In the Fog Island Tavern
– I just don’t understand things anymore, Bog-Hubert
– Understand what, Vodçek?
– Anything. Why bright people keep complaining. About things they don’t like. Blamimg people about what happened, moaning about what is going to happen. But don’t having anything better to offer. And why people who actually have something to offer can’t get around to even get it out there for discussion. Much less actually doing something useful.
– Hmm. I’d agree with the first part there, Vodçek. The folks who lost the election? Or the ones who won but don’t have more than a concept of a plan for what they’re going to do? Or the ones who didn’t even vote because they didn’t like either option?
– Which seems like a somewhat rational option. What, commissioner?
– Well, isn’t voting, free elections, the essential basis of democracy?
– Maybe just to avoid getting blamed for the results of either choice. But how come that grand basis of democracy ends up producing outcomes people in both camps are complaining about? Both the folks who are voting themselves authoritarian or some other ‘-isist’ leaders? Ironically, by voting? And the ones who are appalled about that?
– Ah, the old paradox of democracy… The free elections to vote yourself a dictator…
– Don’t distract us from the topic with old paradoxes, Professor. What about those who say that the democratic systems and rules just need to be applied right?
– So why don’t they get people to actually vote for that?
– Well, some do, but don’t have enough charisma or something. But there are issues that fundamentally can’t be properly resolved by elections, by voting.
– What are those?
– You can’t get around the old fact that majority voting ends up leaving up to half the population dissatisfied. As if all the debating and advertising and funny caps resolve all the pros and cons and misunderstandings. But now there’s also the concern that so many problems we are facing affect people across two or several borders: Voting districts, countries, the entire globe. All with different governance mechanisms and rules so it’s impossible to even decide who is properly allowed to vote
– Yes: the ‘non-local’ or even ‘global’ controversies?
– Right. And Vodçek is right when he doesn’t understand why people don’t seem to even want to talk about that. Why, for example, the experts with the computers and simulation models who used to claim that systems thinking is humanity’s currently best tool for tackling just those global crises: why are they all dealing with ‘approaches’ for solving problems with small Face-to-face groups of selected members of very ‘partisan’ entities locked in competitive market-share, growth-obsessed win-lose mindsets. Even ST folks begin to advocate ‘floating’: refraining from recommendations for what to do, but instead getting ‘understanding’ by just observing what happens by letting things evolve and happen? Not even talking about taking responsibility for the problems their earlier so confident recipes themselves may have contributed to the current state of things? That we now can’t begin to understand much less ‘solve’? Sorry for the long rant.
– You got several points there, Bog-hubert. But what about the second part of Vodçek’s complaint, the one you don’t seem to agree with? Or did I not understand what you meant there? About people who may have viable ideas but that we don’t hear from?
– Thanks for coming back to that one, Professor. Well, I may not be well enough informed about everything that’s going on out there. But so much of what I hear and read is put in so general terms as to sound just like a wish list of ideals — freedom, equality, dealing with climate change (or its effects, if not its causes, especially if it is claimed that are caused by what we humans do), pollution, crime, immigration, poverty, health issues and epidemics, wars, and so on. Sure. But not much specifics: what agreements, policies, projects are needed to actually achieve those things — to the satisfaction of everybody, not just a small minority of people?
– Coming to think about it, I have often wondered about the specifics we do read about: those ’benchmark goals’ — to reach such a critical value of a variable to reach by such and such date. But little abou how to get there? Ban habit or practice X? Or, if we don’t like that, for whatever reason, ban the books and don’t fund the research and teaching that produce the recommendations?
– Wait, guys. Don’t we know there are many people individuals and groups that are working and actually trying out better ways of doing things? Sure, mostly small groups and initiatives, as you pointed out, it seems. But fascinating and promising things and ideas that should be supported and tried out. I have heard you and AbbeBoulah talk about those things right here in Vodçek’s tavern, Bog-Hubert?
– True. The problem, in my mind, is that they are not adequatey supported, don’t communicate well among each other, and aren’t accessibly integrated in a comprehensive discourse leading to widely accepted agreements. Feasible agreements that won’t make life miserable for significant parts of the world’s population. Or so controversial as to trigger strong opposition and even war. ‘
– You say ‘feasible’ — isn’t that a key problem in itself? Do we have the means, the tools, the procedural provisions to get the needed things done? Much as we are all for those wonderful goals?
– Yes, Commissioner, good question. I don’t see much about proposals and discussion of the practical details for actually reaching agreements about what should be done about the problems. And about people or institutions who have something useful to say about those issues but aren’t coming forward with their ideas?
– I was going to ask you about just that: Hasn’t your, or rather Abbeboulah’s, buddy at the university been working on just such ideas? What keeps him from coming forward?
– You are right. That was what Vodçek was getting upset about — the heated discussion right here about that last night
– Sorry I missed that. Anything useful coming out of that?
– Well, if there was, Vodçek still isn’t happy with the outcome. He is mad at our friend for not coming up with a clear statement about his ideas, just papers and books, Maybe it’s the way it’s displayed, communicated? No grand manifesto written on the napkins political leaders could use for their speeches. But some general agreement strategy might be summarized, by a skilful journalist. At least about the preparatory steps for making use of the insights and work that’s already going on, that were mentioned.
– Can’t you tell us about some of that, briefly?
– Good question. It got late and my maturity-based privileges include memory lapses you’ll have to consider.
– Try anyway.
– Okay. There are indeed a few things you might call preparatory provisions, to facilitate the process for planning, policy-making and governance, that should be started as soon as possible instead of the endless commiserating about the various trends and election results. And while I can list them only one at a time, they aren’t in a systematic step-by step sequence but should be started and pursued simultaneously.
– We’ll keep that in mind. Go on.
– A few headings: The discourse platform, with provisions for evaluation of contributions, that lead to agreements based on the merit of the contributions. The need for better measures of performance of plans and policies: ’merit point accounts’ and their use for better empowerment of the public, as well as control of power of official figures. Better provisions (‘sanctions’) to ensure adherence to agreements. Each of these will require more work, publication, research, developments and testing before full implementation: they are urgent global discussion agenda items: More specifics?
– Please.
Okay:
o The Public Planning Discourse Platform. The development of such a platform is a main concern, especially for ‘non-local’ and ’global’ projects. Open to all involved or affected parties, neutral, but with some more detailed ‘netiquettte’ provisions, for example avoiding mere repetition, personal characterization of other participants, straying from topics being discussed, etc. ‘Unformatted’ contributions must be accepted, but offer concise, comprehensive overviews of the state of the discourse. This will require some formalization agreements. Incentives for participation, and for evaluation of the merit of contributions. Separating claims of ‘content’ from judgments of their merit: plausibility, not just ‘truth’, supporting evidence, significance etc. Development of decision or agreement support based on that merit, transparently — supplementing the ‘vote’ counts of number of affected parties.
o ‘Game versions’ of the platform. The development of an overall platform for global projects will take effort, time; and experiments for testing and importantly, education of the public in using the tools. This can be done with discourse ‘games’ played on cellphones; but protocols for ‘live events’ on small projects of public planning forum events.
o Evaluation procedures. Two main ‘evaluation tasks’ for which appropriate procedures must be developed: a) evaluation of discourse contributions — ideas, proposals, concepts and details, arguments, information comments; and b) the quality or ‘goodness’ of the evolving plan or policy ‘solutions’. The two tasks are of course related: the aggregated judgments for (b) should be based on the merit of (a) judgments. But their purpose is different: (a)-judgments will be used to build up individual partiipant’s ‘merit point accounts’ that will become measures of their judgment, trustworthiness and familiarity with the subject matter of the discourse; while (b)-judgments are the basis for the ‘plan goodness’ decision indicators. (There are several such indicators, not just one yes/no vote for each solution alternative: any proposed plan has at least two: accept, reject and don’t do anything about the problem).
o Empowerment versus control of power. Currently, this issue does not seem to be considered a topic of design or discussion for change: parties involved in public controversies are seen as seeking the (unilateral) power to make the decisions, as a matter of course, within the traditional systems of rules and ‘balance’ constraints. Their common shortcomings include reliance on coercive sanctions the more powerful party imposes on violators, and opponents, rather than on the outcome of deliberative reasoning and negotiation. Which, on the international — global — level still ends up with the application of force: war. Acceptance of this ignores fundamental aspects of the issue: First, human beings seek ‘empowerment’ — to control and ‘make a difference’ in their lives’, as well as to experience the ‘adrenaline rushes’ of exercising power. Second, the historical insight that power is addictive and impairs the power holder’s mental stability: the ‘Caligula syndrome’. The frequency and severity of ‘global’ challenges calling for ‘global’ decisions, as well as the frightening coercive and destructive forces of modern war weaponry makes the development of better tools for managing these conflicting forces an immensely urgent agenda item.
o For all these agenda items, we know there are ideas and tools available or being considered, but comprehensive and globally accepted application to the current challenges is dangerously neglected: the opposing attitudes of ‘saving democracy’ (as currently practiced) and the trends to return to governance patterns (e.g. reliance on the power and judgment of authoritative leaders) from recent and distant historical past periods are equally flawed. Unworthy of the human wisdom acquired throughout history from so many failures and suffering and so many unnecessary deaths.
– Thanks for listening to this summary. Something to think about and work to do. I’m sure there are questions: perhaps we could continue this tomorrow?
Abbe Boulah's Weblog 