Inviting the Internet crowd for a new Constitution

It isn’t only in the Philippines that constitutional reform debates are taking place. One country we can relate to as far as such debates are concerned is India. It has a huge number of voters, most of whom are politically illiterate.

According to the article some 814 million Indians are eligible to vote between April 7 and May 12 to vote a new parliament, their 16th one. This is 100 million more than the election in 2009.

Indians take pride in voting not so much because they want specific leaders but because voting it is seen as part of the freedom movement. the immense social pressure often exercised through caste and community channels, and the way in which resources are distributed by the electoral victor.

“In 1952, when India elected its first parliament, the election commissioner Sukumar Sen called it “the biggest experiment in democracy in human history.”

Indian elections are a reflection of that piety, believing that voting would be reliving the freedom movement. So it is not surprising that election is embraced as a necessary act of patriotism, never mind who wins or loses.

That is also what happens to Filipino voters. They vote for other reasons than to seek good leaders for good governance. But as with Filipinos trooping to vote, the question is also asked by Indians who think  what for if their lot is not improved whatever party (India has a parliamentary government) is in power.

The country is too huge for a central government to govern hence the suggestion that it should also federalize.

*      *      *

I like to believe that Filipinos today are doing the same thing, searching for a better structure of politics and government as the reason for wanting constitutional reform. But despite the obviously defective political structure that has given rise to a government for the oligarchy, by the oligarchy and of the oligarchy, we still hear people who do not think we need constitutional reform. This is sad but we have to live with reality.

That is why I hope that the moves in Congress led by Speaker Sonny Belmonte will succeed even if it refers only to the economic provisions. As for President Aquino I think it is hopeless to expect him to understand why constitutional reforms are needed except to make noises that there are more urgent matters to deal with. The trouble is that the other matters are precisely what constitutional reforms will help solve. Foremost of course is the issue of high growth and joblessness. We need foreign investments to be able to create new jobs but these are discouraged by a Constitution that is hostile to foreign investments.

But it has also been demonstrated that a more liberal atmosphere for foreign investments would need more responsible government with regulatory bodies that function efficiently. With the present structure the civil service has been plagued with discontinuity. Foreign investments are made with long-term projections and if government policies and personnel are changed with every election then it will be as vulnerable.

*      *      *

With warring vested interests it does seem that the task is how to break the impasse. A referendum should do that but the debate has so far not reached that point. In my opinion, Iceland’s template for crowdsourcing through a website is a good way to force the issue. A website will gather as many opinions as possible using the Internet.

Iceland did it with some degree of success but as far as I know it has now encountered a stalemate with Parliament stopping it from being implemented. Still, although it was not a complete victory, Icelanders gave the constitution through crowdsourcing a rousing 2/3 vote in the referendum that Parliament had to recognize.

As it looks we will not get any kind of support from this government for the changes necessary to move the country forward. So we will have to do it our own way.

It may be too early to predict just what the crowdsourcing a new Constitution through a website page can do. But it is worth the attempt as an impasse breaker.

*      *      *

It is well known among those in advertising that it began with a Hyundai spot for a popular small car called the i10. It gave the idea on how to crowdsource a brand. The ad was different because it featured India’s superstar Shahrukh Khan to invite participants not in contest to meet him or sing with him but to write an ad on why they would like a Hyundai car. That meant participation from the audience and for them to write what they thought of it if they would write an ad to entice buyers.

“In short, Hyundai was crowdsourcing ad ideas from its audience via an ad.” According to critics the audience participation did not produce a production quality desired but it acknowledged the crowd and that in itself was a great innovation on how to use the internet crowd.

Crowdsourcing is different from interactivity. If a paint company seeks applications to “why your house should feature in their next ad” it would in effect be a “crowdsourcing campaign as the brand offsets a cost center into an opportunity to engage.”

*      *      *

That is also what crowdsourcing for a new Constitution intends to do. It is an invitation for internet aficionados to give their ideas and actively participate in the writing of a new Constitution that would eventually lead to better politics and government.

In the term ‘crowdsourcing,’ ‘crowd’ means the Internet crowd. They are being called to participate and give their comments online on what to change in the Constitution.

And since Filipinos live all over the world the founders hope it will catch a sizeable crowd hopefully in the thousands. That would be enough to gauge public sentiment that need not rely on politicians making decisions for them. There is today great dissatisfaction with government and yet there is not the will or desire to reform. Crowdsourcing might just do the trick. D-day is any day now.