[MG] Start Digest, Vol 37, Issue 12

[Jens Egholm]

>
>
> Jens Egholm wrote:
> > Mass-to-mass communication (actually I misquoted him, he termed it
> > "many-to-many" instead) are basically the method of communicating in
> > fora where many can talk to many in contrast to previous medias
> > (television, newspaper etc.) (for the full quote see Bohman 2010 pp.
> > 83, 89 f.). ...
>
> I don't think I've read it.  I'll try to find a copy.  Where should I
> look?
>

The full title is called Democracy across borders: from D?mos to D?moi. It's
really a great insight in the transnational democratic ideas, although it
centers around the EU. If you have access to Ebrary (ebrary.com) you can
find it online there, otherwise there's always google books:
http://books.google.dk/books?id=kDbOqEXUIRoC&lpg=PP1&ots=DUh2Aw-EKy&dq=bohman%202007&hl=en&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false<http://books.google.dk/books?id=kDbOqEXUIRoC&printsec=frontcover&dq=bohman+2007&source=bl&ots=DUh2Aw-EKy&sig=xLzPWCq9faCcmZ_EdBm8I2l3HK8&hl=en&ei=AFalTcytHIPrOczW_fwJ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false>

> The minipublics are institutional "smaller publics" where citizens
> > can deliberate. "A minipublic is thus an institutionally constructed
> > intermediary in popular will formation, although is could act in
> > such a was as to become an agent for the creation of a larger public
> > with normative powers" (Bohman 2010 p. 88).  Anyway; The idea is to
> > create smaller publics, so actual deliberation can take place, as
> > required by the idea about deliberative democracy.  It was this
> > concept I wanted to couple with proxy-voting: Imagine small
> > institutionally underlined minipublics consiting of a proxy and it's
> > principals, that take part in a deliberative process. That, if
> > anything, has to be deliberation? :)
>
> Here's a previous attempt to couple aspects of deliberative democracy
> and proxy voting: http://zelea.com/project/votorola/d/theory.xht
>
>  Introduces a medium of communicative assent for the purpose of
>  consensus building.  The backbone of the medium is a peer-to-peer
>  voting mechanism that is open to continuous recasting (delegate
>  cascade).  It differs from the conventional media of *mass* assent
>  in preserving the deliberative basis of consensus, regardless of
>  scale.
>
> But yours is only the second attempt I've heard of in this direction.
> Nobody else has tried to ground voting within a comprehensive theory
> of society, so far as I know.  Deliberative democracy alone would not
> be such a theory, but it can easily be made part of one, as in
> Habermas or Rawls.
>

This doesn't really ease my thoughts about developing the theory, but I'm
somewhat excited about the unexplored aspects here. To me though it's pretty
obvious to connect the deliberate ideas and the more general notion of
"network" democracy (here: proxy voting) with an institutional setup, since
some of these brilliant thoughts needs to be fleshed out somewhere. Your
attempt in your very interesting article which (if I may cite you?) will
definitely help me define the specific, tecnical aspects. The section about
communicative compositions particularly invoked my interest. I've been
thinking a lot about the practical aspects of deliberation, but your ideas
of "cascading contribution" really makes sense. Thanks for showing me this
:)


> > > But is it realistic? ?To restructure parliament in "liquid" form
> > > would involve changing the constitution. ?That would certainly
> > > meet with strong and competent opposition from the political
> > > class, not to mention others.
> > >
> > > It would also go against historical precedent. ?During the
> > > Enlightenment, the institutions of the state were not the first to
> > > be restructured in democratic form; the first to be restructured
> > > were those of the public sphere. ?It might even be considered more
> > > democratic that it happened that in that particular order, which
> > > would make it one of those rare cases (seemingly) in which the
> > > more realistic approach is actually closer to the ideal, and not
> > > further from it.
> >
> > You're probably right. I'll condense my assignment to concentrate on
> > the proxy-voting. But on another note if we look away from the
> > realistic issue; is it desirable? Think about the current system of
> > voting for a bit. It's given that over a period of 4-5 years at
> > least some of the representatives will have taken a new political
> > standpoint, to the disadvantage (not to mention the democratic
> > disadvantage) of the voters. It's really silly to have a system
> > where your vote are tied to a person for a set period, while the
> > person doesn't have to answer to his/her votes. ...
>
> Ideals matter, I agree.  Ideals are the stuff of theory, and in theory
> the legislature is not part of the public sphere.  Rather it is part
> of the administrative system.  As such, no matter how it is
> restructured, it can never be made into a properly deliberative body.
> It's debates will never approximate free speech.  Its function
> requires close ties to centers of power in the judiciary, bureaucracy,
> executive and (though this may change) political parties, and there
> can be no free speech where there is power.
>
> There is no power in the public sphere, and there we can hope for
> ideals of deliberation.  To go one step further and attempt a
> deliberative *democracy* would require bringing the public sphere and
> the administrative system into proper relations with each other.  We
> cannot conclude from this that we must restructure the administrative
> system (government).  Maybe we do, maybe we don't.  All we may
> conclude is that we must restructure the public sphere enough to make
> it viable.  History reminds us, too, that the administrative system
> has a way of adopting the proper relations to the public sphere and
> other parts of society on its own.
>
> It is even probable that a government cannot (in theory) maintain
> itself in opposition to a healthy public sphere.  Either the public
> sphere must be obeyed or, as in totalitarian states, it must be
> destroyed.  The tyrant fears nothing so much as people who speak out.
> He cannot long survive in that atmosphere, which is pure poison to
> him.  Likewise, neither can a recalcitrant legislature survive for
> long, not even for one year.
>
> > I realize the practical aspects are challenging, but it doesn't have
> > to be a legislature we're testing the idea on. It might as well be
> > some institutional arrangements or other organization.
>
> True.  So long as their existence depends on a rationale of democratic
> legitimacy, then the theory and practice should be portable.  If I
> recall, Ed Pastore often says we should use a chess club as a testing
> ground.  In practice, I think we're ready to commence testing at any
> institutional scale - chess club to federated world - but only alpha
> testing.  We're not ready for beta, yet.
>

True :) Hopefully this will happen soon. As political scientists I really
think we have an obligation to probe these regions with (in my opinion) such
a great potential. Even though it may seem challenging. Hopefully my
attempts will help shred some light on this, although I wouldn't get my
hopes up - there is so much literature here. But again, thanks for taking
your time to guide me.

/Jens Egholm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://metagovernment.org/pipermail/start_metagovernment.org/attachments/20110413/3b397b08/attachment.html>


Originally posted to the mailing list of the Metagovernment Project:
http://metagovernment.org/mailman/listinfo/start_metagovernment.org