This article is also available in: Français
“We can give our opinion on the pizza we just ate in a few seconds, but we don’t have the opportunity to influence a reform that will change our lives?”
The world has changed, but our democracies still work the same way.
We elect, for a few years, representatives who then have the power to make all decisions without ever consulting us again before the next election.
When a decision taken by elected representatives is contested, which is often the case, appeals are few and far between. Opponents have very few means of action, and the powers that be can ignore any protests, demonstrations or polls showing that a majority of citizens are opposed to the project: legally, only the decisions and votes of elected representatives count.
The consequences of not taking opposition into account can be seen in all democracies: all representatives, even the most popular at the outset, quickly disappoint their electors and lose their trust. Election after election, citizens go from disappointment to disappointment, and finally stop voting. Some end up thinking that authoritarian regimes might be more effective in solving their problems, threatening the very existence of democracies.
And yet, it has worked in the past.
In just a few decades, we’ve gone from a fairly homogeneous society to a much more fragmented one.
In the past, the media and influential personalities were more limited in number, and consequently opinions were mainly divided into a few dominant currents, classically classified as “left” or “right”.
In this configuration, it was possible to find rulers who brought together a large majority of citizens. Even if governments could disappoint, the alternation of majorities could allow the ideas of each to advance in turn.
The advent of the Internet has multiplied currents of thought and opinion leaders. Nowadays, there are almost as many currents of thought as there are individuals, and everyone picks and chooses his or her personal opinions here and there. This “archipelization” of society makes it illusory to find elected representatives who can bring together a majority of citizens for the duration of a mandate.
Today, being a successful elected official is a mission impossible.
And yet, there are some ideas on which there is a majority, even a consensus.
But they are often ignored by those in power.
They are blocked by their programs, their allies, or their past positions which they cannot contradict.
What’s new: citizens know that they can now make their voices heard directly.
Today, you can rate and give your opinion on a pizza in a matter of seconds. The accumulation of these ratings and reviews will lead a pizzeria to success or bankruptcy in a matter of months, and may even help it to revise some of its recipes.
Reviews, ratings, votes and “likes” are everywhere in our daily lives, for better and often for worse. We’ve all learned just how easy it is today to gather the opinions of a large number of people and turn them into something usable.
Accustomed to giving their opinions every day on subjects as trivial as a film or a dish, how can citizens accept having no influence on important decisions that directly concern them?
Democracy must evolve or it risks disappearing.
We love the democratic ideal, but with an increasingly fragmented society our representatives are doomed to disappoint us.
We know that it is now possible, thanks to digital tools, for everyone’s opinion to be taken into account in government decisions, and we know that we can find majority and consensual ideas among citizens.
If our democracies do not evolve to take account of these changes, the number of people who believe that democracy is no longer adapted to our times will continue to grow.
