Introduction

Imagine designing a country’s system of governance from the ground up, leveraging all available technological resources and integrating lessons learned from history. How would such a system function? What principles would guide its operations?

Future-proof is a think-tank dedicated to exploring these questions and more. We do not profess to have definitive answers but aim to stimulate thoughtful discussion. Founded by technologists with expertise in software development and systems design, Futureproof aspires to build a diverse community of thinkers. We invite individuals from various backgrounds to contribute their ideas and perspectives on how to implement an innovative governance system.

Science is not a list of rules or facts. It is a living argument.

^{van Tulleken, Chris (2024)}

Future-proofing Governance

The central focus of this study is the development of a comprehensive system of governance informed by key principles derived from software design and implementation. This approach has led to the identification of three fundamental “pillars of reform” that we propose as the foundation for a technologically enabled governance system. These pillars are described as:

1. Governance could be more adaptive
2. People could be better represented
3. Proposed policies could be tested and backed up with real evidence

These proposed reforms are inherently linked to three core concepts prevalent in software development:

1. Continuous Integration
2. Composition Over Inheritance
3. Data-Driven Decision Making

Governance could be more adaptive

Two plus decades ago, before the advent of ubiquitous, fast, and global internet, software distribution relied on physical media. Programmers would release the latest versions of their software on disks, which were then sent to distributors. These distributors would either sell the disks directly to consumers or fulfil mail orders. Once the consumers received the disks, they would install and use the software, often identifying bugs that had eluded the testing phase. Concurrently, new technologies and ideas would emerge, which the development team might want to incorporate into their software.

Upon release, the development team would immediately commence work on the next version, addressing bugs, enhancing features, and improving the user experience. This iterative process would span approximately a year, culminating in a new release. The updated version would then be distributed via the next batch of disks, and the cycle would begin anew with fresh bugs, features, and challenges.

This traditional approach is now considered outdated. Updates, fixes, and upgrades are delivered over the internet as soon as they are ready, embodying an agile and responsive methodology. This approach allows for immediate bug fixes and rapid deployment, obviating the need to wait for the next annual release.

Amazon releases new code into production around 100,000 times per day using this approach, this is a different world to releasing new code (on disks) every year.

In some respects, our system of government parallels this outdated model of software development. Governments promise to address issues identified during previous administrations and propose new initiatives. Campaigns promote these promises, akin to software advertisements. Elections determine the ruling party, which operates within a monolithic structure where voters must accept the entire party platform. Once in office, new problems and requirements emerge, driven not only by internal system failures but also by external, often unforeseen events, such as pandemics. The electorate must then wait until the next election cycle to address these issues and vote for further changes.

In modern software development, the rapid and agile delivery of updates is facilitated by a process known as Continuous Integration (CI). CI involves the ongoing integration of updates into the software and complete testing when any update is made. This is enabled by advancements in technology. This raises the question: what if we applied the principles of Continuous Integration to politics? How would continuous, incremental updates to governance look in practice? Could an adaptive system like this defend against long-term goal disruption (such as during administration changes), while also reacting better to unexpected external events such as wars or pandemics?

People could be better represented

The traditional voting system often forces individuals to accept a bundle of policies from a single party, even if they do not fully endorse all of them. This can be likened to the concept of inheritance in software development, where a subclass inherits characteristics from a parent class, thereby limiting customization.

Ignoring any sort of strategic voting, I have witnessed voters generally employing one of three strategies when choosing a party, which I will describe as: the personality view, the narrow view, or the utilitarian view. In the personality view, voters select a politician based on their personality, often influenced by religion, family or media portrayal, which can be misleading as the public persona may not reflect the politician’s true policies or capabilities. The narrow view involves focusing intensely on one issue and voting for the candidate who best represents their stance on that issue, while disregarding other policies. The utilitarian view entails evaluating the total number of policies that align with their views across different parties and voting for the one with the greatest overall alignment. Regardless of the method, voters must accept the entire party manifesto, leading to potential dissatisfaction with some of the policies they are compelled to endorse.

An alternative approach would be to allow voters to compose their own personal manifesto, selecting policies or experts individually. This method, akin to composition in software development, would enable voters to tailor their choices to reflect their specific interests and moral values, offering flexibility and customization. Individuals could support a diverse array of policies from different sources, creating a bespoke set of priorities.

This approach would enable a more nuanced and precise expression of voter preferences, potentially leading to greater satisfaction and representation in governance.

By adopting a compositional model, is it possible to create a more flexible and accurate system that better reflects individual voter interests and values?

Policy and law ideas could be tested and backed up with real evidence

Building on the principles of Agile, I introduced the concept of Biomimetic Driven Development (BDD) during a presentation at a hackathon. While Agile facilitates swift software development, BDD enhances the software’s ability to adapt to its environment. This methodology integrates the core practices of Agile to minimise errors and expedite decision-making. However, it goes further by grounding all decisions in empirical data.

In BDD, visionary conjectures about user needs are minimised. Instead, the development process prioritises features that are immediately demanded, based on data collected from various sources. This approach is inherently test-driven: hypotheses are rigorously tested with real data, and the outcomes are analysed to validate or refute the hypotheses. The software evolves in a manner analogous to natural processes, though the “mutations” in code are deliberately guided by intelligent design to optimise the software’s performance.

Currently, political decision-making often relies heavily on rhetoric. Political campaigns are frequently driven by emotional responses and manipulated statistics, as seen in events like Brexit. This reliance on emotional appeal and distorted data can obscure the truth and mislead the public.

A transformative approach would involve grounding all legislative, policy, and civil proposals in real data. Proposed changes would be tested using empirical methods, with results transparently presented to the public. This would allow voters to make informed decisions based on accurate, comprehensible data, rather than emotive rhetoric.

By adhering to the scientific method, policymakers could objectively assess the viability of their ideas. If the results align with their goals, they could then present the data to the public in a transparent manner, fostering a more informed and rational decision-making process. This shift towards full transparency and data-backed governance could mitigate the influence of manipulated statistics and emotional rhetoric, promoting a more reality-based political discourse.

Interested?

If you are interested in how technology could change governance for the better (or have concerns) we would love to hear from you. Contact Future-proof at future-proof@strangelabs.io