From the article:

“While we seem to know so much, we apparently do not know how to effect social change – or if so, only in an exceedingly disruptive manner. Disruptive innovation does not necessarily equal revolution; it could be brought about by general consensus or by way of a democratic procedure. But this would entail actively pursuing this course, and this is nowhere to be seen. Our governors firmly believe technical innovation will solve our problems and refuse to recognize the need for societal change. (…)

All this said, disruptive innovation has a bright side to it. Issues of legitimacy and relevance are still being discussed – by professional poli-ticians who continue to cherish the notion that they are in the driver’s seat, by business leaders who wish to replace elected governments at the helm of a world order, by mainstream academia, by the media who still prefer to report on the occasional scandal, or on local events rather than offering civil society full participation in the debate on public affairs. If, however, it can consistently be demonstrated that the goals to be reached will in fact only be reached by adopting principles that civil society embraces, it will be clear that, as Parag Khanna put it, the “dotgov, dotcom and dotorg worlds” will interact on a level playing field. (...)

In order to achieve this paradigm shift, “raising citizens” rather than specialists is the essential first step. Adapting edu-cational curricula to include the knowledge base for performing well in the public sphere is a precondition to changing attitudes. However, education, too, alone will not suffice. Following education, participation and finally responsibility must evolve. Responsible leadership will – and can – build on this common responsibility.”