DEMOS

I put this comment on Voxpolitics, and figured i'd copy it here. "Beyond the big words, the nut he [Rushkoff] is trying to crack is persuading people that the net, ultimately, changes political institutions deep down rather than on the surface. The great instiutional thinkers - in politics the likes of Bevan, and Jean Monet - knew that if you value something, or you value certain values - you must institutionalise them. Thus the NHS and the BBC, and even the Labour Party - carry forth values beyond the lifetimes of their founders. Rushkoff values openness above all - hence open source. The trick he thinks is possible is to infuse old institutions with good values through new technologies. This is a much more difficult trick to pull. I'm going to read it again and put up some more thoughts later in the week on whether he is right." Any thoughts?

I will be reading the paper tonight after the kids have gone to bed, instead of being at the launch party to hear what the man has to say. but from a first very quick skim, I'd say that the core question has to be whether there is anything in 'open source' as an ideology which we can usefully translate into political theory and practice. I am not sure - I value open source software, have got into trouble for questioning the way the open source community manage issues of others' intellectual property, and would not object to a world in which Microsoft was second to Linux in the marketplace and yet... and yet...

'Open Source Democracy' is an engaging and 95% worthwhile read. It?s thought provoking, enjoyable, decidedly forward-looking and there?s no doubt that the cultural scope of what Rushkoff is attempting is impressive. Not sure I?d go along with James Crabtree?s comment about Big Language, though it is something that has been said about Rushkoff before (on the original publication of Idea Virus, I think): but Bill Thompson?s ?and yet??, I can relate to. For me the real beauty of this is in the exploration of the storytelling metaphor as a way into understanding the scale of what?s happening in our world and the careful ? and pretty convincing ? threading together of thoughts around his four analogies for renaissance. This last bit I found terrific. It works at some deep level as a construct around which to storytell our times. And the placing of this opportunity for renaissance in relation to a search for reassurance 9/11 released upon the world, is strongly convincing. So why 95% and some sliding towards the ?and yet??? I suppose it?s because on a personal level I didn?t find the later part of 'Open Source' so convincing. Yes, there is a frame-shifting move towards the non-local communities that the virtual world allows and yes there are indications that some politicians and activists see possibilities there. But might it all be a bit ?two tech swallows equals tech summer?-ish? Perhaps I?m not countercultural enough! Perhaps I?m coming to this a bit too much from the catholic mass rather than protestant reader perspective, but while I?d strongly resonate with Rushkoff?s call for restoring & encouraging broader participation in the internet?s more interactive forums, I?d be a lot more skeptical about the realworld possibility of realizing legislative and political rebirth in the context of our networked reality. Order change is not quiet as simple as kicking sand on the campfires and debunking the tribal myth ? if it ever was. A point which Rushkoff well understands. And while ?our? networked reality is still an unreality for too many people in too many parts of the existing pre-renais@nce order, I would be a bit more doubting about the political side of the project. I?ve just looked back over what I?ve written so far and it sees a bit ungenerous and carping. Old world ?homo academicus? book review almost! But that wasn?t my intention. I suppose what I really want to say is that 'Open Source' is a well-crafted, challenging read; it?s enjoyable if a bit exasperating in parts. And that what Rushkoff has to say about the cultural side of renaissance in out of the ordinary and well worth further though. The kind of insights Open Source offers on this is vibrant, fully convincing and travels well ? it would connect with some of what Pat Kane did recently in Scotland on E2-Herald for example and echoes a lot of stuff I?ve come across while reading into emergence and policy activism. And Rushkoff?s deep immersion in contemporary culture and its icons just blazes through; it?s good to see C3PO and Darth Vader, PDAs, cyberpunk, and most iconic of contemporary icons ? the surfer ? in the mix. That conversation between surfer and cartographer is so spot on as a metaphor for much of our times and the disconnection we experience and cause.

Douglas Rushkoff?s utopian theory of open source democracy built upon an analogous model of new media perhaps ignores some of the disadvantages of this media?s claims to be a Habermasian ?public sphere?. The main disadvantage I would argue is that as a medium the Internet is still not universally available and therefore debate on it is often isolated and fragmented. Rushkoff emphasises ?our increasingly complex society?s need for a multiplicity of points of view on our most pressing issues, particularly when confronted by a mainstream mediaspace that appears to be converging on single, corporate and government-approved agenda.? However the issue of general accessibility to these ?mulitiplicity of points of view? remains a major concern. Are those unable to afford computers or broadband Internet access to be denied access to these views and therefore to the formation of public opinion? Rushkoff himself points to the British government?s attempts to widen access to new media through providing access in libraries etc., which suggests a continuing role for macro management. To move from being just isolated public spheres, fragmented from wider society, the micro public spheres of the Internet rely on the major media to become known to the wider public to become politically effective. This has led some commentators such as Sinikka Sassi to emphasise the continuing importance of the major media. Sassi argues that the 'fact that micro-public spheres aim to establish direct contacts with major media is ..... in accordance with the common sense understanding of the media as the real public sphere.' . I would therefore argue that there is still a need for institutions like the BBC that maintain some independence both from the major corporations and from the government. I wouldn?t deny that new media has had a major role in the anti-globalisation debate and in the Zapatista movement and look forward to a day when universal accessibility may legitimise Rushkoff?s argument. However I do take issue with his conclusion that we should ?Choose to believe that the renaissance I am describing has already taken place. Instead of looking forward to a day when justice will be won, declare that we are living in a just world right now.? I still think there are battles to be fought in protecting the independence of our mass media from the influence of the major corporations and that government must play a regulatory role in this battle.

RE: blogforamerica.com Political trends in the US may be instructive. Since the 2000 elections there has been a growing movement of citizens' groups organising on the internet. These have many features in common with the Global Justice movement. They distrust the influence of special interests on the political process. They are "people powered" and to have to a large extent relinquished control to the "demosphere" of their message, policies and (most importantly) their funding. The presidential campaign of Howard Dean is an important indication of future trends in politics. Citizens,campaign staff and the candidate debate on blogs in order to hammer out message and policy. Citizens organise their own local rallies, events and fund-raisers. Membership currently numbers nearly half a million. These include democrats, independents and republicans (there is a republicansfordean.com blog). Howard Dean has raised more money than any other Democratic Presidential candidate, including Bill Clinton. The average donation is less than $100. It is an indication that citizens are passionate about politics. Just not about political parties which they see as being compromised by their close association with the business lobby. Just as the Separation of Church and State was the political ethos of the Enlightenment. The Demosphere has its goal the Seperation of Capital and State. It would seem to be highly probable that deanforamerica will be replicated in the UK since most of the prevailing conditions have been met here. The question is what form will it take? There are three possible scenarios: 1. The Populist Right There is a possibility of a populist right-wing movement using the demosphere. This however seems unlikely since the impetus for current popular movements are mainly progressive. Right-wing movements have been minor in this country, such as the BNP, the anti-Euro movement or short-term such as the petrol protests. Moreover, the Conservative party has become associated with "sleaze" and so would be anti-thetical to the democratising ethos of the demosphere. 2. Progressive Schism It is possible that progressives will launch their own political party to challenge the existing "off-line" parties. The conventional parties are centrally controlled and anti-democratic in their organisation and structure. The putative new party would set out to be different. This scenario seems likely to come about. However, without an established political party this movement will not find a platform in the conventional media or the cross-over support necessary to secure a place in government. It may infact split the progressive vote and allow the right into government. Labour would then have to use the demosphere to "win back Britain". 3. People powered Labour / Insurgent Liberals One or more of the progressive political parties may take up the demosphere now. The change would have to be real to be credible. Authenticity is a requirement in politics today. The Party would have to relinquish control over message and policy. Funding would have to come from citizens instead of from business. The same would have to apply to policy papers. This is a possibility but not until the current status quo is under threat. Labour enjoys a large parliamentary majority and inspite of heavily heamorraging support it is relying on the prevailing lack of a viable alternative to hold on to power. Labour calculates that it has one more term before action needs to be taken. It should be noted however, that the Conservative party were also once unassailable and the extent of their predominance seems to be directly proportional to their subsequent collapse. The Liberals are moving into the space relinquished by the Tories and so are content for now to become the official opposition. However, they have the most to gain from the demosphere and are flexible enough to use it. Labour will have to respond in kind in order to avoid the Tory party's fate. The question is will they do so now or after the right have taken power from them?

I found this article extremely interesting and mirrors much of my own research into participatory forms of political action using technology. The key problem, of course, is that Rushkoff appears to have an essentialist conception of technology 'effecting' and that naturally this forces the conclusions that open-source approaches can be used as a technocratic 'fix' to the system. I am somewhat unconvinced by this argument and think we need to think more seriously about what technology is and how can we control it to acheive real participatory democracy. After all merely applying yet another 'technical' process to the existing system is not necessarily going to change anything...

click below to read

I'm working on a web site which will allow people to publicly endorse specific proposals. These proposals might be directed at the government, business, religion or any section or poriton of society. For example, one idea might be for the internet community to form a standard for sharing event data so we can form a multi-node distributed database for events of all types. As far as I know, there is no such standard. There are plenty of places where you can list an event, but no way to collect all the events of a specific type into a single database. We need a standard for sharing event data in the open. Democracy is much more than just voting; it's about forming consensus. The purpose of qualitychoices.us is for US ( meaning ALL of US ) to come together and decide what we should be doing collectively. Should be we FIGHTING terrorism or should we be PROMOTING human rights? What does the question mean? WHich human rights are implied to be the cause of terrorism when they are not adequately protected? Is health care a human right? What about mental health care? What does it mean to be "mentally healthy?" Can you be a fundamentalist Islamic militant and still be "mentally healthy?" We need to form consensus on these things. The premise of my work is that consensus drives politics. In other words, once consensus has been formed we get the politicians and laws which correspond to that consensus. For example, we have a consensus that "slavery is wrong." It's a permanent consensus. Once we discern righteousness, we have it! We probably discerned this consensus long before slavery actually became illegal; the lag time was caused by the difficulty of communicating the consensus to each other so that the political machinery responded appropriately. The same can be said about women's rights, gay rights, and many other issues. Once we discern consensus and communicate it effectively to others, the politicians and laws change to come into line with the consensus. Once a consensus has been discerned the rest of the task is simply communication. We have the communications capability; we need the discernent software. That's what I'm working to create. I need your help and support in all ways. The problem is that capital ( money ) is overruling the consenus process. My message to Americans is: "Stop the Republicans!" They want to manufacture consent with money rather than discern it honestly. That's evil. That's saying that you can create the truth with coercive power. That's the first consensus I wish to communicate: the use of money to manufacture consent is evil.

I'm working on a web site which will allow people to publicly endorse specific proposals. These proposals might be directed at the government, business, religion or any section or poriton of society. For example, one idea might be for the internet community to form a standard for sharing event data so we can form a multi-node distributed database for events of all types. As far as I know, there is no such standard. There are plenty of places where you can list an event, but no way to collect all the events of a specific type into a single database. We need a standard for sharing event data in the open. Democracy is much more than just voting; it's about forming consensus. The purpose of qualitychoices.us is for US ( meaning ALL of US ) to come together and decide what we should be doing collectively. Should be we FIGHTING terrorism or should we be PROMOTING human rights? What does the question mean? WHich human rights are implied to be the cause of terrorism when they are not adequately protected? Is health care a human right? What about mental health care? What does it mean to be "mentally healthy?" Can you be a fundamentalist Islamic militant and still be "mentally healthy?" We need to form consensus on these things. The premise of my work is that consensus drives politics. In other words, once consensus has been formed we get the politicians and laws which correspond to that consensus. For example, we have a consensus that "slavery is wrong." It's a permanent consensus. Once we discern righteousness, we have it! We probably discerned this consensus long before slavery actually became illegal; the lag time was caused by the difficulty of communicating the consensus to each other so that the political machinery responded appropriately. The same can be said about women's rights, gay rights, and many other issues. Once we discern consensus and communicate it effectively to others, the politicians and laws change to come into line with the consensus. Once a consensus has been discerned the rest of the task is simply communication. We have the communications capability; we need the discernent software. That's what I'm working to create. I need your help and support in all ways. The problem is that capital ( money ) is overruling the consenus process. My message to Americans is: "Stop the Republicans!" They want to manufacture consent with money rather than discern it honestly. That's evil. That's saying that you can create the truth with coercive power. That's the first consensus I wish to communicate: the use of money to manufacture consent is evil.