Shaping Consensus

Lately, I have been looking at elections around the world and wondering whether 20th century style democracy can survive into the 21st century.

Technology has developed exponentially, creating a new reality and challenging models of governance created in the past.

What worked then – one person one vote, multiple political parties, and the competition between different models of governance seem to have been rendered irrelevant due to the deep polarization that is affecting many societies today. 

Some may argue that representative democracy is alive and well in the Nordic countries, yet they face nascent radical right-wing movements. Many Eastern European countries are governed by right-wing populists, Latin America continues to teeter between 1960’s left-wing and right-wing populists who are destroying the economic and political fibers of those countries while Africa continues to be caught up in ideological and tribal conflicts that are absorbing an increasing number of countries on that continent. 

The neo-liberal model has not fared well in many countries since the free market cannot be counted on alone to address the inequities present in most societies while left and right-wing populist messages that harken back to a simpler yesterday fare no better in addressing the myriad complexities of today. Despite this, many are turning to these erstwhile messiahs for solutions for the challenges that they face.                                                                                      

It’s no wonder then that political leaders persist in advocating these models or variations thereof as they raise passion, are easier than thoughtful policy and basically are the lazy way to go.

Voters overall are not overly concerned with the complex dynamics of the global economy or of the impact that artificial intelligence and modern communications on human behavior and development despite the deep impact that they are already having on our societies. 

Political leaders are also not experts in technology and its long-term impact. They seem more concerned with reacting rather than being proactive in forming robust, forward thinking industrial and social policy. They seem more likely to lead by calling for consensus rather than by shaping consensus. 

The difference is fundamental.

Shaping consensus requires that leaders formulate a coherent vision of where they want to go in order to face current realities, to hopefully prepare society for the future and then to actively communicate to get majority support for this vision.

To seek consensus is like looking for the lowest common denominator with which a majority can agree.

This can tempt leaders to seek easy ways to oftentimes avoid the need to deal with the issues or by catering to the nostalgia and to provoke fears of a present day in which they feel uncomfortable. 

This is the siren call of the populist.

Shaping consensus involves thought, effort, conviction and an ability to communicate simply yet effectively. The challenge is to convince both leaders and voters to embrace and understand their role in implementing necessary changes to deal with the issues so that all can better adapt to new realities.

Politicians must devote more time to develop a thorough understanding of the impact of technological change in all sectors of society as well as its impact on the voter. They must seek to develop thoughtful, innovative legislation leveraging the technology to serve the public while inspiring confidence in a leadership that understands voter challenges and works to ensure that voter interests are being effectively addressed. 

Technology provides new and innovative ways of reaching people and shaping their views.

We need leaders capable of shaping consensus as they prioritize issues and address changes needed to current governance systems while engaging voters everywhere in a new dialogue to meet these challenges.

Finding these leaders who can shape consensus remains the main challenge of our time.

Edición: Laura Espejo