We got a lesson in inequality. When the politicians did spread the word out so the students fell silent.
The lively debate on the net was replaced by a public conversation between students and politicians which all had to follow. The conversation was about democracy, but it was clear that the politicians also had a hidden agenda. They competed for students’ votes in upcoming elections. They raised themselves and their parties and fit well to tread a little on their opponents.
There was a patriarchal hierarchy in the auditorium that had not existed during the earlier IT work. At the top of the hierarchy were a number of male politicians who with their dark and resonant voices made everything they said to feel obvious.
Students who dared to challenge them met a mild rebuke tone which made them feel stupid. From the experience that the oral form was so much less democratic than the writing was born the idea of a democratic experiment.
Unlike the written form of democracy, which they had just tried on and where everyone had as much influence, the oral form favored to those already in power, the gift and confidence.
The students groaned at the fact that it had been so easy and fun with computers, and then it became so boring and uninteresting. Why should policy be like it is?
“We actually live in a democracy, it means that you can come up with proposals for change” I said.
“It is the ideas that ought to compete. If you have a better idea of how democracy should work, then you’ll register a party and stand for election.”
Most for fun I threw the suggestion that they would register a party that has “democracy on the Internet” as an idea, and not has any other campaign promises than “we are voting on the matter.” The students liked it. This event marked the beginning of the failed democracy experiment Demoex in Vallentuna.
A failure or success? 
Leave a Reply