Megatrends: Take a Vote

[l33tminion]

Trend #7 of Naisbitt's book, "Representative Democracy to Participatory Democracy", continues the decentralization theme of the past two chapters. It's less interesting than previous chapters, so I'll make this post a brief rundown of predictions, putting in bold the stuff I think Naisbitt got right:

1. Rise of "a well-educated electorate".
2. "The death of the two-party system". (Despite Naisbitt's "there are 535 political parties" metaphor, party affiliation is a very good predictor of policy votes (even on previously "non-partisan" issues), and third parties are still marginalized.)
3. "The political left and right are dead." (Sort of true, but that does not a participatory democracy make.)
4. The rise of initiative and referendum systems. (Naisbitt gets the pros and cons of this right, too, and even mentions gay rights specifically... although that last falls under the old futurist pastime of predicting the present.)
5. Corporations are more politically active, while shareholders, employees, and consumers are more active in trying to influence corporations. (But who's successful, and how successful?)
6. The Baby Boomers in particular push various reforms, which ones change as they age.

The chapter concludes that, "The new leader is a facilitator, not an order giver." That certainly seems to be the case this year. But with this particular trend, it's not a case of more is always better. Representative democracy (with expert, decisive leaders) still has its advantages, and the US political system still seems to be working out how much participation is the right amount.

Comments

[polygonia.livejournal.com]

You seem to read some mega informative books. That sounds interesting.

[l33tminion]

I started doing chapter-by-chapter posts on this book a while ago, since I like old futurism, but it hasn't been as interesting as I'd hoped. Still, I've only got three chapters to go, so I'll probably write three more posts.

Some of the other stuff I'm reading currently is really interesting, I'll have to write some about that as well...

[polygonia.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm reading right now this book called Lowboy that isn't so bad, HP4, and I have to start all of these other books like this one on Reagan and finish these Alice Miller books.
And these biographies. I need more arms and brains.

[chiaki777.livejournal.com]

this takes into account communication theory in large groups into creating the basic arguments. I would argue that, yes, leaders should become facilitators as the democracy becomes participatory.

I will hold out, however, that corporations, while politically active, should not be the target of consumer and employee satisfaction. Looking at it from a Marxist perspective, the corporations hold the financial power, which curb how much influence an electorate has on company policy.

I still think the best method is to limit powers that corporations may hold, a corporation is considered "a person" right? Well treat them as such, and simply make them another single voter, not just a sizable amorphous chunk of campaign funds.

I also wonder what a "well-educated electorate" is.