Having superior technology always advantages the society that controls it. Human history is all about societies struggling for dominance through the development, employment and co-option of upgraded technologies to be the first to possess pointier sticks and the ability to hurl the largest projectiles furthest. But our focus is on other technologies that could collapse societies from within — if they are either unable or unwilling to adapt accordingly. In the modern world, we’ve largely paused on poking each other with our pointiest sticks, knowing that more serious provocation could bring about our mutual destruction. What our modern Democracies have to contend with now is a new revolution in information technology. The first information revolution mostly brought about the demise of Monarchial rule. In turn, Democracy must adapt to the next or face a similar fate.
The fundamental tenet of this discussion is the human belief that there is always a better way — a better way to get things done faster, with less waste, more equitably for more people. We’ve proven it’s not a pipe dream either, but a reality that manifests itself through our application of technology. Technology’s basic function is to multiply work output so that a single operator can produce the work output of several workers. Simply put, the lone driver of a modern combine harvester can produce a harvest several times that of many individual workers with hand-held sickles in a much shorter time. This multiplicative effect of technology also applies to information spread such that certain ideas, once isolated and died alone, have the potential to transmit themselves throughout a population faster than can be stopped by opposing forces. Books and news publications allowed for the rapid spread of information without the ‘broken telephone’ effect, and such radical ideas like equality, individual human rights and political representation eventually led to several world-changing revolutions that brought down the monarchies of the past. The aspiration that there had to be a better way for human societies to run themselves more equitably and more justly than by having a know-all, own-all dude on a throne prevailed through the technology of the printing press, for the most part.
While technology has not been kind to monarchy, those that have adapted to it, like the British monarchy, still survive at least in the cultural sense. Meanwhile, Democracies have flourished through technology and how it has developed so rapidly into today’s Information Age. What’s worked for Democracy is its promise of upward mobility and the protection of personal freedoms and rights, which was not possible under previous feudalistic systems. The basic benefits of technology still apply: people make use of technology to multiply their work output and are rewarded accordingly, whether in terms of making widgets, keeping records, or solving problems. The more complex the task, with the greater skill in using the appropriate technology, the greater the reward. And because Democracy levels the playing field, learning to upskill is available, if not encouraged for everyone. Therein lies the promise of upward mobility for each individual.
Especially in today’s Information Age, the less well-off in Democratic societies are finding even more opportunities to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. With smart devices and internet access becoming increasingly affordable, people are either creating or discovering apps that make their work more productive and finding new opportunities to be creative, start their own businesses and side-hustles with the time saved. Or catch up on rest and recreation, depending on the need. What this means, socially, is that people in Democratic societies are less inclined towards desperation and are thus more law-abiding and community conscious. In fact, technologically driven Democracies are probably part of the reason the world is experiencing a greater level of global peace than ever in the past. Politically, there is also much more transparency in governance and the minds of policy-makers, not to mention the increased opportunities for grassroots feedback such that every citizen has a voice in how their society is managed.
But, of course, we are idealizing. The above describes the best possible outcome of the fusion between Democracy and technology. The reality is that Democracy today has become problematic, and though it is not entirely the fault of modern technology, it is a contributing factor. The problem with Democracy is the assumption that “majority rules”, and nobody wants to be a minority. Democracies in the real world are seldom purely based on individual rights and freedoms. Certain demographics tend to be more privileged than others, even within the same society. Often, these privileges are based on a combination of ethnicity and religious affiliation. Majority is usually made up of a particular combination, while minority comprises a different combination. As long as this balance holds, the majority is happy to consider themselves a Democracy because they rule every time society goes to the polls. However, today, this majority population is feeling threatened as immigration and other Democratic open-door policies seem to be increasing the voting share of the ‘other’ combination. Today’s Democracies are pushing back to maintain the old majority’s hold on rule. The USA, Europe and Australia are swinging right, politically, as they seek to reduce immigrant intake and make rules (spoken and unspoken) restricting the traditional practices of the existing immigrant population ranging from dress to language use to religious expression.
From an ideal perspective, these practices are already patently undemocratic. Modern technology, particularly Information Technology that once brought down monarchy, could potentially end Democracy as we know it. First, the devices people use to access the internet, and the internet service providers themselves are supplied by very wealthy and powerful companies. The social media platforms that people connect on are likewise owned by a small oligarchy that thrives on reshaping social media discourse to their benefit, whether for advertising revenue or setting a social and political context that suits them. While there is no identifiable source of foment, or even a discernable reason for it, bots that create ‘ragebait’ are a constant presence on social media. Ragebait is a way for drawing a line and people to divide themselves across both sides. With people today so dependent on social media both as the main source of information and a platform for their own voices, society is fracturing along otherwise avoidable faultlines. Democracy, which functions on community consensus, is threatened when everyone wants their own way without consideration for the common good. Oversimplified, but many Democracies in the world today are approaching this threshold of a majority rule by force rather than by vote. In this climate where certain voters rights and freedoms are perpetually protected over other voters’, Democracy breaks down and becomes dysfunctional.
Whether Democracy as we know it can be saved has little to do with modern technology, regardless of how it develops. People need to remember that the reason we formed society is that we do better together than apart. Technology is what it is — both a tool for opportunity and a tool for self-harm. While Democracy has benefitted greatly from modern technology so far, it seems like the way we are mishandling it today we have to figure out for ourselves if we want to evolve with the times and continue with our Democratic principles, or revert to more primitive methods of maintaining social and political order.
(1215 words)
Inspired by Singapore-Cambridge GCE ‘A’ Level H1 General Paper (Paper 1) 2020 Question #9