Steven Hill, political author and Director of the Political Reform Program at the think tank New America Foundation has written a fascinating book that deserves to be read widely in the United States. Europe’s Promise is a comparison of American and European economies, societal institutions, approaches to foreign and domestic public policy, democratic practices, and economic and political structures where the author dispels misconceptions about the European economy, society and culture commonly held by Americans.

Overtaxed Europeans, inefficient and bureaucratic welfare states, a scloretic economy, high unemployment and inefficient political practices are myths that are quickly erased as Hill describes the development of the modern-day European Union countries from the post World War II period up to 2008. Hill paints a portrait of the European Union as ultra-modern, high technology savvy, and collectively, an economic powerhouse that seems to have implemented a system which distributes the rewards of a productive, capitalist economy more broadly and equitably throughout society. The result, according to Hill, are societies which are more stable, physically healthy, highly educated, has highest levels of quality of life for the vast majority of their populations, and whose people are buffered and insulated from the worst effects of the global economic downturn of the past three years.

Sometimes I come across a particularly profound political insight that I just have to share it widely. This is one on the political participation of young people in European politics from the Personal Democracy Forum:

Young Europeans do not want political parties in their lives. Only 4 percent of young people (15-29 year olds) participate in a political party or trade union (on Euronews from Eurostat statistics). This is a clear figure of what young people want or do no want. Political party politicians and their acolytes would quickly blame the education system, capitalism, the television or even the Playstation for the lack of interest in politics of young people. They are blinded by their group thinking and narrow perspective of what politics is. Politics is not only, and not even mainly, about what political parties and their representatives (the so-called “politicians”) do. This fact, many people, including young people, know very well. I recommend the party people to go one night around bars in any city or town in Europe, to listen to what people are talking about. They talk about politics beyond political parties and their captive public institutions. They will be surprised to hear that there is political life outside the party. For politics is mainly about people and what they do, and not about organisations of any kind. That is why we need to reform the system to give chances to those who want to talk and participate in politics, but do not want to be captive of an organisation that has its own interests, often different than the interests of the rest of us.

Given the oft-cited statistic that the number of self-described political independents in the U.S. is surging rapidly I would say that what is said in the quote above holds true for us here in the U.S. as well. Politics should be about people, their needs and solving problems. Not narrow partisan interests. Most people are wising up to that insight and would prefer a political system that is responsive to those needs.

Yes to people-centered participatory democracy and no to narrow partisanship!

I am urging everyone who reads this blog to check out the recently published book, SMS Uprising: Mobile Activism in Africa, published by Pambazuka Press in Africa and Europe.

It is a collection of essays on using the cell phone as a tool for political and social activism. The anthology contains an essay written by your truly on the work of Fahamu, a UK and Kenya-based Pan-African NGO which pioneered the use of cell phone text messaging for an activist campaign to enact legislation for women’s rights in 2004 among other high-profile campaigns which attracted international media attention at that time.

From the book description:

SMS Uprising provides a unique insight into how activists and social change advocates are addressing Africa’s many challenges from within, and how they are using mobile telephone technologies to facilitate these changes.

This collection of essays by those engaged in using mobile phone technologies for social change provides an analysis of the socio-economic, political and media contexts faced by activists in Africa today. The essays address a broad range of issues including inequalities in access to technology based on gender, rural and urban usage, as well as offering practical examples of how activists are using mobile technology to organise and document their experiences. They provide an overview of the lessons learned in making effective use of mobile phone technologies without any of the romanticism so often associated with the use of new technologies for social change. The examples are shared in a way that makes them easy to replicate -– ‘Try this idea in your campaign.’ The intention is that the experiences described within the book will lead to greater reflection about the real potential and limitations of mobile technologies.

If you want to learn about innovative uses of cell phone technology, are curious about its applications in activist campaigns, and want to learn more how this technology is being applied in activism in developing countries then this book is for you. Buy the book and tell them you heard about it from this blog!

As a voter and citizen in a democracy I should be able to vote my conscience and beliefs in elections. At its core this involves voting for candidates which represent my beliefs. Absent any palatable candidates, I would like to have some sort of mechanism to register my blanket disapproval such as a “None of the Above” option. Having such an option would put political parties and elected officials on notice that they aren’t up to snuff and the general public expects a lot more than what they are currently offering. These suggestions promote choice and competition in politics — that’s the American way right?

To my surprise, I get a lot of resistance from people whenever I broach such issues. People typically agree with me about how much our choices in elections in candidates and political parties are inadequate. But when the discussion veers towards answering the question of what we can do about it and I broach the third-party and independent option this is where I encounter resistance.

Some objections:

• Voting for third party and independent candidates will only result in siphoning votes away from the major party candidate you most agree with, resulting in a win for the major party candidate you most oppose. Therefore, your vote for an independent or a third party only increases the likelihood of the major party candidates whom you most disagree with winning and is wasting your vote.

• Politics is a game where you can’t always get what you want. Winning elections always involves some sort of compromise.

• Having a None of the Above option is stupid. Voters should just choose between those who are on the ballot. If they disagree with the choices, they should be active in the stages of politics before the candidates are formally chosen such as party primaries, to make sure candidates of their choice will be represented on the ballot.

The Monkey Cage, a blog authored by professors of political science in major universities such as Georgetown University, New York University, George Washington University and Columbia University, recently had an interesting post called, “Three Myths About Political Independents.” It is supplemented by another article called “The Active Fantasy Lives of Libertarians.”

Together, both articles make the point of dispelling “myths” about independents:

1) Independents are the largest partisan group.

2) Independents are actually independent.

3) Change in the opinions of independents is always consequential.

Readers of this blog might have noticed I am still posting but infrequently. Maybe one or two blog posts per week, sometimes even less. For a blog that is pretty unusual and violates the first rule of blogging which is to provide a constant stream of fresh content for your readers so they will come back and hopefully frequently.

A busy life the past several months is to blame for my slacking on the blogging end — I simply have too much going on in my personal life. My day job (thank God I still have one in today’s horrid economy!) of course is taking up much of my time. But I am also letting things like my guitar-playing hobby slide as I’ve been out of practice for several weeks now.

A common complaint among many people is that government, politicians and government entities are not responsive to the needs and concerns of average, ordinary citizens. That there are no easy, direct routes for ordinary people in order to have meaningful communications and relationship with government and the people who run it.

An initiative I wrote about a while ago called Government 2.0 is an example of a massive effort on the part of government to directly engage citizens through the creative and innovative use of social media such as blogs, Twitter, Facebook, RSS feeds, and other web 2.0 technologies. I’ve been wading into the pool of government 2.0 initiatives the past few months and have found some very fascinating stuff. On the surface, a lot of it seems to be good, ready access to officials. The true test of whether or not these efforts are sincere and truly an honest effort to engage citizens, is if average, ordinary folks who wish to be engaged with government can actually engage government using these tools.

This compilation of resources combine my interests in new media technology and citizen-centered political advocacy. Reading about, exploring, and using these resources have been educational to me in learning how to be an effective advocate, how best to harness the latent power of ordinary citizens for social and political change, and what tools are available on the Internet to help an individual be an active, engaged citizen.

I first heard about this book in an Open Left blog diary by John Emerson and was immediately intrigued by Walter Karp’s unconventional views and his conclusions on the political behavior of political parties and politicians.

Pundit Chris Cilizza pooh-poohed the idea of the “Rise of Independents” in this Washington Post article.

Despite the reported increase of Americans self-identifying as independents according to the latest poll results Cilizza decides to throw some rain on independents’ parade by saying:

Before we get too far down that road, it’s important to remember that talk of a third party and the reality of it are too far different things.