A gentle plea for a mundocracy: April fool or Spring dreamer?

“Everyone is probably as anxious, uncertain and wayward as we are”

Alain De Botton

In 1776, the United States of America was founded in pursuit of “a more perfect union”—a vision that, through subsequent amendments, created the world’s longest-running democracy. Despite recurring imperial and often high-flown tendencies, the country has played a fundamental role in promoting human rights and, for much of the world and much of the time, upholding a Pax Americana—at least on paper—based on meritocracy and free speech. The more optimistic among us, such as Hans Rosling in Factfulness, point to extraordinary increases in life expectancy, health, wealth, and freedom over the past two centuries—progress to which the USA has made a significant contribution.

The Founding Fathers—men of considerable intellect and integrity (and I mention their gender advisedly, without downplaying the vital contributions of women and non-Caucasians in shaping the nation’s mythos and foundations)—were products of a ‘typographic’ society. Neil Postman’s Amusing Ourselves to Death describes how, in the 18th and 19th centuries, a culture of reading and books cultivated formidable capacities for concentration and critical thought. He notes, for instance, that the debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas once lasted eight hours, with a break for dinner midway.

Alas, much has changed. While we may lament this as a recent phenomenon, the seeds of intellectual and moral decline in our national and global societies have been germinating for decades, gradually eroding the very foundations of democratic engagement. Complacency set in during the relatively peaceful and prosperous post–Second World War era, a time marked by historically low defense spending and unprecedented investment in health. But moments like the Iraq War in 2003—launched without full UN Security Council approval—signaled a shift, opening the door to global impunity and a spiraling disregard for international law and human rights, especially among the emerging class of ‘alpha male’ autocratic democrats.

Postman wrote his book in 1985—before social media—but his warning endures: the metaphor is the message (evolving from McLuhan’s “the medium is the message”). Television, he argued, had already begun to dumb down public discourse. Even supposedly serious news bulletins became vehicles for celebrity anchors to deliver hyper-snippetized stories, designed for skipping attention spans and packaged as entertainment—the real content being the commercials.

And now, technology has leapt even further ahead. Legal and ethical safeguards struggle to catch up, as ever (think seatbelts appearing decades after the car). Generation Alpha’s apparently shrinking attention spans are shaped by endless screen exposure, social media, clickbait, and the isolation of pandemic lockdowns.

1 April 2025

In this context, democracy itself is increasingly called into question. Is it still representative? Is it even useful? Populism has surged, while politics has seemingly become more short-termist, cronyistic, and even hostile to science. Climate denial and conspiracy theories cast doubt, offering false comfort in a chaotic world. Meanwhile, autocrats tout long-term “stability” as justification for their extended rule.

All the while, artificial intelligence unfolds new marvels—some of which I explored in my extended poem A Deluge of Wonders. The Singularity feels closer than ever, if not already upon us. Any alien or autonomous intelligence, one suspects, would sensibly stay under the radar for a while before delivering us into either utopia or dystopia. Reality, as history suggests, likely lies somewhere in the muddled middle.

I wrote this piece on a transatlantic flight from Panama to Spain, in the early hours of April 1st—April Fools’ Day—squeezed into an economy seat, surrounded in the dark by slumbering humanity, a small oasis of calm divorced from internet distractions. During my stay in Panama, I explored its layered history as a global crossroads, from the founding of Panama Viejo in 1519 (its indigenous people decimated by century’s end) to the privateer Henry Morgan’s 1671 sack of the town. I learned of the strategic importance of the isthmus, the canal’s tumultuous creation, and the U.S.-engineered independence in 1904 that turned Panama into a de facto puppet state. The USA invaded Panama in 1989. Echoes of this dynamic still resonate—in places like Ukraine.

I reflected on the silver and gold racial hierarchies imposed during canal construction (glossed over in the IMAX film at Miraflores Locks, in contrast to the excellent Canal Museum in Casco Viejo). I saw the resilience of the Panamanian people, their struggle for canal sovereignty, modernization, and profitability. Progress, I was reminded, is messy—full of contradictions, pride, pig-headedness, self-interest, and hope.

Democracy can work better—much better—for the majority. Now is a fertile moment to reinvent it, nourished by the very manure of our current political dysfunction. We have the tools, the wisdom, and the technology to empower a massive, moderate, conscientious majority—most people, after all, simply want to live peacefully and productively. Yet paradoxically, those who gain power often do so through narcissism, corporate allegiance, and self-interest.

Beyond citizens’ assemblies?

We trust randomly-selected juries to reflect the conscience of the people—why not scale this up? Over the last ten years, Citizens’ assemblies have been formed in Ireland, France and the UK to advise elected governments. Is now the time to elevate this principle to fully empowered Citizens’ councils (or even parliaments), supported by a meritocratic civil service? There is a precedent for this next step - Ostbelgian (German-speaking Belgium) has since 2019 had a Citizens' Council.

Could this model, or something similar, be replicated at local, regional, national, and even supranational levels—such as the EU or a future Global Parliament: a ‘mundocracy’?

Nationally, Citizens' councils might mirror or complement existing upper houses, perhaps eventually replacing them. While selection could be random, it could be weighted to represent the full diversity of people. Participation wouldn't be compulsory but strongly encouraged (and well renumerated).

It is technically and logistically feasible. It draws on the wisdom of crowds, guided by expert public servants. It can be trialed locally, adopted incrementally, and adjusted as needed. A pragmatic evolution—not a revolution.

Surely, we are ready to do better than what exists now.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse