Parts 4.1, 4.2, 4.3.
4. participation and citizen power
TABLE: Forms of societal decision making
a. direct democracy. Citizens vote, or decide by consensus, on principles, laws, plans etc. then monitor and guide implementation of policy. A partial form of direct democracy exists where citizens have the right to initiate and enact referenda on a particular issue. (Problems with direct democracy include: lack of information of citizens on political issues; need to find ways to allow deliberation on complex public issues; difficulty to organise communication, debate and voting among very large groups)
b. indirect democracy or delegation (Problems: may be distorted by failure or inability of many to vote; may be corrupted by bribery and nepotism etc.; often insensitive to needs and wishes of citizens; leads to disempowerment and anomie of citizens.)
b.1 accurate representation of citizenry (e.g. fair elections, proportional system)
b.1.1 low guidance of legislative and executive by constituents (poor information, no right of recall of delegates, no chance of interventions such as vetoing laws or actions, sacking ministers or government, dissolving parliament)
b.1.2 high guidance by constituents
b.2 inaccurate representation of citizenry (e.g. unfair or rigged elections; "fixing" of boundaries of electoral districts by ruling group in order to secure re-election; non-proportional e.g "first past the post" system, or indirect system e.g. US presidential election)
b..2.1 low guidance of legislative and executive by constituents (almost inevitably the case)
b.2.2 high guidance by constituents (difficult to imagine where representation is poor)
____________________________________
4.1 antidote to discontent, psychic factors, problem solving
To what purpose participation in collective decision-making? We may predict that some of the widely discussed "ills" of modern "democratic" societies such as apathy towards the party-representative system, low voting turn-outs, low public esteem of politicians, "politische Verdrossenheit", (German, translation = morose discontent) may be, if not cured, then at least improved if more and more people become involved in decision-making and steering policy implementation. It is not only a question of correcting deficits. There are many positive aspects to participation which can particularly well be described and predicted by psychologists. For instance, being able to contribute to solving one's own problems, acquiring a sense of control, perceiving some meaning in social and political life (and maybe therefore in own life), being able to contribute to solving commonly faced problems.
Frances Moore Lappe, Co-Director, Center for Living Democracy writes in The Quickening of America, (with Paul Martin DuBois, published by Jossey-Bass, 1994.)
"What's surfacing as a conflict between individual and majority rights
actually reflects something much deeper. It's a spreading sense of
powerlessness among Americans in all walks of life. Most Americans
aren't apathetic and morally adrift. We're frustrated and angry at
an economic and political system that excludes us and fails to address
our worsening problems. And our anger at exclusion leads to
hopelessness and withdrawal." Cited by G. Scott Aiken. (Aiken 1996)
Also, and again to reveal a personal view, I urge a wide and urgent citizens' appraisal and evaluation of the concept of problem-solving as a task of "the polis". This is not only a matter of healing the collective psyche but also a pragmatic and urgent one. There are problems (v.i.) which existing social, economic and political systems appear unlikely to be able to solve.
Many social, political and global problems are, unfortunately but challengingly, available to be tackled, for instance child abuse which can cause life-long traumatisation, starvation, poverty, social violence, crime including the "white-collar" variety, pollution and many other problems of large cities. Military policy, especially regarding the readiness to invest in peace-making and improving skill in peace-promotion, is also a crucial area which need to be scrutinised by a critical public.
For purposes of this article I will concentrate on potential reform of the rich, western-style democracies. The politics and economics of the richer countries affects the rest of the world significantly. Not only questions of financial, economic and technical aid or loans to poorer countries but also the controversies about own (private, public, commercial, industrial) use of raw materials and energy sources, production, waste, and pollution and disruption of air, water and land are of vital importance to the whole earth and its inhabitants. Also, because we are discussing ICT then we are of necessity concentrating on those countries where substantial developments in ICT has occurred. (This is not to disregard the vital importance of enabling much wider access to some forms of ICT in all countries, but that will not be covered in this article.)
More effective involvement of citizens in problem solving, and in collective decision-making as part of problem solving, (remembering the caveat above. Introduction, "2.1 remark about assumptions") may help move towards solutions.
4.2 Some objections and barriers to improved citizen participation and direct democracy
Presenting the potential benefits of improved citizen participation may be regarded by some as idealistic, even illusory. For others it is anathema. Critics of direct democracy cite cases (e.g. in the western USA) where citizens have acquired increased rights to legislate. In exercising their new democratic rights the majority were said to be highly selfish, acting for example to reduce personal taxation or to avoid any disturbance of own comfort (e.g. refusing to accept any personal or local environmental risks and so displacing these onto other citizens, the "not in my backyard" philosophy). Other critics become even more alarmed, fearing a "dictatorship" of the majority, in modern terms projected as "an electronic mob". These criticisms are not new but have cropped up again in recent months in european and north american e-mail discussion lists (fora) concerning "public policy" and "information society".
4.3. Can citizens take over more responsibility?
Enthusiasts have tried to demonstrate the potential of citizens to take over more responsibilty. Academics, some of them no doubt also enthusiasts, tested this potential in research. Citizens, often in groups arranged like juries, have been confronted with a political controversy, a problem of public finance or a social issue such as allocation of health care resources. In many reported cases, groups of "average" citizens, sometimes selected to be representative of their society, have shown high ability to understand, debate and judge on complex issues. Sometimes political scientists were of the opinion that the citizens' understanding was "ahead of the politicians'". Further, there have been applications of the citizen-jury or citizen-panel method of decision-making in real-life. For instance, in an Austrian town the local politicians and community could not agree on the siting of a sports complex. A citizens' panel was called in and was able to persuade the conflicting parties to accept a solution. In a question of allocating resources for health care when finance has become very tight, a British health authority called in a team of consultants to help organise citizens' juries, with reportedly productive results. (British Medical Journal 1996).
The listed questions (Table) are helpful when asssesing a private or official project which claims to improve citizens' participation in public decision-making:
TABLE: criteria for projects which claim to improve citzens' participation in public decsion-making.
Are citizens confronted with issues and asked to decide upon them?
Do or may citizens put forward issues for debate/decision?
Do decisions taken/recommendations made by citizen groups have any effect in the real political system?
__________________________
URL of this document is <http://www.snafu.de/~mjm/CP/D.html