Internet und Demokratie (was: Re: [ox] Re: Arbeit oder was?)
- From: Stefan Merten <smerten dialup.nacamar.de>
- Date: Sun, 21 May 2000 00:29:05 +0200
Hi Ulli!
10 days ago Ulli Wetzig wrote:
Date: Mon, 8 May 2000 18:18:06 [PHONE NUMBER REMOVED]
From: Benni Baermann <benni hera.rbi.informatik.uni-frankfurt.de>
Geburtshelfer Namens "Arbeit" nicht mehr benoetigt. Inzwischen
huldigt man dem Goetzen, weil es eben schon immer so war. So wie man
im Mittelalter an Gott glauben musste, wenn man dazugehoeren wollte,
so muss man heute an den Kapitalismus glauben. Die Religion traegt
sich laengst selbst und benoetigt keine Unterstuetzung mehr.
Das Christentum - über Religion allgemein möchte ich lieber nicht
reden - wie der Kapitalismus sind aber auch ein Machtsystem. Und zwar
ein solches, daß überlebensfähig ist - im Gegensatz zum sog.
Realsozialismus z.B. (in der langen Perspektive zumindest). Diese
Machtsysteme beruhen immer auf ganz bestimmten Grundlagen.
Daß Machtsysteme auch nach Verlust ihrer Grundlage noch eine Weile
weiter existieren können, ist historisch vielfach belegt. In aller
Regel gehen sie (spätestens) dann in ihre destruktive Phase über und
begraben des öfteren so ziemlich alles unter sich.
Nach der Krisis-Analyse, die sich m.E. mit gewissen Analysen Marx'
deckt, sind diese Grundlagen der Macht des Kapitalismus inzwischen
zumindest angeknabbert - nicht von irgendwelchen
Widerstandsbewegungen, die könnte der Kapitalismus vermutlich bis zum
Sankt-Nimmerleins-Tag in Schach halten - sondern vom Verschwinden
seiner Grundlage: der Möglichkeit der Verwertung von Arbeitskraft.
Daß in einer solchen Phase die Ideologie besonders heftig wird, ist
m.E. eher eine Bestätigung für die Krise: Das Machtsystem versucht
sich zu erhalten, indem es sich als alternativlos hinstellt.
Schön gesagt. Da möchte ich doch gern zu erstenmal einsteigen... :)
Welcome :-) .
Damals als alle an Gott glaubten, war die Erde auch noch flach und es
dauerte eine ganze Weile, bis es auch alle geglaubt haben, dass sie
rund ist. Heute haben wir den Kapitalismus. Keiner glaubt einem wenn
man sagt, es herrscht "bald" Weltfrieden. Doch es wird ihn geben...
Diese historische Gewißheit würde ich nicht teilen. Es gibt in unserer
Zeit sicher mehr Bifurkationspunkte (ganz frühe ListenteilnehmerInnen
haben jetzt ein Deja-Vu ;-) ) als in Zeiten, wo die Dominanzideologie
ihren normalen Gang geht, d.h. es gibt in diesen Zeiten der Krise mehr
Änderungsmöglichkeiten als sonst. Aber es ist m.E. durchaus möglich,
daß die Erde in der sekundären Barbarei (jeder gegen jeden - aber mit
Waffen) landet. Es gibt ja mittlerweile sogar in Europa schon ein
Beispiel, wo uns vorgemacht wird, wie das aussieht: Ex-Jugoslawien.
Meine These ist, dass mit dem Vorranschreiten des Internet,
vor allem des mobilen Internets und später der Spracheingabe ein
Demokratisierungsprozess einsetzten wird, der nach und nach alle
bisherigen Entscheidungsstrukturen (Staat, Konzerne) durch
Diskussionsforen ("Entscheidungsforen") ersetzt.
Oh, das finde ich aber eine sehr mutige These ;-) . Das würde
voraussetzen, daß die "bisherigen Entscheidungsstrukturen" sagen
würden, "Ok, diskutiert ihr das mal. Wir diskutieren gerne mit, aber
entscheiden müßt ihr." Kannst du dir das ernsthaft vorstellen, daß das
passiert? Fällt mir ausgesprochen schwer.
Durch vollständige
Offenheit und Kontrolle durch jeweils Aussenstehende wird sich dann
auch der Lobbyismus langsam verabschieden und den Weg für
vernuftsgesteuerte Entscheidungen offen sein.
Na jedenfalls demokratischere. Ob die vernünftig sind und was das
eigentlich ist, halte ich nicht für entscheidbar und daher irrelevant.
Jeder Strassenzug,
jedes Haus mit mehreren Mietern, jede Stadt, jedes Land und und und
wird mit Hilfe des Internets sein eigenes Forum haben in dem
diskutiert, abgewägt und entschieden wird.
Hmm... Ich würde noch eine andere Strukturierungsachse aufmachen,
nämlich die inhaltliche. So wie wir hier über ein bestimmtes Problem
diskutieren, daß uns alle interessiert, so könnte ich mir das auch auf
"gesellschaftlich notwendige Probleme" (better word wanted) übertagen
vorstellen.
Durch die Teilnahme (der
man sich kaum auf allen Ebenen entziehen kann) wächst das
Verantwortungsbewustsein aller, was sich dann zum respektvollen
Umgang allen Mitmenschen gegenüber entwickeln wird. <träum> ?!?
Das finde ich einen sehr richtigen Gedanken: Nur wenn du den Leuten
Verantwortung tatsächlich gibst, dann nehmen sie sie auch wahr. Das
läßt sich wohl auf jeder Ebene menschlicher Existenz zeigen.
Open Source ist auch hier der entscheiden Faktor, da diese Bewegung
erst die freie Entwicklung der nötigen Software ermöglicht und
entscheidend dazu beiträgt die neuen (alten) Ideale in den Köpfen der
Menschen zu festigen.
Hmm... Die Technik alleine kann's nicht bringen - vielleicht
begünstigen.
War das jetzt ein passender Einstig in diese Mailliste? ;)
Yep!
Zu dem Komplex, den du da angeschnitten hast und den ich für
Überlegungen bzgl. GPL-Gesellschaft sehr wichtig halte, hat mich
Christoph Reuss neulich in einer privaten Mail auf einen Text
hingewiesen, der auch diesen Fragen nachgeht. Im Internet habe ich ihn
nur noch unter `http://handtomouth.com/sdjun99d.asp' wiedergefunden.
Ich hänge ihn mal an.
Mit li(e)bertären Grüßen
Stefan
--- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< --- 8< ---
From "A Cathedral" of Public Policy to a Public Policy "Bazaar"
Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair in the Management of Technological Change
Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN)
University College of Cape Breton, PO Box 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2
Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax)
mgurst ccen.uccb.ns.ca http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm struck by the convergence that I see in meetings/conferences and on-line
discussions around the issue of the linkage between a concerned and informed
public and those with the responsibility for the formulation and execution
of public policies.
What seems to be emerging is a major discontinuity between the expectations
and experiences of an Internet "bazaar" i.e. an "open (information) source"
enabled "concerned public", and the representatives of the public sector who
are attempting to proceed within a more traditional "Cathedral" approach to
policy formulation, consultation, and implementation.
This discontinuity takes the form on the one hand of:
Public consultation processes which consist of the public being invited to
send comments on pre-circulated documents to a public Internet forum with no
indication of how (or even) whether the comments will be read/responded to
/used/integrated and so on.
The development by the range of Government Departments of elaborate and
sophisticated Internet delivered web-sites with little or no interactive
component and no indications of how the degree of interactivity which is
allowed will be assimilated or used.
The development of elaborate internal (within government) policy Intranets,
with formal mechanisms for scanning and assimilating public comment and the
broad range of Internet enabled communication but with no interactive
linkages (or participation) into any of the forums or on-line policy
discussions from which they are drawing sustenance.
E-mail addresses included in Government sponsored websites which are either
completely unresponsive or which have only a form letter response often by
means of a "bot".
Publicly supported networks of researchers in a variety of areas of public
policy interest as for example "Innovation Systems" and "Regional
Development", all evidently developed and funded with a concern by policy
makers to have access to the best research and thinking on these issue areas
but with no formal linkage or responsibility concerning public policy
discussion or evaluation in these sectoral areas and little or no public
contribution to the discussion.
Policy processes as for example, those concerning areas such as "Smart
Communities", "The Canada Health Infoway", and "The Knowledge Based Economy"
which are almost completely non-transparent to the broader concerned public
and which operate by means of closed groups of "experts" consulting at the
discretion of the policy apparatus and with little accountability or even
non-formal communication with the broader concerned communities of interest.
On the other hand:
The development of on-line public forums including web-boards, e-lists, and
chat facilities discussing the broad range of public policy issues.
The participation by many with a very broad range of expert and experience
based knowledge and understanding of areas of policy concern, in many cases
with considerable expenditures of time and effort in researching and
formulating positions and comments often of very high quality.
A deepening frustration at the lack of participation, consultation and real
engagement on the part of those concerned with public policy either as
politicians or as public servants in this dialogue.
The development by researchers of publicly funded research networks in areas
of considerable public interest concern but with no formal linkages into
policy making processes.
Where in the current practise of democratic governance is there the degree
of:
* transparency
* flexibility
* interactivity
* immediacy
* collegiality
* multi-nodality and
* network interoperability
which leading organizations are increasingly developing with their leading
client/supplier/stakeholder groups? While these may be developing in certain
parts of government internal communication and in its interactions with
certain private sector "stakeholders", little if any of this is emerging as
part of government's relationship with it's ultimate "stakeholder", the
democratic citizenry.
What is of particular interest in the above is how little assimilation there
appears to have been into the policy process in Canada of the opportunities
for broader interaction and consultation with the interested Canadian public
which the Internet interactivity has made possible. Nor has there been any
significant attempt to broaden the base of the interested Canadian public in
these processes again by means of the new technology.
While the policy process takes advantage of the technology to support its
internal operations and development, there appears to have been little
effort to utilize the technology to support an extension of the process to
include broader involvement and participation by concerned citizens. The
process thus functions more as a "Cathedral" with centralized development,
hierarchical management and clear boundaries than it does as a
bazaar/network with open boundaries, multiple independent contributors, and
distributed development and management.
I think that it is inevitable that these artificial and scarcity (of the
means of communication) derived barriers between the governors and the
governed (the Cathedral based clergy and the laity) will break down and very
likely sooner rather than later. The modern world and the broad
environmental context for policy making is too complex to be "managed" by
those responsible without having access to the most encompassing range of
expertise and experience available to it. The alternative, which is the
reliance on hired expertise through consultants and researchers and paid
informants (lobbyists) is too restrictive and assumes as all Cathedral
dwellers must, that within the Cathedral resides the full sum of useful
knowledge.
Additionally, the breakdown of trust and mutual commitment which is
resulting from this discontinuity between the governors and the governed is
eroding the commitment to and the efficacy of public institutions in all
jurisdictions. Moreover, as we all know, Cathedrals in these days are empty
of parishioners as the monopoly on knowledge and truth has so evidently
broken down and truth (and credibility) is more likely to be found in the
anarchy of the bazaar than in the sanctity of the altar.
The "Open Source" paradigm may prove to be a useful one for policy making in
a democratic society and certainly more useful than the
"command/hierarchical" (Cathedral) model which is it's alternative. An "Open
Source" policy model would be one where the "kernel" or core question was
publicly distributed and made available for multiple contributions toward a
solution. The objective of the policy process would be first to articulate
and then to manage an on-going consensus around the "kernel" of shared
common values out of which a policy response would be derived.
As with the "Open Source" paradigm the policy output would be subject to
rapid prototyping and debugging as solutions to the policy issue around the
value "kernel" were proposed, commented upon and revised/elaborated in
public forums including not only public participants but also those with
broader program and implementation responsibility. The accountability for
the policy outcomes would still rest with those responsible but the broader
public would share responsibility since they had had the opportunity for
free participation and consultation within a context of legitimate and
legitimized open discussion. The key to the effectiveness and legitimacy (in
the public's mind) of the process would be the interactivity and porousity
of the linkages between the formal process and the public process to the
extent that the boundaries between the two
became at least for a time indistinct. Accountability within the policy
process thus would no longer be purely internal and bureaucratic but also
external and public.
The role of the political process is to be the guardian and the
affirmer/reaffirmer of the kernel/values and where necessary, the creation
of alternative kernels around competing values with these being networks in
waiting subject to the outcomes of future elections for their shift from the
role of demonstrations to the position of program implementers.
As the use of Internet resources for informal discourse on public policy is
becoming increasingly sophisticated those so empowered also are becoming
impatient at their inability to engage with the formal policy process. The
formal policy process meanwhile is being forced to establish ever more rigid
and irrational barriers to a broader public engagement as it's information
permeability increases with Internet enabled communication and with
government's unwillingness to move beyond it's role as
sponsor/patron/consumer of advice but not contributor/co-investigator.
The problem may be in fact, generational rather than structural. Public
servants engage in public discussion of policy even in speculative mode at
their peril. Politicians and particularly Cabinet Members are very jealous
of their prerogatives in this area and most were formed and have lived their
political lives in the hot house atmosphere of parliament, safely insulated
from the babble of the Internet bazaar. One need only reflect that most of
the current crop of politicians in Canada were elected some three years ago
in 1996 at the very beginning of the web's dramatic rise to significance and
most entered full-time politics at least some seven years ago which would
place their detachment from the ebbs and flows of daily family and community
life in the early 1990's with senior politicians/Cabinet members being of an
even earlier generation.
Recognizing that computer generations last some 18 months at most, this
would put most of their direct experience up to 5 generations out of date!
No wonder that the form of the discussion and not infrequently the content
emanating from official political Ottawa seems so remarkably "pre-modern".
The creativity and even inevitability of the Internet-enabled policy bazaar
presents both risks and opportunities. Risks to effective management and
democratic accountability, and opportunities for a new form and quality of
citizenship reflecting a real and effective engagement in the substance of
governance and not simply with its form. To realize the opportunities and to
minimize the risks there is a need to develop new and Internet savvy methods
for public management and democratic governance.
This task is a formidable but a necessary one and should be engaged in
sooner rather than later as the current discontinuities are eroding the
credibility of governments world-wide and increasingly government's capacity
to undertake its assigned responsibilities in the most effective and
efficient means currently available.
Mike Gurstein
Michael Gurstein, Ph.D.
ECBC/NSERC/SSHRC Associate Chair Management of Technological Change
Director: Centre for Community and Enterprise Networking (C\CEN)
University College of Cape Breton, POBox 5300, Sydney, NS, CANADA B1P 6L2
Tel. 902-563-1369 (o) 902-562-1055 (h) 902-562-0119 (fax)
mgurst ccen.uccb.ns.ca http://ccen.uccb.ns.ca ICQ: 7388855
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
This paper is based on a re-reading and re-application of the seminal paper
by Eric Raymond
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar.
html).
and an attempt (sometimes fruitful but always dangerous) to transpose a
model developed in one sphere to a radically different domain.
For additional readings on the "open source" model
http://www.oss.net/
http://www.fsf.org/
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/
http://www.opensource.org/
http://www.opensource.org/h alloween3.html
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/ halloween.html
http://gwyn.tux.org/
http://www.ispo.cec.be/ei f/dns/Welcome.html
http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/cathedral-bazaar. html
http://www.opencode.org/h20/
http://www.tuxedo.o rg/~esr/writings/homesteading/
http://ww w.monde-diplomatique.fr/en/1998/01/12freesoft.html
http://www.soc io.demon.co.uk/magazine/5/5barbrook.html
http://ma.hrc.wmin.ac.uk/ma .theory.4.2.db
http://www.w3.org/ People/Berners-Lee/1996/ppf.html
http://www.w3.org/1998/02/Po tential.html
http://www .firstmonday.dk/issues/issue3_3/ghosh/index.html
http://www.salonmagazine.com/21st/feature/1998/04/cov_14feature.html
http://www.netaction. org/articles/freesoft.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------
http://www.oekonux.de/