Some will remember the past decade as the decade the people started to claw back power from business and government. What with the rapid growth of online consumer activism, whistleblower sites and consumer driven watchdog organisations that has proliferated on the Internet, I have started to wonder if we aren’t nearing a future in which the current shape of government itself is outdated.

This year will undoubtedly be remembered as the year that MPs in Britain were exposed as people who see working in government as the proverbial gravy train. Second homes paid for, when most people in Britain don’t even have a first home. Three months summer holidays, when most people in Britain are lucky to get three weeks. Short working hours, when most people in Britain are working the equivalent of 1.5 full-time jobs. And golden pensions worth millions, when most people retiring in Britain will be retiring in poverty.

Times have changed. We no longer live in the agrarian world that defined the early days of “government by representation”. People no longer have to travel to London from the countryside on horse and buggy in order to have their voice heard in government. We no longer need to rely on “people who know better” about  problems inflicting our society, nor should we. For time has proved over and over again, they simply don’t know any better than we do. We no longer need problems “managed” by people who in truth, only know how to pass laws to “manage” problems under the carpet rather than actually solve them.

This is the 21st century. It is not only the Information Age, but also the Age of Empowerment. It is the time when we the people, should have the direct power to influence change in our world. In which we the people, should be able to find solutions to problems rather than new and clever ways to sweep them under the carpet.

If we are to even think about replacing the current system, we need another model to consider. One model presented itself in Charles Leadbeater’s book, “We-Think.” Now, the last time I talked about “We-Think,” I was kind of doing it a bit of disservice by not talking about the fundamental societal change the author refers to.  The step-change behind the notion of We-Think, is that collective humanity is better placed to actually solve problems than individuals. The core idea works like this.

You take a problem, break it down into its constituent components, and disseminate each part to different groups of people. Each group is composed of a mix of skill and knowledge sets. So you might have one group let’s say, composed of sociologist, scientists, artists, planners, researchers, writers, or even construction workers. According to Charles Leadbeater,  these mixed groups are actually better at solving problems than for instance, a group of specialists who all study in the same or closely related fields. Because we disseminated the problem into smaller chunks to different groups, each problem doesn’t seem all that overwhelming. So when you bring all the different groups together, you can actually solve some very complex problems. This is one reason, for instance, why Nasa has opened up their research problems to the people. And why even die-hard organisations like Proctor and Gamble now allow anybody to invent new products, and earn royalties from their inventions.

We-Think in essence, allows companies to cast a much wider net for its innovations, for far less money than it would cost for them to do it all inhouse using a team of dedicated researchers. Plus you are far more likely to get some truly surprising ideas, which could really never come out of your own organisation. Politicians on the other hand, like to debate problems amongst themselves. Because the majority of them are either lawyers or ex-businessmen, their debates often are very repetitive, typically resulting in a small handful of available solutions: to either pass a new law or privatise, nationalise or re-privatise something.

Nobody stops to think whether these essentially limited basic solution sets are in fact, going to solve the real problem. At best, they are akin to bandaids. They mask the real problems with a skin-colored covering, so you don’t notice the gaping wound that lies underneath, At worst, they make the problem worse, which is what essentially happened with the majority of the PPI (Public Private Initiatives) that the government offered up to outsource the problems to somebody else. The only problem with approach is of course, most of these companies simply Inflated the real problem in order to inflate their profits to solve the artificially inflated problem they were contracted to fix, but which of course, they never did, simply because if they fixed the problem, they wouldn’t be able to milk it for more profit.

At no time, will any of the solutions debated in Parlaiment every involve getting rid of the MPs altogether and letter the people join together online to find the real solution to the problem, We-Think style. More importantly, as citizens would create the laws in this We-Think run society, we would likely have a corporate world that actually works for the people rather than for themselves. After all, when you’re own consumers can pass laws that control how much profit you can make for instance, or even which makes your business illegal altogether, you are likely to make sure they accept what you do and how you go about it. Without the protection of government flunkies, it’s hard to imagine guns and other weapon’s manufacturers existing at all. Likewise, it’s equally hard to imagine any heavy polluting industry lasting long in a We-Think world. It’s easy to corrupt a handful of people to do your bidding or to turn a blind eye, but try corrupting an entire nation of people. May not be impossible, after all, Ceasar was fairly effective at keeping the masses distracted, but in the long run. But in an internet powered We-Think run society where whistleblower sites are common, it’s easy to create a groundswell moment around an eye-opening truth.

Naturally, a We-Think run nation would mean the end of the professional politician. But so what? Reading the headlines nowadays, does anybody really want them? Most consumer research shows that what people really want is to be able to have a say in how things are run, or even to be able to make direct impacts to solve problems. A Vox Pox I did for a Levi’s campaign of young Londoners actually revealed that at the young actually want to solve problems in their local communities, some even in the wider world. But most felt unempowered to do so.

By switching to a model of “direct participatory democracy”, ever citizen could be empowered to make a difference and be part of a collective hunt for solutons to society’s problems. Each problem could be debated online, researched by different groups of mixed specialists and compared and studied with input from other teams. The various solutions could all be analysed by indiviuals actually living those problems and voted on by the public at large. In a true democracy, the people’s vote is supposed to be what decides the direction of government. In  a We-Think government, this literally is what happens, every day. People decide thier own futures, together, collectively. If something doesn’t work out. if a solution is proved to be the wrong one, the people can instantly gather, re-analyse and change it to a new solution, creating what is essence, a truly dynamic, flexible way of government that is fully capable of dealing with our quickly changing world.

% of UK households with Internet Access

All of the underlying technologies now exists for this new, fairer and more open type of democracy exists already today. Broadband penetration in the UK is now at 52%, while basic internet penetration is at 68%, and it’s increasing by about 1 million people a year. Mobile penetration is at 78% of the population.

Population by age, UK

Given that 20% of the UK population is under 16 years, this means that pretty much everybody who could own a mobile phone, does. We all have the tools in our hands and at our fingertips every day to participate in a We-Think government. So the burning question is simply, why don’t we?

Statistics: http://www.statistics.gov.uk

A famous example of this community policing was seen back in 2005 in what is now known as “the Dog Poop Girl case.” In South Korea, where everybody and their toddler have a mobile phone, a girl and her dog boarded a local subway train.

Naturally, the dog must have mistook the bland floor for dirt – or then he was just making a statement against bad design – and decided to defecate on the floor of the train car, apparently by accident. Nearby passengers were naturally appalled and asked her to clean it up. Surprisingly, she replied something akin to “mind your own business.” 

As all phones today are also spy cameras, a fellow passenger fotographed the girl and posted it on a Korean Website. The  photograph was picked up by the hyper-active asian social networks, retouched, mashed up, commented upon and generally spread around like the pandemic flu. It was in effect, a national user generated “name and shaming” policing exercise.

Naturally, the girl in question became famous for all of the wrong reasons, and probably a social pariah among her friends as well, causing her to drop out of university. Most likely today she is dog-less (and forever so), living in a new city with a new haircut and maybe even a new name. 

Now let’s apply this social policing strategy to our local British burglar. Let’s say a burglar (who we all call Yobs over here) breaks into a property. The house however, is wired to the local community owned and monitored CCTV network (no government or police oversight here) so our Yob is caught in the act by a nearby neighbour, an old lady living on her own and battling an ongoing insomnia problem. Either that or she’s catching up on back episodes of “Eastenders” on the Beeb’s iPlayer. She hurriedly sends text alerts to all the residents in the area. They rush around to the house just as the robber/yob exits. He turns (it is always a he isn’t it) only to face a horde of angry residents, all armed with mobile phone cameras and busily filming the unfolding drama.

Now, assuming our angry horde doesn’t turn into a vigilante mob, they instead run a mobile Internet search on Google’s new Face recognition service, which matches images to those on the social networks to quickly get the yob’s personal details and those of all of his friends and family. His surprised and angry mother is contacted, as is his grandmother, his father, brothers, sisters, cousins, uncles, etc, who all are suddenly calling the Yob’s mobile phone to berate him in what J. K. Rowling would describe as a “Howler Mail”.

To make matters worse, the entire drama, complete with the yob’s very public shame, is posted on the Internet site, www.Gotcha.com, a newfound wikipedia-style public database of social shame and now his very public police record. If he was a repeat offender, then he might even be placed in a prison. But not the usual countryside retreat with drugs, Sky Movies and a free gym membership, but rather a very public room in the town square with glass walls so that everybody can watch him. No curtains. No privacy.

Naturally, the gaping whole in this approach is that we currently live in a fame-obsessed society where criminal activity is glorified as being a “cool profession” with few real downsides, well, except for that potential death thing of course. But as fame has become more important than achievement, we are seeing gangs of youth challenging each other to commit crimes. So when our group of concerned and involved residents show up with their mobile phone cameras buzzing away, a burglar is now more likely to mistake them for paparazzi, break out into a big smile, and perform a little jig for the cameras.

Once on Internet, he would become famous on both sides of the Atlantic. Hollywood or Fox TV would then offer him a lucrative Film/TV deal, only to find themselves outbid by the BBC, using millions from the public purse of course. Books titled, “Why I Burgle” would become runaway best-sellers, making it to the top of the RIchard and Judy list, who would praise it “for its moving hardcore realism” and “as a telling indictment of modern society”.  Even our PM, fading in popularity as he ever is, would invite the famous crook over to No. 10, whereupon our now famous Yob would nick the silverware, which everybody would find hilarious.

Sources: 
On Internet Vigilantism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_vigilantism

On the Dog Poop Girl case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2005/07/06/AR2005070601953.html

http://blog.japundit.com/archives/2005/06/30/808/

On Google and Facial Recognition

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13580_3-10026577-39.html