- 11/04/2023
- Category: Commentaries
Author: Embun Tabitha Suswandari
Editor: M Perdana Karim
A good system is an efficient and effective system where it can be supported with technology. It is not surprising that there is a growing apprehension about the possibility of a totalitarian government and the loss of the democratic process under the current system of representation. Through public policy, the government functions as a regulator, and the democratic political process is one of the instruments currently being implemented by many countries. Thinking about big data and the integration of a system does not stop at the point of digitalization of democracy. Datacracy is a new way of thinking about how the political system and government system in the future by relying on technology by collecting and integrating data from each individual will be completely in the hands of the government.
The idea of “datacracy” popularized by Budiman Sudjatmiko dan Martin Suryajaya [i] is now the subject of new discussion. Datacracy is defined as the use of big data from different social media platforms in political dynamics without involving humans. The representation system in question strongly emphasises the people or takes the “chain of popular sovereignty from the people” approach. We are typically familiar with the legislature [ii]. In the era of globalization, which is closely related to the practice of neo-liberalism, representation groups do not realise many interests from presentation groups because they are concerned with personal interests [iii].
The Weakening of the Representational System
Martin Suryajaya assumes that representation in democracy is divided into three stages. First is self-knowledge, or each individual has the right to rule himself over his knowledge (self-government). This right is included in the next stage, namely the assumption of self-knowledge that implements direct democracy and that what everyone wants can be realized immediately. However, when applied to a complex societal context, the interests of each individual are not easily realized. This is where the system of representation or democracy is not directly present. When the interests of many individuals are delegated to an authorized representative body so that they can be regulated in such a way. However, this raises a new paradox against indirect representation systems. There is a possibility that the voices of each individual are only heard without being accommodated, and the sense of self-government is lost [iv].
The presence of the idea of Datacracy obliterates these three assumptions. Through the algorithms of each social media platform and data integration between platforms, each individual can collect data, from track records to what each individual thinks [[v]]. Management of this data in one large and centralized system can reduce the dynamics of existing political representations and become a supporting argument for the representation system paradox. A closer example is social media, where now anyone can express their opinion and even their expectations of the country. Social media will indirectly replace political representation with a new concept, resonance [vi]. However, until now, there has been no further definition of resonance in politics, so there is no explanation of the differences between resonance and representation. Why is the discussion of representation, especially in politics, so important for everyone? Because basically, in a complex society, every individual wants their interests to be represented and realized [vii]. The fading of the sense of representation does not mean that a new system or concept rejects the existing idea of representation. However, this new idea is another form of representation that cannot be called a “representation” [viii].
Datacracy The New Totalitarian Threat?
It should be noted that Martin Suryajaya’s fundamental premise is that the datacracy lacks a human element or is impersonal. Its sole purpose is to gather and process data, the results of which are policies that describe society’s actual state of affairs. Envisioning Cities has made an effort to outline various scenarios for problem-solving and making policy [ix]. Therefore, public policy will only rely on big data.
Even though it is only limited to public policy, this will bring further questions. The datacracy system that is offered comes from one or several parties engaged in technology; what about the power they have as the party that can operate the system? Is there a datacracy-style totalitarian possibility? [x]. Many factors make up a society, from the unpredictable behavior of each individual to the culture that shapes society itself. Therefore, the human role is still needed in the decision and implementation [xi]. The fear that the operator’s stakeholders will have sole power will not occur. Using output data from data processing without interpretation and readjustment to the actual situation is also unusual [xii].
Referring to the definition of the totalitarian regime implemented by Stalin in the Soviet Union, datacracy does not fulfil the characteristics of that regime at all. Media restrictions are one of the characteristics of a totalitarian government system [[xiii]]. This contradicts the concept of datacracy itself, which utilizes technology, such as social media platforms. Quantitative data processed and generated in the database system becomes the basis for policy calculations. Collaboration between datacracy systems is still required because only humans have the capacity to interpret and comprehend situations. The concept of a datacracy only applies to a tool used to process data collected from every citizen of the nation and create public policies. There is a chance that the current system of political representation will change into one without delegation. However, this could be viewed as a novel way of gauging public interest. By considering the definition of totalitarianism and how datacracy functions as a system, the danger of a totalitarian government in the form of datacracy can also be disregarded.
[i] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhXyDdUd3C8
[ii] Törnquist, O., Webster, N. and Stokke, K. eds., 2009. Rethinking popular representation. Springer. pp.6-7
[iii] ibid
[iv] Tormey, S. and Gagnon, J.P., 2017. The end of representative politics, revisited. Democratic Theory, 4(2), pp.84-85.
[v] https://www.envisioning.io/datacracy/
[vi] Evans, M., 2020. The Future of Representative Politics: On Tormey, Krastev and Rosanvallon. Theoria, 67(164), pp.118-143.
[vii] Pitkin, H.F., 1967. The concept of representation (Vol. 75). Univ of California Press.
[viii] Evans, M., 2020. The Future of Representative Politics., pp.127
[ix] https://cities.envisioning.io/?pg=entity_TPCWSAnDEwk579tP6
[x] Antunes, L.G., 2021. THE DATACRACY THREAT OF SMART CITIES. South American Development Society Journal, 7(20).
[xi] ibid
[xii] ibid
[xiii] Yengil, O., 2016. Totalitarian and authoritarian regimes: a comparison of stalinism and putinism (Master’s thesis, Middle East Technical University).
