The potential for direct democracy?

I doubt anyone needs reminding in these politically messy times of the downsides of representative democracy. The gaping void between the interests of the elected and the voting public lies in plain site. It's almost stating the obvious to say that our politicians are frequently not representing the best interests of the public, but rather the best interests of their 'special interests'.

What I find very interesting is the relationship between campaign financing and political success. Since advertising costs money, candidates need money to run, and lots of it. The result: when coming to office they are forced to represent the special interests of their financial backers. This is to be expected, you don't get something for nothing. In short, the purportedly democratic decision making process of politicians has been compromised by capitalism. The manufacturing of consent is a business like any other.

I wonder how the internet is changing this. Most of the evidence in the business of marketing points to a precipitous decline in the effectiveness of conventional advertising: the same means that politicians and parties use to brand themselves. Perhaps they are seeing the same 'problems'?. I'd expect so.

Sure, candidates have blogs now, and myspace pages. But that is only the beginning. The larger question is whether the participatory web might make direct democracy viable? Or at least a hybrid between representative and direct democracy, a move towards direct democracy. Perhaps the move online by politicians will lead to use of the web for democratic purposes beyond self-promotion.

A quick definition: 'direct democracy' is when citizens are able to participate directly in the decision making processes of government. This is as opposed to 'representative democracy', where we periodically elect representatives to make decisions for us.

Consider the standard arguments against direct democracy (taken, I confess, from Wikipedia):

Scale (practicality and efficiency): direct democracy doesn't scale. It's just too unwieldy to get the opinions of millions of people quickly, and to categorize, rank, distribute and otherwise sort these opinions.

Demagoguery: that the public doesn't pay much attention to the real issues and is subject to charismatic argument. Outspoken individuals can exert undue influence, setting the agenda and defining the arguments.

Complexity: that the political process and the issues being addressed are too complex for most to understand adequately. Providing detailed information is flawed because most of us don't know how to interpret it anyway. Politics as the 'ready-meal'.

Voter apathy: we don't care, we're not interested and we're not going to take the time to get involved.

Self-interest: we each think only of our own needs, rather than the interests of our society as a whole. That we aren't equipped to take our social responsibility seriously.

Now consider how the web, and web 2.0 in particular, alters each of these. The chinks are probably in plain site, but here is my take:

Scale: the web does not play by the same rules of scalability as previous media. Designed well, user experiences can scale. Opinion on a mass scale can be gathered, refined and expressed in ways never before possible. Admittedly we're just figuring out how to do this, but the future looks bright. Or at least, not inevitably dark.

Demagoguery: This is in a sense a false criticism, since this problem also applies equally to representative democracy. But I consider this to be one of the benefits of online direct democracy. Right now our demagogues are a select few (wealthy and well-connected), this is changing via the web. If you can make your point then you are able to effect change. The ability for individuals to publish their opinions to a wide audience is far greater than ever before, and increasing all the time. We are no longer forced to chose from a small group of (pre-selected) demagogues, but rather we can choose from a far wider set. Let the best ideas win. Anyone can be a demagogue, in other words, assuming they can cut it.

Complexity: I'm not sure I agree that politics is dealing with issues too complex for most people to have a worthwhile opinion on. It's one of the conceits of power that only it has the competence to wield power. The great majority of people are far smarter than we are given credit for. Additionally, the web provides a great means to find out more about any issue you are interested in, rather than having to hope its going to be covered on the nightly news.

Voter apathy: sure, there is voter apathy. But make it simple, accessible, easy to use and relevant (read: personalised to the issues I care about) and I think we'll see less apathy not more. Perhaps much of the current voter apathy we see is because people feel their representatives don't really represent them? Lack of representation can be seen as a cause of voter apathy, not solely an effect.

Self interest: this is not a problem. Rather, it is the essence of democracy. If each person stands up for what matters to them, and consensus is created, then democracy has been served. The current problem is that the career politicians self interest in their own careers outweighs their interest in their policies. If more (most?) decisions were made by non-politicians, then this career self-interest is absolved. What is democracy other than the collection and consensus of self interest? The greatest benefit of direct over representative democracy is that this self interest is direct, rather than channelled through representatives: representatives who can never have have your interest as their self-interest.

Edward Bernays expressed his feelings on the need for representative democracy in his book Propaganda:

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. ...We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. ...In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind."

This was written 1928 when the mass media was in its ascendancy. As one of the founders of the PR (Advertising) industry, his ideas has been inherent in the thinking behind how political ideas have been distributed. But now, with the rise of user-contribution via the web, these ideas are looking unsustainable.