In the context of such a large and constantly increasing number of delicate and confidential transactions being conducted over the World Wide Web today, one has to wonder why it is that so many decisions are still being made by elected representatives rather than directly by the people themselves. If we can conduct banking transactions and most of our confidential correspondence over the net, why not establish voting systems too? Why is it that a single person – a president - has the right to declare war on another nation without consulting the people first; and an illegal war at that too? Why is it that when the elected Congress or Senate or any other parliament fails to defend the Constitution and to resist war crimes, no one has the power to do anything?
For sure, there are many practical questions to consider, but there is no justification today for continuing with the status quo if we truly see ourselves as upholders of democratic values. One can anticipate several of the inevitable objections:
1. Fraud
Election fraud is nothing new in any country, and whatever preventive measures exist today can be replicated for a web-based voting system too. It is a matter of the political will and transparency. A web-based system indeed would be easier to monitor independently.
2. Competence
A constant and old anti-democratic argument has been the competence of voters on technical or sensitive issues. We know full well that most legislators do not bother to read what they are voting on – not even on matters such as the Patriot Act. On the contrary, elected representatives are highly susceptible to party political, financial and lobbyist pressures, and as such are largely incompetent for the legislative jobs they hold.
3. Time constraints or lack of interest
It can be argued that the average citizen may not be interested in or have the time to deal with a broad range of issues that politicians typically deal with. This is an important barrier that would need careful consideration of how a direct voting system would be organised. However, just as in the above point, politicians have shown a distinct lack of interest in dealing with their responsibilities with the required professionalism and dedication. This is partly related to an absence of personal implications for the politicians in the decisions they make. Their number one priority is to hold on to power. They base all their decisions with this single issue on their mind in addition to other considerations that come and go, but holding on to power stays as a main objective all the way through. However, the average citizen has a personal stake in many if not most of the political decisions made. They may well make the time and develop the interest in their own affairs in a surprising manner. Furthermore, and as with other tasks, the legislative workload can be shared or distributed according to the level of interest. Local level decisions would attract a great deal of interest as they affect one’s own neighbourhood. State-level issues need only state-level interest. National issues of a sensitive nature would attract a great deal of voter interest, while others can be delegated to elected representatives and/or technical groups. The options and opportunities with direct democracy and citizens’ participation are limitless, and there is no excuse for reneging on the task of bringing real democracy about.
In the absence of any known parallels, a web-based system of direct democracy would need to be set up gradually. Perhaps one would have to aim at the two extremes of decision-making to start with: matters of high national interest and those at the local level. Most likely, a mixed system of delegated and direct democracy would work best, at least to start with.
Interestingly, a web-based voting system would also put an end to two or three-party monopolies at the reign of power. What better way to end the rule of ineffective and self-serving political parties than to hold elections for representative houses on the Internet? The process can start from the local level with each successful candidate moving up the administrative ladder to the county, province, state and then national level for the head of state. Manifestos can be more easily scrutinised; question and answer sessions held; and the policies of candidates can be truly scrutinised instead of the current razzmatazz of balloons, excruciating music and nauseating celebrities.
It really is time to take control of our lives, and to address the key question of ‘what is to be done?’ with a feasible solution, to draw on our basic and fundamental approach to democracy, and thus take ownership of it. It is only then we can truly be the responsible and engaged global citizens that most of us aspire to be. Even the many who have fallen victim to apathy will recognize that some of us have decided to reclaim a basic right that is ours as citizens and re-establish the system’s creditability. Given the performance of the powers that be, our survival may depend on it.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
