Gideon Lichfield on Fairness & Storytelling

Gideon Lichfield is a journalist and Policy Fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Ash Center for Democratic Governance and Innovation, affiliated with the Allen Lab for Democracy Renovation. He writes Futurepolis, a Substack on reinventing democracy, governance, and government for the 21st century. He was previously Global Editorial Director and Editor-in-Chief of WIRED; Editor-in-Chief of MIT Technology Review; a founding editor at Quartz, and a foreign correspondent and science writer at The Economist. He lives in Berkeley, California.

I start all these conversations with the same question, which I borrowed from a friend of mine, who’s also a neighbor, and she helps people tell their stories. And it’s this big, beautiful question, which is why I use it.

But it’s so big, I tend to over explain it the way I’m doing right now before I ask it. So I want you to know that you’re in absolute control, and you can answer or not answer any way that you want to. And the question is, where do you come from? And again, you’re in absolute control.

That’s a very tricky question to answer. I think physically, I come from the UK. Ancestrally, I come from Jewish communities in Eastern Europe.

Philosophically, I come from just a belief in fairness and desire to see fairness in the world. Which I think is why I’m interested in democracy, because someone asked me the other day, if you had to describe the point of democracy in one word, what would it be? And I said, fairness. It’s the system where the bullies don’t get to win.

That’s beautiful. And do you have a recollection as a kid? Do you have an idea of what you wanted to be when you grew up? Do you remember?

I mean, the usual things, astronaut, writer. I can’t remember the others, but nothing very unusual. Yeah.

And where was most of your childhood? Where did you spend your childhood?

I grew up in London, and I was born and raised almost all my childhood in exactly the same district in Northwest London.

Nice. And catch us up. Where are you now? And what is the work that you do?

So right now, I live in the Bay Area in Berkeley. I’ve bounced around the world a lot. I was a journalist in Mexico City, Moscow, Jerusalem, came to the US, lived in New York for several years, moved to Cambridge, Massachusetts for a while for another job, became bi-coastal New York Bay Area, and now I’m full-time Bay Area.

And the thing I work on now is what could the future of democracy look like? How would it look if we were trying to invent that system today instead of three centuries ago? And what could come after the current period of, I could say authoritarianism, but I think even more broadly just institutional fracturing, the clear inadequacy of the governing institutions that we have.

I appreciate that distinction. I think a lot of conversations get captivated by the authoritarian bit, and we don’t end up actually looking at the degree to which the institutions that we currently have aren’t functioning or aren’t functional or aren’t fit for purpose. Can you say more about that, just the diagnosis of the current state?

I mean, I think as you said, we don’t talk enough about that. We focus on the authoritarian lens, and that’s one of the things that frustrates me a little right now about the conversation about democracy in the U.S., because it is very focused on the Democratic Party winning back power. And there is this unspoken assumption that if the Democrats retake Congress or the White House, then, in quotes, democracy will be restored, and things will go back to some degree to where they were. And I think that that misses both the amount of dismantling of institutions that has gone on under the Trump administration, but also just the uselessness, the increasing uselessness of those institutions over the past, I would say, at least couple of decades, probably longer.

And so what I mean by that is we have these systems of governance and representation that were created in the 18th century before we even had railways and the telegraph. Information moved much more slowly, goods moved more slowly, the world was less globalized, change just happened at a much slower pace. Just if we take the electoral system, it was designed to enable people to delegate decision-making to a small group of people, because any kind of broader national level decision-making in which citizens had participation simply wasn’t practical, obviously.

And we also have to remember that even though we call this country a democracy and we call other countries democracies, the systems, the electoral systems that were created there were not intended to be democratic. They were intended to allow a fairly small number of privileged male people, people who were men, educated, relatively prosperous, to make the decisions because they were considered the people who were competent to make the decisions.

So everything that we have now that we call democracy is this kludge. It’s been, bits and pieces that have been added onto that system that was designed for this very different era. And so some of the ways in which it falls short are that it gives people notionally a voice in the form of votes, but it doesn’t involve them in decision-making in a meaningful way, and it doesn’t create a feeling of citizenship in a meaningful way, at least certainly not at the national level.

Systems of government, systems of lawmaking respond very, very slowly to technological change. Lawmaking especially, we take ages to draft laws, we take ages to pass them, and then we don’t revise them for the most part as time goes by, and they don’t update to the reality of the world. We also, our systems of information, of the information environment, were created in an era when information was fairly sparse and expensive to produce, and so free speech laws were in part designed to make sure that interesting ideas and useful thoughts could be expressed and could not be suppressed.

And today we have the opposite problem where misinformation lies and general slop crowds out the stuff that is useful and worthwhile. And so while we don’t want to abolish the idea of free speech, we have to think differently about what the goal of that principle is and how we create an informed citizenry and how we inform good decision-making.

So there are all these assumptions and structures that date from that time, from centuries ago, that don’t function very well in this new world. And so this is even leaving aside the problem of political polarization that we have today, which has created all this deadlock. Even if you did not have that, the structures that we have are still pretty inadequate to the task of governing the 21st century and do not take advantage of the tools and methods that we could have today for making citizens more engaged and making government more responsive.

That’s amazing. What you just said, I don’t think it really occurred to me that, again, you’re peeling apart these pieces that, again, we can get really distracted by polarization. And again, forget to look at just structurally how the system is either counterproductive or doesn’t help us do the work.

Can you speak? And maybe this is relevant, but the degree to which this plays out at a local level versus a national level, is there a difference in the way that the institutions are working or not working in that way?

Yes. I mean, I think so at one level, the polarization, I think is probably worse at the national level. In other words, in local communities, there is at least the opportunity to bring people together around the problems that their community shares.

And I think for me, I said that democracy for me means fairness, but I think it also as a process, maybe fairness is the outcome that we want. But as a process to me, democracy just means shared problem solving. You have a bunch of people, there’s a bunch of stuff they don’t agree with, but they face a problem that they need to solve because they live together in the same community.

And so there is a process for bringing them together and creating a system or a process for reaching an agreement on the solution, even if not everybody likes it, or even if nobody likes it completely, and trusting that process and being willing to accept the results of it. That’s what democracy is. So at a local level, there is at least the potential to do that more.

And the obstacles there, I think, are number one, well, in the US specifically, we have the decline of local news, which makes it difficult for everybody to be on the same page about what’s happening. And we also have the fact that local authorities are under-resourced, particularly when it comes to using technology. And so it makes it very difficult for them to be responsive and keep up to date with the changes that are happening.

At the national level, you have government theoretically more capable, but in fact, very sclerotic, so much institutional cruft that has developed and very polarized because at a national level, we’re not a community in the same way as we are in a town. And so it is easy for the polarizing voices to have more sway in the media and for that to drive the sense of national divide.

So what does it mean to work in this space? What are the things that you’re doing? What are you following? Just paint a picture of where you spend your time and what you’re learning and discovering.

So I’m still figuring out what it is to work in this space for me. I keep my thumb or try to keep my thumb on the pulse of many different things that I think count as part of this problem of how you govern democratically. And I already sketched out some of the broad pillars.

There are methods of civic participation that aren’t just voting and also aren’t just turning up to town hall meetings, which are a very time consuming thing that only a few people can really allow themselves to do. So there are technological innovations and social innovations around deliberative democracy and participatory democracy of various kinds. So I keep an eye on those.

I keep an eye on work in improving state capacity and reforming the way government works and making its processes less clunky. And that can include everything from just bureaucratic management and process reform to procurement. These are very, very dull things, but they actually clog up the works of government enormously.

I obviously, as a journalist, pay a lot of attention to what I mentioned about the information environment and how do you create informational spaces that are less toxic, less polarizing. Some of that is about what is the business model for news media in this world of AI. Some of that is can you build social platforms that create more coming together of community and less polarization.

So those are some of the pillars and there’s interesting work going on in all of those areas. I think the challenge is that you can come up with a scenario, and I’ve come up with scenarios where you bring all of these innovations together and you have a form of democracy that works much better, where people are more informed, they have more civic engagement, government is more responsive, it all works better. But getting from here to there, of course, is the really difficult part.

And the chief obstacles that I think I see to that are, number one, as we said earlier, everyone is talking about democracy or restoring democracy as getting the Democratic Party back in power, not deeper institutional reform. Number two, a lot of these changes simply mean going against incentives that a lot of people have to keep the current system the same. Politicians, no matter of what party, have an incentive to keep things as they are because they have learned the game of political fundraising and voter mobilization and manipulating the message and so forth.

And if you create structures that give citizens more of a say in day-to-day governance, that threatens their control. And so you’ve seen a lot of experiments in the U.S. and elsewhere with things like citizen assemblies, where you give a particularly thorny problem to a group of randomly selected citizens and they hash it out and come to a consensus. And in some places that works, but it doesn’t work unless you get the politicians to buy into the process and say, yes, we will take the recommendation seriously.

And often that is the hardest work and often that is the work that is not done. Or one administration, one mayor may be open to that kind of civic participation, the next one who comes along is not interested. And so those things don’t get institutionalized.

Similarly with government reform, process reform, there are a lot of government bureaucrats who have an interest in keeping the system the way it is because of the control they have. There are a lot of private contractors who benefit from the way the procurement happens and don’t really want to upset the apple cart. So it’s this challenging thing where I know a lot of people who work in democratic innovation in one or another of these areas and they have fantastic ideas, but connecting those ideas to how to bring those ideas about is difficult.

And I think connecting the conversation that the democratic innovators have to the conversation that the people involved in mainstream politics and movement building and campaigning have, that’s a very difficult gap to bridge as well.

Can you say more about that gap?

So I’ve been to gatherings where you have people who are veteran campaign organizers and they are thinking, how do we win the next election? They’re thinking, how do we improve voter registration? They may be thinking about slightly more out there things like how do you change, how do you combat gerrymandering?

How do you change a state to having open primaries? Or how do you change the electoral college? Those kinds of systems, those kinds of changes, those are basically changes to the electoral system, to the voting, the way that we do voting.

That feels like stuff that they are working on, that is relevant to them, that has measurable outcomes, which are who gets into office. That’s where the funding is. And for those people, for those people, a citizens assembly or a government process reform is not really relevant to the goals that they have.

So how do you bring about, how do you tie a conversation about deep institutional change or deep democratic process change to the very real imperatives that the people who actually occupy most of politics and most of organizing and most of what we would call the democracy industry, if you like, how do you tie that to what their needs are?

So I was in Athens last week and for a House of Beautiful Business for this event and I had a walking tour. Have you been there at all? Have you visited any of these sites? I imagine you have.

I have. Yes. I’ve walked around the Agora and all of those things.

So I’m going to test this on you. Please correct me if I’m wrong. But I had a walking tour of the Pnyx, which is not a site that I had ever really heard of. But my understanding is that it was the site where they built a stage for citizens to stand upon and address an assembly and they met regularly. And it was where it was sort of the birth of deliberation.

Right. And that was the deliberation before the vote that was the real innovation of Athenian democracy. Is that fair?

Yes. I think that’s right. I visited that site, too, and there’s not much you can see right now, but there is this stone platform, right? Where the speaker could stand and then there’s this area all around it where potentially thousands of people could sit and listen. That’s right. So, yes, I think obviously that is seen as a precursor.

It’s seen as a democracy and it’s still a modern democracy and that it’s seen as an inspiration to the deliberative process that the people talk about today. And it worked very well for its time and place and for the size of the population and the kind of place that it was. So I think the question is always, all right, what is it that you can take from that and apply today?

Yeah. It seemed to me, what brought it to mind was this sense that we’re sort of obsessed with voting and we’ve sort of abandoned or forgotten how central deliberation was to begin with. And also, and I’m wondering, my experience here in Hudson, I think this is how you and I first sort of engaged is that I became interested in Citizens Assembly because I encountered it at Bard and I had experienced what I felt in Hudson, this feeling that the way that we gather in the public meetings, in the spaces where we come together, they simply have been overwhelmed by social media and the impact of technology on everything that we do. And I wonder, I guess I’m just sort of presenting that to you, the degree to which, and this is where we started, that these institutions, these habits, these rituals of democratic and civic engagement, we keep doing the same thing, even though the world has transformed radically in terms of how we share information, how we interact with each other, and we pretend that everything is fine and that we’re doing everything right. And this gets to, I know I’m rambling a little bit, but I’ve had conversations recently with people who say, listen, this is how it’s supposed to work.

Everything’s fine. But I guess my question to you is, does that resonate with you, this diagnosis that so much of the technological change that’s happened in the last 15, 20 years with social media has really, really changed the role of just the public meeting, the town hall, and the degree to which that’s a piece of the argument for these deliberative processes?

I don’t know if it has changed the role of the traditional town hall, because I think for the most part, those town halls still operate the way they did. A thing that comes to mind with this, when you raise that question, is there’s a film that is making the rounds now, and it’s going to be, I think, on public release in December, made by Carolyn Lukensmeyer, who is one of the doyennes of deliberative processes here in the US. And it’s about how after 9-11, after the Twin Towers fell, the city of New York decided to try to involve people in the process of deciding what to build in their place.

They held a number of town hall meetings, traditional-style town hall meetings. There was a theater, there were some guys on the stage, and then hundreds of people in the audience. And they were a mess.

And they were a mess because it just became an opportunity for grandstanding, and people threw ideas back and forth, but there was no process for getting to a consensus. And so Carolyn was brought in to run a deliberative process where they invited 5,000 people. They filled the Javits Center in New York, that giant convention center with tables, and they had a bunch of technology, which was very advanced to its day.

And they had this process by which people were brought to a consensus on what they wanted for the site. And famously, this process led to, the city came in with six proposals from different developers on what to do with the World Trade Center site. And this assembly overwhelmingly rejected them all and forced the city to go back to the drawing board.

So that’s a long preamble by way of saying, I don’t think the town hall meetings in their traditional form have changed much. There is some work going on in places I think like Massachusetts to try to broaden access to the town hall, give people ways to take part in it remotely and so forth. But again, it’s clunky.

It doesn’t necessarily work very well. But at least those town hall, the benefit those town hall meetings have is that they’re already an accepted part of the political process. Politicians understand them.

They understand this is a thing that you do when you want to interact with the public. And this is a way that the public is seen to have a voice. And so a more, better run deliberative process like a assembly is probably much better for achieving an outcome.

But as I said, institutionalizing it, fitting it into the way politicians work is the hard part.

Yes, absolutely. And I feel I didn’t communicate very well. I think I’m completely aligned with what you said that somehow because the world has changed around the town halls, what’s asked of them or how they’re used has been sort of warped to your point, the story you told where we come in really well-informed or we’ve done all the deliberation on social media with our people and we come in and it’s this performance of something that’s not, it’s not deliberation meaningfully, it doesn’t seem to me. And I wonder, yes, I love the story that you just told.

But also, you just said we come in well-informed in the deliberation on social media, or we don’t. In some cases, people come in with extreme views fanned by what they’ve seen on social media and that can make the town halls even more fractious.

Yes, yes, yes, you’re exactly right. I think that we just had, excuse me for being a little rambly here a little bit, we had a vote on the budget here in Hudson, and it was a yes-no vote. And it’s just all the heat and all the energy that happens in this zero-sum vote in a small town where the stakes are really high.

Things get really emotional and they get really complicated. And it’s quite intense to see decisions like this just divide a town, and get in between relationships between neighbors. And everybody can say that the district created the spaces for the meetings, they had public meetings, they had the town, they had the budget workshops, they did all those things, but people don’t show up because nobody can find time to show up.

And so the spaces that we create for this stuff aren’t utilized, it seems to me. Yeah, I’m just sort of, and this is what for me makes the call for new forms of democratic participation so urgent, but I’ve also experienced the obstacle that people have a hard time recognizing the problem, and then they really don’t understand the solution. They’re struggling on both sides of this thing where they think this is fine, this is supposed to happen, this is how it is supposed to be.

And then the solution seems so strange, they can’t quite wrap their head around it. Yes, yes. Where have you seen it work, and where are the shining lights, what are the kinds of things that you’re seeing that you’re most excited about that represent possibility in this space?

There’s a handful of examples that people point to around the world of where this has really worked, and the one that is always cited is Ireland, which used a Citizens’ Assembly to decide really tricky issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, and it has become an institution. The Irish Citizens’ Assembly is now almost a branch of government. Every year it convenes, every year they tackle difficult issues, and a bunch of factors came together to make that work that were very specific, and it succeeded because it was seen as having achieved consensus on these issues which were incredibly politically divisive, that the politicians themselves couldn’t solve, and also because it was run in such a way that people were able to see the process, there was a lot of transparency, there were some good stories that came out of it about people who started on very different sides of the fence coming to see each other’s point of view. So it is a lot about the perception and the initial success, and whenever you see these poster child cases, then the question arises, well, why doesn’t that happen here, or why doesn’t it happen there? And again, it is because it’s so dependent on certain things going well.

I made a list recently of deliberative processes in the US, and actually what I found to my surprise was that if you go back about six years, there have been one, maybe two deliberative processes in American cities per year between 2019 and 2024, and for 2026, I count probably half a dozen.

Oh my gosh.

And this is still small. These are small towns or cities that are debating quite small scale local issues. Fort Collins, Colorado, last year, deliberated on how to redevelop a local stadium.

Lexington, Kentucky, this spring, did something on council members’ pay and review of the local charter. Connecticut is doing something on property taxes. Akron, Ohio, is doing something on housing.

So it’s hopeful that these are happening, and the question is always going to be what does it make an impact? And the question around impact is, first of all, do people actually feel, the citizens actually feel like they knew about the process, that it reached a result? Did the local politicians pay attention to it?

Did they adopt the recommendations? And then if it did work out well, is there some structure in place for it to be repeated? And we don’t have the answers yet in any of those places.

So yeah, I think, again, going back to Ireland and other places where it’s worked, I think the key thing has been there is a really thorny problem that everybody agrees is a problem, and everybody agrees the politicians are not solving. There is political buy-in. The politicians agree to take notice of this process.

There is public awareness about the process and how it works and what makes it better than other things. And then there is a successful outcome, a consensus that they reach, that the politicians adopt, and that actually demonstrates the proof of concept. You have to have all of those things for it to really take hold.

I’m curious where you first encountered these ideas. I have my experience where I really can point at a time and place where I encountered this idea, I saw it as something that was beautiful, and it is new to everybody else. So I’m wondering, what was your moment of discovery where you encountered this?

You were doing work in other territories, I think, or maybe as a journalist. When did you see democratic reform or citizens’ assembly or these processes? What was your first experience? And what did that mean?

I can’t remember specifically. I remember that about 15 years ago, when I was working for The Economist, and I was in New York City, and I had a beat that allowed me to range quite widely. And so I focused it somewhat on technology and society.

And that was where I became aware of some participatory processes happening in other parts of the world. And I went to meeting something called the Open Government Partnership, which was this gathering from different countries of people trying to figure out different ways to make government more transparent and more participatory. And so I gradually started to build the awareness of those processes then, and started to ask the question of that basic animating question.

All right, if we were doing democracy, if we were inventing a democracy today, what are the things we would do? And these seemed to be some of the answers.

Yeah. What do you love about it? What’s the joy in the work that you’re doing for you?

For me, the joy is talking to interesting people who are really, really dedicated to the cause. I constantly meet people who are fighting these really difficult battles where the outcome is not at all guaranteed. And if it does work out well, it’s probably going to take years.

And it can be incredibly frustrating. And they’re just such dedicated souls. And that is very inspiring.

And then some of the more, I suppose, conceptual stuff, thinking about questioning all our assumptions that we’re raised with about what is a democracy? Why is it good? Who does it benefit?

And peeling away all these things that we’re educated on and never really questioned. Which also then, I think, makes you see more clearly why the current system has failed so badly. See the blind spots of the, even the people who defend the system and the democracy campaigners and the politicians, see all of the assumptions that are baked into it.

So for, one of those assumptions, for example, you brought up Athens. The founders of the U.S. did not like the word democracy. For them, it was associated with mob rule and tyranny of the majority.

They consciously created a republic, not a democracy, that was premised on this idea that you delegated your decisions to a small group of people who were somehow mentally equipped to take them. And so even getting the majority of people to question the meaning of the word democracy in that context and think about what it could be, as opposed to what they think it is. I think that’s a fascinating problem and part of, I suppose, what I have been trying to do, and I’m not sure with much success yet, is storytelling around it.

How do you tell a story about what democracy could be that breaks people’s conceptions of it as this broken, useless, unresponsive system that we have today and gives them a sense of it being potentially something else?

Yeah, that’s beautiful. I was, well, it’s funny, you’re reminding me, Democracy Next is now, they’ve embraced this elected oligarchy. They’re taking this same approach.

They’re saying, we think we have a democracy, but what we actually have is this elected oligarchy. And what we really need is a true democracy, a deliberative democracy. And so I thought that was an interesting example of them also trying to find ways of communicating this issue.

Yeah, and what’s interesting, sorry, just sorry to interrupt, but the elected oligarchy frame, what’s interesting to me is it resonates right across the political spectrum. And so Noam Chomsky, the famous political thinker, has been saying some variants of that for decades. In the 1960s, he wrote about how essentially corporate power has captured political institutions.

Curtis Yavin, who is this theorist of the neo-reactionary dark enlightenment, very right wing, believes that democracy should be dismantled and the country should be ruled by a monarch, makes essentially a similar diagnosis that what we have is not really democracy. It is a thing he calls the cathedral, but elected oligarchy would be another decent phrase for it. I do think that there is an issue here that this is particularly true of the US.

And I think because of the structure of the political system, because of the role that big money plays in politics, and because of the degree to which capitalism is less regulated here than it is elsewhere, it creates that elected oligarchy much more strongly than it does in some other countries in Europe.

Yeah. I’ve had the experience, and I’m curious what your take on this is, where I feel like citizens’ assembly has been picked up in some places as a way of going around the institution.

I feel like the climate activism world has taken it as a way of just trying to take shortcuts around the actual democratic institutions, whereas I never really felt like that was my attraction. My attraction was more about as a supplement or a way of reforming the current one. And so there’s a way in which this stuff can be, feel more, I guess, is there a reformist view of this versus a more radical view, and that those are different ways of picking up the same tool?

I think that that is generally true of social movements. There is always a reformist view and a radicalist view. There’s a reformist wing and there’s a radicalist wing.

There’s Martin Luther King and there’s the Black Panthers. When I was growing up in the UK, there were two key organisations that were campaigning for gay rights. And one was very much about trying to work inside institutions and talk to politicians and push from the inside.

Another one was about activism and demonstrations. And I actually think in any social movement, these things work together. Often they seem like they’re fighting each other, but actually they’re both necessary.

And so when people talk about introducing deliberative democracy, I similarly hear two strands. And I hear the people who say, in order for this to work, you have to start by getting the political buy-in. You have to convince the politicians it’s in their interests to listen to this.

And then there’s another strand that says, if you can build enough of a social movement around a deliberative democracy project, around holding a citizens’ assembly on some issue, then you can pressure the politicians to take it seriously. So I think both approaches maybe can be suitable for different contexts.

Yeah, that’s awesome. Thank you for that. I had never really considered it that way. You said something earlier that I wanted to follow up on. You talked about, I can’t remember what the... You talked about the feeling of citizenship, that some of these things can imbue that feeling of citizenship and some maybe don’t. Do you know what I’m referring to and what does it mean to have the feeling of citizenship?

I suppose I would say it’s to have a sense of, number one, agency. I can influence the processes. It’s having a sense of community.

I share something in common with all of these people around me, even though we disagree on a whole bunch of things. Maybe it’s also a sense of responsibility. A friend of mine, a guy called Jon Alexander, who’s a very big deliberative democracy guy and one of the, I think, co-founders of Democracy Next, has this framework.

He talks about people as subjects, consumers, or citizens. Subjects was when we were all ruled by kings and really had no say in anything. Consumers is how a lot of people relate to democracy and to government in the 20th century.

They’re expecting government to just provide good services and for them to be able to push back if it doesn’t. Citizens is the mindset in which you actually see yourself as an active participant who has a responsibility to make it work yourself. You have agency, you have responsibility, and you have a sense of community.

His question, his animating question is, can we move from most people seeing themselves as consumers to most people seeing themselves as citizens? That’s probably my answer to what you asked.

It’s beautiful. I met Jon. He was there at the event in Athens. His story is really powerful. He makes it very clear that we are, in some respect, trapped in a consumer story about what we expect, what we think is expected of us. Trying to invite people into a citizen story seems to be... Would you say that that’s part of your project too? Your project fits into that, is how to invite people into a citizen’s mindset where they have a different relationship instead of expectations about what’s available to them and what’s asked of them.

Yeah, very much so. I think maybe the distinction for me is that I’m trying to think about all the pieces of the puzzle as well. John, for example, I know is very strong on the idea that there’s no deliverism, which is if only government delivered services better, people would trust it more.

He’s very skeptical of that. I am more inclined to say, well, you need both. You need the civic engagement that gets people a sense of participation and a feeling of agency.

You also need the government to deliver services better and be more responsive so that they feel they’re getting something that works for them. Then you also need, as I said, the media, the communication information environment part so that they feel that they’re informed and so they don’t feel completely separated and polarized from their fellow citizens. To me, all of these things fit together and you can’t really...

I don’t think one can really advance without the other.

Yeah. I’m trying to think of... I guess I’m curious more about the fairness... I haven’t really... Yeah. Can you say more about fairness and your feelings about it?

I think this is probably just my childhood psychology, but I hate unfairness and I hate it when people get to abuse their power. I think of democratic governance as an inoculation against that, simply by virtue of the fact that it causes alternations in power and makes it hard for people to consolidate power to the extent that a dictator or a monarch does. Ideally, it gives people voice and it enables those who are being discriminated against or oppressed or just left out or impoverished.

It gives those people agency and a voice to campaign for or agitate for better treatment for themselves. That ideally should be the outcome. I don’t believe in a utopian socialist paradise where everybody has equal wealth and is equal in every way, but I do believe in a society where everybody is treated fairly.

Obviously, certain basic rights and processes, an ability to advance, but an ability to defend themselves against abuse by the powerful. To me, that’s... Why else do we have this?

Yeah. I’ve stumbled on a good question, I hope. If you were to design a role for yourself, either at the national level or maybe in a city, what would it be and what would you do?

If you had the power and the budget and if you were given the license to implement some of these ideas, what kinds of changes do you think you would want to make?

That’s a great question. Because I go in different directions. One of them is trying to do what I do now, which is be a storyteller and help change people’s minds.

And so that might be a role where if you’re working for a city or a government, your job is to go around and be the explainer to people, whether it’s in local communities, whether it’s in the bureaucracy, whether it’s in the media. And all of these different sectors explain to them what a democracy could look like and how their piece of it fits together with the other pieces and why they have to work together. So that storyteller would be the most obvious thing, since that’s what I’ve done as a profession.

I also sometimes think maybe it would be nice to actually be a facilitator of processes, deliberative processes, conflict resolution, and help people bridge those divides. Another potentially could be focused more on the process side of things. What does it take to get a bureaucracy to move faster?

What does it take to get a legislature to do lawmaking differently and to move and to be more responsive to technological change? That’s more, that’s less my area of expertise. But I think that could also be a valuable thing where I think there’s a lot of, in bureaucracy and in legislatures, they’re just not very good understanding of technology and what its implications are and how it’s changing things they do and also of how they could do things differently.

And so just creating some space, some opening, some vision around what is possible and how you might change things, how you might change those processes, that could also be something good to do.

Yeah. I love the explainer or the storyteller as the first, as that. I think very often, obviously, I’m just thinking my own experience in Hudson where a lot of these, they don’t really take a lot of responsibility for telling that story.

One of the biggest troubles is that just the city or the place that you live in very often is incoherent, I think. Incoherence is almost the first level of complication. There’s this woman, Fiona McNae, who’s a British semiotician, and she did a TED talk and the title was Taking Responsibility for Being Understood.

And I’ve always felt that phrase, especially when applied to government or civic stuff, is really powerful because they don’t often do that work. Maybe this is related to that deliverism critique. I mean, people said Biden delivered a lot of stuff, but if you’re not telling people that stuff has been delivered, nobody really knows that it’s been delivered in a way that so that these things come together.

Do you know what I mean? That you have to take responsibility for making sure that the delivery has been understood or has been received.

Yes. And that then, again, becomes a problem in the information environment. The Biden administration, one of the biggest complaints of the people who worked in it was, we did all this great stuff.

We passed the Inflation Reduction Act. We passed the CHIPS Act. We created all this investment and nobody knows about it.

And some of that may have been poor storytelling. A lot of it was probably the media environment, which meant that those stories didn’t surface. Some of it was that inflation eclipsed those achievements.

And I think this is, in fact, one of the critiques of deliverism is that, is precisely that, that you can deliver, but that people don’t necessarily know you delivered because, maybe because the storytelling is inadequate. But yes, you’re right. Ideally, a government would be able to say, here are the good things we did.

And people would appreciate them, but people also need to see the bad things that it did or the ways in which it fell short. In some ways, I think that perhaps the more useful way, I’m thinking out loud, but a more useful way to show people that a government is responsive is not, here are all the great things we did that you should be grateful for, but you have a complaint, here’s how we’re responding to it. And make it really about the citizen’s individual interaction over the thing that they particularly care about, rather than the program that maybe has some broad effect on the economy, but that doesn’t necessarily touch them.

Yeah, yeah. I’m curious, what you just, for whatever reason, the arrival of AI into all of this just popped into my consciousness. You’ve been in this space for a long time. What has that done to the work? What’s exciting about it? What’s challenging about it? What does it do to this issue of democratic reform?

It complicates it hugely. Again, it accelerates the pace of change even further, which means that government institutions are that much more incapable of keeping up with things. So there’s that aspect.

It probably upends the economy, which is another thing that government is not good at responding to. What is a new economic structure, policy compact that we can have in the age of AI? It creates all sorts of possibilities.

There’s a book by Bruce Schneier and Nathan Schneider called Rewiring Democracy, where they list all of the ways in which AI could be used to help things like the judicial system, the bureaucracy, the electoral system, political campaigning, and all of the ways in which it could blow those things up and create problems. It’s a long list, but the takeaway really is that what the technology will do is a function of how we use it and what choices we make about how it’s used. We can make choices in which it benefits things and makes processes smoother and eliminates unnecessary bureaucracy and improves people’s interactions with government and makes it more responsive.

There’s also uses in which it gums up the works, creates all kinds of slop, or enables more authoritarian surveillance, for instance.

So we have just a few minutes left, but I wanted to point to the work you’re currently doing. You’re on Substack, obviously, and you have this Protopian Prize. Do you want to talk about that?

Yeah, so the Protopian Prize, it’s a speculative fiction prize, which I’m co-judging with a science fiction writer, Ruth Anna Emrys. The idea is it’s run by a couple of organizations, MetaGov and the Public AI Network. The first one is about a confederation of people who work on new forms of governance and what governance could look like in the 21st century.

The second is about imagining forms of AI that are not owned by big corporations and serving their interests, but are actually designed and developed and controlled in the public interest. So that could mean AI that is designed to solve specific social problems, or is based on data that is really relevant to a particular locality instead of all being just scraped randomly from the English-language internet, or is not based on data that was copyrighted and stolen, or has various safety guardrails to make sure that it’s not doing socially bad things. So these organizations have created this prize, and the idea is for people to write about what could better forms of democracy look like, and what could better forms of AI that serves people look like.

And our idea is simply, and it’s what I am trying to do, people have these notions of what democracy is that they can’t see beyond, and they can’t imagine a form of it that looks better because the stories are not there. People have this notion of what AI is, they can’t imagine a world in which it is not controlled by these big tech companies, and so helping that imagination, helping people see possibilities of how the world could look different, that is a first step towards actually bringing about that world. Obviously, a hell of a lot more than that, but at least sets you on the path, because it gives people a sense of what they should be demanding from their leaders, and what they could agitate for, and what they could try building themselves.

Are you familiar with Helen and Dave Edwards? They have the Artificiality Institute.

I do, I even worked with them at one point.

Oh, wonderful. Well, I love them, and I’m really their language and their framework is stuff that really informs, it’s how I think about things, which I think is the great gift they’ve given us, and they talk about this cognitive sovereignty, and this language of sovereignty being a way of describing the relationship that we have with AI somehow, that we need to create these boundaries, because we are living alongside this intelligence, and so we have to manage these boundaries, and so my question is, when I think about AI, I’ve thought that, well, there’s cognitive sovereignty at the individual level, but is there sovereignty at the local level too, or at the municipal level? Is sovereignty something that needs to be defined all over the place, that that’s part of this disruption of AI, is that we’re all defining our own boundaries, and are there examples of local AI, whatever that means, that municipalities take ownership of, or have a space? I run out of language to describe it, but to your point, it’s coming from the billionaire platforms up there, what examples are there of localities maybe taking control, or defining their own way of being in this, with AI?

I don’t, I’ve never actually heard this on cognitive sovereignty before, can you say a couple more words about what it is?

Oh yeah, so it’s her description of saying that it’s because AI is a cognitive technology, when we work with it, it changes us, as much as we’re changing it, and the boundaries between what’s us and what’s it are really blurry, and so she has a, if she talks about that, that it’s almost like a discipline of being aware of what role am I in, what role am I putting AI in, with regards to the idea, or the work, or the output, and so just being very disciplined about the boundary, and I think of sovereignty as this drawing hard boundaries around control, and that’s what she sees, it’s almost like a practice, but then we hear people working with AI, and they, what do they call it, AI psychosis, or things get really blurry, it gets very confusing, so anyway, the question really was, how are there examples of municipalities, or places, or defining their own relationship with AI?

Not that I know of. I feel like this is the problem everyone is struggling with. There’s, I guess the parallel term cognitive offloading, which is when you surrender your decision making, or your mental processing to an AI, and it is also related to the question we have about whether AI will replace workers, or augment them. You can make choices as a company, for example, as an employer, about whether you’re going to use AI just to do the same work with fewer people, or whether you’re going to keep the same number of people, and use AI to empower them to do more things, because some of the more routine aspects of their work can now be automated. That is related to the cognitive sovereignty, to the extent that if you use AI, if you identify the things that are actually not a good use of your time, and use AI to do those, you’re empowering yourself to take cognitive sovereignty, to identify where your human mind is actually at its most useful, and ensure that you are the person in charge, that you are using AI in those ways that supplement and empower you.

We’re seeing the question of cognitive sovereignty in education, and whether if students are just turning in papers that are AI written, they’re surrendering their cognitive faculties to it. One of the distinctions that someone I know has also used in this context is that you can use AI in summative and formative ways, he calls it, and apparently this is also a distinction that comes from education theory. Summative is basically about the output, you use AI to produce a spreadsheet, or something, or write an email, or create a business plan.

Formative is where using the, formative is where it is helping you, where the point is the process itself, it’s the learning, it’s the gathering of, it’s the creating of a network, let’s say, or it’s something that develops you, and AI can be used to help with formative processes too. So I think I’m just using different words for similar things here, where there is this notion that we’re all struggling with, how do we be disciplined about ensuring that AI doesn’t replace us, doesn’t substitute for our thinking, but instead gives us more power. I think very few people are actually in a position, or have the luxury to be disciplined about that, and to think about it in a very clear way.

In most people, many people’s, perhaps most people’s cases, that choice is out of their hands, because it’s in the hands of their employer, or simply the thing is moving too fast, and it’s too complex for us to even be aware that our cognitive sovereignty is eroding. So I think we’re really just at the very beginning of that journey of figuring out whether we will retain our cognitive sovereignty or lose it.

Do you want to end before we say goodbye on a positive thought for the future of democracy?

I think the positive thing is that as scary as things are, this is also the moment when anything is possible, there’s an open space for innovation. I think about this in the context of journalism as well. AI is going to disrupt the business models of an awful lot of publications, because when you get your information through ChatGPT, you’re much less likely to go to the website of the publication and read its stories, and so a lot of the traffic it depends on is going away already.

There is an open space to experiment with what new forms of journalism might arise, what new business models might arise, and I think there is an open space to experiment with in many other areas too. And one of the things that AI does, it allows us to code, so it allows us to prototype ideas and try out solutions to things much more easily than we could before. So that is the optimism, is that there is the space for experimentation.

Whether those experiments succeed in producing a better world also depends on whether we organize to undercut the existing power structures that have kept the institutions that we have going for so long. So it’s not, I always want to emphasize this because I hear so many people talking about how a technology will solve this or that problem, and it’s never about the technology. The technology is always just a tool.

It’s about the choices we make on how to use it, and about the power structures in which it exists and who can take, who benefits from those or who can direct them in a different way.

Beautiful. Gideon, I want to thank you so much for accepting the invitation. This has been really great.

Thank you. Thank you, Peter. Great to talk.

Get full access to THAT BUSINESS OF MEANING at thatbusinessofmeaning.substack.com/subscribe