Welcome to Futurepolis.
What would democracy look like if it were being invented today, instead of in the 18th century? That’s the driving question of Futurepolis.
Our most established democracies date back to before the advent of the telegraph and railways. If their founders could time-travel to today’s world, the future shock would blow their minds.
Yet many of our democratic institutions and norms are still rooted in that pre-industrial era. That’s apparent in their failures to cope with the climate catastrophe, Covid-19, yawning wealth inequality, mass migration, the rise of populist nationalism, and runaway technological change. Not to mention the growing public dissatisfaction and democratic backsliding all around the world.
The good news—and the thesis of this newsletter—is that the future of democracy is already being built; it’s just, as William Gibson would say, unevenly distributed. Look around at the people doing participatory budgeting, running citizens’ assemblies, developing open data protocols, combating mis- and disinformation, rethinking intellectual-property or free-speech laws, fixing government technology procurement, developing new content-recommendation algorithms, building digital public spaces, reimagining electoral systems, exploring methods for depolarization and conflict resolution, writing data protection laws, figuring out AI governance and tech platform governance, inventing new business models for journalism, experimenting with quadratic voting, using crowdsourced lawmaking, tinkering with DAOs, building e-government services, figuring out how to make policymaking keep pace with technological advances, and much more besides.
All these, I contend, are facets of the same grand challenge: updating our systems of democratic governance to make them fit for the 21st century. The people who work in the fields above don’t all see themselves as part of something bigger. But—and this is also my thesis—I think they’re starting to.
The climate parallel
I like to compare this effort with the fight against climate change. If you’re working on battery chemistry, carbon taxes, drought-resistant crops, plant-based meat, large-scale grid storage, solar and wind farms, substitutes for plastics, biodiversity loss, and any number of other things, you may be deeply specialized in your field, but you know that you’re part of one global project. You know that the people in all those other fields are too. And you all share a common (if increasingly doomed) goal: 1.5 °C.
In contrast, the governance problem has little in the way of shared community, language, or goals. In part, that’s because it’s a messier problem than climate. There’s no 1.5 °C for democracy—no single objective, no perfect system, no day when we can say “it’s fixed.” It’s complex, context-specific, ever-evolving: there will be solutions appropriate to particular places, times and issues.
And yet. Over the past few years I’ve watched a future-of-governance movement start to emerge: in side-huddles at major tech conferences, at international gatherings of experts on e-government and civic participation, in small “unconferences” devoted to blue-sky thinking, at meetings of cultural leaders, and in little experiments all around the world. They’re identifying common problems, lessons to learn, and expertise to share. More and more conversations carry the sound of an echo: “Oh—you’re thinking about this too?”
A problem of awareness
If you work in one of these fields you may already recognize what I’m describing. But to most people this stuff is hidden. They think we’re stuck with the creaky, sclerotic political institutions we’ve had for centuries. They don’t know what else is out there. In large part, I think that’s because good stories about it are hard to tell. They tend to be local, niche, and frankly, kinda dull. They often deal in abstract concepts rather than human tales.
My goal with Futurepolis is to remedy that. I aim to act as a chronicler of this emerging future-of-governance movement, looking for interesting innovations, stories of people leading change, and signals of shifts in the political systems of the world. I’ll review books and ideas, interview practitioners and theorists, and analyze news and trends.
Futurepolis is for anyone interested in how we can govern better, whether you’re already deep in this work yourself or just someone who cares about the society you live in.
And I’ll be looking to you, dear reader, for fodder. Please send me topics, people, innovations, publications, or questions you’d like to see covered, especially if you work in the future-of-governance field yourself.
A note on language
You’ll often find me using the word “governance” rather than “democracy.” I firmly believe in democracy, or more precisely, in pluralism. Not for me the argument that an authoritarian regime like China’s is better at tackling the big problems, at least not in the long run. But as we’re starting to see, pluralism alone isn’t enough. And many good innovations in governance are coming from countries you wouldn’t expect—including, at times, non-democracies. I intend to cover them too.
Finally
All the posts on Futurepolis are free, but it’s currently funded purely out of my own pocket. If you believe in what I’m doing, please consider getting a paid subscription for a mere $5 a month or $50 a year. If you want to really help you can get a founder member subscription, which entitles you to a 1:1 call with me on the subject of your choice. Hit the button below to upgrade.
Each issue contains a chunk of text and a bunch of links. The chunk of text is an essay, interview or other piece of writing, always with a TL;DR to save you time. The bunch of links is, well, links to other interesting things that have popped up in the news recently.
Please share this with anyone you think would like it, and please give me feedback and ideas, either via futurepolis@substack.com or in the comment threads on posts. Enjoy!
