[LINK] ICT and democracy [Was: 2015]

[David Boxall]

Real-world discussion of Tim Dunlop's satirical piece has taken a few 
unexpected turns:

> Back in the real world, we're just as likely to end up with Pauline Hanson. I've lost all faith in the electorate.
>
> Winston Churchill said something along the lines that the best argument against democracy is a brief conversation with the average voter. I reckon our current situation bears that out pretty well.
>
> Abbott, in particular, treats us like sheep. If the polls are to be believed, he's not wrong.
...
A chilling thought, but would it take much of a change to put Hanson in 
Turnbull's place in the satire?

>> ... How can it all be worked out when so many
>> have such divergent views ...
> That's probably the nub of the problem. Our politicians are listening too much. What they hear most are the voices of those who can pay people to shout for them.
>
> Occasionally, enough ordinary people will speak up so they make enough noise to be heard. Unfortunately, money usually speaks loudest.
>
> Tony Abbott has been a revelation to me. He's like a sheep-dog (with the electorate as the sheep). Yap loudly, yap constantly and run around a lot to keep the sheep spooked. Never let the mob settle, or they might start thinking. None of what he says stands scrutiny, but few people I know have been able to collect their wits enough to scrutinise. Unfortunately, the government seems just as spooked as the electorate.
>
> Traditional Westminster democracy is based on politicians or parties setting out what they believe in or stand for, then the electorate deciding whether to support them. These days, the politicians seem to hold an opinion poll or focus group every nanosecond. They're so busy trying to convince the electorate that they're going to do what the electorate wants that they end up standing for nothing and getting nothing done.
>
> My years in public service taught me that what people ask for and think they want is often not what they need. The less people know the more certain and obdurate they tend to be.
>
> Abbott has made much of asserting that the government is not listening. He's upset because he's managed to thoroughly confuse and alarm the electorate and his effort will go to waste if the government isn't swayed by the resulting misinformed uproar.
>
> In this environment, with the media and the electorate subverted, the government might well be better off not listening. When they forge ahead regardless, as they have with the NBN and may yet do on carbon pricing, they get things done. At the next election, they can then be judged on achievement. If that happens, the opposition will be left holding a minus.
> ...

It seems to me that information and (particularly) communications 
technologies have played a significant part in the degradation of 
Australia's democracy. Could Abbott have deceived and alarmed so many 
without ubiquitous and virtually instantaneous telecommunications? Could 
the opinion poll and focus group driven degeneracy have progressed to 
the level that it has without quick ubiquitous telecommunications, plus 
info-tech to speedily cook the figures?

I could draw parallels with the 1930s and '40s, the technologies then 
being radio and cinema. Not wanting to invoke Godwin, I won't do that. :)

Of course, democracies don't degrade like this without at least one 
perverse personality but I find it interesting that, in a more-or-less 
functional democracy, ICT can play roles with such negative impacts. 
Then again, those same technologies are probably instrumental in the 
solutions as well.

-- 
David Boxall                         | "Cheer up" they said.
                                     | "Things could be worse."
http://david.boxall.id.au            | So I cheered up and,
                                     | Sure enough, things got worse.
                                     |              --Murphy's musing