Will Networking Transform Pyramid Of Power?
CategoriesSteve Bosserman writes in his Diary of a Knowledge Broker, that power is usually arranged in a pyramid configuration - few who are at the top control the lives of many who aren't. He describes the social interactions that make up this pyramid of power in a very clear and revealing manner in Pareto and the Pyramid of Power.
Although our cultures have progressed under this system for the better part of known history, the traditional arrangement of power is very much subject to abuse and is often used to arrange our affairs in a way that suits the few sitting at the top of the pyramid. So a question comes to mind: Could perhaps networking provide an alternative to these traditional power structures?
I believe it could at least transform our way of distributing power and said so in a comment posted at the foot of Steve's article.
Enter Democracy 2.0
No sooner had I finished writing, than I came upon a great example of networked action to try and take back some of that control that we have seen concentrated in the hands of a privileged minority for ages.
Lawrence Lessig posted a link to Wiki-Law, a community effort to build the largest open-content legal resource in the world. This will be an incredible resource once it gets going. Indeed if you have a lawyer friend, please forward the link to this article and tell her or him to take a look at Wiki-Law.
But what caught my eye more than anything is an initiative called Democracy 2.0, linked from and part of the efforts of the Wiki-Law site:
"Democracy 2.0 is a Wikilaw experiment that hypothesizes that a wide range of individuals, not just politicians, corporations, and special interest groups, can contribute to the creation of the United State's laws. All laws listed in this section are the collaborative effort of the Democracy 2.0 community. The site aggregates the viewpoints of all users, after a large number of edits, to reach a consensus on what laws society should impose on us."If we look at the positive track record of Wikipedia the online user-created and maintained encyclopedia that outpaced the venerable Encyclopaedia Britannica in the space of a few years, it doesn't take much of a flight of the imagination to see that Wiki-Law might just make an impact on how we make our laws in the future. Although directed - for the present - mainly at the USA, this experiment might well show the way to a reform of democratic procedures that would bring us a bit closer to the ever elusive ideal of democracy, government by the people.
"The mission of Democracy 2.0 is to "reboot" the United States's political process by reinstilling the American people's voice in the government. We will write laws collaboratively. Collaborative editing aggregates our varied viewpoints, enabling us to reach better decisions and better laws. These laws will be transmitted to Washington by allowing the users of Democracy 2.0 to "vote" for these laws."For the record, here is my comment to Steve Bosserman's article and an early snapshot of the proposal - subject to continual revision - on how Democracy 2.0 should be working:
- - -
My comment to this article of Steve Bossermann:
Could networking provide an alternative to traditional power structures?
I like your clear exposure of current power structures.
Reading the article set me thinking whether the current trend towards a more widespread use of informal and formal network-structures could eventually provide a way of organizing society in a more equitable way.
There are clear trends in this direction. Direct democracy allows more intimate involvement of all in the political processes that make up governance. An open source movement is counteracting some of the excessive concentrations of power in the free enterprise area. And finally there seems to be a trend, even in groups and organizations, towards a more open model. The internet is a driver here, making personal interaction independent from geographic location.
So actually I should re-phrase my question. Rather than being an alternative to them, could networking radically transform our traditional power structures to favor majority participation? How about an 80:20 ratio instead of 20:80?
- - -
From the Wikilaw Community
Founders ProposalThis is a proposal. We welcome any feedback.
Mission
The mission of Democracy 2.0 is to "reboot" the United States's political process by reinstilling the American people's voice in the government. We will write laws collaboratively. Collaborative editing aggregates our varied viewpoints, enabling us to reach better decisions and better laws. These laws will be transmitted to Washington by allowing the users of Democracy 2.0 to "vote" for these laws.When our community grows to millions of users, Washington will take notice. The power of special interest groups, corporations, and self-serving politicians will be lessened. Democracy 2.0, just like music in the 1960s, will transform the political culture in the country, enhancing our position as a beacon of light, hope, and freedom for the world.
To achieve this goal, we need your help!
Technology
Democracy 2.0 will blend together two technologies: wikis and "social bookmarking." Just like a Wiki everyone can contribute to the site without editorial oversight. Just like Digg and Delicious, registered users will be able to vote on a law and decide which laws appear on our Home Page.
Voting
Each user, who registers, will be able to vote for a law once. Once the user "votes" for a law, the user can then update his vote by "un-voting" for the law, if the law is modified to something that the user no longer supports.
Main Page
On the main page will be two main sections: (1) Popular laws; and (2) Latest Laws. Popular laws will be a listing of the 25 most popular laws on the site based on the number of votes a law has received. Latest Laws will be decided through an algorithm that weighs the following factors: votes, edits, time of day, and comments. By placing the laws on the main page, these laws will get more exposure, attracting other members of the community to continue to further edit these laws.
Editing Laws and Voting
As users dynamically update laws this will happen: (1) the laws will be improved and the community will give that law more votes; or (2) the law will devolve and the law will lose votes.
Due to the structure of the site, users will try maximize the number of "votes" a given law receives. To maximize laws, users will have to improve the content of the law to something a greater portion of the community can agree upon. The process will force compromise: the topic will be refined, the language will be refined, the structure will be refined, and the debate will intensify.
Through this process, when the community reaches a sufficient sample size, the most popular laws will accurately reflect the laws that we as a community choose to impose upon ourselves. As our community grows, these popular laws will also accurately reflect the laws that Americans wish to impose upon themselves.
Future
If Democracy 2.0 is successful, then the model will be translated in other languages and applied to other countries.
Through this process, Democracy 2.0 will transform America, and eventually the world. However, we cannot do this without your help! Spread the word.
- - -See also:
The Problem of Power
Steve Bossermann - Diary of a Knowledge Broker
posted by Sepp Hasslberger on Sunday December 11 2005
updated on Tuesday December 13 2005URL of this article:
http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/2005/12/11/will_networking_transform_pyramid_of_power.htm
Related ArticlesRestoration of Hawaiian Kingdom - Bush Asked To Cooperate
After having declared the independence of Hawai'i two years ago, Edmund Keli'i Silva Jr., heir to the throne of the archipelago's monarchy has now asked president George W. Bush to back up his words with deeds and consent to the restoration of the Hawaiian monarchy. In a letter to the U.S. President, Edmund Keli'i Silva refers to what President Bush told the United Nations in a speech on 14... [read more]
December 06, 2005 - Sepp Hasslberger