I read Moxie Marlinspike’s (Founder of Signal) critique of democracy recently, that there are problems inherent to the system itself:
- Democracy turns people into passive selectors of pre-made options, implying that those who control the agenda hold real power.
- The majority imposes decisions on minorities, even thought technically the “majority” is often just the largest minority group.
- Built-in (unfixable) vulnerabilities include: demagoguery, lobbying, and corruption.
- It presents itself as the only legitimate system, and synonymous with freedom. But voting gives an illusion of control, real power remains elsewhere.
- Participating in elections legitimises the system. It channels dissent into safe, limited actions instead of direct change.
Their alternative is anarchy (self-organisation and direct action), which is great for smaller scale matters, but how would that work for the public service elements? Transport, power grids, healthcare. These things necessitate long-term infrastructure planning, oversight, maintenance, standards, among other considerations. Fragmented decision-making from loose voluntary groups most likely cannot deliver outcomes efficiently enough. There would still be a need of some form of large-scale coordination system.
I always think about, “How do we keep large-scale coordination, but give people more direct influence and control?”. Some rabbit holes:
- Preferendums during elections (rank issues on priority, giving leaders a mandate to follow)
- Energy co-operatives in Schönau and Feldheim. Owned and run by the people.
- Use tech for faster feedback loops. Continuous engagement by proposing policies and voting more frequently
- Citizens assemblies to deliberate on specific issues
- Participatory budgeting: Schools vs roads vs parks etc