What do you think?
Rate this book
Renovating Democracy: Governing in the Age of Globalization and Digital Capitalism (Volume 1)
The rise of populism in the West and the rise of China in the East have stirred a rethinking of how democratic systems work—and how they fail. The impact of globalism and digital capitalism is forcing worldwide attention to the starker divide between the “haves” and the “have-nots,” challenging how we think about the social contract.
With fierce clarity and conviction, Renovating Democracy tears down our basic structures and challenges us to conceive of an alternative framework for governance. To truly renovate our global systems, the authors argue for empowering participation without populism by integrating social networks and direct democracy into the system with new mediating institutions that complement representative government. They outline steps to reconfigure the social contract to protect workers instead of jobs, shifting from a “redistribution” after wealth to “pre-distribution” with the aim to enhance the skills and assets of those less well-off. Lastly, they argue for harnessing globalization through “positive nationalism” at home while advocating for global cooperation—specifically with a partnership with China—to create a viable rules-based world order.
Thought provoking and persuasive, Renovating Democracy serves as a point of departure that deepens and expands the discourse for positive change in governance.
With fierce clarity and conviction, Renovating Democracy tears down our basic structures and challenges us to conceive of an alternative framework for governance. To truly renovate our global systems, the authors argue for empowering participation without populism by integrating social networks and direct democracy into the system with new mediating institutions that complement representative government. They outline steps to reconfigure the social contract to protect workers instead of jobs, shifting from a “redistribution” after wealth to “pre-distribution” with the aim to enhance the skills and assets of those less well-off. Lastly, they argue for harnessing globalization through “positive nationalism” at home while advocating for global cooperation—specifically with a partnership with China—to create a viable rules-based world order.
Thought provoking and persuasive, Renovating Democracy serves as a point of departure that deepens and expands the discourse for positive change in governance.
256 pages, Hardcover
Published April 30, 2019
16 people are currently reading
294 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
April 17, 2020
It doesn’t take a pandemic to feel that our political and economic systems aren’t working; this book, coming hot at the heels of recent populist political developments in the world’s biggest democracies (but before the crisis we find ourselves in now), takes on the daunting task of proposing modifications before it all falls apart and we regress into the dark ages. All in all it’s a succinct bird’s-eye view of historical and present developments, and while I am not wholly convinced by parts of what’s proposed, it’s nevertheless a worthwhile attempt.
Our current democracies have become something like a tyranny of the majority, where ‘yes’ votes from enough of the population will drown out all the other voices. The authors however argue that shouldn’t be the case — that a true democracy actually aims to achieve a compromise between competing interests, and the founding fathers of America held in their minds an ideal balance of the voices of popular sovereignty and the reasoned deliberation of a meritorious few (natural aristocracy, familiar term?). The way the American system is set up now has led to increasing partisan power in all spheres; lobbies have transformed the system into a “veto-cracy”, and, far from the egalitarian impression one might have gotten from a ballot, only those with resources are able to campaign and hence influence the result.
At the same time technological developments have democracised the flow of information, of which effects are that information is no longer controlled by authoritative bodies, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to influence policy without knowing anything about actual implementation. The tendency for simplified catchphrases to become viral more than nuanced views undermines the ability to make change, even as more are calling for it, and the demise of social institutions like public education and mandatory military service (in the States) further increases the difficulty of bridging the divide.
There’s also the problem of digital automation creating fewer higher-income jobs, taking away middle-level routine jobs, and replacing them with the insecure gig economy. Any social security that might have been hard fought by unions in the past and which usually applies to employees attached to a company no longer applies to the current job landscape. Finally, globalisation has leaned too heavily towards supporting global MNCs; while grappling with a sense of a loss of control in one’s destiny, citizens have come to blame the immediate faces of immigrants.
The authors propose a redesign of the state government, with intentions of giving power back to the ordinary citizen and at the same time having leaders stay connected to the ground. First, downsize electoral districts to human scale of large neighbourhoods, and have elections on that level be non-partisan, like they are for city council. These elected delegates would handle issues in their own districts, and collectively choose representatives to the state assembly with wider scopes of responsibility. In the provision and administration of services, these elected delegates would be the government’s faces to their neighbourhoods, holding them accountable. On top of that, a nonpartisan senate comprising of experts would be appointed on certain criteria, be a permanent task force and think tank, and have longer terms that stagger across election cycles to minimise the risk of appointing officials stacking the body in their favour. The senate could leverage on online technology to poll constituents on issues to prioritize, go to the drawing board to devise solutions, share the legislative proposal and open it up for comments, and revise if necessary. The process then becomes more back-and-forth between the governing and governed, something I’m picturing as similar to how ISO standards are done now.
On the threat of digital automation, the authors propose thinking of a social security net as an opportunity web, where the government invests in education as a way to ensure access to higher skilled jobs (again, this is America). Universal Basic Capital, where everyone in the community has a percentage share in every self-driving car that serves the community, as well as the more commonly touted UBI, albeit with strings attached — it does seem fair to have social obligations of public service, like volunteering, if you receive money from the public — could be solutions as well.
I do wonder about the idealism in the proposals — whether the senate and state assembly can stay non-partisan, and how long/what ways the revision process of legislative proposals will revert to status quo, where those with resources are back at being the most authoritative voices in the room. Its spirit I agree with, in breaking constituencies into smaller groups, which will both empower constituents and ground the elected. On a more macro level, a system (anything — even you and I are systems) that succeeds is one that is alert to feedback and pivots quickly enough, and as if that isn’t sufficiently difficult, you have to change it from within — to get enough distance from it to see what’s wrong, when you are part of it.
Our current democracies have become something like a tyranny of the majority, where ‘yes’ votes from enough of the population will drown out all the other voices. The authors however argue that shouldn’t be the case — that a true democracy actually aims to achieve a compromise between competing interests, and the founding fathers of America held in their minds an ideal balance of the voices of popular sovereignty and the reasoned deliberation of a meritorious few (natural aristocracy, familiar term?). The way the American system is set up now has led to increasing partisan power in all spheres; lobbies have transformed the system into a “veto-cracy”, and, far from the egalitarian impression one might have gotten from a ballot, only those with resources are able to campaign and hence influence the result.
At the same time technological developments have democracised the flow of information, of which effects are that information is no longer controlled by authoritative bodies, and every Tom, Dick, and Harry wants to influence policy without knowing anything about actual implementation. The tendency for simplified catchphrases to become viral more than nuanced views undermines the ability to make change, even as more are calling for it, and the demise of social institutions like public education and mandatory military service (in the States) further increases the difficulty of bridging the divide.
There’s also the problem of digital automation creating fewer higher-income jobs, taking away middle-level routine jobs, and replacing them with the insecure gig economy. Any social security that might have been hard fought by unions in the past and which usually applies to employees attached to a company no longer applies to the current job landscape. Finally, globalisation has leaned too heavily towards supporting global MNCs; while grappling with a sense of a loss of control in one’s destiny, citizens have come to blame the immediate faces of immigrants.
The authors propose a redesign of the state government, with intentions of giving power back to the ordinary citizen and at the same time having leaders stay connected to the ground. First, downsize electoral districts to human scale of large neighbourhoods, and have elections on that level be non-partisan, like they are for city council. These elected delegates would handle issues in their own districts, and collectively choose representatives to the state assembly with wider scopes of responsibility. In the provision and administration of services, these elected delegates would be the government’s faces to their neighbourhoods, holding them accountable. On top of that, a nonpartisan senate comprising of experts would be appointed on certain criteria, be a permanent task force and think tank, and have longer terms that stagger across election cycles to minimise the risk of appointing officials stacking the body in their favour. The senate could leverage on online technology to poll constituents on issues to prioritize, go to the drawing board to devise solutions, share the legislative proposal and open it up for comments, and revise if necessary. The process then becomes more back-and-forth between the governing and governed, something I’m picturing as similar to how ISO standards are done now.
On the threat of digital automation, the authors propose thinking of a social security net as an opportunity web, where the government invests in education as a way to ensure access to higher skilled jobs (again, this is America). Universal Basic Capital, where everyone in the community has a percentage share in every self-driving car that serves the community, as well as the more commonly touted UBI, albeit with strings attached — it does seem fair to have social obligations of public service, like volunteering, if you receive money from the public — could be solutions as well.
I do wonder about the idealism in the proposals — whether the senate and state assembly can stay non-partisan, and how long/what ways the revision process of legislative proposals will revert to status quo, where those with resources are back at being the most authoritative voices in the room. Its spirit I agree with, in breaking constituencies into smaller groups, which will both empower constituents and ground the elected. On a more macro level, a system (anything — even you and I are systems) that succeeds is one that is alert to feedback and pivots quickly enough, and as if that isn’t sufficiently difficult, you have to change it from within — to get enough distance from it to see what’s wrong, when you are part of it.
April 1, 2019
Vital call for reforming our governance institutions in the face of inequality, populism, and unbridled globalization
February 25, 2022
I enjoyed this thought-provoking work on the issues of direct democracy, globalization, immigration and China's return to the world-stage. The amount of careful consideration that had gone into the ideas was evident and I agreed with the majority of their diagnosis of the problems (particularly regarding the growth of tribalism, which I find an infinitely more interesting subject than digital capitalism, the other big challenge mentioned), and at least a few of their solutions. I also found it to be suitably readable so that working my way through it over the last few days was more enjoyable than exhausting.
The three main proposals laid out by the book are as follows: 1) integrating social networks and direct democracy through new institutions that aid representative government, 2) protecting workers instead of jobs and give citizens an equity share in 'owning the robots', and 3) harnessing globalisation through a policy of 'positive nationalism' at home, global cooperation where necessary.
These suggestions are all quite interesting, and in principle I agree with parts of at least the first two. However, they also all contained parts I didn't agree with, such as the proposal that initiatives put forward by unelected experts would not need to gather signatures but those from the public would, which seems subject to manipulation. That being said, reading the authors' arguments and thinking about the topic did help me to get closer to determining exactly what I do believe is the best course, so reading about their views was time well spent.
I also wonder how 'impartial' the institutions whose job it is to 'check against false claims, misinformation, intolerance and magical thinking' really would be - it sounds great in principal but how is impartiality determined? The BBC in the UK claims to be impartial because they always make a point of including people of different opinions in any discussion, but this just ends up giving a platform to extreme positions in an effort to represent them all. On the other hand, would a scientist promoting a new theory that is as yet unproven be censored/disregarded by the algorithm? What if he later turns out to be correct? Would the algorithm that 'rewards truth' reward him by sharing his view with a wide enough group of people that he could build enough momentum to ultimately prove his theory, even though what he's saying is not currently understood to be 'true'?
The assumption that experts are above the same kind of bias and wilful ignorance that affects the rest of the population is, to me, clearly a fallacious one. Admittedly, I may be misrepresenting the authors' opinion here based on my own impartiality, but then who is impartial? Have you ever met an impartial person and, more to the point, have you ever met a group of people that were all impartial together like the technocrats recommended as a solution? Can you imagine an algorithm or a group of people that you would trust to determine the truth on your behalf, without your input? For me, this is where the true problem lies and while I'm open to the authors' suggestion here, I'm not convinced by it yet. That being said, I did agree that social media outlets must held to higher standards on transparency and accountability.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the section on direct democracy and the problems populism holds in store for it. In fact, this exact topic was my main motivation for reading the book and I initially had planned to only read this section and moved on, but I enjoyed it enough to see it through to the end. Gardels and Berggreun's take on globalization was also very interesting and expanded my limited knowledge of the subject greatly.
In the end, my favourite section turned out to be the one about the rise of China in recent years, which was incredibly enlightening. Although I feel I have a fairly good understanding of China when compared to the average Brit, there is a hell of a lot I don't know, and this section gave a great summary of the goals and methods of Xi Jinping that I found fascinating. If I could give this part alone a 4-star rating then I definitely would, as it was certainly the standout section for me.
I wouldn't really say I experienced any major negatives, other than feeling certain sections went on a little longer than I would've liked, with the writers occasionally presenting the same ideas (or examples for them) a bit more than necessary, but it's fair to say that I am a very impatient reader and I suppose they are just trying to make themselves clear. I wasn't overly interested in the section on immigration either but again, I can understand why it was necessary to include it as a part of the vision espoused by the authors.
Anyway, these are minor criticisms as overall I found it to be a good read that I'd recommend to anyone interested in better understanding the topics mentioned above in relatively reader-friendly language.
The three main proposals laid out by the book are as follows: 1) integrating social networks and direct democracy through new institutions that aid representative government, 2) protecting workers instead of jobs and give citizens an equity share in 'owning the robots', and 3) harnessing globalisation through a policy of 'positive nationalism' at home, global cooperation where necessary.
These suggestions are all quite interesting, and in principle I agree with parts of at least the first two. However, they also all contained parts I didn't agree with, such as the proposal that initiatives put forward by unelected experts would not need to gather signatures but those from the public would, which seems subject to manipulation. That being said, reading the authors' arguments and thinking about the topic did help me to get closer to determining exactly what I do believe is the best course, so reading about their views was time well spent.
I also wonder how 'impartial' the institutions whose job it is to 'check against false claims, misinformation, intolerance and magical thinking' really would be - it sounds great in principal but how is impartiality determined? The BBC in the UK claims to be impartial because they always make a point of including people of different opinions in any discussion, but this just ends up giving a platform to extreme positions in an effort to represent them all. On the other hand, would a scientist promoting a new theory that is as yet unproven be censored/disregarded by the algorithm? What if he later turns out to be correct? Would the algorithm that 'rewards truth' reward him by sharing his view with a wide enough group of people that he could build enough momentum to ultimately prove his theory, even though what he's saying is not currently understood to be 'true'?
The assumption that experts are above the same kind of bias and wilful ignorance that affects the rest of the population is, to me, clearly a fallacious one. Admittedly, I may be misrepresenting the authors' opinion here based on my own impartiality, but then who is impartial? Have you ever met an impartial person and, more to the point, have you ever met a group of people that were all impartial together like the technocrats recommended as a solution? Can you imagine an algorithm or a group of people that you would trust to determine the truth on your behalf, without your input? For me, this is where the true problem lies and while I'm open to the authors' suggestion here, I'm not convinced by it yet. That being said, I did agree that social media outlets must held to higher standards on transparency and accountability.
Anyway, I really enjoyed the section on direct democracy and the problems populism holds in store for it. In fact, this exact topic was my main motivation for reading the book and I initially had planned to only read this section and moved on, but I enjoyed it enough to see it through to the end. Gardels and Berggreun's take on globalization was also very interesting and expanded my limited knowledge of the subject greatly.
In the end, my favourite section turned out to be the one about the rise of China in recent years, which was incredibly enlightening. Although I feel I have a fairly good understanding of China when compared to the average Brit, there is a hell of a lot I don't know, and this section gave a great summary of the goals and methods of Xi Jinping that I found fascinating. If I could give this part alone a 4-star rating then I definitely would, as it was certainly the standout section for me.
I wouldn't really say I experienced any major negatives, other than feeling certain sections went on a little longer than I would've liked, with the writers occasionally presenting the same ideas (or examples for them) a bit more than necessary, but it's fair to say that I am a very impatient reader and I suppose they are just trying to make themselves clear. I wasn't overly interested in the section on immigration either but again, I can understand why it was necessary to include it as a part of the vision espoused by the authors.
Anyway, these are minor criticisms as overall I found it to be a good read that I'd recommend to anyone interested in better understanding the topics mentioned above in relatively reader-friendly language.
May 5, 2020
Is China on the wrong side of history, as President Bill Clinton so eloquently put it many years ago?
In the context of the rotten, desicated carcass of the old Soviet Union, a communist state run on lies, corruption, and incompetence, it surely must have looked that way to the American President.
Were you to read “Renovating Democracy: Governing in the Age of Globalization and Digital Capitalism, by Nathan Gardels and Nicolas Berggruen, you might think differently.
Because in an age of runaway social media, the supremacy of data, and the confounding fear of mass immigration, the Western democracies don’t appear too stable.
The central thesis of Gardels and Berggruen is that with a little tinkering democracy is not finished. Their project, and that of the Berggruen Institute is to recommend a path for democrats to renovate — not revolutionize, not reform — to renovate democracies for the 21st Century and beyond.
A brief review of the current headlines in newspapers might lead you to the opposite conclusion: that democracy has lost its legitimacy across the west. Voters in many countries believe in deliverance by a “strongman” to get their countries back on the path to growth and prosperity.
We saw that in the 2016 US national election; in Italy, France, Poland, Austria, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Hungary and the list goes on.
And it may point to China, whether we like it or not, as the model state of the future. The book quotes polls which show 77% of Chinese approve of their government, while only 33% approval exists for government in the US by its citizens. And this poll was taken before Trump, I believe.
The legitimacy of the Chinese state is likely rooted in Confucian thought whereby if the leader conducts himself as above reproach, the citizens are bound to follow. While China today does not have free elections, its leader is kind of campaigning all the time to demonstrate his fitness for office.
What makes China’s one-party system work so far has been its ability to adapt and respond to its society’s needs over the tendency to repress dissent. Its success is not without blemishes, but it is remarkably successful. Choices, trade-offs, consensus...the stuff that makes democracies work ironically make dictatorships work as well.
Interestingly, China is making enormous investments in high speed internet to keep its edge. Some would say the investment is largely to maintain surveillance over its massive population. But one can’t deny that dissenters will find a way to criticize the status quo if given the opportunity.
And social media is that opportunity. For dissent. For fake news. For manipulation. To organize regardless of the state’s desire to control.
It has been pointed out elsewhere that China will lead in machine learning and artificial intelligence because it capitalizes on public data instead of protecting the privacy of the individual.
This book argues that making government more representative in the digital age will help democracies renew their legitimacy. They argue for allowing referenda to operate with the support of councils of technocrats to find good outcomes where legislators falter, and to help guide legislators to better laws.
Social media can help, but so too can experienced and wise community members. Taking the money out of politics would also help.
The book assumes a rational universe where the buyers (“the voters”) will always want what’s best for them and if they don’t know what’s best for them, they will defer to a coterie of “wise people” who can steer them in the right direction.
Wasn’t this the same rationale to have senates?
The thesis also assumes away the inertia built into governments as we have them and governments we have yet to get. There are many, many laws on the books. When do we get rid of a lot of them? How many is too many? How many representative bodies do we really need?
We have so many laws and are so ignorant of them that we sometimes feel like tourists in our own backyards.
In Canada and the US we have a minimum of three deliberative bodies and three bureaucracies looking after our needs. Then there are the regional bodies, the school boards, the international bodies and the technical standards bodies.
Why do we need 10 provinces in Canada, including 10 payroll departments, 10 land registry systems, and 10 different health systems?
The answer is we don’t. Our governments haven’t yet caught up to automation. We could have cheaper government at the expense of real or imagined sovereignty.
This is another reason for the decline of the legitimacy of our governments, that we fail to acknowledge the interdependence of jurisdictions. That much of our sovereignty is a myth.
Another reason for questioning our government is that we have never represented all the people in our deliberations, certainly not the legions of migrant workers to our country, including the Philippine women who manage our children, our elderly, and are our front line caregivers. And we do not give a voice to the tens of millions of refugees, a number that could increase to the hundreds of millions as the climate turns for the worse.
These people will need a voice in government even more than I will. Our democracies need to include them, too.
On paper, China, with its annual growth rates of 7% or better looks like it is on the right side of history. It never had the division of church and state that troubles many Americans. But China too may be heading toward the chaos plaguing Western democracies and its investments in surveillance technologies will not change that.
In the context of the rotten, desicated carcass of the old Soviet Union, a communist state run on lies, corruption, and incompetence, it surely must have looked that way to the American President.
Were you to read “Renovating Democracy: Governing in the Age of Globalization and Digital Capitalism, by Nathan Gardels and Nicolas Berggruen, you might think differently.
Because in an age of runaway social media, the supremacy of data, and the confounding fear of mass immigration, the Western democracies don’t appear too stable.
The central thesis of Gardels and Berggruen is that with a little tinkering democracy is not finished. Their project, and that of the Berggruen Institute is to recommend a path for democrats to renovate — not revolutionize, not reform — to renovate democracies for the 21st Century and beyond.
A brief review of the current headlines in newspapers might lead you to the opposite conclusion: that democracy has lost its legitimacy across the west. Voters in many countries believe in deliverance by a “strongman” to get their countries back on the path to growth and prosperity.
We saw that in the 2016 US national election; in Italy, France, Poland, Austria, Russia, Germany, Turkey, Hungary and the list goes on.
And it may point to China, whether we like it or not, as the model state of the future. The book quotes polls which show 77% of Chinese approve of their government, while only 33% approval exists for government in the US by its citizens. And this poll was taken before Trump, I believe.
The legitimacy of the Chinese state is likely rooted in Confucian thought whereby if the leader conducts himself as above reproach, the citizens are bound to follow. While China today does not have free elections, its leader is kind of campaigning all the time to demonstrate his fitness for office.
What makes China’s one-party system work so far has been its ability to adapt and respond to its society’s needs over the tendency to repress dissent. Its success is not without blemishes, but it is remarkably successful. Choices, trade-offs, consensus...the stuff that makes democracies work ironically make dictatorships work as well.
Interestingly, China is making enormous investments in high speed internet to keep its edge. Some would say the investment is largely to maintain surveillance over its massive population. But one can’t deny that dissenters will find a way to criticize the status quo if given the opportunity.
And social media is that opportunity. For dissent. For fake news. For manipulation. To organize regardless of the state’s desire to control.
It has been pointed out elsewhere that China will lead in machine learning and artificial intelligence because it capitalizes on public data instead of protecting the privacy of the individual.
This book argues that making government more representative in the digital age will help democracies renew their legitimacy. They argue for allowing referenda to operate with the support of councils of technocrats to find good outcomes where legislators falter, and to help guide legislators to better laws.
Social media can help, but so too can experienced and wise community members. Taking the money out of politics would also help.
The book assumes a rational universe where the buyers (“the voters”) will always want what’s best for them and if they don’t know what’s best for them, they will defer to a coterie of “wise people” who can steer them in the right direction.
Wasn’t this the same rationale to have senates?
The thesis also assumes away the inertia built into governments as we have them and governments we have yet to get. There are many, many laws on the books. When do we get rid of a lot of them? How many is too many? How many representative bodies do we really need?
We have so many laws and are so ignorant of them that we sometimes feel like tourists in our own backyards.
In Canada and the US we have a minimum of three deliberative bodies and three bureaucracies looking after our needs. Then there are the regional bodies, the school boards, the international bodies and the technical standards bodies.
Why do we need 10 provinces in Canada, including 10 payroll departments, 10 land registry systems, and 10 different health systems?
The answer is we don’t. Our governments haven’t yet caught up to automation. We could have cheaper government at the expense of real or imagined sovereignty.
This is another reason for the decline of the legitimacy of our governments, that we fail to acknowledge the interdependence of jurisdictions. That much of our sovereignty is a myth.
Another reason for questioning our government is that we have never represented all the people in our deliberations, certainly not the legions of migrant workers to our country, including the Philippine women who manage our children, our elderly, and are our front line caregivers. And we do not give a voice to the tens of millions of refugees, a number that could increase to the hundreds of millions as the climate turns for the worse.
These people will need a voice in government even more than I will. Our democracies need to include them, too.
On paper, China, with its annual growth rates of 7% or better looks like it is on the right side of history. It never had the division of church and state that troubles many Americans. But China too may be heading toward the chaos plaguing Western democracies and its investments in surveillance technologies will not change that.
September 3, 2019
A good primer on issues of global importance
Berggruen and Gardels write a good primer on some proposals and frameworks on global governance. An important effort in proposing steps ahead.
Berggruen and Gardels write a good primer on some proposals and frameworks on global governance. An important effort in proposing steps ahead.
Read
June 7, 2019320.973 G2182 2019
March 12, 2024
Some interesting commentary regarding public input systems, the remainder is largely techno-liberalism
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews