European democracies. The debate for most of the 20th Century was split between atheist socialism and Christian conservative ideologies. With the Arab Springs we can find similar forces, splitting those who are in favour of building secular states, and those who wish to officially integrate the values of Islam in the constitution. In this sense, it is reasonable to expect that religion marks politics, as it marks the struggles of society. When religion fades as a debate is certain countries, political parties which were defined around those lines, either adapt to their times by re-organising themselves along current ideologies or disappear; this is also why many conservative or leftist parties have split in recent years to rally towards the centre of the political spectrum. That is not to say that states need or not to be religious. But what marks their position, is usually a result of the different identities and aspirations of a society. It is a consequence of democracy that parties form around the leading forces which are steering society. Discrimination on the basis of religion is another topic, but that was not the question. If it was, then no, it is not a democratic value.
Q:Are high abstention levels a serious problem for democracies?
A: In the current setting it is. Since our representative democratic model relies on citizen participation in elections, less participation means less representation - therefore, less people who decide for everyone else. Who is to blame? No one really, this is how representative models work. When people only get to decide about who is running the entire political affairs once in a while, they will progressively become apathetic, and understand less about political dossiers than they should. Even worse, political parties tend to overcomplicate debates and issues to the extent that no one really understands anything at all any more - not even politicians, leading to further alienation of citizens from politics. It's really a matter of taking responsibility for our polity, instead of delegating this responsibility to others, which naturally leads to 'professional politicians'. But the goal of a professional politician is to remain in power, and be re-elected. To achieve this, one will therefore tend to avoid political costs. And you're right if you are thinking that this does not concur with taking the right decisions. If you give this role back to citizens, who are not interested in power they do not have, but in their future, then things may be very different.
Q: Should parties that want to eliminate democracy be allowed to participate in democratic elections?
A: Technically yes. But to the best of my knowledge, I do not know any party which is campaigning openly against democracy. A party may be in favour of less democratic processes, of course, but that is always the risk of a democracy. The key is to encourage people to participate in elections which will inevitably mitigate extremism, because I do not know many people who would wish that they had less freedom. Usually, these parties tend to misplace the debate elsewhere and bandwagon certain feelings; this is how they draw their appeal.
Q: Do you actively or economically collaborate with any social organization, NGO, etc.?
A: Yes, of course.
Q: Do you believe that the world crisis can bring positive changes to social values?
A: Yes it can, but it can also have negative consequences. It depends on what people make of it. It could be a good opportunity to fix some issues that have been present since a long time, and that have been exacerbated recently. Starting by improving our democracies, making them more democratic that is, would certainly lead to resolve many issues. You’d be surprised!
User opinions
iliana
Thursday, 13 September 2012
DoraDora
Wednesday, 12 September 2012
iliana
Wednesday, 12 September 2012