War – Second fase
Written by Pablo González and Pedro Nonay trying to understand War’s consequences.
Entry 8 – War (second phase)
Digital democracy
December 28, 2022
As always, I start with my particular press review. I also apologize for the length of time I have not written, which has made this entry a bit longer.
I anticipate that, after the press summary, I will go on to discuss the issue of how democracy must be redefined to adapt to the new times (the times of the Internet). I will end with readings and videos that I recommend.
Perhaps, what strikes me most in following the news is the lower percentage of space that the media devote to the war. Every day they say something, but less and less. And that is not because there are few things happening. Maybe they are preparing us to make the false peace agreement seem acceptable to us, as a secondary news to end up forgetting about it.
The news I want to highlight are:
- Last December 23 Zelensky traveled to the USA and spoke before the Congress (news here). Perhaps it is no coincidence that on the same day Medvedev met with Xi Jinping (news here).
The two countries directly involved in the war have gone to visit their “godfathers”. Apart from what has been published, it is more than likely that they have asked them for explanations and given instructions. I think this is an important milestone, which can either lead to preparing for peace, or to taking the war to a larger scale. Let’s hope for the former.
- China has changed its Covid-0 policy. It has greatly relaxed confinements and transport restrictions. There is no need to post the news, because it has been everywhere.
The question is, why did they do it? It may be that the government could no longer contain social unrest. Or it may be that they have decided that they have already achieved the hidden objective they were seeking, that of generating inflation in the West by breaking transportation chains, or …
The fact is that this is a big change of scenery. We will have to keep an eye on the results.
- Putin has said that he knows that this war will end in negotiation. He seeks recognition that he is keeping Crimea and the four western regions he already declared as his target (those with the most tradition in Russia’s favor). News here.
At the same time, Russia threatens nuclear bombs (news here and here).
We know that Ukraine does not want to give up any part of its territory. And that there are many voices in the West trying to encourage it to do so. It seems that Putin wants to reinforce that attempt with the nuclear threat, as well as with attacks on Ukrainian energy facilities to make it difficult for them to withstand the winter.
Meanwhile, it strikes me that Paul Mason (English far-left intellectual) is making efforts to convince his supporters that Ukraine should be helped not to give up anything. And he does so knowing that the left is not comfortable accepting “imperialist” aid for Ukraine. News here. I see him as an honest idealist: he knows that such a peace deal is going to happen; he knows that his audience does not like what he proposes; and yet he insists on trying to convince them with the arguments he finds in the far-left manuals.
- There has been a “prisoner swap”. Basketball player Brittney Griner (imprisoned in Russia for carrying some drugs for personal consumption) has been exchanged for arms dealer Viktor Bout. News here.
The exchange does not seem to be of criminals of the same rank. The weakness of the West has manifested itself, where the media pressure to free the athlete has made it possible to deliver in exchange someone much worse, but less known in the media followed by the masses.
Putin must be laughing. He already knows that, if he wants someone to be handed over to him, it is enough for him to stop in Moscow an American tourist who crosses a traffic light wrong (and encourage the Western media to turn that tourist into a victim abandoned by his government).
- There has been an attempted coup in Germany. It is not at all clear whether it has been a foolishness of four madmen, or something bigger to which the government prefers to give as little repercussion as possible. News here.
In any case, these things have not happened in Germany since before WWII. The mere fact that they are happening implies the existence of an important and dangerous social malaise in a very important country in the West. It is another symptom of weakness.
- As expected, the cap on Russian oil prices at €60 that the West recently approved is worthless. Russia is selling it higher to other countries. News here.
- In entry 7 I talked about Blackstone’s “corralito”. Now Starwood (another major western investment fund) has done it. News here.
It does not appear that the Western economy has the capacity to withstand the results of the war (inflation) much longer. Another symptom of weakness.
- A curious, and little-publicized, news item is this. It turns out that the UN is distributing aid in Ukraine through cryptocurrencies. Yes, the UN is using something that is criticized so much, because it is what it finds most effective. Hypocrisy and changing times.
In general, it does not seem that the social and economic stability of the West, nor the unity of action among the countries, and of the population within each country, will allow the sacrifice of the war to continue for long. They will disguise it, and sell it differently, but the West is very close to having to surrender (and China is winning without doing anything).
Democracy should be redefined.
I began in the previous entry to talk about what we have to study to adapt to the new world order. I did it talking about companies. Today I will do so for the case of our political systems (I know that I advanced in entry 7 that I would then talk about the effects on individuals, but I have decided to leave it for later).
It has always been said that democracy is the least bad of all systems of governing a people.
That may not be a lie. But, maybe the time has come to redefine the concept of democracy. I believe that there are symptoms of exhaustion of the system, and I am sure that, if attention is paid to those symptoms, we will find ways to update the system, which is something we must do among all of us, with a lot of analysis and consensus.
We already know the theory of what democracy is. It can be summarized as “we are all equal”, and “one person, one vote” (in addition to the separation of powers, and the surrender of the monopoly of violence to the state), although there are other interpretations, such as the one made by the UN, where the system is “one country, one vote” (the vote of Monaco is worth the same as that of China).
We also know that the great advantage of democracy is that, if an election is won by the majority, it is difficult to fight with weapons against the majority. This promotes stability (of course, with the risk that these rebellious minorities are very strong).
Moreover, it is a fact that the Internet and the digital world have changed almost everything, but there are still no changes in the way democracy is exercised. It is needed.
The electoral program.
In theory, the program should be a document of the utmost importance, detailing the commitments of each candidacy.
However, the current reality is that it is a document that is drafted out of obligation, but with the most abstract and undefined content possible. Moreover, this document is not widely disseminated and hardly anyone reads it.
The electoral program should be something similar to the contract that the ruler assumes with his constituents.
It is striking that, given the great impact of the ruler’s decisions on the lives of citizens, a breach of the electoral program has few penalties for the candidate.
In all countries there is consumer protection legislation. Part of these laws focus on monitoring the advertising of the product, trying to avoid misleading advertising; and the proclaimed characteristics of the product, to avoid hidden defects. There are even product warranties, which may entail the replacement of the product if the one received does not meet the specifications. Even the product can be withdrawn from the market (see news here).
As can be seen in the above-mentioned news item, there are more consequences for a company that markets a sunscreen whose protection factor is not clearly specified than for a politician who fails to comply with his electoral program.
The “contract” we have with our politicians is that we give them our vote (nothing less than our trust) to carry out the content of their electoral program (not different things). And we should not accept lies, concealments, twisted interpretations, … Not even supervening causes, for which a (digital) referendum can be raised.
We already know from experience that, once a politician gains power, he can change laws, or taxes, or decree confinements for pandemics, or even make us participate in wars.
It seems to me that non-compliance or deception in these matters is much more important than in the information on the sun protection factor of a sunscreen.
One possible solution to this problem would be to subject electoral programs, and the actions of politicians, to the same or similar rules of consumer legislation.
There may be other solutions, which we should all think about together, but it seems that one is needed.
The right to vote.
There is the theory of universal suffrage. But we must remember that the scope of the word “universal” has changed with the times.
There were times, and countries, in which women could not vote, or individuals of any race, … . The minimum age for the right to vote has also sometimes been changed.
If we look at older models, we have to remember that in the place where democracy was given its name, the Athens of Pericles, only the so-called citizens could vote, which was something very different from the universal vote. Moreover, there was another very big difference with the current systems: the vote was direct, all citizens could vote on all things, and also every citizen could propose votes.
Today, once you are within the age range allowed for voting, there are few limitations to it, almost exclusively those of disqualification, which, depending on the country and the time, affect the mentally ill disqualified, prisoners, the forces of public order, …
However, we find it acceptable to be asked to take a test in order to have the right to drive a car. Can’t more harm be done by electing a dangerous politician (example Hitler) than by driving?
If one tries to think about this issue of universal suffrage in a calm and unconventional way, it is easy to find arguments for and against it.
A clear argument in favor of universal suffrage is that it reduces the risk of revolutions, knowing that there is a majority of the population that agrees with the results (it does not matter if their vote was independent or manipulated, the fact is that there is a majority of those who support the elected). Therefore, the minority will not start a revolution, war, or whatever, knowing that it has a majority against it.
The classic counter-argument, which many do not dare to make concrete, because it is inelegant to say so, is that decisions about who governs are made by uninformed and manipulated majorities.
They have always known (the politicians and the powers that be) that there are few people who vote with deep knowledge and convictions of their own. They know that most of them vote in an “incentivized” way by means of social communication techniques and mass manipulation. This motivation to vote has always been done with investment in marketing, destined to the control of the media (also with investment in education, which is almost the same, except for the control of the schools). That is, money to pay the best publicist (campaign manager), and the media, and the staging throughout the country. Almost always the party with the biggest budget wins, unless the “publicist” of the other party is great (in which case he should have been hired by the one with the biggest budget), or the candidate screws up a lot.
After the existence of the Internet (which is something much broader than social networks), the form of political communication and the techniques of mass manipulation have changed drastically.
Now, people, especially young people, use other channels of information, more difficult to “buy as a whole” than the traditional ones. They are social networks, influencers, news from other countries, … In this news item it is said that 26 % of Spaniards recognize that social networks have influenced their vote, much more in young people than in older people.
It is also easier than before for a foreign power to invest in “intoxication”. It does not do so by promoting a specific ideal, it is enough for them to identify (and finance) ideals that destabilize the Western country in question. That is why there are many news about suspicions of funding to the extreme left and right, as well as to populism and separatism.
When studying the effects of these new forms of communication, it is very important to look at demographics. The older generations are still very much influenced by the old media, but the younger generations are not.
Also because of demographics (the baby boom and the current low birth rate in the West), the older generations are now more numerous than the young. That is why the old system of mass control still works a bit, but less and less. That is also why young people are less and less motivated by traditional politics, because they do not follow the traditional media.
To support what I have just said, I think it is necessary to recall the situation of demographic pyramids. In Europe, and in most of the West, they are inverted pyramids, where there are more old people than young people.
There you can see that, in the European Union, there are more voters over 35 years old than under that age (and that was for 2011). This issue is going to become even more complicated as time goes by, as can be seen in this pyramid that has become more complicated from 1991 to 2011.
Now we are talking about the elections, but it is clear that this demographic situation also affects the production capacity of a country (if there are no workers, there is no production). And, as it is not easy to change the fertility rate quickly, we come to the conclusion that the only solution is to encourage immigration. This issue again has repercussions on the problem of voting: do we give the right to vote to these immigrants?
The conclusion is that young people are not encouraged, because their vote is less representative, and because they are the ones who have to pay for the life of those who win the elections (the older retirees), as well as being informed through other channels.
It is a fact that abstention is much higher among the young than among the old. That is something that is demonstrated in the following graph, which I have obtained from a study conducted by Nicolas Tanno in 2021, the full contents of which can be seen here.
In the graph, made for several electoral calls in Spain, it can be seen how, in 2019, which is the last one, the abstention of those under 35 years of age turned out to be almost half of the total, and that is because young people represent a smaller percentage of the population, as we have seen in the pyramids.
From the above reasoning a doubt arises: should we give more weight to the vote of those who have to finance the system than to that of those who have to collect their pensions? The answer is not at all clear, but it is a matter to think about and decide among all of us (a matter that is a candidate for referendum).
Another possible debate would be to establish a test for the right to vote. This is a very delicate matter, because it would be necessary to avoid that this becomes a way of marginalizing many potential voters and their interests. As an idea to be discussed, I suggest that the exam should be on the electoral programs (once these are serious and binding documents). Thus, without marginalizing anyone, at least there would be some guarantees that voters know what they are voting for.
I also leave here a link to an article that I found interesting in terms of opening a debate on the consequences of demographic changes.
I want to clarify that, with the above, I do not intend to give a concrete solution, but to expose the situation and open debates on different alternatives for improvement. I do so because I consider that the traditional solution does not seem to me sufficient (that of “I will not vote for them next time”). During his first legislature, a politician has the capacity to do a lot of damage to a country, and the next time it may be too late.
Voting systems.
Depending on the time and country, there are many different systems of voting.
I cannot be detailed in the description of all the existing alternatives (it would be too long), but suffice it to mention that there are systems of direct or representative democracy (including organic democracy), open or closed lists, election by constituencies, the D’hont rule, two-round elections, compulsory voting discipline or not for the deputies of each party, …
Each system tries to solve in a different way the problem of providing access to representation, together with making governance viable.
The novelty, not yet contemplated in the voting systems, is the Internet. The truth is that, today, Internet voting allows almost immediate consultations, without cost or inconvenience for the citizens, for every issue that arises and is not contemplated in the electoral program of the winner (do we participate in a war, do we activate a confinement, do we change the Constitution? do we change the Constitution, …). Regarding how to digitize democracy, there are interesting studies here and here).
It is also true that Internet voting has problems to be solved, such as the possibility of hacking or manipulation of the results. But those problems also existed with the traditional paper counting system, and they were solved (never perfectly, but in an acceptable way). I don’t think it is an unsolvable problem.
An example to consider for this purpose is Swiss democracy, where they have long submitted to direct voting many aspects (even small ones) that were not included in the candidate’s electoral program. In other words, they carry out something similar to a constant referendum. For those interested, here is a summary of how direct democracy works in Switzerland.
The quality of democracies.
It is well known that the fact that a country defines itself as democratic does not mean that it is so (as an example, one can cite the former GDR). And that the democratic situation, or not, of a country is not a matter of black or white, but of many grays.
I was struck by the study conducted by Freedom House, called “Freedom in the world 2022” (you can see it in full here). Of course, they are forced to establish rules to measure the quality of each democracy, which can always be debatable, but they apply a method that is the same for all, and the arguments they put forward are reasonable.
Below are some interesting graphs from this study.
Here they divide the world into three groups, which are the “free” (solid democracies), the “partly free” (debatable democracies), and the not free (non-democracy). They do so in number of countries, and in percentage of population. The result is that only 42% of the countries and 20% of the world’s population are under solid democracy. Not the best news.
Worse news is the study of the evolution of democracies over time in the following graph.
The result is that more and more countries are worsening the quality of their democracy (60 in 2021), and fewer are improving it (25 in 2021).
As a graphic summary of what they say, you can see the following world map.
My conclusion.
If we want young people to participate in the political system, and if we want to prevent other countries, or other forces, from manipulating our elections, we have to redefine our democracies. The truth is that, today, democratic countries are much more vulnerable than autocracies, which is something that can be proven by looking at any election in the USA or in the European Union.
Of course, I think it is indicative of what I am saying to find news like that of a television (old media) trying to hire an influencer (modern media), as is the case of Movistar with Ibai Llanos (news here). But that only means that they know that the old media are losing the ability to control the masses.
However, the redefinition process will require much study and consensus.
The logical thing would be to try to find solutions to the new times with the new tools (the digital ones), that is, to study how to vote many more things electronically and leave less arbitrary decisions to politicians.
I recommend watching or reading.
I end the entry with articles or videos that I liked, and that are not exactly news (so I do not put them at the beginning of the entry), but they are very related to the topics of these entries.
I find it highly recommended to read or watch them.
- Saudi Arabia begins to change its relationship with China, strengthening it, of course. News here.
It is not good for the dollar, nor for the supply of oil to our block.
- Blackrock has published its report “2023 global Outlook” (you can see it here). On page 11 they acknowledge that we are heading for a world of country blocs and that this is a change not seen since WWII, i.e. they agree that another long Kondratiev wave is beginning.
- Raiffeisen (the German bank) is going to eliminate cash for deposits or withdrawals on its accounts. It will do so from January. News here.
The trend will be the same for the rest (at other speeds). Then come the CBDC’s. Will we continue to rely on fiat currencies?
- The first nuclear fusion that really creates energy has been achieved (the previous ones consumed more than they generated). News here (and a thousand other sites).
When that can be done en masse, the energy problem will really be over. But that is a long way off. Now, that is the time we have to amortize the energy infrastructures that we have to build now (be careful).
- I have spoken several times about climate change, and that it is always changing, but what people really want is that it does not change, that is, to manipulate it with human knowledge. I have already said in previous entries that those who talk about stopping it are hypocrites, because they do not want nature to follow its course, but the one they prefer (not to change).
Several friends have sent me a link to a very good conference (thank you, Luis and Carlos). It is this one
- Here they explain quite well the problems of social unrest that we are generating with the economic crisis.
- In Russia they are having problems with Yandex, which is their equivalent of Google. It will be interesting to watch how that evolves. Certainly not good for Putin. News here.
- Here‘s a good summary of who controls the materials needed for the new economy. Predictably, China wins. We’d better get to work on that.
This is as far as I go for today. I will continue in the following entries.
I wish all readers a very happy year 2023 (as far as possible, with the world we have).