Citizen Lobbying: How Your Skills Can Fix Democracy | Alberto Alemanno | TEDxBrussels
Vložit
- čas přidán 2. 06. 2016
- The more society professionalises, the less is taking advantage if its own skills. Indeed, each of us has much more to give to society than what our job descriptions allow us to. How to then mobilize our skills for the greater good? Alberto Alemanno, an engaged academic and civic advocate, argues that besides voting and running for office there is also a third, less known - yet more promising -, way to make society progress: lobbying. Lobbying is no longer a prerogative of well-funded groups with huge memberships and countless political connections. This talk offers you a guide on how to become an effective citizen lobbyist in your daily life by tapping into your own talents, skills and experience.
Alberto Alemanno is an academic, civic advocate and social entrepreneur. He is currently Jean Monnet Professor at HEC Paris and Global Clinical Professor at New York University School of Law. Due to his commitment to bridge the gap between academic research and policy action, Alberto established eLabEurope, a startup committed to improve civic literacy, engagement and participation by lobbying in the public interest.
Alberto is now working on the launch of TheGoodLobby, the first platform aimed at connecting people with expertise with civil society organizations who need them in pursuit of the public interest.Originally from Italy, Alberto is a graduate of Harvard Law School, the College of Europe and holds a PhD from Bocconi University. He regularly publishes Op-Eds in Le Monde, the Huffington Post, IlSole24Ore and his work has been featured in The Economist, The Financial Times, Science and Nature.The World Economic Forum named Alberto Young Global Leader in 2015.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
This Great Information will change the entire World to be able to communicate and develop the society via citizens themselves. Respect and understanding by caring have never existed before and the life is a fight for people who care and understand but never can express themselves legally.
WOW~ I am left motivated to go to DC now.
I feel most of this in my soul. I need to do more.
Excellent speaker, wonderful message! Thanks for this inspiring talk.
I need a clinic
Does the professional consider that their time is more profitably spent progressing their own personal interest and those of her/his family,y rather than those of the common good that fit with her/his belief system?
Professional, i.e. specialised, knowledge encourages atomisation of structure and therefore optimisation of its parts.
What process counters this with consideration of the whole? In a company or other organisation you want it to do well so that you get your annual bonus, your salary rises, you have job security and you get opportunities to progress. In society the benefits are far more ephemeral distant or unpredictable.
I am being devil's advocate as I do believe and participate in lobbying (we can always do more). I guess it is fulfilment of the 'moral drive' in all of us to do public good. It is just that this need has been put on the 'backburner' in an increasingly consumerist society.
I think that there is a lot of good that intersects between family interest and the common good.
Humanity as a whole is one big family essentially, though we have so many walls.
I think climate change is a big one. If families understood that our choices today could kill millions in droves within the next hundred to two hundred years, their grandchildren included, I think more people would make more sensible decisions like abstaining from meat and recycling. The average conservative does not see the value in protecting the planet for future generations and would dismiss the idea that consumption of animal products could essentially kill their grandchildren because the party platform tells them climate change is a hoax or automatically associate abstaining from meat as "liberal".
Poverty and crime go hand in hand. By lobbying a tax on financial transactions that are speculative and drain the market of credit, capital gains that would go to ultra wealthy hoarding money could be divested to reduce poverty and crime in local areas that are not usually served. Crime seems to be endemic to low income areas in many parts of the US, so the median person might not understand all the costs associated with it and decide it's not a good idea to support that tax.
The problem is that so much rhetoric is involved the people are unable to see clearly the cause and effect of different policies. There are a lot of forces that obfuscate the realities of policy decision and research into these decisions are difficult to digest from the masses.
I agree with your points and also note that "these decisions are difficult to digest from the masses." It sounds like we know and they don't. The lack of progress does indeed seem to be obfuscation but also fighting between groups that may well have the same aims at heart.
If you strip the concerns of the Trump and Brexit voters down their core then it is dissatisfaction (bordering on rage) at the what their society/country has become and their diminished role: be this loss of well paid jobs which provide self respect, housing for their children, loss of social services, corporate tax avoidance, off-shore tax havens, concentration of wealth and consequently their smaller share of what they help create. Meanwhile they feel that politicians ignore their cries and seem to focus on what these voters see as social issues which are not central to their everyday lives - LBGT, Human Rights act, religious prejudice, concern for US ‘illegals'. Meanwhile on the trudge up the hill topped by prosperity they are dropping back in the queue as these other groups appear to gain the ear of politicians and jump ahead.
In their push back against this they are called racists, bigots and prejudiced. But looking beyond the factional skirmishes and emotional reaction, their concerns are widely shared across the political spectrum, almost universally: that decision making has been taken away from them by far-off (non-elected) institutions over which they feel have no control and who do not act in their interest on those issue most crucial to them - the EU, Washington, WTO, faceless (hugely paid) corporate executives which choose for the company's profits not the country’s wealth, tax authorities which voice concern but never act.
After years of building frustration their response is to change the decision makers and attempt to bring control 'back home’, closer to the hands of ordinary people not the elite, to their parliament in the hope they will institute rules that once again cause corporations to act for the country’s (and by association) the people’s good. Why should they care about individuals’ rights, climate change, or far off countries when their everyday reality is that they and their families are slipping down the economic and social pole? - "I am concerned that the planet is heating up but my husband lost his job today and I am working two jobs".
These are issues that have concerned ordinary people across the political spectrum for many years. The key is to frame the conversation around the issues which we have in common. By building empathy each faction will find that we perhaps we are seeking broadly the same goals - the concerns are the same, only open conversation will see if the solutions are shared. In this way mutual understanding will come and with it the willingness to address wider issues. Do we have time? Well we can continue doing the same things and waste more.
So we should frame issues in non-partisan terms: to take a non-economic concern, police body cameras protect the rights of all citizens and the police themselves, not just racial minorities.
We also need to listen to get to the heart of the other groups' concerns while avoiding epithets and preconceived categorisation if we are to have productive conversations. Embrace a Trumpite or Brexiter. It may take time but we need to break down the barriers not 'educate them'.
I believe that it is of utmost importance to contribute in alignment with your personal agenda and specialised knowledge - and honesty:
- You know the caveats, correlations and important factors in your field of expertise and are not easily driven to short-sighted statements and recommendations based on half knowledge
- You can explain complex situations in laymans terms so more people can make an informed decision and participate effectively.
- You can give people the option to support your agenda based on transparency and factual knowledge. If you gain their support they are not easily swayed by populism
- You can stand your ground in a political or public debate and can dispute views and find common grounds based on factual knowledge not ideology
- We already have enough loudmouths in politics who fish for voters and don't have profound knowledge or omit information as it fits their agenda. We don't need more of those.
- What we do need is differentiated debates and division of labor in political decision-making that benefits the citizens and not some party platform or hidden agenda.
- You already did the groundwork in your field, the timecost of contributing is relatively low as opposed to learning the ropes in a field you're not familiar with and will never gain the in-depth knowledge an expert has.
Of course all of this only applies if your goal is to apply yourself for the common good and do your best to be transparent and open about it. If you only contribute in order to push your individual agenda under the guise of a public representative you might as well become an establishment politician ;)
Well we clearly know nowdays with these "referendum" experiments that referendums do not work. Even parties in our country who where 50 years PRO referendum now back down from that standpoint. It doesn't work because people know nothing about politics and only know just things in a general way. Not detailed like a professional. This causes referendums to have mostly emotional results instead of scientific good results that is the best for the people.
Hey
Hi
👏👏👏
5 stars
I downvoted, and here is why. Yes, in theory, citizen lobbying could work and has worked. Further strengthen your point, we out number them as citizens. However, you do not consider in your calculations the large quantities of money these lobbyists representing large industry and corporations, as well as special interest money. We citizens are up against the deep state and large bureaucratic systems. Even worse yet, we are fighting against central banks that are and can print endless quantities of money. They do so to oppose the Will of the people. Thus is why We The People have little representation in governments now. I propose that counter economics, building parallel systems, economies, and societies are how e choke them out if power. This can be done peacefully. It is called Agorism. Vote with our wallets. We out number them. Start turning our backs to the government and become little by little more Sovereign as individuals. Stop giving them our time, attention, and money whenever and wherever possible. Agorism. Let's build decentralized Parallel systems that mimic these centralized legacy institutions.