True Democracy Can Only Be Achieved Through Blockchain
An argument for Blockchain as the ultimate vessel of Democracy.
Democracy: from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía): dēmos (people) and kratos (rule).
Democracy: “A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives”.
We live and breathe democracy.
But the oxygen has been slowly evaporating; our lungs fight for it, but there’s fewer and fewer of it with every consecutive, collective sigh at things not being as they should be.
As they could be.
Follow me in this exercise as I try to devise a system where democracy is upheld by transparency and public decision-making. And if you think I’ve strayed off the beaten path, say it. Share it.
Comment it.
Respectfully fight me for it.
Here we go.
In Essence
As technology develops, there’s no reason to keep government systems operating at a modern equivalent to the Stone Age - particularly in richer economies.
The Blockchain enables trustless, open, transparent systems of government, bringing a new age of accountability.
A new age of accountability brings with it a clearer connection between the delegation of power and its effects, increasing the willingness of citizens to participate.
Increased participation brings with it a more powerful, fairer and encompassing Democracy.
Why Blockchain is a Champion of Democracy
Our argument starts here, today, where in all examples of modern democracies, the democratic process works by delegation: the many vote so that a select few can govern.
It’s rare that the whole population is the government.
So rare it’s never happened.
The general idea of delegation - or the idealized idea - is that the people comprising this centralized group are somehow more competent to steer the boat towards better shores. That they’re the best of us; the ones that have the ability to shoulder the responsibility for leading a nation.
I’ll cede the point that perhaps what I’m describing rings closer to a technocracity rather than a democracy — but isn’t that the ideal? If we’re passing on the power to decide to others, wouldn’t we prefer them to be people who have our best interests in mind, and who will try to provide for them in the most unbiased, humane, and competent way possible?
Of course, delegation can sometimes be degraded towards responsibility avoidance — or mere sloth. One need only look at abstention rates to see that we’re dealing with one of four elements (or a combination of them):
1 - People abstain because it represents disbelief in the system. It doesn’t. Abstaining is the same as leaving the power to decide in the hands of those who do vote, thus leaving our fate in their hands. You’re not part of the decision, so the decision is being made for you.
2 - People don’t have the will to vote in a system that they’ve lost faith in. The more things change, the more they stay the same. So why bother? Again this leaves the power in the hands of those who do vote. And as we’ve seen with the rise of radicalism and far-right movements, fervor is a weapon that needs to be tempered with the votes of the rational and humane.
3 - People simply don’t care. They either have things they consider more important to do, or they believe the system will remain minimally balanced forever, or that others will care for them. It may also emerge from privilege and comfort: being born in a democracy has reduced the impact of it actually being there in the first place.
4 - People are so busy scraping by that they simply have other priorities. If a person is constantly struggling to make ends meet, their development is hamstrung. If you can’t guarantee there’s food on the table for you and your children, can you really devote time to your or their education? To vote? The centre of power is so far away from your reality that you can’t afford to worry about it.
I don’t want to get political here; but the speed of the group is dictated by the speed of its slowest member.
When we look at it this way, none of these reasons are satisfactory.
Are they?
And ultimately, all of them are dangerous.
None of these elements bring about change, nor do they help correct the system’s deficiencies. Some of them compound the deficiencies.
Yet all of them happen for one principal reason: the lack of clarity between an action (voting) and its outcome (a perceivable improvement in living conditions).
My argument is that this happens because of delegation - and centralization - when there isn’t a system that allows for full transparency.
When things aren’t done in the open; when the decision-making process is a black box to which only a few have access; that’s when the space for manipulating the system arises.
If we want to understand something - to change something - we must first become aware of it.
We must bring it to light.
But… Why is there a black box at all? Why do we delegate? In other words, why do we centralize?
Centralization in government happens mostly because it brings about improvements in areas such as speed (less people have to agree, so it’s theoretically easier to reach an agreement - or at least a majority); integration (a centralized system implies a hierarchy and hierarchies facilitate action by propagating decisions and their corresponding actions through all levels of a clearly defined structure); and resource allocation* (a centralized system is theoretically able to see all available information and resources, identify the most pressing concerns, and rationally and humanly allocate assets towards solving said issues).
* This last one was a big thing in Communism. We know how that worked out, but I’d like to explore it in more detail in a Future Issue™. Hint: it failed because it was executed by humans.
There are good reasons for centralization. But there’s also a cost. A cost that has been mounting as politicians and organizations get older, as their dependencies get more and more convoluted, as politics evolves into a career in the exercise of power instead of being a mission for the benefit of all.
Delegation of decision-making power, as we’ve seen time and again, gives way to traffic of influences; corruption; gross misallocation of resources; back-stabbing; nepotism and despotism; and a cadre of other issues.
The “best among us” have proven time and again that they’re not deserving of the centralization of power.
Of our trust.
And while for eons centralization may have been the most efficient way - the only way - of doing things, and to bring all decisions to public scrutiny was nigh impossible, technological advancement has brought us towards an inflection point.
What we need is decentralization.
What we need is an open democratic system that’s trustless, truly participative, and transparent.
What we need is blockchain.
What is blockchain?
Blockchain can be understood as an open ledger - a book where transactions, messages, content and thoughts can be written in plain sight.
A blockchain is decentralized, meaning that copies of it are distributed across a network, and there’s a guarantee that all copies of the ledger are identical.
A blockchain is public, meaning that anyone, anywhere, can access or own a copy of it and can personally inspect its contents.
A blockchain is immutable, uncensorable history: every page that’s added is written there forever. Previous pages are locked, and their ordering can’t be changed - information is stored in blocks, like a mosquito preserved in ambar.
A blockchain is transparent. The participants in it are clear and uniquely identifiable, and a transaction can be followed through to its source.
To better understand blockchain, I suggest watching these two YouTube videos: Nick Szabo x Tim Ferriss and Silvio Micali x Lex Fridman.
Interfacing with a blockchain only requires Internet access. A smartphone (7.27 billion sold in the last four years) makes it easier, more convenient and more personal, but public-use computers would do just as well.
Now, imagine a system of human ingenuity such as this:
The Government rests atop a public blockchain;
This blockchain is distributed and decentralized; every national citizen can download a copy of it by holding a “Citizen SBT” - a Soulbound Token that’s non-fungible, non-transferable, and which is automatically granted, for example, when the citizen reaches the required age to vote. This allows everyone in the population to be a stakeholder, taking part in the process of securing the blockchain. It’s revoked automatically at a person’s passing;
Every government action is performed in this public blockchain. Political nominations. Services budgeting and extraordinary expenses. Yearly state budgets. Public-private contracts. Acquisitions. Minutes for every governmental action. Reports on each Senate session. Government investments. Essentially, anything that has to do with the allocation of public funds, the entry of private funds, and the decision-making process. Everything you can think of: published in the blockchain. Certain elements - such as IRS records - would have to be encoded. Transparency doesn’t equal the end of privacy;
Unfortunately, we live in trying times. Not everything could be done in an open manner on the public blockchain - military and national security matters, for instance, would have to be cryptographically secure (with post-quantum security algorithms); done in a private governmental chain; or perhaps even off-chain. I’m unsure how to solve this, barring a humanity that’s actually focused on being human instead of waging wars. This would still give governments some leeway for shady businesses.
Because everything is published on-chain, government activities (save the exceptions) are clear; the allocation of public funds is transparent; legislative efforts, government official activity and public servant engagement are clear. A new age of government accountability is open;
Because the blockchain is open, every willing citizen can scrutinize it. Public institutions, private institutions, media - all could launch audits on government activity. The number of eyes looking at the same information as the government explodes; the more eyes, the more opportunities for proper allocation of resources emerge. The more eyes on more information, the less obfuscation is possible;
Greater government transparency means a clearer link between elections and their outcomes; between delegation of power and its results; between votes of trust and the handling of that trust;
Greater trust is thus achieved through a trustless mechanism (blockchain); greater scrutiny and greater clarity would result in more citizens feeling that their vote has an effect; that their actions amongst the whole are more important to the whole. This could result in greater number of votes, more informed votes, lesser abstention, and would also remove the teeth on some partisan arguments that take advantage of lack of clarity in the government’s actions. US vs THEM becomes harder to support when everyone can see the same thing;
The voting itself could - and should - happen in the blockchain. Each citizen with a Soulbound Token would use it to electronically cast its vote when the time comes;
The voting process must be private, and the vote itself must be secret. As such, when a citizen sends a transaction with its vote, this transaction is encrypted; a smart contract verifies the validity of the token, looks at which party the vote is going for, and updates the total number of votes;
Because this is done in blockchain, and electronically managed, there is no miscount of votes; no waste of human time and resources as it happens in an in-person system; no mail-in votes; no long queues in pandemic times or other times, which might lead people to avoid voting; the ill and the old would have better, safer, more convenient ways to cast their ballot; no reversal of the voting count. When it’s stored on-chain, it’s there forever;
Because the voting process is dematerialized; happens at the speed of the blockchain; and is less expensive; there is no reason for more matters not to be open to referendum. Citizens could submit requests for a referendum on a given issue; it would be publicly visible how much support for this referendum there is; there would be no way for the government to obfuscate or silence the public’s desire for it (by not properly counting, or pocket vetoing issues); the public would feel and see that it’s voice is heard;
Profit.
Closing Thoughts
There are some caveats, of course.
Again, blockchain needs to mature and speed-up. This system isn’t workable today, but it will be at some point in the future.
A minimally technologically educated population and Internet access are a must. But the people who can travel from rural areas to population centres in order to cast their ballot can do the same by going to a government-installed, digital voting centre.
As the population is renewed, the number of people that handle technology as second-nature will only increase. Any such system must respect that some people can’t be required to interface with technology; a hybrid system would be a necessity at first.
Lastly, I’d like to finish this argument by saying that delegation and centralization of power do seem to be required. Some people have to be burdened with the responsibility of power and decision-making so that others can be freed from it to do what they do - and what they want to do.
The entire population can’t be required to sign-off on every small movement of its government. A hierarchical, authoritative structure is still required so that the system moves at a certain amount of speed.
We don’t want to have referendums on every issue. The number of referendums must be manageable so that people can educate themselves on the issue, and reach a pondered conclusion. Freedom of choice and of participation can be overwhelming.
But it seems to me that greater transparency and accountability would solve many of the ongoing issues regarding the perception (and reality) of politics and power structures.
What do you think?
That’s all for this week, folks. Take care.
If you enjoyed this content, consider subscribing to The Human Ingenuity Feed.
I’ll publish one more essay open to all subscribers (bringing the count to three). Afterwards, I’ll gradually start reducing the number of free essays.
First, I’ll publish one essay that’s only available to paid subscribers out of every three I publish.
After some time, the ratio will change to one essay for paid subscribers out of each two.
And remember: keep being curious, keep thinking - but most of all, keep being human.
Best,
Francisco
If people don't bother to read a government program, why would it be otherwise towards a blockchain?