are made through a mental process, which is dependent of our knowledges and our values. Different individuals lead to different
mental process and so to different decision.
In order to
take collective decisions, we have to be able to converge our opinions. The easiest but the most artificial are to converge is
"voting". We just take the opinion of the majority.
The problem of
"voting" is that there is no insensitive for individual to improve the quality of their mental process by learning more. On
the opposite, there is a high insensitive from media professionals to corrupt the mental process of individuals by developping
misinformation strategy and by spreading demagogy. Misinformation corrupts moral values of the nation and
in turn, vote are of very poor quality, which in turn help to put on the top of the political “nomenclatura”
professional demagogue which are highly skills in the art to use cultural corruption to their advantages.
In small communities
(usually below 150 individuals), politics might organize around an alternative way. It consists to write down the mental
process, which bring you to the decision and then make it converge. It is relatively easy process for individuals, which accepts
logic, experimentation as a mean to differentiate true and false, and who knows the current law, which affects the
is based on a debate, which usually criticizes the use of ambiguous concepts, which affect the decision process. There
are at least three causes for disagreement:
- Concept or
word ambiguity and misunderstanding,
of experimental results,
The first cause
of disagreement came from the use of ambiguous "word" which can mean different things and might be acceptable in one context but
not acceptable in the current context.
For example, the
French government uses an highly controversial concept to justify its policy of extremely high taxation: "national
solidarity". The term has an extremely clear and positive meaning in people who lives in community, where every body teaches
and helps each other but can it mean the same thing in a 60 millions country where people does not know what do others think
and have very different moral rules. Some believe that they should learn a practical job to serve the society better and others
believe that it is their own right to study what they like in order to do the job they like or nothing if this job does not
exist. This second behaviors will not be possible in a tribal community as it would lead to a rejection from the community.
And so, it is rather normal that "practical" people see this "national solidarity" has a misinformation strategy to hide "legalize
reason can be solved by proceeding by experimentation. It is however to the poeple to accept the result of the experimentation
and so they will need to vote so as to use their right of recurse in case of negative experimental results. A political debate
might be necessary to define the criteria of a valid experimentation.
The third is
a disagreement of values came from a difference a belief or personality and so (of genes). It is the only case when voting
is the only alternative.
I will so use
the denomination of collective convergence by debate and oppose it to collective convergence by voting
for the current process.
Now, do you
believe that decision process which is followed by the political “nomenclatura” is by voting or by debate
and convergence? What voting can really do? Other and agree or not on already debate decision.
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk platform has the purpose to make the political debate equally accessible to everybody so as
to make collective convergence by electronic debate the future of politics.