Holding a referendum on whether to remain or leave the European Union was one of the dumber decisions in the long history of the British political class, as is becoming increasingly apparent. Obviously, when David Cameron took his fateful decision, he hadn't the slightest idea of what his Conservative Party would do if the vote was leave. But that just magnified the initial blunder of choosing to have a referendum at all. Referendums are perhaps the worst instrument available in the democratic toolkit.
Referendums are yes/no affairs, and yes or no sucks one of the vital ingredients of democracy—compromise—out of an issue. It also divides, creating an atmosphere of us and them, winners and losers, breeding hostility in the process. Referendums are the hammer of majority rule, more in-your-face than face-to-face.
Few issues are as simple as yes or no. Referendums relieve citizens of the need to think below the surface. Some citizens will research the issue, think it through calmly and thoroughly, and discuss and debate it with others. Some won’t. The ignorance component of referendums can, therefore, be very high. How many Brits, I wonder, understood the economic ramifications of leaving. Or how many understood how it would affect the Irish question. And how many votes had little to do with the EU, but were a slap in the face to the political class over immigration or declining incomes.
One of the powerful advantages of representative democracy is having decisions made by people whose job is to study issues thoroughly before deciding. Referendums short-circuit this advantage. A decision made by elected representatives after thorough consideration might well be closer to what the people would decide if they deliberated rather than simply voting in a referendum. The best solution will almost certainly come from deliberation, not a battle between hostile viewpoints inflamed by sensationalist media.
Referendum also often fail to get a turnout that represents a cross-section of the electorate. Those who are emotionally involved in the issue or those who have a vested interest may be disproportionately represented.
If I am being hard on referendums, I make no apology. Democracy, healthy democracy, requires a great deal more than the people’s voice and the people’s will; it requires fully informed, thoughtful voices and wills, and these are often absent, to a greater or lesser degree, from referendums.
So is there something better? Is there a vehicle that will combine the desire for direct democracy with the need for deliberation? The happy answer is yes—citizens’ assemblies.
A citizens’ assembly simply means bringing together ordinary citizens to decide issues. They are provided with a comprehensive package of information, access to experts and politicians on all sides of the issue, and ample opportunity to discuss and debate among themselves face-to-face in small groups. Only after this immersion do they offer their opinion. The result is not simply what the public thinks but what the public—at least the public in microcosm—thinks after thorough deliberation. We have the opinion of an ideal citizenry.
The participants in an assembly become a sort of mini-parliament. Free of any grip of party loyalty, allowed to deal with their fellow participants on an equal, open, intimate and informal basis, they are also more willing to allow the heartfelt views of others to influence their own. The competitive, adversarial nature of conventional party politics is sharply reduced. By bringing people of all sorts together, assemblies create a more consensual, inclusive democracy as opposed to the hostile, partisan, macho democracy of party politics. In effect, they take the “politics” out of decision-making.
All groups in society can be equitably represented in an assembly, but they are there as individuals, not as representatives of groups, as they are with party politics. Referendums force citizens to take sides, and the majority hammers the minority. As referendums divide people, assemblies unite them; where referendums are exclusive, assemblies are inclusive. And, unlike a referendum, every citizen involved will generally be well-informed.
Assemblies not only bring citizens together as individuals but as equals. They eliminate not only political inequality but social and financial inequality as well. The CEO of a large corporation sits down with the welfare mother; they can get to know each other and understand each other’s views and problems. Not only can they conclude the issue under discussion, but they can build bridges for the future. People isolated in their own domains tend to obsess on their own world views, constantly reinforcing their prejudices.
Particularly important in assemblies is the dialogue between participants. Good talk—vigorous, well-informed conversation, especially debate with those whose views differ from one’s own—remains the main ingredient of healthy democracy. It not only ensures better decision-making, it engenders respect for other views and refines the art of compromise. It both educates and civilizes. It offers the possibility of a politics of shared goals rather than a politics of angry difference.
What criteria then should we apply in constructing an assembly? I suggest two:
First, participants must be chosen by random selection. Anything else does not accurately represent the people in microcosm. Other means, choosing participants as voices of interest groups, for example—labour, business, the handicapped, etc.—would be slipping back to representative governance.
Second, attendance must be mandatory, as it is with jury duty. A citizen who refused to attend without good cause would be in contempt. If we relied on volunteers, the voice of the assembly would be skewed toward those with a special interest or those who simply enjoy political activism. That wouldn’t do. We seek the voice of the people, all the people.
Citizens’ assemblies could even be established as permanent bodies. Assemblies of appropriate size could be brought together to deal with an issue within a set period. Once they had deliberated and drawn up their conclusions, that assembly would be dissolved and replaced by another to deal with the next issue. And so on. Assemblies could be another branch of government at all levels of government.
Citizens’ assemblies, whether as a permanent part of our constitutional system or just used ad hoc, have the ability to transfer substantial decision-making from legislatures to citizens in a wave of direct democracy that would improve citizens as it involved them. Every citizen would share the prospect of becoming a legislator, and if assemblies were part of all levels of governance, the prospect could be very good indeed. Citizens would expect to be called to assembly duty just as they can now expect to be called to jury duty. Citizens would be kept on their democratic toes, creating a more aware and confident citizenry. And, no doubt of some small satisfaction to politicians, citizens would have no one to blame, or credit, for how the country was run, but themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment