When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

Venezuela

Venezuela, The Promise And Pitfalls Of Digital Government

The digital revolution is shifting how societies are structured, and may lead to greater public oversight of government. But it could also have the opposite effect.

In Caracas on April 24
In Caracas on April 24

-Analysis-

CARACAS — The world has changed quickly in the early years of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, as the exponential growth of disruptive technologies shift traditional routines in all aspects of our lives, reshape the productive process, and reinvent the way we socialize.

Total automation of production and the singular situation expected to emerge after 2030, when artificial intelligence may supersede human intelligence, are expected to completely transform the work market, productivity, income distribution, how nations are organized, and even people's ethical framework.

Most governments, with their limited and decentralized intervening role in society, are inevitably obliged to adapt to the requirements of the digital economy to provide services, optimize the lives of citizens, and boost workforce competitiveness. Digital government plays an important role here as a means of efficiently managing public expenditures and ensuring transparency in resource allocation.

Innovation must be at the center of public policy.

And yet, advances in the digital economy can either boost the power of civil society by encouraging economic freedom and civic welfare, or enhance state power over citizens. It all depends on a given country's political situation,

New technologies can give civil society leverage opportunities in recovering freedom of action. They can limit the role of government through direct supervision by citizens, and provide the means for demanding more transparency in how the government handles public resources. But every advantage carries an intrinsic risk.

Political crossroads

Simply put, the shifts can lead toward one of two opposite extremes: democracy or totalitarianism. In a democracy, countries must adapt to changes imposed by the Fourth Industrial Revolution if they wish to improve people's living conditions or ensure efficient and transparent public spending. A lot of that spending would be on education and technology. Civil society would have more autonomy and economic freedoms, and greater influence on major national decisions.

In the totalitarian setting, however, there would be gaps and delays in public access to technological advances even as people's lives are under digital control. There would also be expansive but opaque public spending to serve populist ends. The state would accumulate power and threaten economic liberties. Venezuela, where the government controls telecommunications and advances in the digital economy, is a prime example of this possibility.

In Carobobo, Venezuela, on May 7 — Photo: Juan Carlos Hernandez/ZUMA

Innovation must be at the center of public policy with the aim of serving the public interest. When citizens discover and exercise their civil liberties, they become more demanding of government. The opposite happens when they are deprived of those liberties. In that case, they become slaves to a state that feeds, controls and instructs them.

The digital government can thus be a double-edged sword and offer as many advantages as disadvantages, depending on the political system and levels of existing freedom. In the democratic scenario, the Inter-American Development Bank has cited some evident advantages of a government backed by new technologies: transparency in the allocation of public monies, and the central role given to citizens and their needs when providing services and creating procedures.

A question of control

A digital government in a democracy allows the use of new technologies to improve everyone's lives, including in remote or difficult locations. It aims to simplify procedures, reduce public spending and make taxation more efficient and transparent. In a democracy, the advantages of a digital government are for citizens. The challenges, on the other hand, tend to be for the government, which is subject to greater civic oversight.

The government uses new technologies not to benefit, but control the population.

In the totalitarian setting, digital governments hold all the cards. They can easily obtain private data, which are then used for control or extortion, while control of telecommunications allows the state to intervene in all areas of civil life.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution threatens to impose changes on the work market and social relations and comes with technologies that concentrate efforts in the applied sciences. Thus, in Latin America's less developed countries, the state must focus on first-rate education, science, and technology to train a workforce adapted to the global digital economy.

But in countries like Venezuela, the deterioration of democracy has allowed the government to use new technologies not to benefit, but control the population. It expects transparency in people's data while its own accounts and processes remain hidden from view. The lesson is this: When it comes to the benefits or harm done by the digital government, it all depends on how a society is configured, and who holds economic power.

You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
FOCUS: Russia-Ukraine War

Ukraine Is Turning Into A "New Israel" — Where Everyone Is A Soldier

From businessmen to farmers, Ukrainian society has been militarizing for the past six months to defend its sovereignty. In the future it may find itself like Israel, permanently armed to protect its sovereignty.

Ukrainian civilians learn how to shoot and other military skills at a shooting range in Lviv on July 30, 2022.

Guillaume Ptak

KYIV — The war in Ukraine has reached a turning point. Vladimir Putin's army has suffered its worst setback since the beginning of the invasion. The Russian army has experienced a counter-offensive that many experts consider masterful, so it must retreat and cede vast territories to its opponent.

The lightning victory that the head of the Kremlin had dreamed of never took place. The losses are considerable — Ukrainian troops on the battlefield now outnumber the Russians.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

On April 5, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky predicted that at the end of the conflict, Ukraine would become a "big Israel". In an interview with Ukrainian media, he said then, "In all the institutions, supermarkets, cinemas, there will be people with weapons."

The problem of national security will be the country's most important one in the next decade. An "absolutely liberal, and European" society would therefore no longer be on the agenda, according to the Ukrainian president.

Having long since swapped his suit and tie for a jacket or a khaki T-shirt during his public appearances, Zelensky has undeniably become one of the symbols of this growing militarization of Ukrainian society. However, the president claimed that Ukraine would not become an "authoritarian" regime: "An authoritarian state would lose to Russia. Ukrainians know what they are fighting for."

Keep reading...Show less

When the world gets closer, we help you see farther

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter!
You've reached your monthly limit of free articles.
To read the full article, please subscribe.
Get unlimited access. Support Worldcrunch's unique mission:
  • Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.
  • Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries
  • $2.90/month or $19.90/year. No hidden charges. Cancel anytime.
Already a subscriber? Log in
THE LATEST
FOCUS
TRENDING TOPICS

Central to the tragic absurdity of this war is the question of language. Vladimir Putin has repeated that protecting ethnic Russians and the Russian-speaking populations of Ukraine was a driving motivation for his invasion.

Yet one month on, a quick look at the map shows that many of the worst-hit cities are those where Russian is the predominant language: Kharkiv, Odesa, Kherson.

Watch VideoShow less
MOST READ