A blueprint for a new democracy

2,400 years ago saw the rise of democracy, the system we use and in the western world. However, people are feeling that this political system is failing us. It is enough to look around us and I’m sure we can all come up with an infinite list of examples.

First of all, it seems like our system has been diluted throughout the years to shift the power from the citizens to the politicians. It is not surprising that citizens lament the fact that they only see politicians closer to election time. While citizens frequently air this concern in public, the level of disillusionment in politics seems to be on the rise and less people are devoting their time towards political activism. Furthermore, the younger generations seem to be the most disillusioned of all. And this leads us to the second issue.

Whereas in the past years, the kind of democracy which we were accustomed to seemed suited to our needs, today we need to renew democracy; one which easily allows for mass participation in the likes of social media. One which is transparent, fast, effective and pro-active. One where direct participation is important more than ever. That is why I think that the next election will be fought and won over who will pledge to introduce a new kind of democracy, Democracy 2.0.

Democracy 2.0 is not a new concept but one which has evolved over the past years. It came about because new technological innovations are changing the way we learn, work and live. Essentially, we have new requirements, expectations, demands, and so on, but our political system is not satisfying them. In the following paragraphs, I will give some examples.

The winner does not take it all

It seems like whoever wins the election has (almost) absolute power over anything. Why is it that when a party is relegated to the opposition or, even worse, when a party fails to get elected, its viewpoints and ideas get thrown in the bin? Isn’t politics meant to provide a form of government which serves the best interest of the country? So why aren’t valid ideas adopted irrespective of who is in government? In a country made up of a handful of people, can we afford to throw away valid human resources? Some of which, lost forever because they have been relegated behind a desk doing nothing and as a consequence, the demons of mental disorders start attacking. Democracy 2.0 should seek to create a balance between all the representatives of the people. All the various government boards should reflect the proportion of nationwide votes, which each party obtains. Major appointments such as the Police Commissioner should have at least a two-thirds majority of parliament. I’m sure you’ll point out that this might be harder to implement. I agree, but then let’s not forget that we’re not in politics to take the easy way out, but to do the right thing for the good of our country.

Advice and criticism should be sought

Why is it that people are afraid to talk in this country? The reason being that many of them are afraid to be branded or worse still, muzzled with some legal sorcery. Depending on one’s statements and considering we live in a near duopoly, an opinion will be associated with one side or the other. Why can’t a person (especially if he’s an expert in the field) be associated simply with the truth? A truth which is not the prerogative of any party? A truth which we sometimes shy away from because it might be an inconvenient truth? But irrespective what kind of truth it is, it shouldn’t change based upon our perspective and we have to embrace it.

Mass involvement

A lot of people feel estranged from our political system. They feel they do not fit in it, yet they would like to. A quick look on social media reveals that the political discussions, which were once the realms of the local clubs, have now shifted online. We have to devise ways of harnessing these discussions and get something productive out of them. Some people still don’t understand how to use (or misuse) this new digital platform; while some do not realise the implications of sharing personal information online, others live in the lie that if they posted something on a social networking site, everyone under the sun will see it. While it is important to encourage people to be vigilant, it is perhaps more important to ensure that their work reaches the people concerned. Because of this, we need to educate people on the correct use of technology, starting from the new generations. They have to realise that this is a tool which can be used for both good and bad motives. As such, it not only gives you the power to amplify your message, but it also entails responsibilities.

Cooperate, don’t control

Governments are not there to replace the sun god. They are not the alpha and the omega. They should be there to create a healthy environment where citizens and their enterprises can flourish. Because of this, it is important for governments to transfer more of their powers towards the lower levels of government, such as local councils. We should also be looking towards creating local assemblies so that people actively decide what happens in the area where they live. Mind you, this is not a proposal to increase further the local councils, thus increasing their costs. This is a proposal to increase further consultation. Our decisions should not be labeled as good or bad proposals. But they should be considered as work-in-progress projects, whereby people can chip in with their ideas in order to make them better. It is important to keep everything in perspective and remember that now, more than ever, politicians are there to serve the people and, thus, they have a sacred duty to consult and gather what the people really need. We have to start trusting each other more and believing that together we can achieve greater things.

Safeguards should be enshrined

The cycle of life has shown over and over again that democracy can be a very slippery slope towards other forms of totalitarian governments. It is the duty of governments to enact strict laws which prevent this at all cost. Why is it so easy for standards in public life to get twisted and ignored? Why are parliamentary procedures so easy to bypass? We need a radical reform, which allows the government to function, but which fully respects the basics tenets of a democracy. We need to ensure a transparent government, not one that hides agreements, fuelling the suspicion of shady deals in the process. When this happens, the people, who should be at the heart of our political project, get sidelined and the money god takes their place.

Function over form

It is common for governments to create new departments, initiatives, committees, and the like. After all, these all add brownie points when one announces the work of a government. Pity that the achievements brought forth by these initiatives are seldom mentioned, most likely because there isn’t much to show. The truth is that piecemeal solutions don’t work. Democracy 2.0 should be an opportunity to reengineer government. Irrespective of the ivory towers, which we’ve built throughout the years, we should be ready to put aside our ego and dismantle them if they are not reaching their objectives. If departments need to be amalgamated in order to benefit from the economies of scale, then we should make such amendments. We have to modernise the way we work, we need a lean government, and it is extremely important that we keep the citizen at the heart of our work.

The perpetual beta

We have to realise that the project of government should not be a three-year stint (if we exclude the first year as a gearing-up and the last year as a run-up to the election). It should be a continuous project, where the aim is not who will get the power, but rather how to ensure that our project, which is called Malta, is successful. Our measure of success should be based on how we’re treating the weakest in our society; on how we’re managing to bring those on the fringe of our society towards the centre. It should be based on how we ensure that everyone succeeds, irrespective of the color of his eyes. To do so, maybe we should seriously consider separating the legislative from the administrative and introduce real meritocracy in all the levels of government.

Crowdfund political ideas

The financing of political parties is somewhat of a hot potato. We’ve seen in the past that the cost of an electoral campaign has reached astronomical proportions. The easiest way to finance such campaigns is by seeking donors. Obviously, this leads to the issue that no one gives something for nothing, consequently placing the party in a potential conflict of interest. Because of this, political parties should move towards a crowd-funding model, whereby ideas are submitted to the people and it is the people who fund them. Obtaining a little from the many diminishes the risk of being at the mercy of the few and allows the politicians to take decisions with a clear conscience. Structures should also be in place to permit the opposite, whereby ideas from the grassroots move up to be adopted as political projects.

Equity not equality

Good governance should not be about distributing goodies to everyone irrespective of their means, but it should be about giving people what they need in order to help them move up the social ladder. We frequently hear (especially before an election) about the spectre of poverty. Yet after the election, every government magically seems to solve it. However, the people that are living in poverty know that their situation did not really improve – far from it. The chasm between the poor and the rich is widening. Because of this, we have to look at personalised solutions. The situation of each and every one of us is different so we cannot adopt a one-size-fits-all approach, but we have to adopt personal interventions. We must also setup measures which place the family back at the heart of our society. The family is a very important social net which allow us to catch those people that are falling through the cracks. It is the place where we first learn about democracy. Rather than weakening our families, we have to strengthen them, use them as foundation stones and build upon them. If the family is strong, so is our society.

These are just some ideas – a dream of a future society in which I would like to see my children live. They are not bound to any particular ideology but more towards a different way of doing things, one which would lead us towards a second version of democracy, one which is renewed and brought up to scratch for the needs of today and tomorrow’s generations.