Dangerous Technological Inhibitions to Democracy

By: Jeff McLaren

ABSTRACT:
Technology should not limit or hinder democracy

In response to the Whig’s question: do you have any concerns about transparency or open government during this time?, I have several.

An effective democracy is the goal. Democracy, defined as rule by the many, is fundamentally a struggle for the recognition of everyone’s right to pursue their version of a good life within society.

Democracy therefore comes with many institutions (such as elections, voting, representation etc.) and many principles (such as openness, transparency, etc.). None of which, on their own, constitute democracy, as can be seen by how many dictatorships have elements of democracy. A genuine democracy seriously considers the struggle for the good life of all its members.

Therefore, democracy is, by design, slow to act, inefficient in terms of getting things done, and extra work for civil servants. This is how democracy, defined as rule by the many, is best able to achieve the good life for all the individual members of society. Stymying the impulse to express democratic will or stymying the expression of how a proposed government action will negatively affect someone’s version of the good life is bad for democracy. This last point seems to me to be the most dangerous threat to our democracy.

Technology at the service of democracy must not limit any one’s ability to express their democratic will. For if it does then it is harmful to democracy and all its institutions including as transparency and open government. 

Technology (like ketchup on a veggie burger) ought to augment and improve on democracy and its processes; it should not hinder or replace (any more than ketchup should drown or replace a veggie burger).  

This is important because I have, in recent meetings, heard some troubling anti-democratic comments. 

One example is the new arbitrary 7 hour minimum time to register a delegation to council. In the past council could add a delegation at any time before the end of the delegation portion of the meeting now it must be done before noon. This is one small example of reducing the democratic expression of the people by putting up an arbitrary technological road block. Technology should not be an excuse to disenfranchise people. Based on my past experience this 7 hour minimum lead time will limit many people who might find out about an issue at the last minute. 

The false notion that “this is the best we can do” is a lazy anti-democratic failure of imagination. A zoom link could be made ready to send to a participant or a dedicated public computer like a managed Speakers Corner could be used. 

More troubling and harder to solve are several other democratic losses that we have experienced recently as a result of technology deployment. 

The art of the possible is being diminished. We, as councillors in council chambers, have lost the group huddle, the chatting before and after a council meeting, and the ability to talk to our neighbours around the horseshoe. All of these have been instrumental in finding innovative solutions on the spot to troublesome developments, in writing up amendments, in providing greater clarity. Additionally, from a continuous improvement point of view I have lost an opportunity of getting the best debrief or postmortem of the meeting from trusted colleagues.

Democracy as a social enterprise is being marginalized. The close quarters of a physically close face to face meeting are so much better than a FaceTime or Zoom meeting. In the virtual we lose the signs, cues, and nuances that make effective communication possible. Most of the body language is cut out and we can never make eye contact with our interlocutor. We are perpetually looking past each other. I have noticed a subtle shift in the debates: we talk past each other more than ever and thus really listening is harder. The corollary is that non-answers become harder to detect and challenge. It seems to me that people at council are more than ever just talking, just going through the motions, and not really paying attention. Speaking for myself, I know I have struggled to not be distracted while on Zoom meetings at home. Judging from the performances of some my colleagues I know I am not alone.

This is one unfortunate byproduct of working from home. Home should be a place of relaxation, of play, of consumption. We dress down at home, we let our mind wander. Work requires a special focused frame of mind. A change of clothes and a commute help us enter and leave this frame of mind. We can see this lower standard in how councillors dress for our Zoom meetings: the general dress is more casual. The distractions are greater (I know I have felt them) and the frame of mind needed to make existential political decisions is thus hampered. Additionally, family life suffers. In my case, my boys know that a part of our home is off limits when I am in committee or council. This increasing work integration into family life is probably not good for anyone and it is certainly not good for the work of democracy.

There is so much more. My main point is that technology is poorly deployed if it hampers democracy and it does this in so many ways. Technology should augment and improve democracy. Deploying technology just to get the image of democracy being done (as if that were possible) is not good democracy. 

Added on: 2020-05-13 12:02:43