On this occasion, I found it interesting to share with you an ingenious experience of "open government" that is taking place in my country. Embedded by the logic of free software and taking advantage of available computing resources, a group of young inhabitants of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires decided to create the Network Party (PR).
The particularity of this political party is that it built a digital platform, Democracy, so that all the residents of the city of Buenos Aires can debate and vote the laws in the Legislature of the city. Be careful, it is not a mere "virtual" experience. The PR candidates who were elected in the last elections agreed to vote according to the results of the opinions expressed in DemocraciaOS on each of the projects in question, for which citizens can access not only the full text of the projects but also to a "reduced" version, easier to understand and digest.
In the video below they explain it very well.
What I like most about this initiative is that it goes against that idea of the popular slogan during the hectic days of December 2001, when Argentina went through one of the most serious institutional crises in its history. With that phrase, people synthesized their dislike of the "political class." It was something very similar to the "indignados" movement in Spain. In the PR, on the other hand, they have managed to overcome this initial rejection of politics and have transformed it into something constructive, which encourages political participation instead of deactivating it. They do not fight so that "everyone leaves" but so that "everyone enters." Interesting concept, right?
On the other hand, it is worth asking: if we have reached the point where we were able to digitize banking transactions to inhospitable places and we put our trust in electronic tools to handle central issues in our lives, why not do the same with the legislative debate and allow that those same tools serve to democratize the political game. And more interesting still, why is it that no one thought of this before? Could it be that there is little interest on the part of the politicians themselves or of the centers of power that people really get involved in political life?
This is also a "going beyond" the mere electronic vote that is already being implemented in several countries. This is about truly democratizing the decision and legislative debate, which is still a wave of fresh air in the midst of the enormous crisis of representation that a large part of representative democracies are going through, in their different forms.
To finish, I think it's important to mention that DemocraciaOS is currently in a test version so that people can become more familiar with the idea. As of next 10/12/2013, the candidates elected from the Red Party will assume their position in the Buenos Aires legislature. From then on, everything that is voted on the website will have a real impact on the legislature, because the legislators of the PR will vote according to the results of the votes on the website. For this reason, users who have not validated their identity will not be able to continue using the website (as they do until now). The identity validation will be face-to-face and both the identity of the user (by means of DNI) and their membership in the electoral roll of the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires will be verified to ensure a certain "seriousness" in voting.
In the last elections, the PR obtained 21.368 votes (1,15% of the register). Taking into account that this is the first time you have participated in an election, it is not a negligible figure, right?
I believe that such a system, as the Network Party thought, would actually be violating democratic representativeness.
I voted and I have my representatives, who defend my ideology, in the corresponding body, and who will vote as I expect (if I knew how to choose well) and I also have the option of voting to decide another extra vote, of one more legislator ...
ohhhh how many possibilities. vote 1 time every x years. they do what they want and we do with our arms crossed. Accept it this policy takes years and in most countries it has not worked
This is really cool ..
And it's the kind of thing that Paraguay (Ciudad del Este) should imitate ..
If not? At least as a democratic "experiment" I find it super interesting ...
Hug! Paul.
The question is .., are these people left xd?
Libertarians. It is like the anarchists but more light.
With or without sweetener? Haha..
With sweetener. The sweetener of democracy.
How right!
Eeheh then they are not for me, I would like a similar party, worse more of a conservative / traditionalist tint xd
Falanginux, a large and 100% free distro.
no thanks, that's not conservatism xd, it's fascism ahahah
Well, more conservative and traditionalist than fascism itself there is nothing xD
Anarchist Libertarians or Liberal Libertarians? because in Spain there is the Liberal Party and in the US, if I'm not mistaken, the Libertarian Party, which are of an anarcho-capitalist style, not being very far behind in postulates of neoliberalism (you know, the Reagan, Thatcher, Bush…).
Actually, that question is very difficult to answer. What happens if those who participate vote something that is against what the PR person who occupies the bench thinks or believes? Vote the same what comes out in DemocraciaOS?
Well, the bank is a representative of many other people, he should vote for what came out in DemocraciaOS, being able to vote himself on the platform. That is democracy.
So is. In principle, it should be like this. The representative of the PR is supposed to take a kind of "oath" in that sense.
I am rather involved with a pirate party (it covers more fields than the network party). Likewise, the Argentine PPA considers the Red Party.
http://partidopirata.com.ar/2012/05/17/dos-punto-siri-16-de-mayo-el-partido-pirata-y-el-poder-de-la-red-en-el-programa-de-radio-basta-de-todo/
the PPAr has more differences than encounters with the PdR, and it is clear that they are totally different things. First of all Democracy OS is proprietary software and they are going to demand that you register.
In the PPAr there is
[cup] (http://taz.partidopirata.com.ar/afiliate/afiliaciones)
\or/
Excellent, but in Peru, politics is too stale for a novice politician to easily corrupt.
Still, I support the proposal.
Haha! In the rest of the countries we are more or less the same, do not believe it.
Equally, it is an interesting experience.
Hug! Paul.
I find it interesting but not new, the popular consultation has been an element that has been present in many democracies around the world for a long time. However, using information technology to stimulate it is laudable.
The points that make me most curious.
-How the fidelity of the data will be guaranteed, preventing them from being manipulated by third parties.
-The implications that such a precise metric of voting intention may have.
-The privacy of the vote.
Here in Spain is the http://partidox.org/
He has not debuted yet, let's see what happens ...
I don't like politics over the internet or software, we all know that this is manipulable and exploitable, not to mention that not everyone has access to these tools, which violates human rights.
Well, actually… it's just one more tool. Nobody forces people to use it. For that reason, in no way violates the human rights of anyone ... in my humble opinion.
Here in Mexico (where evil reigns), it is just beginning to wake up, because not everyone has access to the internet and social networks. But thanks to the # yosoy132 movement, we could say that a small light of change can be brewing gradually.
Evil reigns everywhere, the people who are drawn to power are the same everywhere.
Here in Mexico, by Internet or without Internet, all votes are frauds 😉
More true impossible.
Televisa, Televisa Everywhere.
Always, Televisa is sticking its nose.
Its what I thought. My cousin lives in Guernica does not use the internet with a computer. He doesn't have a smartphone. How do we include it?
Che, the "let everyone go" was not "just as you tell it"; in the sense that precisely at that moment "people" became much more involved with politics, a lot of places for debate, exchanges, assemblies arose ... this has a certain part, the other is that the "let everyone go" It was also provoked, because they touched the ticket (without having a bench) to some who did not touch anything.
As for this ... mmm, MUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCHA PEOPLE lack internet, they don't have it, they can't hire it, and MUUUUUUUUUU MANY of those who have have no idea of anything, ON THE OTHER HAND, it would have a fairly efficient infrastructure of records, so that there would be no fraud ... And many, even if they read the laws, will not understand them at all ...
regards
You're right about the "let everyone go." At that time, many people started to get involved, although afterwards it all came to nothing.
Regarding the lack of internet… yes, it is true… nobody is saying that this has to be the norm for everyone. It is one more option, which is available. Also, societies are supposed to be making efforts to reduce this digital divide, right?
Regarding efficiency and everything else. I'll make it short for you, you move twine via online. If you rely on computing and the web for that, I don't see why you can't do it for everything else. 🙂
Hug! Paul.
Another thing, with all due respect, it seems to me that your comment is wrapped in a kind of pessimism and levels down: let's not do anything because people don't have internet, let's not do anything because people's educational level is so bad that they don't go to understand anything, etc.
So we are not going anywhere ... don't you think?
Likewise, no one says that this is the solution to all problems ... it is an interesting experience, nothing more.
Hug! Paul.
+1
Hello, the truth is that I do not see the pessimism in my comment. When did I say let's do nothing? Quite simply, what I said is that the internet does not seem the least bit the best means to "improve democracy", from social networks to the NSA (or any other acronym, failing that) are proof of this.
What I exemplified with my comment is a "reality picture." To implement something, and more with the nickname of "improving democracy" you have to have a foundation that somehow entails DEMOCRACY (of all), that is to say that it involves EVERYONE or is it perhaps a hoax?
There is also something fundamental that I do not know how it would be raised. The debate? The point of view of the others?
In any case, let's do everything but not through a virtuality of movement. But I also propose to these parties that instead of creating a whole new platform, they take the "like" of Facebook. And I repeat the debate?
Regards!
And why does it necessarily have to involve EVERYONE? Is participation mandatory? In my opinion, not participating is also a democratic option, in fact, making things "mandatory" IF it constitutes a violation of freedom individual of people and that in itself, it is undemocratic ...
The point is that in Western representative democracies we don't even have the option of participating in a real debate on legislation. Democracy ends in parliament. Those of us who are outside do not paint anything.
That seems to me to be an appropriate measure if it is carried out. In this way democracy is more representative. I would say even effective. And not only to vote for certain things but many others as well. There is no doubt that life is moving towards increasingly computerized positions and the result will be seen in the next generations. Think that in some schools children learn without books. They enter class with tablets that they handle even better than their teachers.
Positive: The idea of a platform for citizen participation is interesting, the more the merrier!
With pins: You have to remember that there are times when the best is not what the majority want and this option - supposedly and according to what I interpret from the article - would be being removed from the equation with this method).
So is Ugo. I agree with your comments.
However, the current representative system already implies the "power of the majorities." If Party A wins, it will impose its position until it has the necessary majorities. In other words, the use of these types of platforms - DemocraciaOS style - does not make that worse. Majorities continue to prevail, as in the current representative system.
Having made this clarification, the observation seems correct to me. How can the will of minorities be protected? It is a very long debate, but also an interesting one.
Greetings, Pablo
"If party A wins, it will impose its position until it has the necessary majorities", well, in the case of a democracy understood in the good sense of the word, that situation would NOT imply disrespect for the rights of the rest of minorities. In my opinion, this proposal is close to the way the current Swiss system operates, where any change in the legislation almost automatically implies a referendum-type consultation, which here would be facilitated in an automated way. In any case, I think it is a good option and I agree with what you suggest in another comment that "we cannot even down" ...
That's right, Charlie. I agree with everything you say. Maybe I didn't know how to express myself correctly, but I think the same as you.
The central idea that all citizens participate when choosing a new law, for example, is very good. This should always be done, because although we vote for our representatives, they may have very different points of view from those they represent in some aspects.
But you have to analyze the situation well so that there are no overvotes or avoid fraud and other problems. But without a doubt it is a good idea for other parties to take into account as well.
That's right ... at least it seemed like an experience to consider.
The idea itself pleases me, but it gives me the impression that this should be just one more point for all parties to raise, but not something that is the center of a match
It is an excellent idea, and in fact the technology I believe is destined to shoot down the bureaucracy and democratize society.
The issue is that the proposals that these people are starting from do not point to any economic or social transformation of the country ... nor do they talk about touching any of the important issues that the economy demands
And it is logical because their proposals are rather a piece to add to some party
It is as if now a party called "Educational Party" came out and spoke only of educational reforms ... with nothing else.
Let's also talk about the fact that not in the whole country there is access to the internet ... or computers ... there are even people who lack electricity. For this reason, on the page you can see that the proposals have a very typical character of the federal capital.
I fully share your position.
Your comment is very interesting. I agree.
Besides this, a program is missing. Maybe it is a deliberate decision because they want to include everyone, regardless of their "ideological membership", I don't know. I get the impression that they want to show that this tool could be used universally, regardless of a particular party. In that sense, maybe that's why they don't "lower the ideological line" or don't have a "program."
Anyway, it makes me noisy just like you. I think that at some point that position is contradictory, although very interesting.
Big hug! Paul.
It seems like a bad idea to me, direct democracy is prohibited. The problem is that if everyone can vote, we would have the problem that the majority would always win, for example: if all the fans by mouth who are the majority in Argentina vote that they always win champions, it would be unfair to the others. that is the great risk of democracy that this system proposes.
The key is in education and the values that are instilled in the social mass, which is a slow process but I think it is the best way to achieve it.
Hello Daniel ... that "danger" already exists. It is not inherent in direct democracy, as you suggest, but in plain and simple democracy. In that sense, today's representative democracy has the same "danger." It was precisely the "founding fathers" of the United States who were most concerned about the "tyranny of the majority" when they began to implement representative democracy in their country as a form of government.
Big hug! Paul.