When are opposites alike? Sometimes the status quo is seen as equilibrium, sometimes change is seen as equilibrium (a constant, a recurring rhythm cause by forward momentum). Some examples are the justice system in a country (regardless of whether corrupt or effective) and computer innovation respectively.

Ceasefires may happen when an equilibrium settles in (for example,  the stalemate in the Palestine/Israel conflict or in union-management relations), or when one side claims resounding victory (which in the recent Palestine/Israel conflict, both sides appeared to do). Meanwhile, extremist acts or wars start when people can’t tolerate stalemate (the status quo) any longer. The moral: when a ceasefire occurs, don’t confuse stalemate ceasefire with agreement or victory ceasefire. And don’t assume the ceasefire will last, necessarily.

Finally, given how fast technological innovation is moving, politics needs to rely on technology to a greater extent just to keep up. Some examples:

  • Regular online voter referendums (automated surveys, authentication, collation and results publishing),
  • Data-driven policy making (including peer government data bench making),
  • Border traffic counts (of legal & illegal travellers),
  • Political impact reporting and analysis,
  • More online exposure of political issues by the government to online-savvy voters.

Don’t just rely on Wikileaks, tabloid headlines, investigative journalism or the acts of extremists to influence public opinion.

Ultimately, the problems of too much politics and not enough effective leadership will turn to technology for the solutions – governance by artificial intelligence, supported by ethical and moral codes, making fast decisions with maximum information in real time…