Suggestions
Claudia Chwalisz
Founder and CEO of DemocracyNext | Co-Lead Tech-Enhanced Deliberative Assembly Pop-Up Lab with MIT CCC | Advisor to UNDEF, The Data Tank, Design & Democracy
Claudia Chwalisz is a prominent figure in Paris spearheading groundbreaking work in the realm of citizen participation and delving into the intricate facets concerning the future of democracy at the Open Government Unit of the OECD.
She plays a pivotal role in coordinating the Innovative Citizen Participation Network and is engaged in co-editing the OECD's notable publication, Participo. Claudia Chwalisz is also actively involved in the Democracy R&D Network, showcasing her commitment to advancing democratic principles.
With a robust academic background, Claudia Chwalisz holds an MSc in European Public Policy with distinction from University College London, solidifying her expertise in European policy dynamics.
Her literary contributions underscore her intellectual prowess, being the author of two seminal books on populism and democracy, and co-editor of two significant works in the realm of comparative political economy.
Having a diverse educational journey, Claudia Chwalisz pursued her Bachelor of Arts Honours in Political Studies at Queen's University, BAH in Politics and International Relations at The University of Edinburgh, and participated in the First-year study program at Bader International Study Centre, Herstmonceux Castle.
Claudia Chwalisz's professional trajectory is marked by a series of notable roles in prestigious organizations like the OECD, University of Canberra, Design Academy Eindhoven, Populus Limited, Policy Network, and the University of Sheffield, where she showcased her acumen in policy analysis, mentorship, strategy consultancy, and research.
Highlights
Illiberalism is not the cure for neoliberalism.
Largely agree with Henry Farrell in this piece, though I have not yet read Danielle Allen's book "Justice by Means of Democracy", so I can't speak to his interpretation of her arguments. The emphasis on democracy creating a sense of purpose and agency for people very much resonates. On my autumn reading list!
"Neoliberalism looks at the world through the lens of market prices and efficiency, suggesting that material wellbeing is sufficient to provide for happiness. Common good conservatism looks at the world through the lens of natural law and shared moral commitments, and suggests that a godly life and happiness go hand-in-hand. Danielle’s liberalism looks at the world through pluralism and power relations, arguing that we find connection and fulfillment through participation in the democratic means that allow us to steer our collective fate. If you are a Democrat who urgently wants to return a sense of agency to people’s lives, the third option is the one you really ought to be starting with.
Danielle’s book argues we need to reinvent political economy along democratic lines. It is highly unusual for a book on liberal theories of justice to start with words such as “The Great Recession of 2008,” and to go on to complain about the economic style of thinking. But then, she maintains that economics and political theory are more closely connected than most believe: practical economists, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are in fact the slaves of some deceased political philosopher.
...
That explains why Danielle’s ideas are relevant to the arguments over anti-anti-neoliberalism discussed last week. But her book is not a mere critique. The larger part of the text offers a positive case for democracy as a means of collective steering. In Danielle’s reading, Rawls tacitly downplays the importance of positive liberties - in this context, people’s ability to govern their collective fates through democratic means, in favor of negative liberties - their freedom to be left alone and to pursue their individual benefit. That discounts how humans “thrive on autonomy, the opportunity for self-creation and self-governance” in ways that make “democracy necessary to the achievement of human flourishing and justice.”
Democracy, then, gives people a sense of purpose. It enables citizens to participate in the collective steering of society, providing them with the means to shape their common destiny to some reasonable degree. It does not assume that citizens all share the same values and accepts that sometimes one party, group or faction will win out, and sometimes it will lose. The point is that under conditions of reasonable equality, each citizen can be a “co-author … a cocreator of a community’s agenda” with a grounded sense of their own agency."
Worth reading this fantastic WIRED interview with Meredith Whittaker. It contains the answers to all the questions I always get about why I don't have WhatsApp and only use Signal (& also why I'm using Proton ). We need structural change to our technology infrastructure, and we have a choice and agency in deciding what we want to use. If you think it's impossible to leave WhatsApp because of all your chats and groups, believe me, it's not. I encourage you to think about it.
"Q: Yeah, but it’s hard to point to Signal as the solution. You’re an advocate for structural change, but really you’re leading an organization that is so sui generis in the world. How do those things work together? I think you’re saying that you’re providing a model that hopefully other people will adopt? Because it’s not like Signal alone is going to solve surveillance capitalism.
A: No, no, no. Signal is not a solution to the problem. It is proof that we can do things differently, that there’s nothing natural about the paradigm that exists.
The Signal model is going to keep growing, and thriving and providing, if we’re successful. We’re already seeing Proton [a startup that offers end-to-end encrypted email, calendars, note-taking apps, and the like] becoming a nonprofit. It’s the paradigm shift that’s going to involve a lot of different forces pointing in a similar direction.
We need to build alternatives, and this is something I’m working on with a coalition in Europe and folks in the US and elsewhere. But what does significant capital poured into building independent tech look like? How do you disarm the massive platforms, draw down their cloud infrastructures, the fact that they control our media ecosystem, the entire nesting-doll of toxic technologies that we’re seeing from this, while building alternatives that actually interconnect the world?
What do communications networks that support this vision look like? What does an independent cloud infrastructure look like? How do we openly govern technologies that have been closed and captured by these large companies? And how do we do that at the level of actually building things? I’m really invested in that, because I think we’re going to need it for the world."
