{"id":5309,"date":"2015-08-11T08:31:19","date_gmt":"2015-08-11T06:31:19","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.alainveuve.ch\/digital-politics-how-digitalization-will-change-politics\/"},"modified":"2015-08-11T08:31:19","modified_gmt":"2015-08-11T06:31:19","slug":"digital-politics-how-digitalization-will-change-politics","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.alainveuve.ch\/en\/digital-politics-how-digitalization-will-change-politics\/","title":{"rendered":"Digital Politics – How digitalization will change politics."},"content":{"rendered":"

A few weeks ago, in the canton (Baselland(bill<\/a>), which corresponds to the federal state) where I live, the legal basis was created to allow people to vote electronically in the future. The politicians never tired of emphasizing that the technology was not yet available (I beg your pardon?), but they wanted to take precautions. That is a positive attitude. It becomes even more uplifting when you imagine what impact the simplifications in this area could have on politics. A glimpse of hope for a better political future. <\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

(Reading time 5 minutes)<\/em><\/p>\n

Votes and elections<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a Swiss citizen, you generally go around the world assuming that you are something of a global role model for democracy. And yes, there is something to it. In addition to elections, i.e. the process by which politicians are voted into (or out of) office, we are also familiar with referendums. In theory, a vote can affect pretty much anything. For example, whether lower taxes should be introduced (they shouldn’t), whether immigration should be limited (it should), whether a second tunnel should be built through the Gotthard (we’ll see). <\/p>\n

So basically everything can be voted on. Literally. My German colleagues sometimes smile at this. But it is also “the same” Germans whose “nation” is calling for a “people’s vote” on Grexit in Bild<\/a>. I found the debate on Twitter about whether the people or the politicians knew better amusing, because democracy does not ensure that the best and most technically sound decision is made, but the people, i.e. the majority of all those entitled to vote, are always right. Even if they are technically wrong. That’s that. <\/p>\n

Why do politicians make decisions?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I think we have long forgotten the real reason for this. The reason is quite simple: it is efficiency. Since the consultation of the people was very time-consuming (in the past with a national assembly<\/a>, i.e. the meeting of the inhabitants and voting on substantive issues in plenary sessions), but the political process required decisions to be made at short intervals, it was obvious to appoint representatives of the people (hence the name) to represent these same inhabitants in less directive decisions. The fact that the majority of the people was and is decisive is the core of any democracy. <\/p>\n

Parties are poison for democracy and efficiency<\/strong><\/p>\n

As a result, these elected representatives did not do what they were supposed to do in the interests of the system, namely to act in the interests of the majority of the people to the best of their knowledge and belief, but instead began to forge alliances. The parties emerged. Parties do not act in the interests of the people, but in the interests of the groups behind them. Over the decades, representatives of the people became representatives of vested interests. And the political establishment became a petty war between the political camps, albeit a cultivated one. The idea of left and right emerged and has unfortunately become almost irreversibly engrained in Western society. <\/p>\n

In today’s politics, an incredible amount of energy is spent fighting against the left and the right. Energy that we urgently need to act in the interests of the majority of the people without emotion, to solve problems, to improve the overall situation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We all know only too well that there is not just black and white, left and right. It is the middle ground that moves people forward, the compromises, the insights. A society must always be one of togetherness. A dogmatic adherence to “fundamental values” literally destroys a country and its society. There are plenty of examples of this. <\/p>\n

Digitization is supposed to change that?<\/strong><\/p>\n

I maintain that it has what it takes. Because it can radically simplify the voting process. I currently vote around 20 times a year on some issue or other. This means that I, like around 6 million other voters, receive a gray envelope with slips of paper on which the voting question is noted. I can then answer yes or no to these ballot papers. I can hand in these completed ballot papers in person at the local authority (municipality) on election Sunday (tradition!) or I can vote by post. A huge effort and waste of resources. And a process that is far too laborious for the vast majority of citizens. Even if there are other reasons for this, the sensationally low turnout in elections and votes is proof of this. As a rule, only around 15% of the population decide the fate of the country as a whole. <\/p>\n

The voting experience is crucial<\/strong><\/p>\n

So if the voting and election process is digitized and thus greatly simplified, this has two consequences:<\/p>\n

More voters will vote<\/em><\/p>\n

The number of residents who vote at all will increase. Simply because the procedure is much simpler. Imagine you could cast your vote on your cell phone. Just as easily as we order items from Amazon today, for example, which we have not found in offline stores. On the way to the parking lot, on the streetcar or on the couch in the evening. An electronic solution can also send reminders and easily display additional information (which is now also printed and sent out as voting documents). This makes referendums more representative and gives them more substance. <\/p>\n

More votes are possible<\/em><\/p>\n

Because the process is much simpler, many more votes could be carried out. For example, once a month. If the right to vote were then changed to compulsory voting (which already exists in one canton in Switzerland, for example), a much more direct democracy could be established. Many substantive issues would no longer be<\/del> subject to the infighting of the parties and their tactics and strategies, but would simply be decided by the people. This is a step towards liquid democracy. <\/p>\n

A nation of informed, decisive citizens<\/strong><\/p>\n

Over the last 20 years, digitalization and networking have made the population much more informed. As a result, the diversity of opinions is also much greater. The typical classifications and affiliations are becoming obsolete and this is finally resulting in a gradual de-dogmatization of political opinions. For example, I find it liberating when people are in favor of environmental protection but are also very pro-business at the same time. Or strengthen social services, but at the same time want to restrict immigration. <\/p>\n

Because that is exactly what makes a society strong. A differentiated view on political issues. Not blindly following ideological beaten tracks. And therein lies my hope for politics, that digitalization will make it faster, more efficient, more direct, more differentiated, more representative and therefore fairer for the people. It’s a question of time. <\/p>\n

Artikel auf Social Media teilen:<\/p>\n<\/div>

<\/div>