Is the future of politics a platform based technology? Blockchain technology seems to be that technological breakthrough that upends traditional representative democracy through secure direct voting. If you read enough articles by the civic tech, thinktank and public policy community, you might conclude that blockchain is in fact the future of politics.
Now consider reading the literature by the startup community. Blockchain is talked about as revolutionary, but never in the field of politics. Instead they see potential in its application to the financial system — a way of decentralizing asset purchases in order to create transparency and ultimately decrease the risk associated with purchasing derivatives, swaps, and even simpler financial products such as stocks. Venture capital investment in blockchain has skyrocketed, but never when it’s used to solve political engagement.
This divergence is rather interesting because it tells us more about the people analyzing the technology than the technology itself. VCs and entrepreneurial minded individuals understand the necessity of a market. In essence, a need doesn’t always equate to a want. People have to want something enough that they’ll pay for it — that’s the building block for a market. The financial system would be willing to pay. Financial institutions would be willing to pay for blockchain because it eliminates the need for a centralized exchange that charges exorbitant fees. Blockchain in politics however is an entirely different story. The Pirate Party, Flux Party and similar political parties suffer from the same problem: direct referendum isn’t sexy. It attracts firebrand people who have extreme opinions. People want to be better represented but they aren’t willing to put the time in themselves to participate in government. In addition, platform based technologies are just tough, requiring a large amount of users to initially engage. They bridge the idea of solving a want, they instead create a forum through which one can solve various issues — Facebook for example doesn’t solve a problem directly, but people may use it to solve the problem of communicating with friends, or sharing photos, etc. In today’s world there are really only two: LinkedIn (platform for professional life) and Facebook (platform for personal life). Is there a want for a platform for political life?
If we look at the history of how political life emerged, you might say that was indeed the case. Political life was social life. Community centers and town halls were built around politics. Public debates and discussion of candidates was the norm. Alexis de Tocqueville in On Democracy in America, generally regarded as a seminal work in political science, concluded that the strength of the American political system was constant participation throughout the population. In the late 1960s, after public political expression nearly tore the nation apart (think of Vietnam, the free speech movement, communism VS capitalism, the assassination of RFK, MLK, and other community and civic leaders, the great fires within inner cities, etc) politics became a private act. We vote in secluded voting booths. When we see a facebook post about politics, we always roll our eyes and think ‘oh, it’s one of those posts’ — it has no place in social life. Social attitudes and cultural norms fundamentally transformed when it came to politics. The question is, has that changed? Does the future warrant a separate political platform?
Policymakers and thinktanks are trained too see emerging technologies and evaluate the potential impact they may have on various sectors of political, economic and social life. But analyzing the social psychology and market conditions which allow these technologies to emerge is equally important. Without such an understanding, this application of technology becomes another lost artifact in the never ending dust-bin of history.
