Technological Democracy: For the People?

Democracy has been the government of America for many years and its problems are

only beginning to be seen. Hazel Henderson’s essay, “Perfecting Democracy’s Tools,” suggests

that the world unite into one global democracy whose roots lie in technology (371). While

Henderson’s essay discusses the use of communication technology to connect the world

government, Mary Kaldor’s essay, “Beyond Militarism, Arms Races, and Arms Control,” states

how using technology to fight “casualty-free wars,” the type of war meant to defend innocent

victims of war, gives the people of a nation a sense of protection (274). Though these two

authors show how uniting the world with technology can be a solution to national and global

issues, a third writer shows how these types of ideas create a false hope for people to hide

behind. Eric Schlosser’s essay, “Global Realization,” shows how industries spread

internationally and give people the sense that they are bettering their lives, when in fact they are

actually being hurt (503). This paper will argue that communication technologies make it easier

for people to send and receive information within a democracy; however, this simplistic idea of

communication does not account for the new problems that will arise when technology becomes

the main part of political workings. There are many ways to examine how a technological

democracy is more trouble than it is worth including casualty-free wars, false hope, media,

economy, globalization and interconnectedness.

The first idea for the use of technology is casualty-free wars. Kaldor describes casualty-

free wars as “this high-technology either directly to attack an enemy or to support a proxy…The

idea is that this high-tech warfare can be used against ‘rogue states’ sponsoring terrorists” (274).

This theory is meant to make people believe that this type of warfare will keep them safe because

the attacks will have specific targets with supposedly little risk of harm to civilians. People see

1
technology as completely beneficial in this instance, but fail to see how it can still hurt the

innocent. This is similar to the idea that a technological democracy is the risk free solution to

getting everyone a voice to become involved in politics. Henderson discusses how technology

can connect people to democracy when she writes,

We can redesign and adapt [these technologies] from elitist to populist purposes

(1) to help people understand more about their societies and the new threats and

opportunities in today’s global village; and (2) to collect and steer feedback and

informed consent or opposition back to all decision-making levels: community

groups; school boards; local, state, and national governments; and international

bodies (371).

She is showing how people will easily be able to become more involved in the decision

making of their country as well as the world. However, the issue with this is comparable

to computer hacking. Who is to say that nobody will try to change votes or opinions with

in this mass system of democracy? Altering people’s votes can be considered a casualty

of democracy. The way people’s views are changed by this idea of technological

democracy is one aspect of false hope.

False hope is a problem with all technology and has a very high impact on people’s

perspectives of the world. Kaldor shows how the idea of technology in war does not guarantee

safety when she writes

from the point of view of the victims, these wars are very real and not so different

from old wars. However precise the strikes, it is impossible to avoid ‘mistakes’ or

‘collateral damage.’ It does not make civilian casualties any more palatable to be

told they were not intended. Moreover, the destruction of physical infrastructure

2
 and the support for one side in the conflict, as in the case of proxies, results in

many more indirect casualties (275).

The general population is being given the false hope that there will be no casualties, but the

victims are actually able to see the deceit. Also, technology cannot change the consequences that

people will face from loss of homes and resources, but the people are too blinded by the promise

of safety to see this. People cannot see how difficult it is to set a global standard that will

encompass the ideas of every individual in the world. This is similar to how Henderson

describes globalization causing the creation of new parties to suit the varied positions of people

on the numerous issues in the world (374). This is false hope because it is impossible to create

parties that meet every belief of multiple people. People believe that technology will allow them

to give the government all of their ideas and have each demand met despite the truth. Just as

people view this use of technology as a way to have their requests fulfilled, they also view

technology as a way to make their dreams come true. Schlosser shows how technology takes

effect when people try to reach their dreams when he writes, “While Las Vegas portrays itself as

a free-wheeling, entrepreneurial town where anyone can come and strike it rich, life there is

more tightly regulated, controlled, and monitored by hidden cameras than just about anywhere

else in the United States,” which he later gives the phrase “a loss that feels like winning” (503).

This shows how people are so blinded by the hope of winning money that they cannot see how

casinos are actually taking their money. People cannot see that it has become so easy for

technology to work against them that it could cause more problems rather than solve them.

However, a major reason that people cannot see these consequences is because of the media.

Media has what can almost be called a control over people’s lives because of the

influence it holds. Kaldor discusses how different groups use the media to impose their beliefs

3
on populations (272). The reason these groups do this is to gain control and convince people to

do what is best for the group, even if it is not the best for the world. This idea can, in a sense, be

viewed as a way of creating global standards of how people think. Though Kaldor’s example is

used as a way of changing people’s ideas and beliefs, Schlosser shows how the media influences

people’s decisions when he writes about how McDonald’s uses advertising to tell people they

will get large quantities of food for little money (507). The media throws a sheet over the

nutritional facts of a McDonald’s hamburger. People begin to become blinded by the idea of

saving money that they cannot see the effect that the food will have on their health. If the media

can hide facts such as killing civilians or consequences of eating fast food, then they can

manipulate the way people view important political issues. Henderson discusses how the media

has been used in politics in the past to spread information and now allows large companies or

people to globally spread manipulative and bias information (377). It has become increasingly

difficult to decipher which information on television or on the radio is fact and which

information is seeking to attract people to their business or follow their beliefs. This shows that

there is always going to be a single group who seeks control as opposed to a democracy that is

truly run by the beliefs and ideas of individuals. The media is acting as a traffic officer to allow

some ideas to spread, and others to be stopped in their tracks. The idea that the voice of every

individual in the world can be heard and used in the way the world works is also not possible due

to economy.

The economy of different countries affects how much information the citizens in that

region are able to send and receive, and how much other people will actually listen to their ideas.

Schlosser discusses the construction of a McDonald’s restaurant following the destruction of

Plauen, a small Germany city that ended up in economic shambles after the town was destroyed

4
at the end of the Cold War. He also quotes an East German parliament member who “called for

an official ban on ‘McDonald’s and similar abnormal garbage-makers.’ McDonald’s, however,

would not be deterred…” (Schlosser, 497). This shows how people or industries, even those

with power, cannot always have their ideas make a difference. The technology, money, and

power that McDonald’s had at that time surpassed that of Plauen and was able to use it to void

the beliefs of the people. This idea can be applied to a global democracy in terms of the issues

that could arise. In an ideal democracy, as Henderson would describe, technology would be used

as the key system in relaying information to and from the people all over the globe (371).

However, she does not account for the poorer countries that would be unable to afford this new

technology. If every economy in the world was the same, or at least not deteriorated, this idea of

technology would be a more feasible solution, but this is not the case. It would be impossible to

set up communication technology all over the world unless wealthy and willing nations supplied

these economically unsound countries with the technology. However, this leads to the issue of

forcing ideas on these countries which is similar to the issues of globalization and

interconnectedness.

Technological globalization and interconnectedness, though they would unite the world,

creates the problem of spreading one nation’s ideals to others and creating bias. Schlosser shows

how globalization can change the ideals of a nation when he quotes Den Fujita, the man

responsible for bringing McDonald’s to Japan, in saying, “‘If we eat McDonald’s hamburgers

and potatoes for a thousand years…we will become taller, our skin will become white, and our

hair will be blonde’” (Schlosser, 499). Though not every person in Japan believed this, it still

caused those who wished to be more American to become susceptible to what McDonald’s was

trying to do. This shows how McDonald’s was using globalization as a way to influence Japan

5
without people creating too much commotion. Just as McDonald’s was spreading its ideals

globally, netforces were spreading their beliefs internationally as well. Kaldor describes how

netforces, “informal or privatized groups,” spread information and ideas through technology

when she writes, “Modern communications are important for the new networks both as a way of

organizing the network and as a form of mobilization. Constructions of the past are developed

and disseminated through radio, videos and television” (272). Technology is one of the ways

that groups are trying to spread their ideas to gain followers. This is a major part of the bias that

the world faces instead of allowing people to use their instinctive beliefs to make decisions. This

shows how these netforces are using technology, the very same device that Henderson believes

democracy should use, as a way to impose their beliefs on others. Henderson explains how there

is a challenge in how these technologies can be moderated so that the feedback is legitimate and

the communication that is spread is not bias (371). However, she does not go into much detail as

to how this control can occur. An issue that exists is the natural bias in people or groups that

causes the people who regulate the technology to transfer information in a way favorable to

themselves. This bias would begin to slowly change the views of individuals and create

problems similar to the ones we see without a global democracy.

Though Henderson believes that technology could create a global democracy in which

everyone could participate, Schlosser and Kaldor show how this idea creates new problems that

would have to be solved. Kaldor shows how technology is easily manipulated in the favor of the

ones who are using it. Schlosser provides examples to illustrate why people would have a

difficult time voicing their opinions, and then making those opinions heard. Henderson, though

she foresees some problems, fails to see the glitches that come with technology and how it can be

used by people, assuming it can be used at all. All of the difficulties that Kaldor and Schlosser

6
describe are ways that people would have difficulty using Henderson’s idea of democracy, and

these difficulties occur within the most important parts of how this democracy is meant to work.

A global democracy would be the ideal way for the world to work, but before that can happen

the loose ends in technology must be looked at from every angle and fixed.