Maybe. I cannot argue against the facts of cases of corruption, however I still remain pretty optimistic that there’s a good share of respectable politicians. I know - it seems to be a nonsensical observation in light of many scandals as well as the general assumption of those in power over long or short always getting corrupted.
The reason for the optimism is, simply, that we’d be doing a horrible job at voting. If most politicians would be, in fact, corrupt, the only way that could come to pass is that we don’t really care that much. In that case, corruption might simply not be too much of an issue any more since bending the law has become the favourite pastime.
However, I really enjoy your take and focus on the subject of the article that Taiwan is only a 25 year old democracy. This really appears to bring forward the inventiveness and eagerness to forge the systemic iron while it’s still hot. Most democracies in the west have cooled down to the degree that you cannot shape it without shattering it.
I wonder whether our Western democracies will go through a process of re-heating and change? What Amy said in the beginning of TWiT 805 about the problem being a fluid development of technology and innovation during a stagnant state of political and regulatory structure made much sense to me.
Should I ever go for another academic field, I’d love to do a second degree in socio-technology on the subject of how political systems can better adjust and gradually learn to steer innovation in the sense of their citizens instead of leaving it all to the commercial machinery. Societies should build capabilities to adjust their mode of operation to not only avoid being prodded forward by tech firms, but, other way around, develop meaningful technology directives that tech firms can apply to implement for their citizens. Think New Deal, but not for roads and dams but systems, platforms, and processes. This being “green” would be simply a sine-qua-non, but not the somewhat underwhelming (in terms of “here” and “today”) core element.
Just in case someone stops by to suggest it: no, this is not the red and horrible ghost of socialism. Having a society be actually capable to self-govern is not a bad thing. It’s simply a robust foundation. A foundation that also companies like to build on. If the only foundation is commerce - at least in my mind - the outcome will become pretty harsh, inhumane, and dire. Let’s come back, in our minds, to the time, when many, many, many people built something together and were, rightfully, proud of it. A state could be that. That’s why I like your highlighting of the role to involve and invite the public so much.