What Makes a Good Politician?

               Next 2nd of October there will be election. The future of our city and our country depend on who will be chosen. In this decade of activism I have been trying educate the people about important issues for us citizens, issues to improve our democracy, our citizenship, our development, our lives, so I hope everybody are prepared to make good choices. This post is a summary of four articles. The first with the title above was published at http://centeroncongress.org/what-makes-good-politician. The second was published at http://www.beliefnet.com/inspiration/galleries/top-5-qualities-of-good-political-leaders.aspx. The third was published at http://www.leadershipexpert.co.uk/political-leader.html. The fourth was published at http://www.pinoyguyguide.com/2010/05/choosing-the-right-candidate-for-the-elections.html

               Members of Congress play a central role in our lives. They shape our health-care system, make crucial decisions about the economy, and represent the hopes and interest of every citizen in the capital. Given this fact, I am always surprised that little attention is focused on examining closely whether someone serving in or running for Congress or City Council has the personal attributes it takes to be an effective member of the institutions. If someone's behavior is shady or unsavory, that will make the news, But the qualities and skills that set good politicians apart should draw more notice. Chief among those qualities is honesty. The public may believe that politics is a dirty business, but effective members of Congress must be trustworthy. They understand that to work     together over the years, they must level with their colleagues. The same is true in their dealings with citizens. The best politicians also sustain an unusually high energy level and an ability to focus on the task at hand. They tend to have few hobbies, for the simple reason that public office is all-consuming. Most good politicians are also ambitious, on fire with the wish to make something of themselves, and though many see this in personal terms, it usually means policy ambitious as well. They want to have a hand in contributing to the success of the nation and in finding ways of making life better for the people they represent. They also understand the limits of their power, both what a legislator can realistic accomplish, and the fact that legislators might react to events but rarely can control them. This ability to keep oneself in perspective is crucial to a politician. After years in office, it is tempting to think of a legislative seat as an entitlement, as something held by right. It is not. Good politicians understand that. They are good comunicators who genuinely like all kinds of people and are confortarble talking in all kinds of environments. They are accessible to the grand and the humble alike. They are sensitive to the mood in a room, know how to read an audience, and are quickly ro respond. They are open to other points of view. And perhaps most important, they understand that politics involves give and take, and the ability to find common ground. A good politician listen very carefully to those on the other side, not only to learn their arguments,. This is why politics puts a premiun on resourcefulness and intelligence, and tends, over time, to discourage ideological blinkers. Finally, they never forget where they are from and fight hard not to succumb to power fever. They remain loyal to their constituents, and have an abiding faith in the decency, intelligence and patriotism of the voters.

                What are the qualities or characteristics good political leaders should possess? Here are the top 5 characteristics of some of the world's most successful political leaders. 1) HONESTY - Being honesty can sometimes be difficult because it makes individuals vulnerable. Honesty develops character and builds credibility and trust, which are the foundation to evoke confidence and respect from those around you. 2) COMPASSION - Compassion is the humane quality of understanding the suffering of others and wanting to do something to alleviate that suffering. Good leaders use compassion to see the needs and to determine the course of action that would be of greatest benefit to all those involved. 3) INTEGRITY - The word integrity is defined as 'the adherence to moral and ethical principles. It is a synonym for honesty and uprightness, and a vital characteristic for those in political leadership. 4) CONFIDENCE - Having confidence in a political leader is about havinf faith or belief that he will act in a proper, or effective way. Leaders who possess this quality inspire others, drawing on a level of trust which sparks the motivation to get others on board and get the job done. 5) FLEXIBILITY - Good politicians listen to all sides, to not only hear their arguments but to lratn what it all parties involved to reach consensus. This also allows politicians to recognize setbacks and criticism, to learn from them and move forward.

                  Political leaders are vitally important, through the authority of government, they assess the distribution of power and resources, build relationships with other stakeholders and make decisions that can have great impact on the well-being of a nation and its people. Leadership in the political framework require a focus on the long-term good of a country, above ahead of any personal short-term gains. Leadership in a political framework require also 'statesmanship', as opposed to just being a 'politician', this mean having the integrity and willingness to stand up for what is right. So, a good political leader is: 1) Someone who serves as an example of integrity and loyalty to the people they represent. 2) Someone with good communications skills and inter-personal skills, who can work with a range of other people, regardless of political party or opinion. 3) Someone who can resist the various temptations and lures of the political arena. 4) Someone of strong character, with both conscience and charisma. 5) Someone willing to listen to the needs of the common people and represent them faithfully. 6) Someone with the courage to stand up and say what needs to be said. Accountability is crucial to effective political leadership, as without this, there will be not respect. A good politician is someone who will be honest and responsible. They will focus their energy and time on representing the people rather than spending all the time "covering their backs" and critising others.

                  In my opinion there are some characteristics of a good or an ideal leader. They are: 1) Has proven track record of accomplishments - Remember that being a politician is also a job, we nned to find out if the person we are voting for is fit to become a leader of our country or city. Does he/she have enough experience? What he/she done so far? We should be diligent enough to find out the personal background of each candidate. 2) Is honest - I am tired of hearing of vote-buying and all those cheating. We need honest leaders. 3) Is not corrupt - We need to spare our country from the humiliation that we are facing globally regarding corrupt leaders. 4) Can represent our country to the world - We need a leader who knows how to converse intelligently. We need a leader who can carry himself well and can stand up like he is implicitly saying "I am Brazilian and proud". We need someone who can uplift the Brazilian image to other countries. 5) Can not be manipulated - No matter how honest a leader is, it will all go to waste when he can easily be manipulated and influenced by people close to him. Vote for someone who can stand up for his own decisions. 6) Has genuine passion to serve - All politicians are there to serve. They are there to uplift the condition of the people and to do what is best for their fellow countrymen. Choose a leader who has been serving already before he has even begun his political career. 7) Has a strong desire to make our country or our city a better place - It is true that many nations have already surpassed Brazil. Many nations have prospered and let us behind. I want a leader who has a strong desire to improve our nation especially in terms of education, infrastructure, poverty, employment, economy, science, technology, health-care and even sports.

Horror Worlds

            This post is a summary of three articles. The first was published with the title above in 2010 at http://www.economist.com/node/17388328. The second was published at ww.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/internet-ethics/resources/why-we-care-about-privacy/. The third was published at http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/privacy_why_it_matters_much_more_than_you_think/

            The concern that technology will slowly but surely undermine human freedom is shared by quite a few mainstream thinkers. As this special report has argued, smart systems will improve efficiency. Yet if those systems seriously impinge on people's freedom, many people will balk. The protests against smart meters in Bakerfield and elsewhere may be only the start. Smart systems are rekindling old fears. Top of the list are loss of privacy and goverment surveillance. Internet users have only recently begun to realise that every single thing they do online leaves a digital trace. With smart systems the same thing will increasingly apply to the offline world, Google's Street View is only the beginning. Even the defenders of a smarter planet admit as much. "Some citizens have expressed discomfort at living in not a safer society, but in a 'surveillance society'," said Sam Palmisano, the boss of IBM, in a speech earlier this year. He cited a newspaper article recounting that there are now 32 closed-circuit cameras within 200 yards of the London flat in which George Orwell wrote his book "1984". Mr. Palmisano would be in the wrong job, however, he had not gone on to say that such concerns have to be rethought and to stress the economic and social benefits of smart systems. On the other hand smart systems are also undeniably useful as an instrument of control. Singapore has made an impressive job smartening up its physical infrastructure, but its network of security cameras could also be used for enforcing rules more objectionable than a ban on chewing gum. Similarly, the operations centres for local governments in China being built by Cisco, IBM and others beg the question whether their only purpose is to make these cities smarter. Other deep fears brought on by smart systems is that machines could be hacked, spin out of control and even take over the world, as they did in the film "The Matrix".  And there is a more subtle danger too: that people will come to rely too much on smart systems, Because humans can not cope with the huge amounts of data produced by machines, the machines themselves will increasingly make the decisions, cautions Frank Schirrmacher of the German daily in his recent book. A further worry is that smart technology will ultimately lead to greater inequality. Paul Saffo, a noted Silicon Valley technology forecaster, expects ubiquitous sensors to give a huge boost to productivity, at the expense of human monitors. "We are likely to see more jobless recoveries," he says. Whether computers will indeed to eliminate more jobs than they create remains to be seen. But smart systems certainly represent a conceptual change. So far IT has been used to automate and optimise processes within firms and other organizations as well as the dealings between them. Still, technology progress is not some force of nature that can not be guided. "We can and we should exercise control, by democratic consensus, " says Mr. Gelernter. Yet for a consensus to be reached, there must be openness. The biggest risk is that smart systems becomes black boxes, closed even to citizens who have skills to understand them. Smart systems will make the world more transparent only if they themselves are transparent.

              Privacy is important for a number of reasons. People can be harmed or debilitated if there is no restriction on the public's access to and use of personal information. Other reasons are more fundamental, touching the essence of human personhood. Reverence for the human person as an end in itself and as an autonomous being requires respect for personal privacy. To lose control of one's personal information is in some measure to lose control of one's life and one's dignity. There are many ways a person can be harmed by the revelation of sensitive personal information. Medical records, interviews, financial records, welfare records, sites visited on the internet and a variety of other sources hold many intimate details of a person's life. The revelation of such informaton can leave the subjects vulnerable to many abuses. The information can be misused, or even used for malicious purposes. The insensitive behavior of others can cause the person serious distress and embarrassment. Privacy protection is necessary to safeguard against abuses. Privacy is also needed in the ordinary conduct of human affairs, to facilitate social interchange. Privacy is an essential prerequisite for forming relationships. The degree of intimacy in a relationship is determined in part by how much personal information is revealed. What one tells one's spouse is quite different from what one would discuss with one's employer. If they were always under observation, they could not enjoy the degree of intimacy that a marriage should have. Charles Fried puts it more broadly. Privacy, he writes, is "necessary to relations of the most fundamental sort: respect, love, friendship and trust...without privacy they are simply inconceivable." The analysis suggest a deeper and more fundamental issue: personal freedom. As Deborah Johnson has observed, "To recognize an individual as an autonomous being, an end in himself, entails letting that individual live his life as he chooses. Of course, there are limits to this, but one of the critical ways that an individual controls his life is by choosing with whom he will have relationships and what kind of relationships these will be. Information mediates relationships. Thus when one can not control who has information about one, one loses considerable autonomy". Even if the person never found out about their prying, the person has lost some of his freedom. The person did not want them to have access to his personal life, but they seized it anyway. Autonomy is part of the broader issue of human dignity, that is, the obligation to treat people not merely as means, to be bought and sold and used, but as valuable and worthy of respect in themselves. Personal information is an extension of the person. To have access to that information is to have access to the person in a particularly intimate way. When some person information is taken and sold, it is as if some part of the person has been alienated and turned into a commodity. In that way the person is treated merely as a thing, a means to be used for some other end. Privacy is even more necessary as a safeguard of freedom in the relationships between individuals and groups. Surveillance is powerful instrument of social control. Under these circumstances they findd it better simply to conform. This is the situation characterized in George Orwell's book 1984, where the pervasive surveillance of "Big Brother" was enough to keep most citizens under rigid control. The ability to develop one's unique individuality is especially important in a democracy, which values and depends on creativity, noncorformism and the free interchange of diverse ideas. That is where a democracy gets its vitality. Just as a social balance favoring surveillance over privacy is a functional necessity for totalitarian systems, so a balance that ensures strong citadels of individual privacy and limits surveillance is a prerequisite for democratic societies. Even apparently harmless gossip, when widely and persistently circulated, is potent for evil. It belittles by inverting the relative importance of things, thus dwarfing the thoughts and aspirations of a people. When personal gossip attains the dignity of print, and crowds the space available for matters of real interest to the community, what wonder that the ignorant and thoughtless mistake its relative importance. Triviality destroy at once robustness of thought and delicacy of feeling. No enthusiasm can flourish, no generous impulse can survive under its blighting influence. For Warren, privacy was a means of protecting the freedom of the virtuous to maintain their values against the corrupting influence of the mass media that catered to people's basest instincts. Although the degrading effect of the mass media is still a problem, there is another serious threat to freedom comes from governments and other large institutions.  For example, Ignazio Silone, in his book Bread and Wine, described the use of surveillance in Fascist Italy in this way: On this degradation of man into a frightened animal, who quivers with fear and hates his neighbor in his fear, and watches him, betrays him, sells him, and then lives in fear of discovery, the dictatorship is based. The real organization on which the system in this country is based is the secret manipulation of fear. While totalitarian regimes may not seem as powerful or as sinister as they did 50 years ago, surveillance is still used in many places as an instrument of oppression. When we speak of privacy, particularly as a right, we focus on the individual. The individual must be shielded from the prying curiosity of others and from discrimination. The individual's autonomy and control over his or her person must be preserved. The individual must be protected from intimidation and coercion. 

               The greatest threat to privacy is a pervasive, shrugging indifference. Many (though not all) citizens are willing to give up a certain amount of their personal information to obtain credit cards, rent movies, post phootos and look at web pages. After all, if you are not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide? Garret Keizer's book "Privacy" encourages its readers to reframe how they think of privacy before it is too late. Read it to jolt your imagination into new territory, and to understand why the privacy that many of us sacrifice so readily ought to be held more dear. Keizer aims to show that privacy, and respect for privacy, are core humanist values that should be enshrined in the heart of any society aspiring to social justice. He argues this against two distinct points of view that treat privacy as unimportant. The first, and by far the most common regards privacy as a relatively minor right that can  and often should cede in favor of commerce or security. But there is another type of skepticism towards privacy rights, who dismiss it as a bourgeoise concern. There is an abundance of thought in  the book "Privacy". Keizer has a way of turning lazy notions inside out to exhibit their fallacies. To the tech moguls who seems to think we ought to blithely hand over our personal information, he retorts, "were privacy not a good thing, the wealthier among us would not enjoy more of it than the less wealthy do." Mark Zuckerberg does not live in a fishbowl. Keizer's observations on the embattled privacy of the poor, the distinctions between privacy and loneliness and the essential link between the degradation of life and disrespect for the sanctuary of private life will serve readers of all political flavors. I am convinced by Keizer's argument that a society that does not value our personal privacy can not plausibly claim to value our humanity. This may be a far bigger conundrum than one book can solve, but "Privacy" is a step in the right direction.

The Importance of Dystopian Literature

          This post is a little class about dystopian literature. I know very well what it is, and I hope all the readers of my blog can understand more about this evil. In order to value more democracy, human rights, an independent judiciary(justice), and solidarity, we have to know what must be avoided. Unpunished human rights violation, a dysfunctional democracy, the people afraid and a corrupt government is the first step to become a dystopia.   This post is a summary of three articles, The first with the title above, was published in May of 2015 at http://emertainmentmonthly.com/index.php/the-importance-of-dystopian-literature. The second was published at https://deegarretson.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/why-ya-dystopian-fiction-is-important/. The third was published in 2014 at http://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3460&context=honors_theses

            The recent surge of dystopian literature that has gained massive attention and reeled in huge profits at the box office has also brought many crucial issues and ideas to the forefront of the media. For one point, dystopian literature like The Hunger Games and Divergent have given young women their own place to be action stars and to save the world, where very few question their gender, and instead focus on their determination and strength. Dystopian literature has helped to also highlight many social ills that society can use as red flags to determine if the power system has gone too far. Things such as declaring love a disease, where people are "cured" to prevent them from acting on passion, as in Delirium trilogy, or the brutality of sending children into an arena to fight to the death as in The Hunger Games, are very clearly wrong, and the government overstepping their boundaries. Readers immediately recognize that doing such things are clear infringements on human rights. While the issues commonly found in dystopia shed light on the horrors of the denial of basic human rights, the fascination that comes from consuming these forms of media raises a drastic problem. The Hunger Games franchise has made millions of dollars, and it has also spawned a very problematic culture, where consumers can find dolls of heroes like Katniss and Peeta, and make up by the label of "Capital Couture," based off the very institution within Panen that sends children to die in the first place. Readers and viewers are often looking at these dystopian societies and thinking, "This could never happen in real life", but the unfortunate truth is that it already is. On a smaller scale, particularly to minority groups, these infringements on civil rights are already happening every day, and unfortunately, one does not have to look much further to see that. Among the dystopia genre, a very large portion of the young leading rebellions and fighting oppression are ladies. They fight with bravery and determination, and readers sympathize with them and understand that they are being deprived of their basic human rights. But it raises the question: is dystopia what we get when the struggles and oppression faced by minority groups happen to people of all genders, races, backgound, and orientations? The dystopia genre has provided an incredible platform for young girls to finally picture themselves as the heroes, to take down oppressive governments, to stand up for what they believe, and make a difference, which was a much needed change. As reader take in the words on the page and viewers on the screen and both are horrified by the atrocities being committed, it should also be a cue to look at their own world and recognize when the same atrocities are happening on a smaller scale. The enjoyment and thrill that readers get from reading about these adventures does come at an expense, and the expense that some of these events are happening already, right under their noses. While these books serve as a warning and a view of what the world could become, they should also be opening eyes, and opening them wide enough to see what is happening right now. 

              Some of the most memorable books I read as a teen were dystopian stories, what were categorized most often as science fiction back when I was reading them. I have been fascinated to see the rise in popularity of dystopian fiction in recent years. My conflicted feelings about dystopians, and the change in how I read them made me wonder what exactly it is about them that pulls people in. Clearly, the intensity of the emotion is one reason, and with so many good stories, the feeling of wondering how you, the reader, would feel and act if you were in those situations. Dystopians are important beyond the story though, because outside of getting drawn into fascinating and unique situations, these types of books show that the world as we know it is not the only possibility. These stories raise the questions of "what if?" what if a science experiment had gone wrong? What if a disease that could not be controlled? What if a crazy person had come to power and others had not tried to fight him? What if we let only a few dictate the rules of society? While no one is purposefully reading dystopians for the lessons they can teach, they can make readers aware that paying attention to how society functions is important. They can show us that we can not assume the future will follow a perfect path, and we maybe be able to influence a part of it in what we choose to do with our lives, in how involved we get in the political process, in how we raise our children, or in what we study and pursue as a career. All in all, they expand the bubble each of us live in to see the greater world beyond us. And that is a good thing. I want my own children to read these books. If you are looking for some classic dystopian books to read to see what came before the current dystopia trend, here is a list of a few possibilities: 1) Brave New World by Aldous Haxley. 2) Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. 3) Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury. 4) On the Beach by Nevil Shute. 5) Earth Abides by George Stewart. 

                 Dystopian literature is a trend, after Suzanne Collins's The Hunger Games, dystopian literature has become the forefront of teen reading, especially with the adapted film versions of the trilogy. Citizens in a dystopian world have to deal with "harshly repressive societies" that constrict any free thought or individuality. A dystopia is usually a future world that extends and distorts modern day issues into a dehumanized state in which controls have been forced upon society and its inhabitants through social and physical limitations that restrict many aspects of life. The influence of Collins' trilogy has created a desire within teens to start picking up more dystopian texts and find connections and solutions within their own lives, which is one of the genre's main purposes. Dystopian literature is didactic in nature in a sense that the "first-person narration, engaging dialoguue, or even diary entries imparting accessible messages" not only draws readers in but also encourages them to think critically about injustices in their communities  and in the world at large. In every successful dystopian novel, readers can count on encountering one or more of these major commonalities: 1) individuals in charge with absolute power. 2) a strong protagonist who has been shaped by his or her current situation. 3) a dismal conclusion that leaves the reader feeling slightly uneasy. Whether it is the government, a police force, or overbearing rules imposed on the society, the oppressive force, which also can be the society itself, is so strong that most people living in the given story have lost the ability to think for themselves. Another common trend within dystopian literature is the conformity that almost completely erases any trace of individual thoughts or behaviors. The lack of individual thinking stems from the dystopian society's "embrace their uniformity out of a fear that diversity breeds conflict". The oppressive powers within the dystopia posit the fact that if everyone is in consent and there is no contention with one another, then no problems will occur. Conformity in dystopia is used to show the effects that ensue when the government has pushed the boundary between unity and blindly obeying without question or concern. While conformity traps individuals's right to expression, there is also enslavement and silencing. Mind control, economic constraint, and emotional restrictions depict societies that dehumanize the citizens, creating a sense of need that keeps the inhabitants perpetually in debt. Dystopian genre has been on the rise, understanding the genre and what the trends imply for readers is important.

10th Anniversary of Online Activism

               As I said last month, my online activism completed ten years. This activism began in June of 2006 with I doing summaries from Newsweek magazine that I read in the municipal library and then rewrote them in my email and sent to some persons that I knew had an interested in the issues and in the English language. This was the case with the articles: "Lessons from Locke", "Still a Lot to Learn," "Correa's curriculum," and the "Dark Side of Globalization." In that time, I accessed Internet in the Infocenter at UFJF, where I kept accessing till 2011, Only in January of 2012, I started accessing at home. For the past ten years, I have been doing summaries of articles, reports and books. It is a good way for me to practice reading and writing English and in the same time educate myself and others about important issues that concern everybody. And those who do not know English and want to read, they can use the Google translator.  The issues that I have been writing in my activism has remained the same since the beginning. They are: the economy in Brazil and in the Latin America. Importance of quality in education with its consequencies in democracy and in the development. The importance of an effective and efficient democracy and how to achieve this. The importance of human rights for democracy, for justice and for citizenship. The importance of political participation directly and indiretly. The importance of activism for democracy, for human rights and other issues. We can also have learnt about remarkable writers that influenced the world literature and other issues beyond literature. I have done summaries of many books, since 2006 and I have learnt a lot about all these issues that I have written about. and those who read my blog have learnt a lot too. The important writers that I have written and we have known them better, are: Charles Dickens, George Orwell, J.D. Salinger, Machado de Assis, Nathanael Hawthorne, Honoré de Balzac, Aldous Huxley, Voltaire, Gyorg Lukacs, Thomas Mann, Alexis de Tocquevill, Dante Alighieri, Mark Twain, Jane Austen, Jack London, Euclides da Cunha, Charlotte Bronte, and recently George Bernard Shaw. Also I wrote as a way to celebrate the anniversary of: Brazilian Constitution, United Nations, The protestst in June of 2013, and the Independence of Ireland. As I said before, I have read many books, and to remember these are some books that I have summarized: The first was, "A Short History of the World," by the famous fiction writer, H.G.Wells. I put on the blog, the chapter where he described the development achieved by Germany after investment in education in the 1870 and 1880 decades. The second book I summarized was, "Latin America 2040, Breaking Away from Complacency," this book says that many countries in Latin America is stuck in the 'middle income trap' and only investment in education and smart policies of development will raise the L.A. economic growth rates. The thid was the book, "Manufacturing the Future: The Next Era of Global  and Innovation." This book is about the importance of R&D and innovation to development. The fourth book was "Raising Student Learning in Latin America: The Challenge for the 21st Century." The fifth book was "The Theory of the Novel," by Gyorg Lucaks. This book, I first read many times the Portuguese edition in the university. Then for my TCC I read again, the Brazilian edition, and for the summary on the blog, I read online the American edition. This book is really good, and help us to analyse fiction. The sixth book was, "Civil Society and Social Movement: Building Sustainable Democracies in Latin America." This book is about the necessity to increase citizen engagement in politics to strength democracy. In order to achieve this is essential that community organizaions, social movements and NGOs can be able to gain access to the halls of power. The seventh book was, "Democracies in Development: Politics and Reform in Latin America." This book is about how is essential to develop policies that are responsive to the will of the people. And the importance of a well-organized civil society and an independent media to monitor government, expose human rights violations and to bring political accountability. But institutions and policies that are good from the standpoint will have a limited impact if not accompanied by civil education and campaigns against abuse of power, government corruption and mismanagement. The development of democracy must be a concern in our everyday life, because only with a effective democracy, the voice of the people are heard, the human rights are respected, by the way, during this ten years of activism, I have posted many summaries proving the connection between human rights, democracy, justice and development. It is very important that everybody is aware to respect human rights in order to improve democracy, and justice. The eighth book summarized was, "The History of Human Rights." This book tell us how the idea of the people have rights was strongly developed during the 19th century. And how important they are to the people can live with dignity, freedom, equality, justice and peace. These were the first eight books I summarized, there were many others after them, but they were summarized recently, so I think it is not necessary to remember them. It has not been easy to maintain this activism for a decade, I do not know anybody else who keep a activism for so many years, a decade, in a row. Usually I read and publish the summaries on the weekend, it is when I have more spare time. But in order to do this, I have to sacrifice other things that I could be doing in my scarce spare time. I am not complaining about this, I already have more serious things to complain about. And whatever happens this year, I will keep doing summaries in my blog. I will try to keep it for as long as possible, if possible for the rest of my life. I really enjoy to see that people are learning something with me, something very important to their present and future, something very important to our democracy, our life as dignified citizens and very important to our history as a civilized society in this digital era, when there are millions of witnesses commenting about the right and wrong, the injustice and justice, the hipocrisy and the truth, the wise answer and the stupid answer, the courageous and the coward, the solidarity and the selfish indifference. And because millions interconnect with each other every day, we are being judged all the time, we could become famous without knowing about it. Because this, we have our responbility increased about the protection of our dignity, our justice, our rights while honest citizens, because, for example, a serious human rights violation happens, if there is justice for the victims, more justice could spread, but if not, a precedent of injustice could do more victims and in the end only sorrow and fear will exist.

Reinventing Government and Democracy for the Digital Age

           This post is a summary of two reports. The first was published with the title above in 2004 at http://canadiangovernmentexecutive.ca/reinventing-government-and-democracy-for-the-digital-age/. The second was published in 2013 https://www.utwente.nl/bms/vandijk/research/itv/itv_plaatje/Digital%20Democracy-%20Vision%20and%20Reality.pdf

           The push for government cutbacks is running up against growing public expectations about what government should be and do. They should offer better services, healthcare, safety and provide stability for our troubled economies. So while cost-control measures may be necessary they are clearly insufficient. We can no longer tinker with government, we need to reinvent it. Even though it is 21st century, most government still reflect industrial-age organizational thinking, based on the same command-and- control model as industrial-age enterprises. These bureaucracies operated like individual "stovepipes" with information only flowing vertically and rarely between departments. During the last forty years, governments, like corporations, applied computers to their work. The result is that old procedures, processes and organizational forms were just encoded in software. This is not sustainable. Governments face a reality in which they are more and more dependent for authority on a network of powers and counter-influences of which they are just a part. The first-wave of digitally-enabled "e-government" strategies delivered some important benefits. It made government information and services more accessible to citizens while creating admnistrative efficiencies. But too many of these initiatives simply focused on automating existing processes and moving existing government services online. It is the next wave of innovation that presents an historic occasion to fundamentally redesign how government operates, how and what the public sector provides, and ultimately, how governments interact and engage with their citizens. This second wave of innovation are beginning to appear in cities around the world. Knowledge, information, talent and energy are being moved, shaped and channeled in brand new ways, inside and outside of the boundaries of government. A growing number of governments understand the need to distribute power broadly and leverage innovation, knowledge and value from the civil society and private sector. There is a new kind of public sector organization emerging: open government. This is government that co-innovates with everyone, harnesses the power of mass collaboration, and behaves not as an isolated department, but as something new: a truly integrated organization. Thanks to the internet, government is becoming a stronger part of the social ecosystem that binds individuals, communities and businesses, not by absorbing new responsibilities or building additional layers of bureaucracy, but through its willingness to open up formerly closed processes to broader input and innovation. In other words, government becomes a platform for the creation of public value and social innovation. It provides resources, set rules and mediates disputes, but allows citizens, NGOs and the private sector to do most of the heavy lifting. We need to reinvent e-government must take place within the context of a new vision for democracy. In Western countries a growing number of citizens can not be bothered to vote. Many do not care who is power, since they feel the end result will be more of the same. they question the legitimacy of public insitutions. Opposition parties champion a more 'participatory democracy,' but it rarely happens. What we end up with is what I call 'broadcast democracy.' Citizens listen to speeches, debates, and television ads. They vote. But when it comes to having input into policy and real decision, they are relegated to the sidelines. The first era of democracy was once appropriate because public policy issues were simple and evolved slowly. The public did not have the education, time, resources or communication tools to participate more fully. This is no longer the case. The policy advisers on the government payroll can barely keep pace with defining the problems, let alone craft the solutions. Today, information networks can enable organizations to tap the insights of large numbers of people to arrive at decisions and outcomes that are could be superior to those presided by individuals and small groups of advisers. The second era of democracy requires governments to create opportunities for sustained dialogue between voters and public officials. We need ways to allow citizens to contribte ideas to the decision-making process. When citizens becomes active, good things can happen. We all learn from each other. Initiatives get catalyzed. Public office holders need to embrace integrity, which is basically about doing the right thing. Politicians know that negative advertising is toxic to democracy, poisons reasoned political debate and dumbs down the discussion. We also need fuller transparency. Everything should be done in the light of day. Sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the internet is the perfect vehicle to achieve this. Post online all government activities and financial transactions. Municipal corruption in Quebec would have been thwarted if Quebec citizens could have compared the cost of construction contracts with similar work in Toronto or Vancouver. To restore democracy requires stronger, more open institutions, active citizenship and a culture of public discourse and participation. This will change the nature of democracy and the relationship between citizens and the state for the better.

                With the arrival of PCs and the internet on a massive scale in the 1990s these media immediately appealed to the imagination of future scientists and the early adopters of these media. The effects of digital democracy were often framed in the perspective of a democratic revolution in politics and public governance. They were also seen as instruments that only by sing them would overturn institutional politics and modes of policy making. This is the assumption that a medium such as the internet is democratic in itself. Opposed to these utopian visions of digital democracy, some scientists and politicians defend dystopian views considering these visions to be a threat to democracy as we konw it. Others have defended 'syntopian' views of diigital democracy, highlighting both opportunities and risks. A closer analysis of the calls for digital democracy reveals that in fact different views of democracy are behind these calls. It is very important to make these views evident from the start. Six views of democracy can be distinguished in two dimensions: 1) Government-centric view - The classical Western view on democracy is legalist democracy. In this view, the lack of information gathered and distributed by the state is the most important problem to be solved with the aid of digital media. Digital media should be used for information campaigns, information retrieval by citizens and information gathering among citizens. The second conception of democracy in the government-centric dimension is called competitive democracy. It is mainly supported in countries with a two-party system. According to this view, parties and leaders compete for the support of the ellectorate. This rather elitist view of democracy emphasizes representation decision-making by leaders. Digital media are foremost used for information and election campaigns. 2) Citizen-centric view - Four other view of democracy have a different strategic orientation. Supporters of these views aim for a socialization of politics. This implies a more prominent role for social organizations and individuals. The assumption is that internet will enable them to have an influence on politics and even to bypass institutional politics or replace it with their own political relations. Here the most radical view is plebiscitary democracy. According to this view, political decisions have to be made through plebiscites. This implies a preference for direct democracy. Another alternative view is pluralist democracy. In this view, opinion formation within and between social organizations is emphasized. It is a combination of direct democracy and representative democracy. Digital media offer numerous opportunities for pluralism in debates.  So-called deliberative democracy also belongs to this view. It emphasizes discourse in free and open debates. The fifth view is participatory democracy. Its supporters promote a socialization of politics, encouraging active citizenship. The emphasis lies on the broadest possible opinion formation on a combination of direct and representative democracy. If the digital media are to play a positive role in enabling these instruments, access for all is vital. The last view has appeared as a dominant model among the pioneers of the internet. The libertarian democracy emphasizes on autonomous politics by citizens using computers networks and in this way bypassing institutional politics. eParticipation is most used in the first phases of the policy process: agenda setting and policy preparation. Policy evaluation is a second area, mostly visited on the initiative of citizens. At the end of the 1990s many governments were experimenting with online consultations that were disappointing in terms of participation. Now ePetitions, eVoting and eComplaints are more popular than the online consultations and official online discussions of those days. These applications of eParticipation might be popular, but this does not mean that everybody is able to use them. They require a number of digital skills added to the traditional skills of citizenship. These skills are: 1) operational computers skills. 2) skills for searching information on the web. 3) strategic skills for using internet applications. However, the decisive touchstone of eParticipation is the influence on political decisions. Few decisions of government, representatives and civil servants have changed on account of the input of citizens in eParticipation. Few decision makers are prepared to accept the direct inroad of eParticipation on their decisions. Therefore, it is no surprise that governments and public administrations have problems with the incorporation of the initiatives and results of eParticipation in their operations and models of governance. So, in terms of democracy the sober conclusion is that "most administrations do not yet have mechanisms and capacities in place to cope with a significant increase in participation."

           

Connecting Institutions and Citizens in the Digital Age

                This post is a summary of the report published in the final of the World Forum for Democracy in November 2013 at http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/cultureheritage/news/wfd/2013report_en.pdf

              Global trends point to a worldwide decline in the level of trust in democratic systems. Voter turnout rates and party membership are falling across the world. What we are witnessing is not only political apathy but a sense of betrayal felt by ordinary citizens towards their leaders. The World Forum for Democracy reviewed the potential of Internet-based democracy applications to restore citizens' trust, making government more open and transparent and to increase motivation for political participation by shifting power from organisations (parties, NGOs, trade unions, traditional media) to individuals. The internet makes possible for ordinary citizens to voice their concerns and express their vision for society through content sharing on social media. It also enables individuals to mobilise support and resources for various causes and makes activism safer. The interactive nature of the internet stimulates citizens-driven solution journalism to promote and harness new ideas and solutions emerging outside institutional channels and enables deliberation on a large scale of shared positions on complex issues. While the balance of power still remains within institutions, their functioning is to an ever greater extent subject to scrutiny, influence and input from citizens empowered through e-participation tools. However, tech developments in the fields of democracy raise a number of concerns: Liquid democracy needs to be framed by a common understanding of democracy in general, for example about which subjects should be decided by public referendums and which areas should be reserved to representative institutions. The increased the effectiveness of e-petitions systems requires a formal response from the public authority or to develop public e-petitions systems. The engagement of elected representatives with citizens is motivated by elections and rarely lasts throughout the political cycle, this failing to restore the eroded trust in elected institutions. Political parties will not cease to exist because of liquid democracy, rather they will have to reinvent themselves. They need to become more flexible, less hierarchical and more open to input on policy proposals from members and society at large. Democracy is work in progress, as a system of governance it need to continuously evolve and improve to keep up with a world that is changing faster than ever before, liquid democracy and e-participation are a part of this evolution. The interplay between digital participation and real-life participation is essential. Tech is not sufficient to enable real impact of citizens' voices, even in the digital age. Political actors and institutions need to stimulate greater participation of citizens in more classical forms of political life. Mary Kaldor, professor at the London School of Economics, stated that social life is currently in the midst of a profound transition. As governng institutions fail to adapt to these profound changes, there is a need to rethink democracy, in particular in terms of the digital age. She distinguished between formal and substantive democracy. The former describes objective values of democracy such as the rule of law, freedom of speech, or civil society. Whereas the latter refers to subjective values, as for example the societal condition, the "habits of the hearts" and the ability to influence political decision-making. There is a global increase in formal democracy which corresponds to the higher level of interconnectivity among states. However, formal democracy does not correlate with substantive democracy. This create a democratic gap. It doesn't matter so much how we use the internet but what we use it for. Professor Kandor concluded by depicting two scenarios. In a dystopia, the internet is used for mass surveilance, to control people, to maintain market discipline, and to increase authoritarianism. In a utopian world, the internet offers greater accountability and increases citizen participation. Bill Gates predicted that the digital age will change representative democracy. The way politicians act has also changed: they need to react instantly and be more responsive. Moreover, the rise of e-petitions is transforming the relation between government and citizen. Robert Walter, chairperson of the European Democrat Group of the Council of Europe. recognised that there is a crisis of confidence and that representatives need to improve the way they engage in order to strengthen transparency. Online consultation is giving people an excellent way to participate in legislation-procedures and offers a platform to introduce new topics. The political dialogue created on e-petition platform is a huge step forward in the relation between officials and citizens. However, as the majority of people is not in the position to fine-tune the details of policy-making, the need for solid parliamentary debate remains. Tools of liquid democracy could also reduce the feeling of alienation from politics, which many citizens share, by improving the flow of communication as well as the substance of debate between citizens and their representatives. Open government initiatives, often referred to as e-government, e-parliament or democracy 2.0, aim to establish the link between citizens and officials by increasing transparency and collaboration. They create spaces for citizens to share their vision for society and debate policy choices or to oversee the integrity of democratic insitutions and the quality of public services. Several conditions for the successful implementation of e-democracy project need to be in place. First of all, the existence of political will. The will should extend to the actual reform of local government. In this relation, e-democracy is a good way to test the public opinion and gain the support of citizens, therefore it should not only be applied during election perioods. the aims of the project have to be clear and correspond to citizens' concerns. Another important key for success is accessibility, in order for people feel encouraged to participate, it is useful to make the work behind the project visible and understandable for them. Something to be careful about is ensuring the representativeness of the debate. Readily available access to the internet is a pre-condition for e-participation, but not a sufficient condition, people need to be motivated by guarantees that their participation will make a difference in policy and practice. Direct democracy can be, under certain conditions, a way of dealing with the citizen's disengagement from representative politics. A range of other ways of involving citizens in governance has emerged, fuelled by web and social media: participatory budgeting and crowdfunding, for example, give community members a voice in the fiscal decision-making processes and invite them to deliberate on the local authorities' financial decisions. Are these phenomena confined to a few pioneering cities or are they heralding a shift towards participatory democracy? Thanks to e-participation platforms run by local authorities and NGOs, citizens have more opportunities to participate in the decision-making and improve governance at local level. What are the lessons learnt and the obstacle to such approaches? What kind of platform would be the best to improve citizen participation at local level? E-government is supposed to improve the quality of government by providing public information and services online but is often conceived in a top-down way with little scope for citizen input and influence. Online tools now make it possible for citizzens and services users to keep service providers in check by using collective intelligence and public presssure. Education for democratic citizenship and through active participation from an early age is a key issue for sustainable democracy. New technologies can facilitate this, even in countries with autocratic regimes, democratic online technologies give people opportunities for learning skills of democracy, they would not have offline considering the repressive political system. There must be consideration of the relationship between the state and the individuals as simultaneously free and social beings in a digitally literate society, moving away from emphasis on control of digital lives and instead promoting the values of respect and fairness in the online domain. There must be investment in research and development of innovative forms of democracy. This innovation must be conscientious in promoting equal empowerment of all citizens. And it must be willing to truly think outside the box, challenging ingrained conceptions of political parties and electoral processes. developing new democratic models replace the principle of competition with the principle of cooperation. Governments need to be more assessable, responsive and accountable. They need to respect citizens' rights both online and offline. The Snowden case has shown that citizens believe strongly in the rights of privacy and protection of data. The internet should be used to strengthen communication and partnership between officials and citizens. New technologies can help to revitalise democracy which should remain the only system of government for nations.

The Relevance of Political Science

            This post is a summary of four articles. The first with the title above was published at http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/book-review-the-relevance-of-political-science/. The second was published at https://www.reference.com/world-view/importance-studying-political-science-eaedb9432d357260. The third was published at http://political-science.williams.edu/. The fourth was published at https://blog.udemy.com/importance-of-political-science/

           A new collection engages directly with how political science can achieve wider relevance as a discipline. Matt Wood finds the book The Relevance of Political Science a must read for any scholar interested in the impact debate and he welcomes a return to the more social constructivist ideas of impact through teaching and learning. But there is a risk this relevance debate descends into a buzzfeed world of tips. More attention could be spent justifying to society why the theoretical and conceptual work political scientists already do is valuable in any democratic society. According to Stoker, Peters and Pierre in their new edited collection, The Relevance of political Science, quite a lot there is to be said about this 'relevance'. For them, "the key agenda is how best to understand the obstacles that need to be resolved in achieving relevance and the potential for relevance that could thereby be realised". But the key is how to make that relevance less rhetorical and more of an empirical reality. This book helps to highlight the range of answers to the 'how?' question, particularly the relevance of teaching, but could go further in stressing the importance of conceptual and theoretical reflection about politics. The book begins with the core of the problem: How can political scientists, in all their theorical, conceptual and empirical diversity, achieve the perception that they are 'relevant'? The answer is a strongly pluralistic discipline, with a diversity of approaches to relevance. Many recently minted approaches to political science that reject the scientific label often do so for the reason they are criticised, the issue of relevance. Their aim is hence nothing less than putting the 'political' back into political science. "Teaching students to pose questions about social construction, is a especially powerful way to help them become critical thinkers. Whether or not constructivists hold a philosophy of science that gives them a claim to specialist knowledge, they can all teach the broad lesson of posing constructivists questions", said, Craig Parsons. The route to relevance through teaching is perhaps the most traditional concept of relevance. Indeed, if we view impact this way, then arguably the 'alternative' approaches to political science. But in reflecting on the book I want to know why the activities I do as a political scientist genuinely matter to society. in my own work, I am interested in conceptual formulation about understanding and defining concepts in a way that makes them clearer and enables academic work to proceed with rigour and clarity. This book stresses the importance of 'real world problems' driving research. But, which forms of political science research do not address 'problems' in the 'real world'? or rather, are there any researchers out there who principle could not somehow justify their research by resort to an important 'problem', if pushed? The real challenge is to justify why does society actually need theoretically, conceptually and methodologically knowledge about politics rather than simply timely and helpful evidence about what works, from political scientists readily provide? This might seem a daunting question, but it is easily answered. Concepts are critical to the functioning and evolution of social science. Clarity of thought, intellectual willingness to define, delimit and defend one's understanding of a term, or a theory, is a good thing in a democratic society that wants to solve complex problems. We have the unique position of being able to reflect critically on how society understand concepts, theories and empirical data relevant to democratic choices and actions. If we do not offer this reflective capacity by trying to improve how concepts are understood, then we run the risk of merely being in competition with so many other retailers, governments bodies and NGOs who want to brand and market concepts. So, this book is a must read for any scholar interested in the disciplinary debate on relevance. It is crucial intervention to move the relevance debate from 'why' question to the 'how' question of relevance. In doing so, however, this book also distracting from the essentially political project of justifying to society at large why the work we already do has value, because it is intimately valuable in any democratic society that value a deep understanding of the problems society faces.                                            Studying political science is not only useful for employment in governmental or local administration jobs, but for life as well. Studying political science can deepen understanding and knowledge of the way the world works. Political theory is an important basis of humanistic studies, and it has been a concern of intellectuals since the times of Aristotle. Studying political science can prepare one for various careers that require highly developed skills in both analysis and communication. Also, studying political science helps build experience working with diverse communities to accomplish specific goals. It is also requires reading relevant literature and expressing views through writing, these activities help to develop research in critical thinking. Reading through such literature also helps to develop research and analytical skills that are useful to all professions. Studying political science develops the skills of conclusions and making decisions by synthesizing different sets of data. Additionally, it helps the individual to understand and become involved in national and international politics in a more comprehensive way than merely voting in an election.                                     As a social science, political science focuses on group power, he 'how' and 'why' of collective decision-making. Hence it leads us to consider the ethics of power, which in turn involves conceptions of community, identity, justice and citizenship. Under the banner of political science we gather the study of democracy, war, law, rights, wealth, and authority, as well as the institutions that shape and secure them. Power may be used wisely or foolishly, rightly or cruelly, but it is always there. The contests over power and the values that should animate it give politics its drama and pathos. Naturally, then, the effort to understand politics aims not only to describe and explain, but also to improve collective life.

               We, ordinary citizens may know and learn about our political rights and privileges from a given form of government that includes the political structure and processes of state. Without this knowledge we would not know which rights we have and more importantly the battles that were fought in order to award us these rights. As you can see, the study of Political Science is not only useful, it is valuable. Political Science deals with theory and practice of politics, as well as the analysis of political systems, behavior and culture. Economics, Law, Sociology, History, Anthropology are all pieces of the political puzzle. In order for our leaders to make the best possible decisions they must be aware of all developments in each of these areas. You have heard the saying 'Power to the people' before. Well, have you ever stopped to think of how people gain their power? Through knowledge! Share your knowledge with the people  and give them the power to make informed decisions on subjects that may directly or indirectly have an impact on them. The study of political science is especially important to our success as a democracy. People who are informed of their rights and duties are more aware and vigilant. A aware society is one that is more likely to prevent or speak out against things that are unjust. We have to look out for one another, our rights, our freedoms in order for democracy to work.