A little local difficulty

If there is one thing that the internet has certainly done, it has reduced the cost of giving a damn.

During summer weekends in 70s London, a "demo"was a fairly common event. Protesters would be bussed in from around Britain to protest about.. well anything. Vietnam, pay and conditions, racism, fascism, nuclear confrontation - Piccadilly or Hyde Park would grind to a halt with slow walking banner holders, mothers with prams and flanking policemen. Londoners are quite used to the world's troubles (and bombs) being aired on its streets. It's what real cities are all about. By the evening, the television news would show a few seconds of protest - and then let the corresponding minister assure the country that Everything Was Alright.

To show support for those wronged abroad, many chose to follow letter writing campaigns via Amnesty International. Letters are a much more accurate form of communication than slogan shouting.

A lot of energy and thought was needed to make small, one way ripples of concern that could be denied in a moment. (I have no wish to stop anyone working with Amnesty International, their work is still vital.)

Compare and contrast with today. The Israelis Hasbara or propaganda machine realise that killing 300 Gazans over 48 hours might cause a few waves of concern in the West. Starting a war over Christmas is no longer enough to confuse 24 hour news coverage.

By using the popular social media service Twitter, the Israeli consulate held a "conference" and got the chance to see how the connected world's opinion sees their little conflict. They are sensible enough to realise that they cannot control the hosepipe of condemnation, but they can at least place their own objectives and viewpoints into the stream.

The definition of the "connected world" is now no more than the ability to read and write on a web site. It takes little time, but is visible to all, immediately. Letting everyone voice their opinion is not in itself a panacea, but from it flows more understanding of how others view the world. And it is much harder for those who have missed the zeitgeist to slip by unnoticed.

The losers of open debate are politicians who speak without first listening; for example David Milliband's initial statement was very anodyne even for a foreign secretary, as if mourning a death on Eastenders. Or take this example, from the start of an article by Seumas Milne:

Israel's decision to launch its devastating attack on Gaza on a Saturday was a "stroke of brilliance", the country's biggest selling paper Yediot Aharonot crowed: "the element of surprise increased the number of people who were killed". The daily Ma'ariv agreed: "We left them in shock and awe"

Put simply; when your finger is on the trigger you seek to cover your exploits in darkness, not light. Israeli forces are mainly just kids, many of whom are "Generation Y" social media junkies and they can see for themselves that preserving the safety of their homes is not best done by torching their neighbours.

Have a great 2009.

No more heroes

In a scene from Steven Soderbergh's first film about Che Guevara, we see the icon inspect a few potential recruits who have come from the nearest village to join up with the Cuban revolutionary army. He glances at the motley villagers, and immediately accepts those with their own weapons. Then he asks those who can't read and write to go home.

This selection method seems to confirm the view of Che as the romantic poster revolutionary cum poet. Later, he explains that those who cannot read are too easy to fool. He wasn't trying to gain control of Cuba by some type of common coup, he wanted complete revolutionary change. Nothing reversible.

Partly to avoid this calamity, most modern democratic styled nations use adversarial politics. A government is balanced by an opposition with, usually, opposite opinions. Except of course when they agree.

This system seems to work well when ideas are placed, like a football, between the two sides. After getting buffeted about a bit, the idea ends up either helping one side win or it gets rejected. If rejected, proposals can always be put through at a later date. Those on the losing side of the debate don't try to start a revolution - they just adapt their tactics for next time.

This leaves the public, like football fans, to watch and support one side or the other. So although we don't get to make any decisions, we get to cheer or boo and are entertained in the process.

We all know that this system only really supports two political parties, with independents or a third party as little more than a tasty pie to be consumed during half time. But we are getting just a bit bored of this sport.

While we are still all willing to go to the match, we are beginning to realise the sides are often just going through the motions. Because events happen at a scale or speed that can no longer fit into a 90 minute spectacle. While the sides kick the truth about on the pitch, those guys in the executive suites aren't even taking any notice. Maybe they already know the result - or couldn't care less?

And like the premiership, politicians don't really have deep rooted reasons for being on one side or another anymore. Indeed, most can quite happily argue for or against the same policy on demand - because being adversarial is their job. The right position trumps the right solution every time.

A revolution is one method to change an ineffective system - but something bloodless would be more comfortable. Either way, the current systems do need to be revamped to become more flexible in responding to circumstances. For instance, it is still controversial to not compose the main decision making body wholly with the members of the majority party - except in a national emergency. And we also know that by supporting both sides, anybody with sufficient money and influence can push any vaguely acceptable idea through.

In reality what needs to be done gets done outside of government purview - which just pisses everybody off. The much coveted ability to throw one party out for another one is a great solution to the national evils of a previous century. It doesn't help much today, when a single banker, or a lucky terrorist can change the world in a matter of minutes.