network-centric peacemaking

The possibly-vain model of network-centric peacemaking is that power networks can be steered to de-escalate conflict by use of social networks that provide access to leaders and decision making, that would otherwise proceed to escalate towards violence.

Its narrowest application is to simply "connect" people in war-torn regions via the Internet, satellite, and so on, moving in instructional capital very rapidly to expand a social economy that builds itself on social contracts that surround the use of the tools themselves, e.g. as observed among children in villages in India where hundreds of village kiosk computers have been installed.

triply transformative

One way to think about such systems is that they are transformative in multiple ways, all of which are enabled by that influx of information, but also arbitration and mediation:

See Government As An Export by Craig Hubley.


One way to state the ethic of these efforts is as Meg Wheatley) did: "participate, react, create, connect".

Another is the way Craig Hubley did: "seduce, expand, propagate, protect", a more specifically political interpretation as per postmodern politics.


Also according to Hubley, "The social network as art must ultimately emerge, like the attendees at a funeral. A strictly creative form that cannot be predicted, but, like a tree spanning out to achieve the maximum energy and water input, with minimum use of materials, ultimately fits the constraints of NOW. At any moment the tree might die, but, the structure it has created around it will remain."

This principle is central to the cognitive politics and the leadership, and especially leader versus manager roles, in any organization seeking peaceable change in violent circumstances. As Hubley puts it also: "Evil may be leaders trying to manage. Failure may be managers trying to lead."


However political structures and roles might change in future, and however poorly adapted the existing structures may be FOR that future, however, some authority will remain, even if only the default authority of criminal gangs.

export representative democracy?

The key question is the future of representative democracy and whether it is the ultimate form of government, and whether it can be made more efficient, and (most topically) whether one can export representative democracy.

grow local participatory democracy?

Some say not and seek instead a participatory democracy, e.g. Citizen Assembly, that might provide continuous democratic reform and peacemaking: A continuous polity with a single dispute resolver model. This might however have many of the problems of single command hierarchy itself, as does religious hierarchy.