Without interpellation there is no possible innovation. Therefore, before we get into the search for the necessary innovationsit is essential to agree on the scope of the questioning in terms of the depth of the systemic changes that are to be provoked, in terms of timing with respect to the definition of the prospecting horizon and in terms of the diversity of agendas that will be put into action. tension.
Above all, because the innovations required by democracy in the 21st century they are not touch-upsbut they need such depth that they can prevent democracy from entering a state of bipolarity that ends up altering the affected social State of law.
If we wanted to contribute to a consolidated democracy as an ethical project that ensures a rule of law for a digital world, first of all, shouldn’t we define what are the innovations that must be introduced into a system that was anchored in a logic of representation, limiting democracies to electoral contests and reducing the citizen to the simple role of voter?
If it is true that many of the decisions with an institutional impact and on people’s lives are made from algorithms, shouldn’t frameworks of values and an institutional framework that frames them be defined? Which are the distortions and ethical disability of democracy that limit it and make it vulnerable so that it cannot guarantee the social state of law as a public good?
Regarding the economy, what needs to change in the development model to achieve inclusive and regenerative economic systems at the service of the planet and humanity? Is it necessary to set a ceiling so that the economic development model can guarantee profitability for companies and the generation of wealth in communities without violating planetary limits? What is the role of the state in economic development models when already 51 of the world’s top 100 economies are private corporations?
How does the economy guarantee human dignity in matters of health, food and equitable access to rights? How is development measured outside of indicators such as GDP, which does not record negative externalities or structural inequities? How is the logic of a profitable good for the investor changed by that of a useful good for humanity? How do you change the paradigm of success for the paradigm of care? How is the economy ethically framed to that technology is not applied from the logic of accumulation and knowledge is not monopolized in a few hands as it happens with money?
Being able to define the scope of the challenge will bring us closer to glimpse not only the innovations required in terms of systemic changesbut also the depth of the risks that we want to manage as a society, sizing the problems on which we are going to intervene, since they will be the ones that define the scale of innovations.
Systemic changes occur in two ways: 1) by exhaustion, that is, when all the options offered by the model are exhausted and innovation is required; then, from trial and error, one emerges that turns out well out of hundreds that fall by the wayside; 2) by the irruption of attractors and catalysts that derive in a new model that bursts and replace the existing.
In the current democratic model there is a peculiarity that requires a in-depth and urgent questioning. Although many of the options of the current model (social rule of law) appear exhausted, it is far from the stage of trial and error in which the model that can replace it should be generated. Under normal conditions, society should consume the time necessary for the new model to emerge from trial and error.
The problem is that technology and algorithms burst into crisis, putting the democratic model based on the social rule of law in crisis, in addition to changing the methods of seeking transformations, which went from trial and error to simulation models. In other words, variances (different variants within the same phenomenon) had not been exhausted when variety (different phenomena) burst in, and today we find a binary system in crisis and a democracy heading towards bipolarity.
While embryonic challenges to the democratic system and the economic development model advance scattered throughout the planet, we share some innovations in a way that can be considered to build the scenario of conditions to advance towards the fundamental innovations that democracy needs in the 21st century.
New meaning for democracy. Roberto Verganti directs the LeadinLab, the leadership labdesign and innovation of the School of Management of Politecnico di Milano, and from his academic vision gives us the first clue of what we should innovate.
How much time do democracies dedicate to establishing strategic spaces where reflection is promoted to find innovation of meanings for the causes that are most significant for society?
The governments that assume the great challenge of operating the world’s democracies, from where do they design governability and governance so that they incorporate the innovation of meaning? It would give the feeling that world leaders are not spending enough time to think about innovation of meaning in the terms proposed by Professor Verganti.
And this is terrible for the construction of future societies, since it is necessary to give meaning to the innovation of solutions in order to find new meanings of democracy, something that is achieved when governments and leaders open institutional spaces to innovate the reason for being of democratic models. Because governments and leaders can outsource the innovation of solutions, but not the innovation of visions.
Societies generate transformations when they understand that capturing value does not lie in finding new solutions, but in finding new meanings. Waze does not provide a new solution to the old GPS but a different meaning: the application is not limited to providing information regarding an unknown destination, but also indicates the fastest way to arrive. The innovation of meaning does not look for what satisfies, it looks for what challenges.
Going back to Verganti, a solution innovation improves performance and many times there is no value in better performance if this performance does not become significant. Democracies are being challenged in their meaning and this requires innovations of meaning. In a scenario overcrowded with ideas, the new idea adds marginal value; are better ideas for solve established problems, but always in the same direction. Therefore, no more ideas are required, but a meaningful vision. And significant visions require a critical gaze and challenging conviction.
*By Carlos March, Director of Collaborative Intelligence of the Avina Foundation. Author of “Bipolar Democracy: A Contribution to Innovations for 21st Century Democracy”
You may also like
by Carlos March*
Image gallery
