Imagine a political movement that does not belong to any spectrum of opinions at all. Its platform does not detail preferred solutions for each issue and does not present a specific worldview. Its leaders are committed to one value above all - finding the healthiest solutions to every public problem, through ideological flexibility and examining all existing opinions. Such leaders would know how to investigate, analyze, and utilize the advantages of each opinion to accurately address public challenges.

Imagine a media that, instead of interpreting the opinions of leaders while expressing the opinions of the reporters, would investigate whether we have sufficiently examined solutions for every problem, and would direct its scrutiny at leaders who are fixed in their opinions.

​

Imagine Locke, Montesquieu, and other philosophers of political science adding one more value to democracy - the value of flexibility. Similar to the checks and balances on governmental power, they aim to create checks and balances against ideological rigidity. Just as democracy fights against the psychological nature of humans to misuse power, so democracy will fight against the similar psychological tendency to revert to the familiar and known, to automatically identify with certain truths at the expense of others.

​

Flexible Democracy
Flexible democracy represents an approach that seeks to preserve the good and healthy aspects of the familiar democracy, including freedom of expression, government of the people, separation of powers, checks and balances, but adds an additional layer of values, foremost among them the preference for flexible solutions over fixed opinions. Flexible democracy does not fight against existing political movements and worldviews but shifts the focus to analyzing problems and validating solutions from as wide a range of options as possible, from all worldviews, to address changing challenges. Flexible democracy is not an ideology. It does not seek to realize an ideal or shape a utopia. Instead, it focuses on improving living conditions as part of a dynamic process that changes constantly, and adapting cultural values to those changes. Politics of solutions instead of politics of opinions.

​

From the perspective of flexible democracy, the central problem of democracy at the beginning of the 21st century is the chronic preoccupation with "opinions" as a decision-making tool. Opinions have become a battlefield. Leaders, the public, and the media fight "for their opinions," struggle over "values," and do not yield to the "worldview" of the other side. This process encourages extremism (as is happening in many countries since the beginning of the 21st century) and leads to dissatisfaction with the functioning of democracy across the political spectrum.

​

The study of memes (the study of the replication of ideas and their spread in human societies). In English, Memes, and particularly the "Dynamic Spiral" model, is the theoretical basis of flexible democracy. The Dynamic Spiral model (Spiral Dynamics in English, SD for short) has succeeded in mapping most of the values that drive human societies, dividing them into groups or layers. Each layer specializes in solving a different type of problem and fails to solve problems that are outside its area of expertise.

The great contribution of the model is that it allows us to understand how beneath every opinion lies a value system that specializes in solving certain problems. Each worldview has certain qualities that can be integrated into solving specific problems.

​

An example of cognitive rigidity is the thinking of human rights supporters or the left who oppose policies advocating solutions that involve the use of force. However, in certain cases, when the state or its citizens are physically attacked or threatened, the healthy solution is sometimes to respond with force. In other words, the fear of this public is not of a forceful solution when it is necessary; the fear is of a society that advocates power and violence as a fixed value and the unnecessary use of force.

​

When the use of force as a solution is moderated and is an option within a flexible toolkit, it is likely that we will fear it less. Instead of automatically opposing any type of use of force, we will refine, investigate, and debate when it can be used in the healthiest way. As long as it is legitimate to use this solution when needed, at a given time, and according to the capabilities of that society.

On the other side of the political map, it is argued that the resistance to the use of force endangers us, weakens us, and increases survival risks. The deeper fear underlying those claims is the fear that the value of using force will disappear entirely, leaving us exposed to existential dangers.

​

When both sides understand the motivations that the other side offers, without completely dismissing the solutions of the other side, the level and quality of cooperation will increase. The fears and suspicions between the sides will diminish. Conversely, countless historical examples lead to the conclusion that when societies become rigid about values while the environment and challenges change (the environment and challenges change constantly), they struggle to solve their problems and even create new ones.

 

Summary
Every change begins with a change in the values of society. Even if the applications of flexible democracy are still vague at this stage, as a way of thinking, it is a promising starting point to lead us beyond the era of politics of "opinions" towards a more prosperous and healthier future.