{"id":2377,"date":"2020-02-27T03:26:02","date_gmt":"2020-02-27T03:26:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/scienceofthetime.com\/?p=2377"},"modified":"2020-02-27T03:26:02","modified_gmt":"2020-02-27T03:26:02","slug":"the-future-of-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/scienceofthetime.com\/dlc\/2020\/02\/27\/the-future-of-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Future of Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
A story by Andrea Lobo Niembro<\/a> & Ivan Babic<\/a><\/blockquote>\n

As we enter this new decade of the 20\u2019s, every single institution is exposed to the pressure of deep revisions to adapt to a new set of rising beliefs. Ecology, diversity, flexibility, transparency, human-rights, freedom and happiness. These are now, more than ever, at the center of our decisions as consumers and citizens in general.<\/p>\n

Today, education, medicine, communications and social paradigms are being revised, why don\u2019t we do the same with our political systems? Often referred by many authors as \u201cthe least bad form of government we know\u201d, Democracy needs to be adapted to the new times we\u2019re living in. Starting with the following\u2026<\/p>\n

We need to establish KPI\u2019s<\/strong><\/h4>\n

First of all, we need to reframe the way social contracts are written. The so-called \u201cconstitutions\u201d should be translated into Key Performance Indicators (KPI\u2019s) and agreed upon, the same way it happens inside any corporation. How can we tell if we\u2019re heading into the right direction if we don\u2019t even have common ground, objective metrics, and a shared vision about where we want to go?<\/p>\n

\n
SMART Criteria<\/a> for the setting of objectives.<\/figcaption>\n<\/figure>\n

At any given corporation, the KPI\u2019s are clear at all levels. Every employee, including the CEO, is continuously evaluated based on the expectations of the stakeholders for that position. SMART goals are setup jointly every year, and revisited every quarter against demonstrable results, with data.<\/p>\n

Can you think of a corporation where the newly elected CEO, who promised an incredible double-digit growth in order to be appointed in that position, fails to deliver month after month without any consequence? Should we wait 4\u20136 years, in order to get rid of that incompetent liar?<\/p>\n

In democracy, literally translated from the Greek as \u201crule by people\u201d, we should all be accountable. We need to empower citizens as the stakeholders of our wellbeing and continuously evaluate everyone through time, based on specific KPI\u2019s previously defined and agreed upon in a holistic way. And technology is allowing us to do that more and more: directly, and with no need for middlemen nor lobbyists. So\u2026<\/p>\n

We should get rid of intermediaries<\/strong><\/h4>\n

As technology evolves, one of the biggest impacts in economic and social structures is the less dependence on intermediaries. We can now buy our vegetables directly from a farm without leaving our homes, get access to loans without talking to any bank, get informed, peer-to-peer, without the agenda setting of old-time information monopolies.<\/p>\n

Following the same approach, shouldn\u2019t we get rid of congresses, parliaments and assemblies, and embark our citizens into crowdsourcing? The future of a real participatory democracy relies on the possibility of exerting, in real-time, our influence in decisions through the technology in our hands.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n