Is it still sufficient for democracies to vote every four
years?
It is certainly not enough for a lively democracy, and
certainly not to solve energy or climate problems, or to speed up the
digitalisation in Europe.
Could it be said that the traditional model of democracy
simply no longer fits into a globalised, digitised and fragmented society?
This is certainly the case. Global networking is changing
everything. The world today is more complex. We must take the principle of
subsidiarity more seriously, according to which decisions should be taken as
far up as necessary and as far down as possible, and by the people who are
affected by the decisions.
Do we need a new democracy?
Yes, definitely. We should upgrade democracy digitally,
and our economic system at the same time.
Do you believe that the digitalisation will or is good or
bad for democracy?
For a while it was good. It initially encouraged the
exchange of ideas and discourse. In the meantime, companies and governments
have increasingly taken over the Internet. Citizens have lost out. Opinions and
elections are being manipulated. Our lives are increasingly determined by big
data and algorithms, i.e. by computer programs. Artificial intelligence is
increasingly used to control people's decisions and behaviour. It is said that
"code is law", i.e. computer programs are establishing a new kind of
law, which completely bypasses citizens and parliament.
What role do digital media play today in the political
decision-making of the younger generation?
They are essential, but they are not really designed to
support consensus. They rather promote conflict. Their functioning must be
adapted to social and democratic values. What is required is a value-sensitive
design, i.e. a design for values. Europe could become a world leader in this
new field of business.
Is there a new "we feeling", a new desire for
participation and dialogue among citizens? Especially among young people?
Yes, I would say so. And it is absolutely necessary.
Companies are having great difficulties in achieving the goals of the energy
transformation and the sustainability agenda. Politicians from Berlin and Brussels
cannot solve the problems people face in their neighbourhoods and regions. The
structural change towards a sustainable, digital society can only succeed if
the citizens are taken on board and if they can play their part in shaping it.
Many citizens are afraid of the digitalisation, many
experts paint a dark picture of incapacitation and dictatorship, even speak of
the end of democracy. On the other hand, you develop a positive vision! I have
selected a few key points, perhaps you could explain them in more detail?
Yes, with pleasure. I have a digital upgrade of our
society in mind: a democratic capitalism, a socio-ecological financial system,
and a digital democracy.
You say that the time we gain with the new, AI- and
robot-based kind of automation should be spent with creative, social, and
environmental activities. Digital democracy aims to promote collective
intelligence. We need to bring together the knowledge and ideas of many minds,
because in complex systems the best solutions result by combining many
individual solutions, as it takes different perspectives on the problem. Do you
see a possibility of interlinking citizen participation and representative
politics?
Indeed, this is difficult to achieve today.
Representative democracy is based on a misunderstanding. Parliament should
actually represent a cross-section of the opinions and needs of a population,
and implement the things that the people expect from their policy-makers.
Instead, they often act as if they were elected kings on time. However, not the
government is the sovereign, but the people. In the future, citizens must be
able to play a greater role in shaping their country and their future. In view
of our global problems, we see that politics and business have difficulties in
finding good solutions and getting them implemented in a timely manner. Instead
of rolling out one solution throughout the entire world, however, we must dare
to make more local experiments and to learn from each other. I call this
glocalisation instead of globalisation. In other words, we need more flexible
formats: participative, local projects.
The decisive keyword is MOODs ("Massive Open Online
Deliberation Platforms"). In short, it's all about collecting various
facts and finding a solution that works for many.
Exactly. In a complex world, one perspective on a problem
is rarely enough, and a majority decision may not be the best for society. We
have to combine different perspectives to get an accurate picture of the
problem, and we need to combine diverse solutions approaches to find solutions
that work for most people. Interestingly, when the best individual solution is
combined with other solutions, this will often result in even better solutions.
So, the success principle of collective intelligence is diversity, the
innovative combination of several proposed solutions. This can be worked out in
a deliberative process, via a kind of round table that brings together the main
representatives of different solution approaches.
Why is Facebook not suitable for this?
Because the platform was not created to solve problems
and to promote constructive discourse. It manipulates our opinions, which
undermines collective intelligence.
You believe that the platforms must be able to collect,
structure and review various ideas and arguments. Platforms such as the
"Deliberatorium" of MIT already exist today.
Yes, that's right. Such platforms, however, have not yet
become widespread enough. They must also become more user-friendly. Artificial
intelligence could help.
What do you mean by City Olympics?
A friendly, participatory competition of cities and
regions to find solutions to our global problems...
You have said that new digital technologies,
democratically controlled and combined with a novel economic and financial
system could solve our resource problems. However, for that we need new digital
platforms.
Yes, a socio-ecological finance system. We often call it
Finance System 4.0 or FIN+.
You have said that the finance system 4.0 would establish
a multi-dimensional incentive system and at the same time serve to pay for
public infrastructures. There would be different currencies for CO2 emissions,
noise, waste materials and much more, so that differentiated incentives could
be created.
Our approach combines the "Internet of Things"
with multi-dimensional incentive systems for real-time feedback. It is inspired
by the way an ecosystem works.
You have said that these incentives can be designed in
such a way that the goals of a society can be achieved through
self-organisation. Economic, social, and ecological goals would not have to be
opponents, but could reinforce each other. In this way, everyone could benefit:
Citizens, banks and companies. In the sense of digital democracy and collective
intelligence, the finance system 4.0 would be managed jointly by business,
politics, science and the general public.
Among other things, incentives for environmentally
friendly and socially acceptable production would be created. With a
multi-dimensional incentive system, these would pay off.
What is democratic capitalism?
The counter-model to surveillance capitalism. Democratic
capitalism would have three components: First, a basic income for existential
security. This would help us to master the forthcoming structural change.
Second, an investment premium, so to say, crowd funding for all. It could be
used to finance local economic, social, cultural and ecological projects. And
thirdly, a platform for informational self-determination. This would protect
human dignity in the digital age.
You have stated that the time is ripe for public debate
on where we want to go in the digital age and for wise investment in shaping
our future - rather than maintaining a legacy of the past. There is a chance to
learn from the automotive crisis that we need more courage to change. It would
be a pity if we missed this opportunity. Perhaps we now understand better how
we should use digital technologies. If we do it right, we can soon experience a
"golden age" - an era of peace and prosperity.
The crucial thing is to use network effects. These can
change everything. A platform for informational self-determination can promote
business through combinatorial innovation. The result would be an information
ecosystem that benefits everyone: the economy, politics, and citizens.
Collective intelligence would make democracy, society and the community smarter
and more successful. It would benefit all of us, and we could live together in
peace despite diversity. A socio-ecological financial system based on many
different incentives would promote a circular economy and sharing economy and a
life in harmony with nature.
