Technology for direct democracy

PUNCHLINE

Ike Seneres

During the ancient days of the Greek city states, they were able to practice direct democracy, because the small numbers of citizens made it possible for anyone to stand up and vote.

Even when they elected their Senators, consultation with their lawmakers was still possible due to their small numbers. Fast forward to the present times, direct democracy became difficult to practice because of the larger number of citizens, but now, new technologies already make it possible.

Because of the Electronic Commerce Act (ECA), electronic evidence is already admissible, and that includes the electronic signatures of natural persons. On that note, I would say that Private Key Infrastructure (PKI) and other authentication technologies are just high end options, because pre-registered Subscriber Identity Module (SIM) cards matched with Personal Identification Numbers (PINs) should also be admissible, enough to confirm the identities of their owners.

In other words, it is now technically possible for any pre-registered citizen to vote for anything, anytime, from anywhere, using any available device. Aside from these PKI, SIM and PIN options, there are actually other wireless and mobile technologies that could be used, such as Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Near Field Communications (NFC), Automated Finger Scan Identification Systems (AFIS), Universal Product Code (UPC) and Quick Response (QR) codes.

In my advocacy for the use of Information and Communications Technologies (ICT) for election purposes, I have been proposing that we should be voting in the same way that we are banking now. As it is now, we are banking by way of personal tellers, Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), land lines, internet sites and cell phones. I say that if we could bank securely by using these means, then we could also vote securely by using these same means.

When I write about direct democracy however, I do not mean voting in elections only, because elections are very few and are far between. What I actually mean is that we should be voting in all assemblies where we are allowed to vote, as provided for in the law. Perhaps unknown to many, all pre-registered residents of all barangay units are allowed to vote in the barangay General Assemblies that are supposed to be held in every barangay once a year.

As far as I know, it is only in these assemblies where the people are allowed to vote directly, at least in theory. What happens in real practice however is that not too many people attend these assemblies, and that is why they are unable to exercise their right to vote. What also happens is that the politicians operating in the barangay are manipulating the voting because they are mobilizing their own supporters, thus leaving out the others who could not attend because of one reason or another.

Mr. Manny Valdehuesa, is the founder of Gising Barangay Movement (GBM). He says that we should refer to the barangay as the “primary” unit of government, instead of referring to it as the “smallest” unit of government. I agree with him because “primary” is more positive, compared to “smallest” than wrongly emphasises what is diminutive. Being the “primary” unit of government, the barangay would be like the building blocks of the republic, upon which our towns, cities and provinces are standing on.

For whatever it may be worth, I have already convinced a number of technology providers to join me in building a system that would already make it possible for any barangay resident to vote in the barangay General Assemblies even if they could not physically attend, for whatever reasons that they should no longer explain. Once that system is built, it would already become possible for these residents to exercise their rights, no matter where they are.

Mr. Valdehuesa explains by way of comparison that barangay General Assemblies are like stockholder’s meetings, whereas Sanguniang Barangay meetings are like board meetings. Using that comparison, it would be easy to understand that any stockholder (read as citizen) could vote in a stockholder’s meeting, whereas only the directors (read as kagawad) could vote in the board meetings.

Actually, I am just being optimistic and open minded, because even now, there are still many problems in the admission of electronic evidence in this country. A lot of people representing some political interests could still oppose the idea of voting in the same way that we are banking. However, the technologies are already available, and the legal frameworks are already deployable.

Aside from the Sanguniang Barangay, there is another venue or forum wherein the barangay residents could participate in their governance. According to the Local Government Code (LGC), every barangay is supposed to have a Barangay Development Council (BDC), and it is provided for in that law that at least 20% of the members should come from Non-Government Organizations (NGOs). Since there is no percentage limit, there could actually be more NGOs represented. Besides, there is also no limit to the number of NGOs that could attend.

Aside from the BDCs, the law also mandates the creation of Municipal Development Councils (MDCs), Provincial Development Councils (PDCs) and Regional Development Councils (RDCs). In reality therefore, the BDCs could actually influence the agendas of these higher councils, thus re-enforcing the argument of Mr. Valdehuesa that the barangay is really the “primary” unit of government.

By the way, those who will be attending the General Assemblies and the development councils will now have the capability of streaming (read as broadcasting) the videos from these events using their cell phones that have either IOS or Android systems. With these, they could already transmit their videos using the Long Term Evolution (LTE) connectivity that is now offered by both Globe and Smart.

For feedback, email iseneres@yahoo.com or text +639083159262