An Alternative? What Alternative?!
Everyone is frustrated with the current conduct of our affairs. Everywhere citizens take it upon themselves to challenge elected representatives on vital issues such as the well-fare state, climate change and environmental degradation, decentralization and pensions, etc. But while there are plenty of those initiatives, no where there is a serious discussion about an alternative to the current system.
As if it was taboo and would tagged you along with other pariah like the communists, the anarchists or the monarchists and fascists.
So why is the alternative nowhere to be seen?
We know understand that proposing an alternative to representative democracy is at the same time sound and difficult.
It makes sense — full stop. But it does not yet make sense to a large majority — not even to a significant minority. At least not yet. But if we just wait for it to happen ‘naturally’ we are in for a long ride. One we cannot afford anymore. As Keynes said “in the long-run we are all dead” — even more true today than at his time.
Thus the question we’ve been struggling with for a while: how to create the mental space in a large group of people to allow for the evidence to emerge? And as a subsidiary question, how quickly can it be done?
It is difficult because it is not so much about how smartly you can explain it but the level of cognitive complexity needed to apprehend the idea — at least to start with.
To explain that we have to answer the following question: Why the idea of an alternative democratic system like this one is metamodern? (in the sense developed by Hanzi Freinacht)
The idea of an alternative is about system change — thus at a meta-systemic level.
- It is not about amending/upgrading/reforming an existing model (adjustment at the margin) but about changing the system itself.
- It is not about promoting a new ideology but it focuses on how to create the space to find collective solutions, mindful of the trades off.
- In fact, it implies (or would strive better with) a significant upgrading of our capacities to listen and to dialogue (including to adapt the education system to care for emotions and not only intelligence).
- Going even further, it is not about the individual versus the collective — it goes beyond (but not in a transcendental way) by accepting each and every individuals as part of connected webs.
So here we are — a metamodern idea and therefore a major difficulty: how to create space for this idea? How to put it out there? How to make it a mainstream idea, a self-explanatory evidence that we can have an alternative?
We should put that as a challenge to the community of the willing and other crowd-sourcing initiatives…
But before that, it may be good to try and be a bit more concrete:
So what is the alternative model?
It is important to understand that there is not yet a proposal for an alternative — and that this naturally derive from what is stated above… To put it simply, it needs to be co-created.
It means that it is a collective effort — it requires bringing citizens and experts together to build a prototype of a new system and find means and ways to test, evaluate, refine, etc. through quick iterations based on trial and error.
But we are not starting from scratch. On the contrary there are thousands and thousands of initiatives — here is a linked.
It is the right moment to harvest all that. There is something brewing, something waiting to happen.
All these initiatives have tested tools, methodologies, processes etc. at different scales and in different contexts that we can use as elementary bricks in our construction projects.
As you know from the game of life you can have very simple rules that can generate very complex systems. Using change management we can take bricks and look at how they interact with other elements of the system to ensure a certain level of consistency, of equilibrium in the same way ‘checks and balances’ are meant to balance the different branches of power in our democracies. This is essential as you want the system to be inclusive but quick enough to address problems, you want transparency but not to the detriment of individual protection, etc.
What we are striving for is to identify some of the key principles to help put the bricks together.
Key principles include:
- Putting decision making on political issues at the center of our lives (and no longer at the margin) — it implies finding ways to help us make the space for it in our lives
- Distribute or rather diffuse power rather than give it to a happy few believing they would not abuse it (naive, isn’t it)
- Putting the ecosystem first (rather than the egos) — why should we keep listening to people who feel offended if you disagree with them when it is not about them…
- Transparency rather than behind the door negotiations
- Moving to dialogues instead of debates — there is a big nuance here as a debate is meant to convince and impose a viewpoint (win-lose) while a dialogue is meant to allow each of us to express a viewpoint and receive feedback to help us develop our understanding (win-win)
- Making the system agile to address issues in an iterative way (it also means allowing mistakes and corrections as we go along)
Of course you get some of the few key words or buzz words of today: empowerment, transparency, innovation, complexity, etc.
The problem is that in today’s system those concepts are rather meaningless (or at least not operating at their highest potential). How can you empower someone in a structure that relies on a pyramidal form of authority and decision-making. You can be empowered but like a kid: whenever things get a bit more shaky the adults take control again. This is not empowerment. But to be honest, it’s a systemic issue that prevents ‘empowerment’ to happen not a lack of understanding or willingness.
Empowering staff in our administrations and companies is still probably better than no empowerment but it is not where this tool works at its best. It’s like trying to run your latest version of Photoshop on an old operating system — it may work but certainly not at its best (and can be very frustrating).
This is why we need a new system — a new alternative. The current one cannot deal with today’s complexity.
