Politics is an interesting and difficult Problem. I think to give a comprehensive answer we must attempt to deconstruct what politics is. So much of what politics is perceived today has a very long history.
Robin Hanson, seems like an interesting starting point. In his book: The Elephant in the brain he and his co authors explore the fact of human biases in the light of institutions, including politics.
Of course from their perspective, which means a USA focused perspective. Three points from the book to ponder:
Why its not important to be informed
Another work which really should be considered is Chomsky’s: Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media.
So I think pondering about these two sources show that the “future of politics” has to incorporate the future of sense making.
In the Video Daniel Schmachtenberger says that’s its important to create a intact information ecology which involves vulnerability and intimacy. Can we create small groups who conduct small experiments trying to build consensus?
This leaves us with an interesting problem: So the cost of changing the old politics systems is likely too high. But to create a new one or at least try running experiments with new forms still needs approval from the old system!
So where does this leave us? I think it would be good, trying to conduct small experiments,with few people involved. Probably the biggest experiment of this kind is rojava, here is a short Video of david graeber talking about rojava:
To expand a bit further on how difficult change is, or how high the cost of change is: Here is a talk called - Demokratie DevOps ( german)
And you can see how much effort is needed to bridge the old platforms into the digital world. At the end of the talk there is a short discussion about “Normen” and it seems interesting to me how difficult access to these goods is. So the principle of knowledge as commons seems also like a important concept:
IMO constantly reflecting about the right amount of complexity of law and politics is also important, otherwise we would just create more and more and be overwhelmed with the information flood we have created.
I don’t know that “we” have a unified opinion on this. The current reality is that our political systems, worldwide, are grinding to a halt. It is increasingly difficult for governments to make and execute decisions, and almost impossible for them to appropriately gauge the effectiveness of those decisions they do execute. Similarly, we are seeing the failure of our financial systems, with increasing gaps between the rich and poor, and the slow disappearance of the middle class. With the rapid acceleration of automation, we will see fewer and fewer ways for people to make a living. It seems that we are headed to a major evolution of humanity, particularly around new forms of currency. The collapse of the current configurations of nation-state and money are not unlikely.
Those of us in the dGov space are looking to create a myriad of alternatives, because we foresee this collapse. It will look different in different geographies, but we do expect the transformation or evolution of our current systems to happen in the not-so-distant future. As such, we are experimenting as fast as we can, so that we can help governments navigate this new world that is emerging.
One simple explanation I give people is that now that we can create money without banks and central governments, we need new forms of governance. Does that mean the current systems will disappear altogether? I don’t think so, but I do think the existing governance systems are increasingly irrelevant and that new forms of democracy and self-governance will emerge around these new forms of currency.
I now the RxC folks are actively working on outreach to politicians on their mechanisms. We had some experimentation among politicos here in Colorado, even. Might be a good idea to work with their team on coordinating a strategy for building a pool of government folks interested in mechanism design. I’d love to be involved.