Political disruption
I’ve posted in reference to Sean Malstrom’s writings before, but something in one of his recent news posts, EA versus Ubisoft; Purpose Brand Vs. Birdmen, caught my eye. Here’s what he said:
When Xbox 360 gamers protest, Ubisoft replies, “You guys don’t know business. We must appeal to the demographics of the system.” You only appeal to demographics if you are running for Congress. Politicians pander. Businesses make products. If your product’s differentiation is just pandering, it won’t sell. If the product’s differentiation is better performing a job, it will sell.
And this is what made me stop and think. I didn’t even finish reading the article (I will after posting this), because I was too inspired to focus on reading.
Why do politicians pander? Why do people running for congress, or political appointments in general, appeal to demographics?
Could it be that politics is the one industry – and yes, it’s an industry – that has failed to produce a single true disruption since the introduction of democracy? Perhaps the problem is that people think you have to work within the system to change it, and by the time they’re in the system, they’re already corrupted by it? Could this be where the world has gone wrong – allowing politics to stagnate into the murky waters that are now found around the world? We have leaders in many countries being investigated for various wrongdoings, a large proportion of the world is suffering under various pains (such as AIDS, famine, etc), and worse.
And through all of this, politics hasn’t changed. Sure, the specific issues that are the focus of the era have changed, but the methods have only been refined. As Sean Malstrom, and before him, the authors of a number of books, have pointed out, disruption occurs when a new value set is introduced, when prevailing tradition and standards are scaled back in preference for the new and different.
People are clearly hungering for change in politics. This is how Obama is doing so well, and his being “black” only helps that image. But it’s all a facade. I have nothing against Obama, of the two current American presidential nominees I hope Americans choose Obama. Between Obama and McCain, Obama does, indeed, represent change. But it’s not nearly enough of a change. In videogame terms, Obama brings the idea of shoulder buttons to politics – it’s something that alters how things are played, but not by all that much. What we need is motion controls, to continue the analogy.
Even that small amount of change almost guarantees that Obama will win. If the SNES had released with a slightly modified NES controller, there is little doubt that the Sega Mega Drive would have easily outsold it. It was the small changes that ensured that Nintendo would remain on top. But in the end, as Malstrom has said a number of times, it was only the next generation, not a new one. And that’s what Obama is – he’s the next generation of politics.
But why are we allowing politics to continue to yet another “next generation”? It’s time for politics to experience disruption, for the “new generation” of politics to begin. It is time for a grassroots effort to get people interested in politics again, by making politics interesting again. In most democracies, politics has become bland, to the point that many would have trouble naming high-ranking political leaders such as America’s house minority leader. The entertainment industry continually refreshes itself, it is always being disrupted in one way or another, but politics has become dry and boring.
Could it be that the problem is that politicians are pandering? That they are appealing to demographics, rather than, as Sean Malstrom says in terms of video games, focusing on jobs? When an American politician tries to get elected to congress, they appeal to demographics – they sell themselves as a person who can, for instance, serve the best interests of the religious bloc. They pander to demographics, and because they’re all doing it, it starts to get boring. As a result, those who do take interest in politics generally become highly partisan, much as happens with videogame fanboys.
Why are there either broad-platform parties or single-issue parties? Why do politicians, more often than not, get elected based on their personal opinions rather than their abilities? It can be partially blamed on the system – when it’s a popular vote, it’s the popular candidate who wins. But much more importantly, it can also be blamed on politicians – they pander, and when they pander, they pander to those things that people feel passionate about – their opinions. And thus we find ourselves, as a world, in a bad situation.
What if someone were to form a new political party? One that, rather than focusing on opinions and pandering, instead directed all of their energy into promoting a structured arrangement where each candidate, although representing an area, brings something specific to the table? What if each candidate in this new political party were to be chosen to serve a specific job, rather than being chosen to represent some key demographic? What if the political party chose to not be partisan, nor bipartisan, but entirely nonpartisan? To have candidates of all types, with just one unifying property – a desire to improve the country.
Perhaps then, instead of having the constant bickering and partisan politics that we find in most modern democracies, we might be able to produce a government that is capable of representing everyone by focusing on the jobs, rather than the demographics. The representatives might be able to have a freeflowing exchange of ideas, and compromise might be easy and sensible. Leaders would be chosen, not based on who is most likely to win the election, but who is the most capable of performing in the position of leader.
By changing the focus from demographics to jobs, I honestly think that we, as a global society, could make amazing progress. What’s more, it naturally satisfies both major persuasions – the right wing likes the idea of a free market, and the government as a business would be most effective if that business worked based on jobs rather than demographics. The left wing, on the other hand, likes the idea of government working for the people in a progressive manner, and a government based on jobs would involve the representatives working at jobs progressively, rather than always being partisan and, as a result, being held back.
The people who are going to absolutely hate such a party are the current politicians. Certainly, some will embrace the new approach, as they were only working within the system because they had to, but the majority of politicians, who have refined the current political system values to their utmost, won’t want to be returned to being on equal footing with others, again. These politicians are the biggest roadblock to the implementation of this disruption, as, unlike other industries, politics involves the “companies” (read: political parties) actually having power over countries directly, and they can change laws to try to keep these things down.
Fortunately, grassroots activism on an issue like this is very difficult to kill – even with law changes, they would be unable to keep it down. Slowly, more and more people would be converted, and all the while the political pundits and the politicians and political fanboys will proclaim that this is the end of the world, that this will lead to the downfall of the nation, that it’s a fad, etc. It would work very much like what we have already seen in instances such as the Wii. As Sean Malstrom has said before, disruption is difficult to counter, and very rarely does true disruption fail.
OK, I’ve said my piece – I’d like to see what others feel about my suggestion. Do you think it’s a viable approach? Could we truly change politics with something like this, or is it still just tinkering at the edges? I would particularly love to hear Sean Malstrom’s take on this, as he seems to be developing into a true expert on disruption.
