This post was inspired by two recent articles I read:

1. The Localism Manifesto, which discusses localism/decentralisation from a political standpoint: https://mainstreetjournal.substack.com/p/a-localism-manifesto; and
2. an article from a startup founder on the decentralisation in technology: https://invertedpassion.com/decentralization-continuum/.

Over the course of history, society has swayed between centralised power and decentralised power. In politics, the end of World War II began a large consolidation of power now evident through institutions such as the UN, EU and NATO. What was once decentralised nation-communities began to move toward a central international community, also evident in the proliferation of treaties and agreements dealing with a variety of topics from carriage of goods by sea to governance in outer space. Televisions and movies such as Star Wars series and Star Trek began to imagine a future where the political power on Earth and across space even was centralised. It was not surprising then that various industries came to have natural monopolies or duopolies. With rising global trade, society saw small decentralised local businesses become replaced by centralised international franchises like 7/11s and Amazon across the world.

Lately, however, we have seen greater and greater examples of a society leaning towards decentralisation. The emphasis on blockchain technology as a decentralised payment system to AI as a mechanism to democratise various industries are examples of this. Trumpian politics, Brexit and the rise of fascist politics in Europe that rely on a national identity are all examples of this. In Australia, I would say that we have seen a greater recognition of state and council identities come out in politics than ever before, with the rise of NIMBY politics.

There is something to be said about the “middle way”. I am a large proponent of choosing the middle pragmatic path in politics. In fact, the Buddha reached enlightenment through the middle way and preached it until his passing. I think the middle path between decentralisation and centralisation is natural and humans tend to pull themselves back in to the middle on the continuum of things. The seeds of decentralisation exist within centralisation and vice versa.

Based on this sway, I find myself agreeing with the InvertedPassion article that one cannot choose either decentralisation or centralisation – rather, we exist in a continuum and humans will move from one side to the other. The article does a much better job than me at persuading the reader of this continuum. For example, this continuum is reflected in the fact that, even in current push to decentralisation, there is centralisation. Blockchain technology is largely represented by the use of Blockchain and only 3 -4 companies are seriously competing in creating the next best AI system. Other more recent examples would include the centralisation of AI software and hardware in 4 or 5 companies