――Mr. Narita explains that the democracy we are accustomed to is a matter of assumption of past society and technology.
No matter how many universal philosophy, the operation of what we call democracy has been roughly considered by people a few hundred years ago.It is made on the premise of the environment of society and technology several hundred years ago.
At that time, most people grew up in the land where they were born, worked and died.What is particularly important is what communication was like.Most of the conversations were between families and friends, and the transmission of information was mainly rumored.The only media was a signboard, newspapers and magazines as valuables.If you operate democracy on the premise of such a very dull and no information, you will be gathered in a fixed day and submit opinions, and we will collect and announce it.It would have been reasonable to do the festival.In other words, that is the election.The election as a festival would have helped to create a sense of unity as a country or community.
However, about 150 to 100 years ago, mass media such as radio and television appeared.And in this century, social media (SNS) has spread.Nevertheless, he is still making decisions in traditional election events.The discrepancy between this system and the times produces many problems.
In the first place, the election is a festival where everyone's body and mind are synchronized, so it is perfect for the flow and the air left to the air.Hundreds of years ago, the tuning was closed in each region, but now the media and media hackers have been amplified on the scale of the country and the earth.Furthermore, although the policy issues are diversifying as their lives and values become diversified, the voting is still only politicians and political parties, and individual policy issues cannot be made in detail.
I think that democracy, which cannot respond to the current environment, has stunned the world politics with a roller coaster of "hypocrisy liberalism" and "dewed populism".
What is the problem?
In the end, if humans try to form an opinion consciously, they will be easily swept away by the voices of others, temporary emotions, and information.If you ask a person in the conference room for opinions, it is the same as having a reaction only to talk about somewhere in the bland or a synchronization of the neighbors.Then, from the place where I went to the bar and was afraid, everyone talked about something that seemed to be honest.The problem is that the weakness of the human being who is such an unstable, short -sight, shy, and chosen around is amplified by the mass social media and is reflected in the election.。
So how do you get over it?There are three main measures.
The first is the type that adjusts and improves the current democracy system to some extent.For example, instead of voting for politicians or political parties, they will vote for individual issues, such as raising children, pensions, and working.Proposals such as so -called "Liquid Democracy", "DiviCracy Democracy" and "Quadratic Voting" will apply to this type.In each case, it is an attempt to increase resolution and flexibility, leaving the basic ideas of democracy.It is also a adjustment / improvement type to change the weight of votes according to the average life expectancy of voters, which is often discussed as a measure against silver democracy, and to create a voting area for each generation.
However, I believe that adjustments and improvements of these election systems are not essential.This is because it is not possible to deal with the fundamental issues that the festive decision of the human group is too easy to be washed away by the air.In order to deal with the problem, let's once have a stereotype that you have to do an "election festival".Instead of the election, why not consolidate our unaware levels of desires and purposes in some way?This is the second policy, so to speak, "unconscious democracy", "sensor democracy", and "data democracy".
――In unconscious ...?But isn't it something we are conscious of thinking about what policies are good or choosing someone in the election?
However, when shopping, reading the news, or watching videos on the web, many people rely on the recommendations that derive the data.Isn't there a reason not to choose the same thing as politics or policy?Instead of helping individuals to buy what they want to buy, there will be a rising discussion of using unconsciousness and data to help society as a whole.
An easy -to -understand example is to find out what people are looking for for policies using election data.For example, American private companies L2 and Catalist exceed the coarse public information such as the number of votes, and hundreds of millions of election panel data, when each voter was and who went to which election and who voted for.It is famous for building.With such data, you can measure what kind of background voters are seeking politicians, politicians, and policies.
Data collection methods are not limited to elections or SNS.For example, it is an era in which surveillance cameras installed on the streets are collected as data.A good example is a Chinese national surveillance camera network.24 hours, 365 days a year, a group of surveillance cameras captures facial expressions and voices, listening to what voices of people speaking in the city and what will be what their intentions in the city.From there, we find a hidden voice in the people.I guess that democracy will come to the unseen future.
――Hmm, there is certainly a remarkable technology development.But somehow, "Big Brother", which appears in George Owell's novel "1984", is like a country that monitors each of the people, and the back is cold.
This is not a big story as a science fiction, but a near -future future.Looking back on history from a longer perspective.For example, about 800 years ago, when the people of Yoritomo Gen Yoritomo were active, the idea of elections in one country like today must have heard science fiction.It's the same as that.I think that if the information and technical environment change, it will be possible in the next decades to hundred years, even if it is difficult now.
In this case, I think the stereotype itself that "an election event is required to consolidate people's voices" will be extinct.
What kind of sensor data collects and tabulates, and who holds the authority of data and calculation?The unsolved problem is heaping.However, since people have long been discussing what election systems are good, it should be considered the 21st century version.
--I see.If Narita's theory becomes a reality, does the election not choose a "representative" of politicians, but to vote in the "policy" that he believes?
That will be.And for each individual issue and policy, it is necessary to gather the voices of people who are seriously affected by it.It is especially important how to get the minority voice.
In the first place, one of the current drawbacks of democracy is the "unreasonable game" (a game that is too difficult to clear to clear "in all issues.I think it is applied.For example, a system design for a specific minority group is required, but the opinions of random numbers of the majority who are hardly affected can dominate the place.LGBT legislation is an example.In order to solve this, there are some ways to deposit your votes to those who are familiar with the problem, such as liquid democracy, or buy voting rights with only important issues for you.I get it.Furthermore, the data democracy described earlier should be able to automatically suck the voice of the parties' minorities with algorithms.
――Is that you may no longer need a politician.
Well, I don't think you need it. However, the value of politicians as characters and mascots may not be lost for a while. When we make any decisions or changes in the system, we ask for the responsibility of who did it. This is an easy -to -understand example of autonomous driving problems. Even if you know that it is safer than manual driving, it is still unbearable to have a serious thing progressing in the form without anyone who can be responsible. Old humanity has such a habit. So, even if data democracy is now possible, it may be necessary for a politician to be a mascot for a while as a mascot that can be used as a sandbag (abbreviation of "full power and bokkoko") as a sandbag at first. However, if people become used to data democracy in the second generation and three generations, they may not even need it.
――What is the last third way to overcome the “weaknesses of democracy” mentioned by Narita?
The third is the most difficult and harsh option.To put it simply, it is such a way of thinking that gives up democracy itself.This is, in other words, "anti -democracy" or "detour (Ukai) democracy".
――In a detour? what do you mean?
It is an ambition to make some "strong people" perform serious decisions and transformations in democratic procedures as much as possible.Many entrepreneurs and investors who support President Trump on the West Coast of the United States have this idea.Peter Teal (US investor, Paypal founder), who states, "I No Longer Beliere Believe The Democracy Are Compatible," is a typical example.If I translate his words, I think, "It's perfect to be disturbed by the mechanism of democracy."
Here are their basic ideas.Democracy, which gives equal rights to everyone, is a system that inhibits a person with a unique talent and experience that opens up frontier and generates value and difference.Let's make such a democracy process as much as possible.Therefore, I think seriously about making California independent, creating a new independent nation at the sea, underground, and outer space.
――Why do they support Trump, who has raised the “domestic first principle”?It looks the opposite.
It's like Mr. Trump as a "human bomb" that destroys democracy from inside.To them, the existing democracy is a system that emits Rusanman, a majority of people who do nothing.Mr. Trump, who is born through such democracy and embodies the ugliness of democracy, is a symbol of self -destruction of democracy itself.I think it's close to that kind of idea.
―― Sure, there is a drawback that democracy is not easy to decide, but some people say that redundancy is the “advantages”.By discussing for a long time, you can get the opinions of the minority without repeating failures.
I think it is important to create a "double tongue" in a good way. There are situations and issues where redundancy and slowness are valuable, while it can be harmful. The current problem is that democracy is too universal, and its redundancy and slow decisions are too much of society. Democracy, even though it should have been created as a mechanism to make political decisions, has spread to various places in society beyond the originally defined applicable area. The business activities in the market economy and the behavior of daily life on social media. In all fields, mysterious egalitism has penetrated as policycoletones, which has slowed down people's decisions and expressions. I think it is necessary to more clearly separate the area where redundant is valuable and the non -area areas.
In any case, there is no rose -colored system that can solve everything in public issues such as politics.Comparing the terrible system with the terrible system, there is an aspect that will compete relatively.
"Democracy is the worst political form. If all the forms have been tested so far, it is now asked if the Prime Minister Churchill will continue to keep that proposition.。I personally believe that it is the right strategy to compete with the forces who want to abandon democracy while pursuing as fast as possible, unconscious sensor data democracy.Even if the updated democracy still became popular politics, the option of abandoning the worst democracy for the first time would emerge.I'm thinking like that.
Yusuke's specialty is the design of business and public policy (especially education) using data and algorithms.He has been a US University of Yale University, a representative of a soft -ripened virtual Co., Ltd., a special associate professor at Hitotsubashi University, a visiting researcher at the Economy, Trade and Industry Research Institute, and a visiting professor at Stanford University.He is involved in joint research and business with multiple organizations such as cyber agents and ZOZO.
