Mediaboss Marketing

Pixabay. Public Domain.

For some years now, we have been witnessing the emergence of relational, cross-over, participative power. This is the territory that gives technopolitics its meaning and prominence, the basis on which a new vision of democracy more open, more direct, more interactive - is being developed and embraced. It is a framework that overcomes the closed architecture on which the praxis of governance (closed, hierarchical, one-way) have been cemented in almost all areas. The seriesThe ecosystem of open democracyexplores the different aspects of this ongoing transformation.

The impact of digital platforms in recent years affects all areas and all sorts of organizations: from production to consumption, from political parties to social movements, from business to public administration, trade unions, universities or the mass media. The disruption they generate is cross-section and intergenerational. Undoubtedly, their outstanding assets at least from a discursive point of view , are self-management and disintermediation. Today, through technology, people can participate actively in processes related to any particular activity. This is why we often talk about digital platforms as tools for democratizing participation, overcoming as they do the traditional tyranny of space and time. If we analyze them in detail, however, and look at the organizations that promote them, we realize that the improvement in citizen involvement tends to vary, sometimes considerably, as does the logic behind their approach.

Cooperativism and digital commons

Fairmondo is a virtual market, similar to Amazon. A quick look at this platform originated in Germany may not be enough to realize the current relevance of this project, which happens to be one of the most paradigmatic projects in platform cooperativism (conceptualized and popularized by Trebor Scholz and Nathan Schneider) or open cooperativism (conceptualized by Michel Bauwens and the P2P Foundation). In fact, Fairmondo is a digital cooperative owned by its users, who are also its shareholders.

The impact of digital platforms in recent years affects all areas and all sorts of organizations: from production to consumption, from political parties to social movements, from business to public administration.

The open source, innovation and the commons constitute its DNA. Launched in 2013, its development has been made possible by a series of microfinancing campaigns, which have raised hundreds of thousands of Euros. Although its dimension is global - more than 12.000 members and two million products - its logic is local. Fairmondo is now evolving into a federation of local cooperatives in each country where an organization gets started. Unlike Amazon, democratic governance is key to its operation.

We can distinguish different types of technological platforms, depending on what economic model they promote. So, for instance, the role of technology as a space for interaction between equals (P2P) can be linked to the emergence of the Collaborative Economy. In any case, as pointed out by Mayo Fuster, if we are to attempt a critical analysis, it is fundamental to ask what the business model is (basically, to distinguish non-profit from for-profit projects), what technology they use (closed or open source; that is, democratically replicable or not) and what access they allow to the knowledge that is generated (if the data are public or private). Another layer can be put on top of this trilogy: the governance of the platform - which is nearly always intrinsically related to the organization that promotes it. This is why, when ascertaining the democratizing role of any technological platform, it is essential to undertake a holistic analysis of its economic, social and political approach.

Reviewing each project critically is particularly relevant in a playing field where citizens no longer act as consumers of goods and services, but also as producers and suppliers of their own goods. Some digital platforms have already been denounced, in fact, by those offering services in this way for causing job loss and favouring insecurity. The Uber app is a good example. Nor can the derived social impact on the community be excluded from the assessment of their democratizing function. That is, for instance, the impact in terms of citizen relocation of the activity of Airbnb: in addition to observing the platform as a tool for exchanging dwellings among equals, we must analyze in detail its actual use and its social and economic impact.

In short, platform cooperativism or open cooperativism, whether it focuses on the social strength of cooperative values or on the need to reappropriate common goods, calls for a detailed critical review of the local activity of its digital platforms. This is a different approach from that of the global analysis of the impact of technology, which quite often hides the replication of models generated by undemocratic digital environments.

La Teixidora, a democratic digital platform

Being aware now of the risks of partial evaluation of the impact of technology and the key elements to be considered in analyzing it, let us return to our starting point: democratizing participation. Given the importance of local assessment of global digital tools, let us now see the case of the multimedia platform La Teixidora, which allows us to synthesize the aspects which, in our opinion, shape democratic participation.

Platform cooperativism or open cooperativism,whether it focuses on the social strength of cooperative values or on the need to reappropriate common goods, calls for a detailed critical review of the local activity of its digital platforms.

This initiative, launched in 2016 in Barcelona, organizes in real time a collaborative structure with the aim of mapping distributed knowledge generated in different parts of the city during conferences, meetings, workshops and other offline meeting formats related to technopolitics and the commons. To do this, it appropriates several open source tools (collaborative editor, wiki, content storage spaces) and uses a Creative Commons license which, while recognizing authorship, allows anyone to adapt the contents and even use them commercially. Two significant apps illustrate the value of its functionalities in relation to democratizing participation:

In short, through this platform, both processes have been able not only to contribute proposals, but also to form an open learning space. And by mapping participation, which makes these processes both of which are promoted by the Public Administration - transparent and accountable, thus improving their democratic quality. At the same time, the information and the learning from their use are helping to redesign the technological platform itself and adapt it to the needs of the communities involved.

As we have seen, although digital platforms tend to create spaces for interaction, with no intermediation, they differ widely different in nature and scope. This is why it is important to create analysis tools that allow critical review and correct classification. In this sense, as Matthieu Lietaert points out, while assessing the different types of digital platforms which are being generated in and around the Collaborative Economy, it is crucial to show their raison dtre and their impact. Corporate unicorn platforms, which involve private codes and licenses, reproduce socially unfair models, while open or cooperative platforms aim at finding spaces for social and economic transformation.

Technological sovereignty

What economic and social impact does a digital platform have? Who owns the software and the data generated by its use? Who governs it? What is the relationship between its users and owners? These are all relevant questions for the discussion of the role of technology in an open democratic ecosystem. In our view, if we do not take them under consideration, we risk providing ourselves with tools which reproduce hierarchical and opaque intermediation and governance models. This is why, as Bernardo Gutirrez says, the direction taken by some cities - especially the so-called "rebel cities" - is particularly relevant. On the one hand, the social and economic role of the new actors and also their governance model - is called for; on the other, technological tools for inter-municipal participation are promoted.

What economic and social impact does a digital platform have? Who owns the software and the data generated by its use? Who governs it?

It should come as no surprise that, in the context of the demand for greater autonomy for the cities - networked and willing to increase their resilience capacity through the recovery of their sovereignty (recognizing the worth of electricity and water sources and suppliers, for instance, and the traceability of foodstuffs) -, the technological dimension represents a new inevitable layer to be taken into consideration in the era of the Net Society - an ecosystem which, as Manuel Castells says, is currently redefining power relations.

Read more here:
Digital platforms and democracy - Open Democracy

Common Dreams

Democracy Watchdog Turns Up Heat on White House to Answer for ... Common Dreams 'The legal basis for the strikes was of significant interest to the American public and Congress' and more »

Go here to read the rest:
Democracy Watchdog Turns Up Heat on White House to Answer for ... - Common Dreams

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

On Wednesday, I sat down with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to discuss her new book, Democracy: Stories From the Long Road to Freedom. The following transcript has been edited for length and clarity.

Question: The story in The Washington Post [on Tuesday] was interesting in that the principals in the room, many of whom you know Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster, Dina Powell were all on the record saying [sharing classified information with the Russians] did not happen, this is not the way it went down. Yet we had these leaks that caused this story to really blow up and my question is, what are your thoughts on that and Vladimir Putin saying, Oh, Ill provide the transcript, if you want?

Rice: Well, I dont think we really need the Russian transcript. I saw that and I thought, Lets just leave the Russians out of this. Look, I totally and completely trust H.R. McMaster. Yesterday when he came out and said that [information sharing with the Russians] was appropriate, I accept that. But this is another example of White House processes that seem to me to need to be under review. The thing that is clear is that the White House is not working as it should. They need to look at their processes and tighten it all up, so that everyone will be better served.

Q: Do the leaks worry you, though?

Rice: Yes the leaks worry me

Q: Youve been in this situation both at the White House and the State Department. This administration has been leakier than most, but it also seems that there are leaks coming from other parts of the government. There has been this term called the deep state, which has been thrown around a lot, which typically refers more to

Rice: Turkey and Egypt generally

Q: Regimes you call in your book quasi-authoritarian.

Rice: I really do think that the leaks are problematic because there are proper channels if you think something has happened or something is wrong. There are ombudsmen who can be spoken to, you can always go to Congress and say whats happened, and as someone whos served in the government, I think that this practice of going, with all due respect, right to the press with the latest story is not very healthy for the country.

Q: Speaking of Turkey, and in the context of your book, this is a country that is moving in the opposite direction of democracy and is one of our key allies in the region. Trump invites Erdogan to the White House, and then we see the video of his security beating up protesters on the street on Embassy Row. What do you make of this, and is it the right thing for the president to be having authoritarian leaders at the White House?

Rice: Well, hes the president of Turkey, a longtime ally, and so Im not surprised that youre going to have a meeting with the president of Turkey. When I used to be asked what would the Middle East look like when it is democratic, I would say Turkey, because it looked like a country with the right institutions, it was moving closer to Europe, it was moving closer to democratic norms.

A lot of that has been reversed in recent years. And its a story thats been there time and time again with authoritarian governments.

Im not yet ready to give up on Turkey. I do think that the referendum, which I dont think was conducted fairly, was a very close vote for Erdogan. There may still be some life in Turkish institutions and I think its important that we dont give up on Turkey and the European Union doesnt give up on Turkey.

Q: In the book you describe populism and nativism as two of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse as far as democracy is concerned. I want to ask you about that, since we have seen this rise in populism across the globe. Brexit, Trump, and even to a certain degree the vote in France. What is happening, what does it say?

Rice: I do call the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse populism, nativism, protectionism and isolationism. They usually travel together and it didnt turn out so well for the world the last time around, or for world peace as a matter of fact. But I think there are underlying circumstances here: Theres a backlash from people who think they havent really benefited from globalization, and populists give you easy answers to why youre not doing well. They say, Its the foreigners or Its the others. If youre on the left theyll say, Its the big banks.

I believe that globalization is a fact, not a policy. Those of us who believe in free trade and a willingness to move across boundaries still dont have an answer for those people who have been left out.

People are applauding what happened in France that [Emmanuel] Macron won and [Marine] Le Pen lost, but populists are changing the conversation. Even for mainstream parties and candidates, its getting harder to defend immigration and free trade. And so without even winning they can change the nature of the political conversation, so I dont think the challenge of populism has been met by democracies.

Q: One of the things I want to touch on is that this book is basically a love letter to democracy, especially our democracy, and yet you mention that were having our own crisis of confidence here. Theres been an erosion of public trust in Congress, the media, even the Supreme Court is now viewed as more political. One of the other things is how free speech is a hallmark of democracy, yet weve seen that theres been an erosion of this principle on college campuses in places like Berkeley, which is ironic. So whats going on here, and how can we correct it?

Rice: We were gifted amazing institutions by the Founding Fathers. A Constitution that is evergreen, a Constitution that is so evergreen that slaves found their rights through that Constitution. But democracy is always balancing on a knifes edge, because its just a little [distance] between chaos and too much authority. And the answer is to go through institutions.

But on the free speech issue, there I think we have a problem because weve stopped listening to each other. It used to be that we had the same sources of information through network news and now we have a multiplicity of places to get information. But instead of taking full advantage of that multiplicity, I fear that what happens is people go to their own channels, their own bloggers, or their own website in an echo chamber where their views are affirmed. I constantly tell my students that if theyre in the company of people who always say amen to what you say, find other company.

Q: But isnt this all connected in the sense that we now all live in very homogenized worlds. The blue states are getting bluer and the red states are getting redder. Weve been sorting along tribal lines for some time, it seems to have accelerated in the past 15-20 years, and so its no longer just a matter of where you get your news but where you live now.

Rice: Not only that, I feel that were dividing along class lines for the first time in our history. Now one thing that has happened in this reaction to globalization is that the elites are not respectful of the values of those who are ordinary citizens, so we seem to be dividing ourselves into ever-smaller identity groups, each with its own narrative, each with its own grievance, and thats a problem.

Q: I was just going to say it seems like we dont have anything that unites us anymore. Even in Congress people dont even talk to each other anymore; there is nothing that united the parties.

Rice: Well you get the democracy that you deserve. Tocqueville talked about ceaseless agitation, citizens constantly use their institutions, constantly challenging them, constantly insisting upon their rights. Its also individuals taking responsibility for other individuals, recognition that no democracy works if theyre weaklings.

Q: So it took you three years to write the book, and youd been thinking about it a long time. As you travel around the country now and talk about the book, has anything surprised you about the reaction to it?

Rice: What has surprised me is the depth of angst about where we are. This book is very much about Americas experience and how hard it has been for us to get to a functioning democracy. See, I grew up in Birmingham, Alabama. We couldnt go to the movie theater or a restaurant. I relate a story in the book: George Wallace was running [for governor], its Election Day and there are lines and lines of black people [waiting to vote].

I say to my uncle, He cant possibly win, hes so bad for black people, he cant possibly win with all those people voting.

And my uncle said, Well, he will win because were in the minority.

So then I said, Then, why do they bother? And he responded, Because they know that one day that vote will matter.

So I come from an experience where people without really true citizenship black people in the South still voted because they knew that vote would eventually count.

Q: Do you worry that because theres so much focus on our democracy now that theres no focus on the rest of the world?

Rice: I do, because I try and make a moral and practical case for democracy. The moral case is, people say, Oh theyre not ready for democracy, but thats something someone who lives in a democracy would say about someone who doesnt live in a democracy. Well, if democracy is the highest form of human potential, then it cant be true for us and not for them. But the practical case is democracies dont invade their neighbors. Democracies dont traffic in child soldiers. Democracies dont harbor terrorists as a state policy.

I want people to understand that democracy promotion is not Iraq and Afghanistan. I have a regret about that. But those were security problems we dealt with by military force. I would have never said to President Bush, Lets bring democracy to Iraq by military force. But once youve overthrown the dictator we thought Saddam Hussein was a threat, more imminent than he actually was but he was a threat in the region and al Qaeda was harbored by the Taliban, now you had to have a view of what comes after. But most of the time, democracy promotion is far less dramatic than that. I like to describe then what we did to help the Colombians and the Kenyans.

Q: What about the humanitarian case, vis-a-vis Libya?

Rice: Well, its really hard. Personally I was 50-50 on Libya. So if youre going to do that, and youre going to cut off the head, you really have to have a plan for what comes next.

Q: And is Syria both? National security and humanitarian?

Rice: Syria is both. It certainly is national security concern but it is a humanitarian nightmare. That war has got to end.

Q: Last question: As you look around the globe, what concerns you the most?

Rice: North Korea. You have a reckless, potentially slightly unhinged leader in North Korea who is quickly acquiring the capability, nuclear capability, and the means to deliver it, potentially even to the United States. No American president can live with that. The Chinese have to be convinced that they have to tighten the screws to this regime. And theyre the only ones with the leverage to do it. Theyve always worried that if they do that, the regime might collapse

Q: Which is their greatest fear.

Rice: Right. But now we have a bigger concern. And they should have a bigger concern, which is that no American president is going to let that stand. By the way, if were looking for things to cooperate with the Russians on, if a North Korean ballistic missile can reach Alaska, it can reach Vladivostok.

Tom Bevan, co-founder and publisher of RealClearPolitics, is the co-author of Election 2012: A Time for Choosing. To read Tom Bevans full interview with Condoleezza Rice, go online to: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/05/18/qa_with_condoleezza_rice_133928.html.

See the article here:
Condoleezza Rice examines the state of democracy - Washington Times

Swedens REIN (known in real life as Joanna Reinikainen) worries a lot about societys largest problems, including the return of fascism in the Western world, the continual denigration of womens rights, and income inequality. We should all be worried about these issues and REIN brings them front and center in her righteous brand of electropunk. REINs latest single is Democracy and its a banger that hits the nail right on the head, calling out those billionaire business figures that control 85% of the worlds wealth. Accompanied by footage of protests from around the world, the video for Democracy is powerful and moving as REIN questions whether those of us in so-called First World democracies are actually experiencing anything like real democracy. REIN tells PopMatters, I talk about exclusion, feminism, anti-capitalism, anti-racism and I want to raise important questions like, are we really living in what they say is a democracy? These are big, contemporary subjects in a time when history is repeating itself.

Democracy will appear on REINs upcoming FREEDOOM EP. I just had enough after the US elections, the rise of the right-wing movement in Europe, the Syrian War, and Brexit. Why not be open to new solutions? Why not abolish the entire system instead of going backward? I think that it is important to at least start the debate, says REIN.

Sarah Zupko founded PopMatters, one of the largest independent cultural criticism magazines on the web, back in the Internet's early days of 1999. Zupko is a former Executive Producer for Tribune Media Services, the media syndication arm of the Tribune Company, and a 10-year veteran of Tribune. Her other pursuits involve writing historical fiction and research in the fields of Slavic and German history, as well as general European cultural and intellectual history. Zupko studied musicology, film, and drama at the University of Chicago and media theory at the University of Texas, where she received her M.A.

View post:
REIN - "Democracy" (video) (premiere) - PopMatters

So, recently Zuma shuffled his cabinet, most notably replacing Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan, as well as Deputy Finance Minister Mcebisi Jonas. This shuffle has caused the Rand to fall by more than 5% in the matter of a few days, as well as South Africa being regulated to junk status. The consequences of this move are already being felt, and will be felt for years to come. According to some economists, a recession is inevitable because of this. What is certain is that the state will now have to pay more rent on its debt, which translates into either a cut in fiscal spending or an increase in taxes, or possibly both.

Despite this irresponsible move, Zuma has come away from it largely unscathed thus far. Three of the ANCs top six had spoken out against his move, but later retracted their criticisms, stating that it was a mistake. Nationwide protests were launched to show the publics discontent with Zumas action, as well as calling for his resignation. Nothing has come of these protests. Zuma is still in power.

The nations hope lies in the coming vote of no confidence, which might be an anonymous vote, pending the findings of the Constitutional Court. An anonymous vote might mean the end of Zuma, as his ANC party members can vote based on their conscience without fear of repercussions.

Now, for the point of this essay. Zuma is not only a threat to the ANC and the South African economy, but to South Africas democracy itself.

Democratization is not an event, but it is a process. Democratic consolidation also takes place on three stages, namely the structural stage, the attitudinal stage and the behavioural stage. The stages that will be focused on here is the attitudinal, which refers to the populaces attitude towards democracy, and behavioural, which refers to populaces actions with regards to democracy, stages.

Zuma is unpopular among the general population, and most of the voting populace wants to see him go. In 2016, even before the latest scandal, Zuma was rated a 4 out of 10 by the general populace, based on a poll of 3416 adults. Recently, after the cabinet reshuffle scandal, a poll was completed by 1000 adults, in which 74% requested Zuma to step down. 69% of Black respondents requested Zuma to step down. His approval rating among black South Africans in 2016 was a mere 27%. Therefore, we can conclude that Zuma is no longer favoured as a president by the South African populace.

Yet, structural means have proven to be unable to remove Jacob Zuma. Repeated votes of no confidence in him has failed in Parliament. The Constitutional Court have largely failed to hold him to account and legitimate, peaceful protests have failed to achieve the desired result.

This, a massively unpopular and dangerous president remaining in power against the will of the people, will lead to a negative attitude towards democracy in South Africa, therefore undermining South Africas democratization process. This comes in light of the findings of polls done by Afrobarometer which shows a steady decline in the populaces satisfaction with democracy from 2002 to 2008. This fact has also been further illustrated by a drop in voter turnout in every election since 1994. People are starting to opt out of the democratic process at an accelerated rate.

The attitudes towards democracy of the populace will eventually evolve into behavior towards democracy. A clear rise in violent protests can be seen, while 70% of all service delivery protests become violent, as people view violence as the only way that their voices can be heard.

In conclusion, the process of democratization in South Africa is under threat from none other than the president himself, as he retains power against the will of the people. The accompanying inability to remove him through structural means only serves to fuel the populaces negative attitude and behavior towards democracy. One can only hope that the upcoming vote of no confidence will be an anonymous one, so that Zuma can be removed and faith in democracy restored.

Disclaimer: All articles and letters published on MyNews24 have been independently written by members of News24's community. The views of users published on News24 are therefore their own and do not necessarily represent the views of News24. News24 editors also reserve the right to edit or delete any and all comments received.

See the rest here:
The threat to South African democracy - News24