April Freeman Banner 2014


Is Hive Democracy an Improvement?


Finland and Iceland are experimenting with hive democracy (my term for crowdsourcing ideas for legislation). I suppose it’s fine as far as it goes. It seems like the practice gives people more ‘voice.’ But it doesn’t do that much for ‘exit.’ Consider these schemes…

Here’s a sliver of a piece on Finland‘s experiment:

This year, Finland has taken two huge steps to make crowdsourced laws a reality. First, its constitution last March was modified to allow every citizen proposal that collects a mere 50,000 signatures to get voted on by Parliament. In response, a non-profit group of Helsinki entrepreneurs started a website called Open Ministry to allow people of voting age to propose initiatives online. The website uses APIs from banks and mobile operators to confirm identities. Recently, the Finnish Parliament approved the platform after verifying that the electronic identification process is secure.

Here’s another on Iceland:

Two thirds of Icelanders have voted in favour of adopting a crowdsourced constitution to replace the country’s existing document.

The crowdsourced constitution arose as part of the country’s restructuring efforts in response to the political and economic repercussions of the financial crisis. It’s the result of 25 of the country’s citizens translating suggestions made through social media by their fellow Icelanders into a workable draft document delivered in July 2011.

We can sense an evolution happening, but the real pro-social changes are still missing. Digitally decentralizing the means of centralizing authority is not likely to help countries avert large-scale catastrophes, much less avoid illiberal policies. If these new social technologies helped divide these countries into even smaller self-governing jurisdictions (like the Swiss canton system) — or they helped people get away from territorial chauvinism altogether — then we’d really have an interesting advance. But again, adding ‘voice’ without greater opportunities to exit a system is just swarm statism.

The devil, I suppose, is in the details. It would be nice to use your iPad to get a pothole fixed. But I’m not wild about the idea of a digital hive fashioning a single-payer healthcare system for me and my family.

In any case, I doubt hive democracy in-and-of itself is going to be a massive improvement over the status quo. I get the feeling the Finland and Iceland experiments are largely what most of the “peer progressives” have in mind when they talk about political reform. (We’ll talk more about that in a separate column.) Real social progress will involve more voice and more exit.

Max Borders Author Thumb



Max Borders is the editor of The Freeman and director of content for FEE. He is also cofounder of the event experience Voice & Exit and author of Superwealth: Why we should stop worrying about the gap between rich and poor.

comments powered by Disqus


* indicates required
Sign me up for...


April 2014

Around the world, people are struggling to throw off authoritarianism, with deeply mixed results. From Egypt to Venezuela, determined people build networks to overthrow their regimes, but as yet we have not learned to live without Leviathan. In this issue, Michael Malice and Gary Dudney discuss their glimpses inside totalitarian regimes, while Sarah Skwire and Michael Nolan look at how totalitarian regimes grind down the individual--and how individuals fight back. Plus, Jeffrey Tucker identifies a strain in libertarianism that, left unchecked, could reduce even our vibrant movement to something that is analogous to the grim aesthetic of architectural brutalism. The struggle for our lives and freedom is a struggle for beauty; it begins inside each of us.
Download Free PDF