"If you can't talk about it, don't do it!"

The idea is that politics had made control of the tempo of information their most important tool for carrying out their actions. That practice of saying "now is not the time" or "don't tell the whole truth" is no longer possible; they neither control time nor all of the information. And this loss of the capacity to control what and when has made it literally impossible to maintain a position of relevance to society. Politics must understand that the two major control mechanisms, as are time and information, are no longer in their hands alone. Wikileaks is a sign of the times. Throughout the history of humanity secrecy has been an attribute of power. "They rule but we don't know what they do". This fact of not knowing facilitated power. This is no longer possible. Today power can be had only with absolute transparency, because if you hide something I'll end up finding out about it and you'll lose your reputation. So, if you can't talk about it, don't do it. It's pretty extreme, but it's better this way for the health of democracy rather than hiding things or explaining them only when it is in one's interest to do so. Nobody wants to hear "I'm hiding it for your own good". Well, it doesn't know where it's going, to put it bluntly. It is not demonstrating administrative, regulatory nor compensatory capacities; it is not governing. And if it doesn't know where it's going, it can't possibly know how to get there. It's the feeling that in this collective ship the captain, who should be at the helm, is simply not there; this is what has set us adrift. There are various reasons. Political practice that is often distant and arrogant and far-removed from citizens and their problems. This political practice is one of the causes. Another is the crisis of the proxy and the technician. There is a 1,300-day contract, which is the length of the legislature, and at the end of this contract is when the confidence earned or lost during the entire term has to be evaluated. What is occurring now is that people don't want to wait 1,300 days. They want to be decisive every day of the legislature. It's like when we changed from having final exams to continuous evaluation. And this is scrutinized politics. This is where technology holds the key. It is what enables this possibility. We have great capacity for observing, monitoring and holding government accountable for their actions, and this is what makes it possible for us to constantly control it. Whether they like it or not, technology has changed the balance of power. Before, judgement was passed at the end of the legislature, but we no longer conform to the concept of the final exam. We can observe our leaders; we are more independent and critical, and this gives rise to a new model of relationship. The media, like politics has lost its privileged role. Politicians were the only actors entitled to "do" politics and the media were the only actors entitled to "do" information. And this is what has changed; people get into politics without political parties and into communication without newspapers, or without the media. And in losing this leading and privileged role of proxy, of representative, of technician, they are forced to think about what their role is in this open society. Scrutinized politics is possible because we are in an open and rich society from the standpoint of its capacity to create content, ideas... it is a very open and mature society. The media must rethink itself and be capable of reinterpreting its forms and model in the new digital society. In other words, what are these new powers and how are they articulated? Let's consider it another way. In such a connected society a lie can spread very quickly, but it can be disavowed just as quickly. It's a two-way street. You can lie on internet but you'll end up being caught. And not sooner or later, but very soon! The strength of the digital society is that impunity is impossible; you end up being discovered. A lie can spread but the collective intelligence of a hyper-connected society makes it last about as long as a candle. You fooled me once but you won't do it again. And not only that, I found out how you deceived me and I won't allow it to happen again. The price you pay for an inappropriate action on internet is enormous. That the civic-democratic pressure that citizens bring to bear on formal and representative politics will force changes to be made. Changes in the current democratic system because the preeminence of these formal politics cannot be maintained. I believe that this pressure only has one way out, and that is through change. Exactly, they are expressions of two things: unrest, dissatisfaction or disappointment with respect to formal politics and, at the same time, the need to regain control of our lives and our independence. Perhaps we put too much faith in political representation and now were going through a reappropriation of sorts. If this idea is emancipatory, not only do I keep an eye on you but I also act. We're not only talking about denunciation or regulation but a certain reappropriation of that which we should never have surrendered, such as personal autonomy, and my responsibility and involvement with collective issues. It is about regaining control over that which affects me. The organizational format of political parties fits poorly with a vigilant society. They are hierarchical and vertical cultures, while societies are built of networked structures. When you have an organizational model that doesn't coexist well with the dominant ecosystem, the current ecosystem, you can only disappear. I believe that the scenario we are moving towards is that politics will change quickly. Everything, taken all together, will take us into a context of controlled democracy. We all have more capacity to keep an eye on each other; impunity no longer exists; we are moving towards a system of counterbalances that makes the utilization of resources and power fairer. Thus, the new controlled democracy is more just.