This is the second in a series of blogposts that explores how Mina’s governance can learn from collective intelligence where groups of people are organized at scale to solve complex public problems in ways that often outperform individual people alone.
First, we explain the renewed interest in collective intelligence due to major societal challenges, including the declining confidence in representative democracy. Researchers, entrepreneurs and pioneers, such as Mina, are drawing on the methods of collective intelligence to respond to this challenge by testing out viable alternatives to make democracy more meaningful and its outcomes more legitimate. These alternatives include direct democracy where people are more directly involved in decision making through participatory and deliberative processes.
We then explain the value of deliberation to Mina’s decision making. Deliberation helps people identify their preferences- and their rationales for them- before voting so that the result is more likely to reflect what the community really wants. Deliberation can reveal objections and major disagreements and then negotiate proposals that everyone is more likely to agree on. This provides all participants with better knowledge and understanding about proposals that helps with their implementation. It also builds trust between people who may have opposing views, leading to more effective collaboration over time. By encouraging competing and independent perspectives, deliberation can overcome cognitive biases and challenge rigid ways of group thinking and feeling.
Data is fundamental to collective intelligence. The rapid development of digital and AI technologies can gather, organize and analyze data so that deliberation can be meaningfully informed. We present examples of different types of tools to support deliberation between dozens, hundreds or even thousands of community members.
The development of mass deliberation tools is a unique feature of Mina’s governance compared to other blockchains so Mina can set an exciting example to the rest of the industry. Mina can also be an exemplar to the wider world. Systems of democratic decision making were designed in the 18th century yet they are failing to keep up with a rapidly changing world of the 21st century. Mina can demonstrate how novelty could be introduced into these stagnant systems.
There is renewed interest in collective intelligence due to major societal challenges. As explained in a previous blogpost, one of these challenges is the growing complexity of public problems and emergence of wicked problems, including governance. However, other challenges include the declining confidence in representative democracy.
Democracy often involves people voting periodically to elect officials who represent them in making public decisions and allocating resources. Although many people feel dissatisfied with how democracy is working in their countries, most of these people support representative democracy. Nonetheless, confidence in representative democracy has declined in several countries. Some people often feel that their representatives are out of touch and disconnected from their everyday lives, and they have too little influence over their representatives unlike major donors, lobbyists and special interest groups. Political scandals highlight how the distinction between lobbying and bribing can be blurry. Rather than serving the public interest, self-interest is perceived to be the main motivation for representatives to seek office whether to make a lot of money, run for higher office in the future or seek fame and attention.
A major concern is that this declining confidence could undermine the legitimacy of democratic decision making. Consequently, researchers, entrepreneurs and pioneers, including from the Mina community, are drawing on the methods of collective intelligence to test out viable alternatives to make democracy more meaningful and its outcomes more legitimate.
These alternatives include direct democracy where people are more directly involved in decision making through participatory and deliberative processes.
Participatory processes involve entire communities and societies in decision making so that they can exert more influence on its outcomes. Examples include participatory budgeting (where people can decide on the budget of the city they live in), referenda and plebiscites (where all the members of an electorate can vote on important public questions, such as making changes to a constitution).
Deliberative processes involve a part of the community or society to consider a problem, identify and assess the full range of options and make a decision or recommendation about solutions. The focus is on the quality of deliberation rather than the quantity of people involved. Examples include polls and citizens’ assemblies.
As highlighted in a previous blogpost, collective intelligence provides frameworks and methods for implementing these processes.
Building Mina’s hive mind through collective intelligence