Page 67 is where is gets good, it’s titled National and Global. Here, he discusses how governments need to adapt to the fourth industrial revolution.
As with the theme of everything we are doing or want to do is positive, Klaus tells us on page 68:
“Technology will increasingly enable citizens, providing a new way to voice their opinions, coordinate their efforts and possibly circumvent government supervision.”
"… the opposite might just as well be true, with new surveillance technologies giving rise to the all-too-powerful public authorities.”
So he at least sees the possibility of over-reaching authority.
In many ways, we are living in a Technocratic Era.
Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote about this in the 70s, his book is called Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era. Many of the themes in that seem to parallel those in this book as well. In fact, in that book Zbigniew Brzezinski states on page 97:
“Another threat, less overt but no less basic, confronts liberal democracy. More directly linked to the impact of technology, it involves the gradual appearance of a more controlled and directed society. Such a society would be dominated by an elite whose claim to political power would rest on allegedly superior scientific know how. Unhindered by the restraints of traditional liberal values, this elite would not hesitate to achieve its political ends by using the latest modern techniques for influencing public behavior and keeping society under close surveillance and control. Under such circumstances, the scientific and technological momentum of the country would not be reversed but would actually feed on the situation it exploits.”
Seems like some similar ground has been covered, but that isn’t the really curious thing about these pages.
In the Communist Manifesto, Engels states in a footnote, on page 27
“The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property. But, in doing this, it abolishes itself as proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, abolishes also the State as State.” The State, he wrote, “dies out,” and “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production.”
Klaus sees all of this technology will somehow cause, on page 68:
“governments in their current form, will be forced to change as their central role of conducting policy increasingly diminishes due to growing levels of competition and the redistribution and decentralization of power that new technologies make possible.”
Don’t you find that odd?
Since when would a government have competition?
If governments aren’t creating policy, who is? He tells us, on page 69, that:
“Increasingly, governments will be seen as public-service centers that are evaluated on their abilities to deliver the expanded service in the most efficient and individualized ways.”
Seems kind of administrative doesn't it?
I get the impression that somewhere, somehow, a policy is created, then provided to a government who then provides the service in some form or fashion.
This completely decouples the policy from its implementation.
What then is the purpose behind an elected official if he has no power to create policy but only blindly follow it?
I don’t have a problem with more efficient services, but the problem isn’t the services or the servicing, the problem is the creation of the policy.
The mechanics of how that policy will be created are not noted anywhere.
Are elected public officials even in this process?
Klaus tells us:
“Many of the technological advances we currently see are not properly accounted for in the current regulatory framework and might even disrupt the social contract that governments have established with their citizens.”(70)
Yes, this is true, but in my mind that doesn’t necessitate a complete re-vamping of the way the government works.
You would think, in a properly functioning government, people would be ahead of the curve and start having discussions about some of these things before they are created and ready to be given to the world, but that’s just me.
Again, Klaus says something which is very strange,
“… the ability of government to adapt that will determine their survival. If they embrace a world of exponentially disruptive change, and if they subject their structures to the levels of transparency and efficiency that can help them maintain their competitive edge, they will endure. In doing so, however, they will be completely transformed into a much leaner and more efficient power cells, all with an environment of new and competing power structures.”(69)
Survival? In our current understanding, I guess he means a government’s ability to continue to be voted in, but what does he mean by competitive edge?
Who is the government competing with?
It can’t be a parallel government, can it?
If it is, how would that even work, or is he just talking about a party’s ability, as I’ve said, to stay voted in?
We have to remember the bureaucracy of the government is there to ensure it runs.
It maintains the mechanics of how government operates, so I’m not sure I understand what Klaus is getting at here.
Another thing he mentions, which on its face doesn’t seem like a good idea, is agile governance.
“Agile governance means that regulators must find ways to adapt continuously to a new, fast-changing environments by reinventing themselves to understand better what they are regulating. To do so, government and regulatory agencies need to closely collaborate with business and civil society to shape the necessary global, regional, and industrial transformations.” (70)
Can we really expect anyone to make good rational decisions in the blink of an eye?
But the decision is only part of the problem.
Yes, I think everyone would agree that better understanding of something in order to regulate it is a good thing, but quick and better understanding aren’t on the same side.
You need information and time in order to read, digest, and understand it. Only then can you make a “better decision”.
Agile, in this context to me means, knee-jerk reactions and in its worst case arbitrary.
What society does Klaus envision where regulators need to be ever ready to create a policy for something, or someone, or somewhere?
How fast changing does he expect things to be?
It would seem to me, given the gravity of some technologies mentioned, long and deep thought needs to be given before providing any kind of governance around it, and while that is taking place, that technology is put on hold.
To be fair, Klaus points this out later on, but it still makes little sense.
You can’t be agile and slow and plodding at the same time.
He says we need to create
“a regulatory and legislative ecosystem that can produce more resilient frameworks.” (70).
I don’t think anyone would have a problem with that, but is this at the national or international level? I would think it would be international since WEF is an international organization.
It would seem then that this international regulatory and legislative ecosystem somehow stands above national governments.
The point of what they offer is moot if every national government decides for themselves whether a specific policy has merit, but in the way it’s worded, am I to assume that governments MUST implement them?
If yes, then Engels was right, your national government would just administrate, which means your vote is essentially meaningless because everything of substance is driven centrally, of which you and your “elected representatives” have no control.
The current way governments and laws work it seems they provide a boundary, i.e. things you can’t do are written down and things you can be left to the imagination.
Sure, that works for me and you too, probably.
Now imagine where this new ecosystem says “everything that is not explicitly allowed is forbidden”?
That puts a sinister twist on things, doesn’t it?
The question them becomes if that happens, you can’t do something unless you are expressly provided the “right” to do it, how will that be enforced?
Welcome to the blockchain, probably the most insidious technology ever created.