Could there be a better system than Democracy?
Rethinking Democratic system with Data & Digitisation
As I wrap up my workday, I feel the urge to check my phone, and one notification catches my eye. It’s a question on Reddit asking, “Could there be a better system than democracy?”
It’s a topic being discussed in one of the groups I follow, and perhaps the Reddit algorithm thought it would interest me. I have to agree — it’s an engaging topic, so I opened the thread to see what people were saying.
The responses were varied, but most were indecisive, lacking a definitive stance. However, I could sense some people’s reluctance to outright state that “democracy is a flawed system.” Nobody wants to come across as authoritarian.
That’s the challenge with democracy. We’re led to believe it’s a perfect system where everyone has an equal say in shaping their future. We’re presented with an ideal where decisions are influenced by the majority’s vote rather than being imposed. But this concept is flawed.
Democracy is intriguing, but it can be exploited by the wrong individuals, leading to negative outcomes for innocent, upstanding citizens.
Does this mean democracy is a bad system? Not necessarily, as nearly all systems face similar challenges.
One thought-provoking answer I encountered was that “rulers and elected officials perfect the systems.”
If those in power, whether government officials, monarchs, or appointees, are honest and true, any system can work well.
The crucial question is, “Can people always be perfect?”
We know the answer: “People are imperfect.”
Humans are influenced by emotions like hatred, envy, love, greed, and laziness. These human flaws are acceptable, but when choosing a leader, we seek someone who is at least better than others.
A good system ensures the right person leads, benefiting the broader population.
Let us look into the flaws of democracy and what the data and digitization would do to democracy.
Flaws in Democracy?
The foundation of democracy is based on electing a government. The citizens choose their leaders through voting, and these leaders then make decisions on behalf of the general populace. Although this system seems ideal, it faces challenges such as:
- Notion of Equality
- An uninformed public
- Individuals with specific agendas
- Difficult decisions that need to be made
Notion of Equality
The concept of democracy begins with the belief that all humans are equal and have the same rights in selecting their leaders. However, this premise is flawed because people vary significantly in their circumstances, status, challenges, motivations, and beliefs.
While it might seem logical to assign different voting powers based on an individual’s background, this approach is not feasible due to the state’s inability to accurately assess each person’s motives. As a result, everyone is treated equally in the electoral process.
This uniform treatment allows individuals with anti-social tendencies to participate in the selection of leaders, which can compromise the system and increase the likelihood of electing unsuitable candidates.
Additionally, considering an 18-year-old youth and a 71-year-old veteran as equals in the voting process may seem inconsistent given their differences in experience, life challenges, and perspectives.
What could be the solution of it?
As we advance with digitization, we’re heading towards a future where extensive data on each person is available. This data could be used to rank individuals across various parameters, leading to differentiated treatment for different people.
Imagine a system where individuals are profiled and selectively restricted from voting. For example, when choosing a leader for environmental issues, those with substantial experience in environmental studies would have greater influence. Their choices, votes, and concerns would carry more weight, while the perspectives of less knowledgeable individuals would also be considered but with less priority.
While this may not seem immediately evident, similar practices are already in place in some areas. For instance, in corporate settings, data from employees and experts is used to guide decisions and select leaders in a controlled environment. In the future, this approach could expand to state and regional levels.
By using data from respondents, a select group of informed individuals could be chosen to make decisions. These individuals would then elect representatives to form part of the government.
An Uninformed public
A significant challenge with democratic systems is the impact of uninformed and unaware voters. This issue is especially pronounced in the current data-driven era. Unlike previous generations, we now have access to an overwhelming amount of information, but its quality and the spread of false information pose problems.
When individuals are not informed, they often interpret data with bias, forming skewed views on many topics. This can result in the election of ineffective governments, as political parties can manipulate opinions and influence votes for certain candidates.
These candidates may lack the necessary skills for their roles and could potentially create crises in the near future. The root of the problem is that uninformed and unaware people have the right to elect their representatives, which can lead to flawed outcomes.
The right question is “What can be done to address it?”
To address the challenge of an uninformed public in democratic systems, one effective solution is to ensure everyone has access to quality data and educational resources. This can significantly improve awareness and understanding of key issues.
Informed and aware citizens elect wise and capable leaders who make fair decisions for the growth of the entire society. This process begins with awareness, which comes from thoughtful analysis of a variety of data sources.
I remain optimistic about the long-term future. Although we currently face challenges with misinformation and low-quality data, these issues will improve as we advance. Society is evolving, and soon, everyone will have real-time access to reliable data from around the world. This means events in one country, such as India, will capture global attention.
As platforms encourage individuals to share their perspectives, a truly democratic data interface is on the horizon. This will enable everyone to voice their opinions and contribute to shaping a more connected, informed world.
I am also hopeful that we would see data regulations to control fake news and democratizing data availability to all individuals in coming times. Such steps would boost the fairness of democratic societies and elevate the overall experience of decision making
Individuals with specific agendas
Individuals with specific agendas can pose a significant threat to the integrity of democracy. These individuals often leverage their influence, whether through financial power, social status, or access to media, to promote their interests and shape public opinion. This manipulation can lead to the spread of misinformation or selective information, distorting the truth and swaying voters towards certain candidates or policies that serve their agendas.
When individuals with ulterior motives gain power or influence elections, they may prioritize their interests over the well-being of the public. This can result in policy decisions that benefit a select few rather than the majority, undermining trust in democratic institutions. Additionally, this manipulation can polarize societies, as it creates divisions and deepens existing inequalities.
This is something that directly evolves from unawareness and data availability. When unaware individuals are presented with limited data, their thoughts can be biased toward certain things. You can motivate them to burn buildings and also motivate them to sacrifice their lives for protecting a facility.
Isn’t is funny to think that an individual can be motivated to destruct and protect a facility and you can even put their life at stake for that goal. Though, it sounds comic, it is not a joke.
Data controls perception. Perception control reaction and reactions at a large scale control the course of a state.
It is also something that is creating a major issue now-a-days. Governments across the world want to control the data and thus they want to control the public. Whatever you see on your twitter feed, facebook page, and Instagram are all regulated and customized to influence your thoughts.
In terms of a digitized future. It is also worrying because no-one would want to let go of the control on data. People want their share in the data control. They want to influence public by capturing right control points. It is happening at a large scale now.
The question now arises is “what can be done to improve on this limitation?”
There is no simple answer to it. Only thing that I can think of is “moral education” and “patience”. I am not hopeful about ill motivation. Governments, organizations, societies, and individuals would keep on tampering with the data and bias the thoughts of sections. It will eventually come down on the individuals to exercise their patience and get to the root of various events and then understand the reasons for them. In a world that is prompt on decisions and is eager to make its mark, we will surely be heading for a damaged society
Difficult decisions that need to be made
This is the final point for today’s discussion. Although there are numerous flaws one can identify in democratic systems, the issue of making tough decisions often goes unaddressed.
People are often indecisive and unsure of their desires. Perfect decisions are rare, if not impossible, to achieve.
The problem arises when everyone expects leaders to make flawless decisions, even though outcomes are uncertain. Even with the best intentions, leaders may make choices that don’t benefit certain groups.
Additionally, when faced with situations that require decisive action, people often lack the courage to act.
Consider the COVID-19 pandemic. Limiting contact with others was necessary to protect families and control the virus’s spread. While no one knew if it was the right choice, it was a necessary step. Governments imposed movement restrictions and declared lockdowns — bold measures without certainty of their effectiveness.
These decisions caused economic challenges and disrupted families and businesses. Yet, it’s impossible to definitively say whether they were the right or wrong moves. Critics may blame elected officials, arguing different choices should have been made, but the core problem was the lack of precise data to guide them.
In scenarios where similar events have occurred before, people tend to make more informed decisions. However, when an unexpected crisis arises, people often hesitate. Imagine an elected leader expected to perform their best while being held accountable if things go wrong.
Leaders can feel more frustration than the public because they must answer to the people. If something goes awry, they risk losing their position. As a result, they may delay tough decisions.
Digitization would be a boon to this issue because it will offer the leaders tons of data and real time response of the public. They will not only be able to measure the reaction of public toward the tough decision but also understand if the decision is addressing the problem. For events, when their decisions would fail and create dissent, the leaders would have options to come clean to the public and make them aware of the problem, the possible impact they planned and what they managed to deliver.
Moreover, in a connected world, it is always easy to reciprocate and copy steps that have been implemented before. The problems are rarely new and limited to a section. Thus, having anctionable data would offer the leaders to level up the public satisfaction in democratic states.
