Written by
A lot of people in the UK are disillusioned with politics. The appears to be little difference between the parties and all of them come with more baggage than benefit. Also, it seems regardless of which party is in power ultimately the super rich get richer and the rest get poorer. Nothing changes. Maybe it is time for an evolution of the democratic process.
In recent years the UK Government embarked on what it called its national ID scheme. Ostensibly this was aimed at protecting us all from terrorists and providing a better service to us. It did not escape our attention however that it also provided the UK Government and all associated agencies with an unprecedented amount of detail on us all, not least being our DNA identity on a central database.
At first I was against the scheme, not because I don't like ID cards as such (I carry a passport and drivers license pretty much all the time although not obliged to) but rather I have many reservations about the huge database behind the scheme and how it could be used and abused; I know what I would do with the it if I were in charge.
I realised however that even a massively cut down version of the same scheme could enable an evolution in politics. It would still use DNA / biometrics to verify identity but other than that it would simply provide your chosen name, date of birth and your resident status (ok this is open to abuse and will require a lot of checks and balances but bear with me).
Once there is a central register able to provide identity verification it would enable secure electronic voting. In turn this would reduce the administrative overhead of holding a referendum to practically nil. In theory we could vote by text (phones are being built with biometric readers), other the internet (as are computers) or at permanent polling stations; the infrastructure to set this up would cost a fraction of the set up cost of the Government proposed scheme.
With this scenario we could vote a lot more often. We could therefore do away with the party politics system and replace it with an advocacy and consensus system. A system where referendums are held on individual issues rather than on the parties.
It will never work is the classic cry, it will result in chaos. Well for a start it will change politics. Politicians would find themselves in the role of advocates of courses of action. It would be their job to come up with courses of action, policies and the like and put forward the relative merits. The people would then vote on the course of action they felt best. There would also be a mechanism for the people to raise issues to be voted on; electronic petition probably.
You would have to have some safe guards to protect people from each other and voting to get rid of tax would be not an option unless part of a wider package to get rid of the fiscal system altogether. You could also not vote to implement any practice in contravention of human rights and international laws; sorry but death camps for asylum seekers isn't on the table.
Tax would be presented as part wider packages. You can have roads fixed BUT you have to pay 2p a litre more tax and here's the reasons why. You can have great hospitals BUT you have to pay .5% more income tax. Etc. Parties would be in competition and have to come up with better ideas, like we can give you this package for less.
Will the public understand all the issues, probably not but it will be the job of the politicians to explain it just as they try and sell their relative merits now; lets face it most simply don't follow politics anyway. Is the system open to abuse, of course but then so is the current system only with the current system the public are stuck with a choice for 5 years.
This system, voting on the issues rather than on parties would be the consensus system. It is an evolution of democracy to a new level. It isn't anarchy but the power is devolved to the people making the politicians more administrators. Being a politician will still be a special job though, it will require someone adept and coming up with solutions, selling them and organising the delivery of them. If it fails to work within the time frame presented at the referendum on the subject then it is open to a referendum review. Public debates will precede all referendums.
This evolution will engage the people more because they will feel more like their vote will mean something; not everyone will vote all the time but far more will find something relevant to their interests. It will also make Government a lot more accountable and open.
Will society fall in to a steaming pile of it's own making? I think it less likely than others, it will certainly be a new challenge for all to make the system work and after initial teething troubles I'd like to think it could be made to work for the greater good of all. Lets face it the existing forms of democracy don't actually work that well.
After suggesting the UK National ID card scheme be revised to form the basis of secure electronic voting to the Government here there was a lot of publicity about how bad electronic voting is and how open to abuse it is. They forgot to mention just how open to abuse paper voting is and how much easier it is to building in electronic safe guards.