message from
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Michael Macpherson,
Psycho-Social and Medical Research PSAMRA,
Derfflingerstrase 17,
10785 Berlin, Germany.
tel.: +49 30 262 3768
e-mail: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
November 1995.
Colleagues, Friends!
Responses to a recent post* of mine, "democracy in action", reproduced below, have been interesting and encouraging. They contained some brainstorming, contacts to initiatives which aim to improve participation and democracy, and lists of reading material.
I collated some of the replies into a document (digest) which is about 40 computer screen pages, 65K and offered to send this document by e-mail to members of the different electronic lists on which my original message was posted. I received about seventy responses for the digest. One of those came from John Gotze, who offered to place the digest on his World Wide Web home page, where you may read it now.
Several correspondents asked me to say where my interests lie. So I composed a short statement which may be read in my reply to Leutrell Osborne, towards the end of the digest.
Recently i have found several good or promising WWW links to initiatives in citizen participation, improving democracy, electronic aids to public debate and decision-making etc.. These are listed below under
E-DEMOCRACY LINKS.
Michael Macpherson.
* sent to four electronic discussion lists:
1) Events after November 1989 (Berlin), a discussion about Germany after re-unification.
2) Political Science Research and Teaching List.
3) Political Psychology List.
4) Participatory Action Research List (Based at Cornell University).
5) Political Participation Project (Based at Massachusetts Institute of Technology).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On 12 Oct 1995, subject "DEMOCRACY IN ACTION", Michael Macpherson wrote (with request added **):
Dear colleagues, friends,
Request for information, suggestions for study and debate.
"Democracy aided by computer networks" is the subject of many current
discussions and practical, mainly experimental initiatives.
While these are to be welcomed, I suggest that there is a need for a
thorough inquiry and public debate about how democracies, as they now exist and function, should or can be improved.
This inquiry should address democratic systems in their entirety and not be limited only to the present or possibly expanded role of computers.
I am particularly interested in changes which allow citizens to participate more fully and more effectively in political decision making. It would be helpful if someone could summarise what proposals have been made to increase the responsible, "deliberated" participation of citizens in decision making in local, national and international systems. For instance, what is the modern version of a "town meeting"? How could "town meetings" be organised in a metropolis?
Existing publications about democracy tend to be dry and theoretical, not providing material which can be readily digested by a broader public. I am not suggesting that serious study and academic discourse are not important here. But I do suggest that they should be supplemented by some "living studies" of how democracy actually works or is hindered. What about a comparison of several democratic countries, showing real people acting as citizens and representatives, aiming to demonstrate advantages and disadvantages of different democratic forms? (Anyone who knows of such a study, or who would be interested to set one up, please contact me**))
Should you wish to reply to a list, please send a copy of your message to
my e-mail address <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>.
Sincerely,
Michael.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DIGEST
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 08:52:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: Karen D Frazer <kfrazer@CERF.NET>
To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
Subject: Re: democracy in action
There is a current debate in the communications field centered around
issues of "public space", the creation, maintenance, and importance of
physical or virtual space through which democracy can be enhanced or
propagated. This touches on those scholars interested in the
possibilities of cyberspace for democracy, but is not limited to that.
An alternative approach considers the enhancement of interest-group
participation in democratic government through public interest group use of new communications technologies; I've explored that a bit. The
community network phenomenon in the US is a wonderful example of
increasing participation in democratic decisionmaking and resource
allocation as well. If any of these areas are of interest to you I could
point you to some literature. Best, Karen Frazer
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, michael macpherson wrote:
"Request for information, suggestions for study and debate.
"Democracy aided by computer networks" is the subject of many current
discussions and practical, mainly experimental initiatives. (.......)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
************************************************
Karen D. Frazer
Annenberg School for Communication
University of Pennsylvania
215-898-7041
kfrazer@cerf.net
************************************************
To: Karen D Frazer <kfrazer@CERF.NET>
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: democracy in action
Dear Karen Frazer,
Sure, I would be interested to hear more about "public space", "enhancement of interest group participation" and about US community networking. One thing I'll do is to initiate a documentation, so academic work including theoretical stuff and research as well as reports of practice and information about meetings and organisations are all welcome.
As resources here are at the moment thin, I cannot promise to evaluate much material in detail. But, maybe ways and means will be found.
Michael.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 14:17:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Peter Muhlberger <peterm+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: 9NOV89-L@tubvm.cs.tu-berlin.de, PSRT-L@mizzou1.missouri.edu,
pol-psych@umbsky.cc.umb.edu, PARTALK-L@cornell.edu,
ppp-list@ai.mit.edu, mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: democracy in action
Hi michael: you may find the following references interesting regard
deliberative democracy.
******
Author: Fishkin, James S.
Title: Democracy and deliberation : new directions for democratic
reform
Published: New Haven : Yale University Press, c1991.
***********
Author: Fishkin, James S.
Title: The dialogue of justice : toward a self-reflective society
Published: New Haven : Yale University Press, 1992.
*****
AUTHORS: Bessette, Joseph M.
TITLE: The mild voice of reason (BOOK REVIEW) deliberative democracy and American national government.
BOOK PUBLISHED: University of Chicago Press 1994.
REVIEWED BY: Selznick, Philip
JOURNAL TITLE: The Public Interest no119:106-10 Spring '95
*****
AUTHORS: Forester, John.
TITLE: Bridging interests and community: advocacy planning and the challenges of deliberative democracy.
JOURNAL TITLE: Journal of the American Planning Association 60:153-8 Spring '94
(Peter Muhlberger)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 20:55:06 +0100
From: "Tom Bryder, University of Copenhagen" <KUSFTB@vms2.uni-c.dk>
Subject: Re: democracy in action
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Hello Michael
Long time no see, but it is good that I see you are still active. I think
you should consult two books on the topic which concerns you, if you
do not already know them. The first i Heinz Eulau: Technology and Civility which has a good essay on interactive electronics and democracy. The second is Ithiel de Sola Pool's Technologies without boundaries, which I believe would interest you, altough it is a little bit "off line" as far of thetopic is concerned. Toffler Power Shift, although mainly journalistic, is also quite good Mike, all my best and I hope to see you next year at the ISPP in Vancouver
Yours
--Tom Bryder
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 18:54:52 -0400
From: Mark Thomas Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu>
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Subject: Re: democracy in action
Cc: PARTALK-L@cornell.edu
>I am particularly interested in changes which allow citizens to participate
>more fully and more effectively in political decision making. It would be
>helpful if someone could summarise what proposals have been made to
>increase the responsible, "deliberated" participation of citizens in
>decision making in local, national and international systems. For instance,
>what is the modern version of a "town meeting"? How could "town meetings"
>be organised in a metropolis?
Great questions. I've been trying to pick my way through this for a while and am ever more astounded at how little I've learned about it.
A few points:
(1) Peter Muhlberger notes Jim Fishkin's books. Fishkin ran a project in
Britain wherein people were brought together for several days (?) to hear a range of views on crime-related issues -- with opportunities to quiz the speakers. Sort of like a long "national town meeting." Now Fishkin is working on a similar project based on the 1996 elections, to be conducted in Austin, TX I believe in February.
(2) The Kettering Foundation in Dayton, OH has long conducted "National Issues Forums" where people come together to deliberate on (you guessed it) national issues. These materials are I believe all prepared by...
(3) The Public Agenda Foundation in New York, which has done some neat work on both city and (mostly) national-issue deliberation, usually in a "all-in-one-night" format (apologies to Dickens). Common to (2) and (3) is the difficulty of getting anyone to listen to the results. (Nevertheless, these aren't just egg-head exercises.)
Bibliographical citations: David Mathews [sic] of Kettering, *Politics for
People* (U. of Illinois Press, 1994); Daniel Yankelovich of Public Agenda,
*Coming to Public Judgment* (Syracuse U. Press, 1991). Many others.
(4) Ned Crosby at I think the Jefferson Center in Minnesota brings together "citizen juries" over several days (smaller groups, whereas Fishkin uses bigger groups for "statistical stability").
(5) A new friend of mine, Mark Robbins at Syracuse U., is gathering
information on various U.S. city models of public deliberative decisionmaking. He knows most about "Eugene Decisions," where people were encouraged to bring themselves into the city budget-making process. This is tip of the iceberg.
(6) I know just a little bit about Local Agenda 21 activities in Britain....
(7) An old friend, Karl Berger of Public Voice International, has worked on a project called "Choices for Britain," and is now working on "Choices for Bristol." Karl has visited a lot of U.S. cities to learn about their efforts to foster public participation in decisionmaking.
(8) Alan Kay of the Americans Talk Issues Foundation believes that a lot of valid and useful deliberation can occur within the course of a
well-constructed telephone survey. After reading a few of his reports, you may be convinced.
(9) Speaking of deliberation, since Bessette's excellent book has been
mentioned, many here may be interested in Adolf Gundersen, *The Environmental Promise of Democratic Deliberation* (U Wisconsin Press, 1995); see also one of my favorite books of the decade, Willett Kempton et al., *Environmental Values in American Culture* (MIT Press, 1995) (which doesn't sound like it's about deliberation, but might as well be).
Here I've tried to ignore the really egg-headed stuff, but everything here I believe sheds real light either on how democracy can work right now, or how it could work (somewhere) in the imaginable future. But there should be a lot more here. Makes me feel a little better about the world just writing some of it down.
Details as I can provide them (addresses and such) upon request. I hope we all can elaborate together upon (5)-(7) above, in particular.
Mark Lindeman
MTL4@columbia.edu
To: Mark Thomas Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu>
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: democracy in action
Dear Mark,
A great reply!
I have added your suggestions about literature and information about initiatives to the collection.
You write:
>
>Here I've tried to ignore the really egg-headed stuff, but everything here I
>believe sheds real light either on how democracy can work right now, or how it
>could work (somewhere) in the imaginable future. But there should be a lot
>more here. Makes me feel a little better about the world just writing some of
>it down.
>
>Details as I can provide them (addresses and such) upon request. I hope we
>all can elaborate together upon (5)-(7) above, in particular.
Although my post emphasised public discourse, I am interested to obtain an overview of what concepts, theory etc. there is, so would also like to hear abut "the really egg-headed stuff". Would also like to receive the details ("addresses and such") which you mention.
From where i sit i see a serious communication problem, illustrated by the fact that there has been only one responses from a european. As far as i know, there are no political science discussion lists based over here. I'll try posting to a few newsgroups which attract european contributors and directly to some german groups. On this point, your info. about English initiatives is very helpful.
There were a few other interesting responses to my posting so i'll make a summary for colleagues/lists.
Best wishes,
Michael.
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 14:32:04 -0400
From: Mark Thomas Lindeman <mtl4@columbia.edu>
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Subject: Re: democracy in action
Michael,
I'm not well-organized enough to have all these addresses etc. at my
fingertips, but here's a start:
Public Agenda Foundation
6 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
212/686-6610 (I'm sure you'll be making the trans-Atlantic call any moment
now...)
Ned Crosby
Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes
364 Century Plaza
111 -3rd Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55404
Karl Berger, Public Voice International
100430.652@compuserve.com
[since he splits his time between continents, this is the easiest address]
--definitely write to Karl with your gripe about European connection; I know he has spent time in Germany, inter alia, and should have some perspective on this. Invite him to cc: me to indulge my curiosity.
Mark D. Robbins
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH
426 Eggers Hall
Syracuse University
Syracuse, NY 13244-1090
ph.(315)443-9056
fax(315)443-1081
mdrobbin@mailbox.syr.edu
WWW: http://gerosun.syr.edu
Alan F. Kay
Americans Talk Issues Foundation
10 Carrera St.
St. Augustine, FL 32084
904/826-0984
There have been some good posts on eggheaded stuff (for instance, Dryzek -- a really fun book -- I would put in that category).
I got a great note from John Forester (jff1@cornell.edu), and I bet he could help you out on some of this also.
Good luck in all things -- I'd appreciate hearing more from you about what you're up to. (Mark Thomas Lindeman)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 07:09:18 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christa D Slaton <slatocd@mail.auburn.edu>
X-Sender: slatocd@mallard
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Subject: Democracy, Deliberation, & Modern Technology
Several friends have forwarded you e-mail message (12 Oct 1995) to me. My husband (Theodore Becker) and I are political scientists and have been researching and writing in this field for nearly two decades. My book Televote: Expanding Citizen Participation in the Quantum Age (New York: Praeger, 1992) discusses the theory underlying our research, examines democratic experiments in the United States, and presents our research findings on experiments over an eight-year period in the United States and New Zealand. We have spent considerable time developing a form of public opinion polling that seeks to encourage discussion and deliberation of issues.
We are currently writing a book on Electronic Town Meetings, have
organized a conference on the theme, have developed a business plan of
the economic viability of electronic town meetings as well as the utility
to modern democracy, and written several papers and articles on the issue.
Ted has developed a home page on the Internet to connect those who are not only interested theoretically, but who also are actively working in the field to expand democracy. The address for the Teledemocracy Action Network and News is http://www.auburn.edu/~tann
There is a new journal published in Great Britain called Demos that is
also addressing these issues.
Christa Slaton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 1995 14:15:50 -0500 (EST)
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
From: eturk@indiana.edu (Eleanor L. Turk)
X-Sender: eturk@juliet.ucs.indiana.edu
Subject: democracy
Aristotle said that democracy was the corruption of the commonwealth, the have-nots trying to gain the power and wealth from the haves. If we look at that concept, it suggests that coordination and improvement of that effort is not always a goal for the would-be democrats, since the end goals are, in fact, individual rather than cooperative. Tocqueville also suggested that the American emphasis on individuality, reinforced by the frontier environment, would produce Americans who would not work together. While we call ourselves a democracy, only 37.8% of eligible voters voted to produce the most recent Republican "revolution," and "silent majorities" produce oligarchies -- if not tyrannies -- to revert to Aristotle's language.
It seems to me the problem of democracy is that we take the concept for
granted as the automatic outcome of such *potentials* as universal
suffrage, an elected leader, etc. I point out to my students that it took
America 200 years to attempt a democracy, and only about 1/3 of the
population of the colonies supported the concept even then. Next we wrote Articles of Confederation which emphasized differences rather than cooperation. These were re-written in secret by a group of "subversives" who broke away from the Congress, then sold that body their ideas. The cooperation begun by that new experiment broke down in the Civil War, which was the REAL American revolution (see below) -- as contrasted with the War for Independence which only lopped off the top. Since that time we have emphasized our divisions rather than our "commonwealth." Recently, we have been stressing party responsibility rather than constituent responsibility, and this seems to me to be also anti-democratic. When we get to single-issue politics, the process becomes almost frightening. The essence of democracy should be group building, rather than competition between individuals and groups. "Sound bite" campaigns, where the public is accepted to buy slogans generated in ticket-only political rallies, are especially anti-democratic. Again, this reflects my reference back to Aristotle rather than contemporary political science.
Using European perspectives, revolution changes the social level of power, not just the labels of the incumbents. The difficulty of developing democracy under these circumstances is that the level in control never wants to teach the potentially next level how to govern itself. The most extreme example was in the Belgian Congo (the subject of Newt Gingrich's doctoral dissertation, by the way) where there were only a few Africans with the education requisite to developing the trappings of government.
In short, I think the fundamental question about democracy is how to divest of its oligarchies in sheeps clothing. Marxist-Leninism, with the
professional revolutionary elite, was the most blatant example of that, but certainly the American parties and lobby groups, all of whom act in my name without asking me, seem to be cut from the same cloth. I don't think our legislators read their e-mail either. With all the legislative assistants between us and our representatives, it's hard to get a word in.
Democracies are about power; we want to believe they are about
constituencies. Maybe we need another term to define what we are
attributing to democracy.
Just some ramblings. As a professor of European history, I do get a little
tired of the way Americans always talk about democracy without
understanding its inherent tensions and demonstrated historical problems.
I wish you success with your discussion.
Eleanor L. Turk eturk@ucs.indiana.edu
Department of History 317-973-8304
Indiana University East FAX 317-973-8388
Richmond IN 47374
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 1995 13:39:07 -0500 (GMT-0500)
From: "Cesar A. Gayoso V." <a8122796@pucp.edu.pe>
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Subject: neigborhoods
Lima, october 12 ,1995
Dear Michael,
My name is Cesar Gayoso and I have studied three years at
the diplomacy academy of Peru and actually I am studying sociology at
Catholic University in Lima-Peru and I have organized and Workshop of
Political Psychology at the Faculty of Social Sciences .
I think it is very interesting what you say in your e-mail, about the democracy in action perhaps the experience in Peru can tell you something because our experience in relation to the democracy is very special.
At this moment we are at elections municipal and this
point is very discussed specially in relation to the participation of the
neighborhoods in the local governmemts.There are many discussion about the role of the local governments and the relation with the
citizens.During all this years the state forgot the districts and the
citizens began to realize diferents little proyects to his avenues.So
there are many iniciative of the neigboorhoods in relation to his
district because the state is very poor to solve all the troubles.Before
,the people expected the state solve their problems now is different,the
neigboorhoods has began to solve their troubles with their resources. So, there are many groups without medium education and they are leaders of their group. The democarcy has born by a necesity of surviving in front of the absence and corruption of the state without a person to promove it .
Well, if you want more information about this I do not have trouble to give you more information about this experiences.
I am preparing a electronic bulletin and homepage about political psychology where I am going to put information about political campaigns here in Peru and how the formal democracy funtion here Perhaps it could give an idea about our democracy. I would like to invite you with a short article of two pages to our electronic bulletin and to our homepage . Both there are going to be in spanish and english.
Thanking your attention
Cesar a. Gayoso V.
E-mail:a8122796@pucp.edu.pe
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
To: brugo@time.UCSC.EDU (Bruce Goldstein)
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: Your note to ppp-list@ai.mit.edu
Hallo Bruce,
Thanks.
Could you please tell me a bit about GIS? ..........
Best,
Michael.
Bruce Goldstein wrote:
"I agree with your initiative, and would appreciate being informed about any feedback you get. I am a doctoral student at University of California, Santa Cruz, examining the influence of geographic information systems on land management institutions. Is GIS facilitating participation or technocracy?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 95 04:47:21 EDT
From: Susan <SGCROW00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
To: <PARTALK-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: democracy in action
I am interested in how the social sciences can borrow from the legal system. I have several interest areas, not the least is practical, culturally sensitive uses of democratic ideals. First, does anyone know of examples where a legal process has been simulated as part of a pre-project assessment for a proposed large scale, development project, whether it be through town meetings or a trial that would include members of a "target" population as participants. Secondly, I am generally interested in how the outcome of issue gathering efforts are actually used and evaluated. How and to whom are the results disseminated and within what time frame? Finally, I am interested in the historic question of how is fair representation balanced with the need for confidentiality so that diverse interests can be drawn into the process? Some under-represented members of the public have no phones. Some lack the necessary literacy skills. Susan.
Michael Macpherson replied to Susan:
I would like to know more about your work. Do you have any suspicions about "how the outcome of issue gathering efforts are actually used and evaluated"? Do you mean issue gathering by parties and/or by groups aiming to promote public communication and participation? And, could you expand a bit on the "historic question". Presumaby not all issues need much confidentiality?
(........)
Michael.
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 95 06:09:00 EDT
Reply-To: PARTALK-L@cornell.edu
Sender: owner-PARTALK-L@cornell.edu
From: Susan <SGCROW00@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Michael, your questions are good. I'm going to address the historic first, mainly because my references are not immediately at hand and it could easily be that this will strike a chord with someone. As I recall efforts to use a "trial model" were made by some social scientists in the late 1950's and early 1960's as one approach to assessing community needs. One author, as I remember, laid out the methodology which involved three days of testimony from diverse interests, including those who would be affected by a proposed development project. This was a public event. These efforts were not particularly successful. One reason was problems of confidentiality. I was quite interested in this history. However, since I realized that realistically I didn't have time to pursue a "trial model" further given other priorities, I put my interest in a storage box, which I think I would now like to locate. In answer to your second question. My knowledge of issues gathering is limited. I have observed that it is a popular approach used by some sociologists in the region that I study, which is Appalachia. I have also noted with two of three University-based community development projects I have had a chance to observe that issues gathering was supposed to be a central part of community assessment and that the direction of the projects wer
e to take the findings into account. In the former case, development issues, such as ownership of resources, etc. were a focus. In the latter case, poverty and access to health care were issues. In both cases, two areas seem obscure to me from what I have been able to observe. First, what actually happens to the findings? Secondly, conflict is inherent in both cases, yet "issues gathering" seems to be independent of subsequent action or some forward movement that addresses whatever conflicts may emerge. This is a general response on my part related to your question regarding "suspicions." This sense of a pattern combined with my belief that any larger-scale project impacting communities or regions requires pre-project assessment involving the public and the oppressive history of the Appalachian region in relation to federal programming directs my interest in legal models. My interest is also stimulated by a culturally specific factor Historically, in certain regions of Appalachia, litigation or a trial of one's peers was a common way of resolving conflicts between neighbors. Nina Waller's book, Feud, provides some interesting reading on this subject. It seems to me that any time one combinesissues related to structural change with participation of those who are the subjects of this change and do not appear to be engaged in democratic processes, one can assume conflict. Given this conflict, which reflects structural conditions, one could also assume the need to be public and the need for confidentiality. In terms of my work, I am an anthropologist working with a regional cancer control project involving three states in the Appalachian region. The purpose of the project is to shift ownership of the project through the formation of community-based coalitions that have diverse membership. My primary responsibility is to find ways to evaluate the success of this effort.
A basic question is what is the value of this project to communities. It would have been great if there had been the opportunity to ask this of community members,including those who have little access to health care, with some context of past and current programming in the region and let them evaluate the relative value of the project. I do not see this happening in the near future but I hope that continued discussion and reporting on the range of potential legal models; whether related to litigation or administrative procedures, will encourage further study and applications of models that bring some kind of public testimony into planning social programming in relation to communities and regions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 15:58:14 -0700
Reply-To: Scott London <london@rain.org>
Sender: Political Science Research and Teaching List
<PSRT-L@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU>
From: Scott London <london@rain.org>
Subject: Re: democracy in action
To: Multiple recipients of list PSRT-L <PSRT-L@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU>
Here are a few more sources that deal with deliberation and democracy.
*
For the classical definition of deliberation, see:
Aristotle. _The Nicomachean Ethics_. (Indianapolis: Bobbs-
Merrill, 1962)
For a look at how the framers of the United States Constitution viewed
deliberation, see:
Bessette, Joseph M. "Deliberative Democracy: The Majority
Principle in Republican Government." _How Democratic Is the
Constitution?_ Robert A. Goldwin and William A. Schambra,
editors. (Washington DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1980)
Sunstein, Cass R. _Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech_.
(New York: The Free Press, 1993)
For theoretical treatment of the ideal of deliberative democracy, see:
Cohen, Joshua. "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" in
_The Good Polity_ Alan Hamlin and Philip Pettit, editors.
(Oxford: Basil Blackwood, 1989)
Dryzek, John. _Discursive Democracy: Politics, Policy, and
Political Science_. (Cambridge University Press, 1991)
Gutmann, Amy. "The Disharmony of Democracy" in _Democratic
Community: Nomos XXXV_, John W. Chapman and Ian Shapiro,
editors. (New York: New York University Press, 1993), pp.
126-160.
Manin, Bernard. "On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation."
Political Theory, Aug. 1987, pp. 338-368.
Miller, David. "Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice."
Political Studies, 1992 Special Issue, pp. 54-67.
A few other sources that discuss democratic deliberation within the
framework of traditional liberalism and self-interest theory are:
Anderson, Charles. _Pragmatic Liberalism_. (University of
Chicago Press, 1990)
Kinder, Donald R.; Herzog, Don. "Democratic Discussion" in
_Reconsidering the Democratic Public_, Marcus & Hanson,
editors. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University
Press, 1993), pp. 347-377.
Landy, Marc K.; Roberts, Marc J.; Thomas, Stephen R. _The
Environmental Protection Agency: Asking the Wrong Questions_
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)
Mansbridge, Jane. _Beyond Adversary Democracy_. (New York:
Basic Books, 1980)
Mansbridge, Jane. "The Rise and Fall of Self-Interest in the
Explanation of Public Life" in _Beyond Self-Interest_, Jane
Mansbridge, editor. (University of Chicago Press, 1990), pp.
3-22.
Mansbridge, Jane. "Self-Interest and Political
Transformation" in _Reconsidering the Democratic Public_,
Marcus & Hanson, editors. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania
State University Press, 1993), pp. 91-109.
Page, Benjamin; Shapiro, Robert. "The Rational Public and
Democracy" in _Reconsidering the Democratic Public_, Marcus &
Hanson, editors. (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1993), pp. 35-64.
On some of the theoretical objections to deliberative democracy, see:
Cohen, Joshua. "The Economic Basis of Deliberative
Democracy."
Elster, Jon. _Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of
Rationality_ (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)
A general discussion of deliberation with a number of good introductory
essays on the subject:
Dillon, J.T., editor. _Deliberation in Education and Society_
(Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp., 1994)
This bibliography is lifted from a paper I did for the Journal of
Interpersonal Computing and Technology. I'll be happy to pass along a copy of it (55K), just say the word. Best, Scott.
Scott London * london@rain.org
HOME PAGE <http://www.west.net/~insight/london>
"WORTH A VISIT" (Editor)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: dckinder@ahcbsd1.ovnet.com
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 1995 10:44:36 +0000
Subject: Re: democracy in action
>
> Dear colleagues, friends,
>
>
> Request for information, suggestions for study and debate.
>
> "Democracy aided by computer networks" is the subject of many current
> discussions and practical, mainly experimental initiatives.
>
> While these are to be welcomed, I suggest that there is a need for a
> thorough inquiry and public debate about how democracies, as they now exist
> and function, should or can be improved.
>
> This inquiry should address democratic systems in their entirety and not be
> limited only to the present or possibly expanded role of computers.
>
> I am particularly interested in changes which allow citizens to participate
> more fully and more effectively in political decision making. It would be
> helpful if someone could summarise what proposals have been made to
> increase the responsible, "deliberated" participation of citizens in
> decision making in local, national and international systems. For instance,
> what is the modern version of a "town meeting"? How could "town meetings"
> be organised in a metropolis?
I would suggest that we consider not only the quantity of
participation but also its quality.
Public participation and democracy are not necessarily the same
thing. There was widespread participation in the Nurenburg rallies,
for example. There was little democracy, however. Dictators
frequently exploit mass rallies.
The point is that people, in public, can feel vulnerable and exposed.
They can be particularly subject to mass influence under those
conditions.
People need not only to participate, but to participate fully and as
individuals - not as members of a crowd.
The principle behind the Lockean formula of "Life, Liberty, and
Property," was that people by owning property, were thereby secure in
the means of their livelihood. This gave them the strength to exercise their liberties fully.
The problem with Locke is that, with the Industrial Revolution,
property has become increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. This
deprives people of security in the means of their livelihood and
makes their public participation that of a mass rather than that of
free individuals.
The issue, as it pertains to computers, therefore is whether
computers will cause either more concentration of property or whether
it will restore people sense of security in the means of their
livelihoods.
If it is the former, computers will hurt democracy; if it is the
latter, it will help it.
Duncan C. Kinder
dckinder@ovent.com
Attorney at Law
68761 Hammond Rd.
St. Clairsville, OH 43950
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 11:58:59 +0100
X-Sender: mreis@cygnus.lnec.pt
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
From: mreis@lnec.pt (Margarida Reis)
Subject: Democracy in action
Dear Dr Michael Macpherson,
I am interested in any initiative you will take on this subject.
As a matter of fact, I am doing my thesis on the subject and am interested not only on the theoretical aspects, but in understanding how is it that the principles materialize. Do people realy get the chance to participate in the decision making process?
Extremely interesting theme of discussion!
With my best regards,
Margarida Reis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Margarida Costa Reis
Grupo de Urbanismo e Planeamento Municipal (GURPLAM)
Laboratorio Nacional de Eng. Civil (LNEC)
Av. Brasil, 101, 1799 Lisboa Codex - PORTUGAL
Tel:(+ 351 1)8482131/ext. 2518
Fax (GURPLAM):(+ 351 1) 8460029
Fax geral (LNEC):(+351 1) 8497660
Email: mreis@lnec.pt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 1995 09:51:37 -0300
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
From: alliance@nbnet.nb.ca (Susan Turner)
Subject: DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
Michael, our company ALLIANCE associates recently organized a campaign for a special interest group in our province (New Brunswick, Canada). The group has 41,000 members and were concerned about a specific issue as the province moved toward a provincial election. Among other communications initiatives to increase public awareness about this group and its issue (which eventually would have an impact on many people in the province in one way or another), we set up a 1-900 line where callers were asked two questions: 1) did they support the group's campaign and stance, and 2) what concerns did they want brought to the government which wished to remain in power two weeks before a provincial election. Each call cost the caller $1 and the remainder of the actual costs of the call was picked up by the organization. Our assumption was that many people within that 41,000-strong group would call the number to lend their support to an issue
which would have a dramatic impact on their survival as a group. Despite advertising, media interviews and many fact sheets distributed, the response to the line was surprisingly low. Our assessment is that the group members were not adequately informed about the line and the potential power it could have to present large numbers of people's opinions to politicians. Unfortunately, we were not able to contact all members of this organization ourselves as we were working through the central headquarters. Morale of the story: a lot of communications in the form of education (perhaps as paid advertising) must be done to help people past their own barriers of using technology. 1-900 lines so far seem to have a bad reputation (sex lines, etc.) but can be a powerful way to increasing public input. Perhaps 1-800 is a better alternative in the political realm. Another observation deals with the high level of cynicism about a person's ability to make any difference at all to the system. Technology offers many opportunities but the bottom line will be how willing our leaders are to actually listen and prove that they have done that. It will be a long hard sell, but worthwhile nonetheless in my humble opinion. We have developed a larger and truly multi-media process for massive public/political participation and are making presentations about that now. It should be interesting to see how this project evolves. Susan
Susan Turner
ALLIANCE Associates
alliance@nbnet.nb.ca
(506) 459-1588 - Phone
(506) 459-3450 - Fax
Michael Macpherson replies to Susan Turner
To: alliance@nbnet.nb.ca
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: democracy in action
Dear Susan,
Your suggestion that low use of an offer to participate was partly attributable to cynicism about possible effect seems convincing. It would be difficult to argue convincingly that there would be an effect, for the reason which you mention (why should the politicians take any notice?) For the sake of argument, i have painted things black and white here. I want to argue that we need good examples and suggestions about how participation can come to have effects, e.g. - and here i have heard no clear and promising proposals - by moderating the typical western-style democracy party system through a broadened distribution of power. (Watch out here, i believe Colonel Gaddhafi of Libya has some ideas like that!) Referenda etc. can play a role here but are in many ways unsatisfactory.
However, we have to start from where we are so i think your thoughts on improving acceptance of electronic etc. offers to participate are helpful
(.........)
Michael.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Thu Oct 12 08:06:41 1995
From: Tom Blancato <tblancato@ENVIROLINK.ORG>
To: <PARTALK-L@cornell.edu>
Subject: Democracy, etc.
Is this the Michael Macpherson of PSAMRA? If so, hello. I was just thinking of our exchanges and your project yesterday, and 'lo and behold, your name pops up on the PAR list. How is your work going? Your question is interesting. I participated in some meetings here in Pittsburgh held by the NAACP in which people convened concerning violence in the city. It was basically well organized and used a systematic consensus process, with people in manageable groups of up to 10 or so to develop a "strategy 95" agenda. In spite of all that, I have the feeling that it was not effective, and I aired some views with one of the organizers. It gave me to think a great deal about the process, structures of consensus, and various illusions of empowerment that
democratic process is prone to. I hit the usual snag when trying to develop ideas and thinking with the organizer I was talking with about this stuff, namely, his narcissism, or a certain complex of survival which lead to his worrying as to whether I was too smart and he was not smart enough. This endeed the discussion. His views were very praticially oriented, and he is an able organizer and facilitator. But his theoretical views were wildly inconsistent and not well thought out. My contention is that people's theoretical views are themselves powerful, pratical, constitutive, and in particular, hightly motivating elements in democratic process. This being the case (if it is the case), the cheif problem I see, and have seen in other meetings and initiatives, has to do with organizing and handling precisely the "theoretical" space, which I variously refer to as theoretical, "the big picture", people's broader views, the philosophical, the spiritual, etc.
I situate this metatheoretic, metaparadigmatic understanding as a constitutive element in what I tend to refer to as "thoughtaction". I am not unpacking this thinking here, but generally thoughtaction, or nonviolent thoughtaction, is developed in response to the systematic problems and necessities of democratic process, and is able to maintain itself against the massive problems of consensus besetting democratic process.
Well, that's just a thought.
Best regards,
Tom
---
Where there is peace, there is war.
Tom Blancato
tblancato@envirolink.org
Eyes on Violence (nonviolence and human rights monitoring in Haiti)
Thoughtaction Collective (reparative justice project)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Sat, 14 Oct 1995 16:00:17 -0700 (PDT)
From: Rob Lanphier <robla@eskimo.com>
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
cc: ppp-list@ai.mit.edu
Subject: Re: democracy in action
MIME-Version: 1.0
On Thu, 12 Oct 1995, michael macpherson wrote:
> I am particularly interested in changes which allow citizens to participate
> more fully and more effectively in political decision making. It would be
> helpful if someone could summarise what proposals have been made to
> increase the responsible, "deliberated" participation of citizens in
> decision making in local, national and international systems. For instance,
> what is the modern version of a "town meeting"? How could "town meetings"
> be organised in a metropolis?
I have a huge diatribe at http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics where I talk about these very issues. It's not very academic yet, just one guy
ranting about what he thinks is wrong. I plan to flesh it out with research, and it already is pretty rich with links to other sites. It is also very centered toward the USA, since that's where I live.
> Existing publications about democracy tend to be dry and theoretical, not
> providing material which can be readily digested by a broader public. I am
> not sugesting that serious study and academic discourse are not important
> here. But I do suggest that they should be supplemented by some
"living
> studies" of how democracy actually works or is hindered. What about a
> comparison of several democratic countries, showing real people acting as
> citizens and representatives, aiming to demonstrate advantages and
> disadvantages of different democratic forms?
Once again, I'm going to refer you to an American-centered resource: a
book by Kevin Phillips called "Arrogant Capital". Very populist and very
readable, but sometimes almost bigoted. It gets several interesting
points across. I've included my review below. It focuses more on the
problems than the solutions, but I think defining the problem is an
important step often left out of political solutions nowadays. For what
it's worth, the review can also be found at:
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics/arrogant_capital.html
Rob Lanphier
robla@eskimo.com
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Kevin Phillips' Arrogant Capital
A book review by Rob Lanphier
Kevin Phillips' Arrogant Capital does a marvelous job in articulating the
frustrations of those of us who have grown increasing cynical of the ability of Washington, D.C. to effectively govern us. Phillips does an excellent job of pointing out what is wrong with not only politics, but the much broader power structure of America. He points out how and why Washington innoculated itself from its former renewal and clensing process that it formerly had. He moves on to why our current form of party politcs, economics, and Anglo-American instututions are now failing us, and concludes with an open-ended discussion of several possible ways that citizens might bring about the political renewal Washington so desperately needs before corporations and other special-interests strangle our society to death.
All-in-all, this book is quite excellent, and the facts, figures, historical
lessons and anecdotes are all relevant and bear careful consideration.
However, I do have some questions for Mr. Phillips:
There are many cases where he brings up social permissiveness as a hallmark of a society in decline. More specifically, he brings up homosexuality and the rise in culture as the constant theme. His bringing them up seems to imply some sort of causal relationship, but he doesn't really state what that is. He brings up the point several times, though appears afraid to discuss it in any great detail. I honestly haven't read any of Mr. Phillips' other work, so it's hard for me to say whether there is a hint of homophobia in the backdrop, or if I'm reading too much between the lines.
That brings me to my second question: is a "decline" just what the doctor
ordered? All of the post-Renaissance nations that he lists (England,
Holland, Spain) as empires that eventually fell still have reasonable
standards of living, and in limited ways much better (shorter workweek and solid infrastructures). Is this "top-of-the-heap" mentality that we have here the signs of a modern state in a sort of adolesence? Are we coming to a point in history where we go through our mid-life crisis? Should we just acknowledge that we can't go back to our youth because our youth was built on something we no longer have (cheap labor and a nationalist drive that parallels surging testosterone)? Can we age gracefully, or are we doomed to buy the flashy sportscar and the leather racing gloves?
Mr. Phillips approaches this proposing methods that might help us regain our youth, rather than head into middle age in a dignified and comfortable manner. Let Japan, Korea, and China be the next gang of testoserone charged teenagers that furiously outproduce the rest of the world and lets just make sure that we can become a good global citizen who can pick up after itself and keep itself healthy.
He also criticizes the separation of the legislative, judicial, and
executive branches, without pointing out how to achieve the same
functionality. The gaping hole in his criticism comes when he points out the "power grab" made by Justice John Marshall, when his court was the first to use the Constitution to overrule another law. He doesn't point out just how we are to uphold the Constitution, and protect ourselves from a temporary majority out to legislate away the minority.
All in all, though, I have to applaud the thorough analysis this book
provides. Especially enlightening for me was the chapter devoted to the
financialization of America, where he makes clear how the U.S. has become stratified between the financial elite and the working stiffs. He explains perhaps all too clearly why it is dangerous and could lead to some very hard economic times ahead.
This book is a must-read for all interested in political reform. For the
most part, he carefully sidesteps partisan politics and stays focused on a
unifying goal: freeing the United States from the grips of anti-democratic forces on all sides.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Philips, Keven P.
Arrogant capital
1994, Little, Brown & Company
ISBN 0-316-70618-3 (HC) 0-316-70602-7 (PB)
This review Copyright 1995, Rob Lanphier. Redistribution granted for
individuals and non-profit organizations.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 01:46:06 +0100
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
From: bosse@vest.gu.se (Bo Walhjalt)
Subject: Democracy in action
Dear Michael,
Your request catches my interest. Democracy is no easy thing. The problems start already with trying to ask the question: What is it? The times are also changing very rapidly, and perhaps the most intriguing question now is: What will democracy be in 10 years? (Following sentence inserted at request of author) Although the "right" questions may be hard to find, the good answers to good questions are even harder to find!
From a personal, non-expert view, I take your challenge by questioning the term democracy. There are many ways of looking into the meaning of the term, and if you ask people what they mean when talking about democracy, you will recieve different answers from politicians and ordinary people on the street, different answers from different parts of the world. To address this I do the simplest thing I can, that could be of interest for the kind of discussion you are asking for: a short list of patterns of democracy, and a few questions related to these.
Patterns of democracy:
1. Democracy as a form of organised system, where the system is a state, or a part (subsystem) of a state, or a part of ..i
- The problems connected to democracy in this setting are connected to
keeping the system legitimate. Non-democratic, or less democratic states
are viewed upon from the more democratic ones as lacking legitimacy, cf Turkey when negotiating a customs union with EU.
A second order of this pattern is democracy related to organised systems of states like UN, EU, NATO, ... (Eurocentric?) where "Realpolitik" fosters rhetorics far from realities (this is not a statement refuting the
possibility of changes for the better from decisions in these organisations!).
2. Democracy as people joining together in activities for specific causes
(that might be quite general in character!) like Greenpeace or Amnesty
International. These activities are highly organised, and sometimes the
democratic nature can be questioned.
3. "Democracy" as the forming of pressure groups for specific interests
like lobby groups for industrial subsidies, against free abortion, ... My
idea on quoting "democracy" here is connected to the remark on the former entry, as those examples also can be seen as lobby groups. However, their concerns obviously are of another character.
4. Democracy as experience: the freedom to form the life you want to live. This might be seen as a development through the activities of people in their everyday lives, a kind of self-organisation, rising from what people do, regardless of any regulations. The organisation of collective movements rising from what people do, is shaped as need rises.
- A small but I think significant example: when the French nuclear tests
started again, the sales of French wines went down considerably in Sweden (and I guess also in other countries). This was not organised in any way, people just sent a message by changing their habits.
- I think there are many examples of this kind of collectiveness if you
look into it, which I have not done.
A note on this short list:
The former Swedish professor of economy Gunnar Adler-Karlssons has formed a thesis: There is a development towards greater concentration of power, collecting power in fewer and fewer hands over more and more people, a movement towards a 1/n-relationship between the numbers having power to those in subjection to that power.
This thesis has some strong arguments to it, but it refers only to the
first pattern. The other patterns, and most certainly the last one, forms a
balancing "counter-power". This is an argument for dealing with "democratic patterns" instead of with "democracy". It gives a chance to talk about the matters with concepts of a more restrictive meaning.
Three questions:
1. What forces are driving democracy (democratic patterns!) through time?
- It is reasonable to assume that each pattern is driven by a set of forces
different from the other patterns (if not, they would not be patterns; of
course some forces may be shared, but specificity presupposes
differences!).
2. Each pattern carries possibilities and limits as to what can be achieved through its development. Which are the possibilities in each case? Which are the limits?
3. All possibilities are not "good" possibilities. How can "good" for the
future be assessed? Which are the criteria for "good" seen to the
development of democracy? You have to get a good(!) idea about that, to
promote the right things, and to stop the worse. (Here democracy means "the collection of democratic patterns")
The list is absolutely not a definite list, maybe even not a good list, but
it shows an idea of how to assess democracy in "linguistic" new ways, which may reveal new things about reality. How such a list should be constructed is an open question, and can probably be better done by others. It may also be, that the discussion should concentrate on some patterns, leaving the others aside. At the same time you can never get passed the reality of any bunch of connected patterns, that they are interleaved with each other in sometimes inseparable ways.
Finding a descriptive language for your interest might be a good start for more specific matters later.
Best regards
Bo Walhjalt
bosse@vest.gu.se
Theory of Science Dep.
Homepages:
My virtual home: http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/MyHome.html
Mercury Page: http://vest.gu.se/~bosse/MercuryPage.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subject: deliberation and democracy
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 1995 00:45:11 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: cwaddell@mtu.edu (R C. Waddell)
From: cwaddell@mtu.edu (Craig Waddell)
Michael,
Word of your 12 October PSRT-l inquiry about deliberation and
democracy has spilled over into H-Rhetor-l via a message from Scott
London, who is apparently active on both lists. Scott forwarded to me a
copy of your 12 October message and mentioned that you had offered to
send interested people a three-part digest of the responses you received
to this message. Would you please include me on the list of people to
whom you will send this digest?
If you're interested in case studies of public deliberation, I've
been working on a series of such studies, focusing on rhetorical aspects
of public deliberation about environmental policy:
Waddell, Craig. "Saving the Great Lakes: Public Participation in
Environmental Policy." In Green Culture: Rhetorical Analyses of
Environmental Discourse. Ed. Carl G. Herndl and Stuart C. Brown.
Madison: U Wisconsin P, 1996. 141-165.
Waddell, Craig. "Defining Sustainable Development: A Case Study in
Environmental Communication." Technical Communication Quarterly 4
(1995):201-216.
Waddell, Craig. "Perils of a Modern Cassandra: Rhetorical Aspects of
Public Indifference to the Population Explosion." Social Epistemology 8
(1994): 221-237.
Waddell, Craig. "The Role of Pathos in the Decision-Making Process: A
Study in the Rhetoric of Science Policy." The Quarterly Journal of
Speech 76 (1990): 381-400.
Waddell, Craig. "Reasonableness vs. Rationality in the Construction and
Justification of Science Policy Decisions: The Case of the Cambridge
Experimentation Review Board." Science, Technology, & Human Values 14 (1989): 7-25.
Best wishes,
Craig Waddell
Department of Humanities
Michigan Technological University
1400 Townsend Drive
Houghton, MI 49931-1295
cwaddell@mtu.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Sun, 15 Oct 1995 14:47:21 -0400
From: Leutrell@aol.com
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
cc: MissDC@aol.com, DBell2@aol.com, callowa3@pilot.msu.edu, SeB225@aol.com, FARMERL@aol.com, Westpoint2@aol.com, boba@nlightn.com, TAMBO82988@aol.com, berthaj@nafsa.org,
MAJ=Michael=Miner%HQ=CMD=USAG%Myer@mcnair-emh2.army.mil, ghee@roanoke.infi.net, kreav@infi.net, sshaba@access.digex.net
Subject: Open contact-CEE
Hi my name is Leutrell Osborne, Sr. I am a retired Federal official now
operating my own consultant marketing company. I noted your request for informaiton, suggestions for study and debate concerning democracy in action,especially democracy aided by computer networks. I am a part of think tank involved in developing a cyperspace work station for Community Economic Empowerment (CEE).
What is the background of your intererst and how may we assist one another?
(Leutrell Osborne)
Michael Macpherson's reply to Leutrell Osborne:
Guten Tag Leutrell Osborne!
Could you please tell me what you mean by CEE and about its proposed cyberspace dimensions.
My first career was in medicine, more recently i have worked with people from a variety of disciplines on various aspects of human involvement in political life.
For some years have been running a project based in Berlin which organises and carries out research and promotes public discourse. First major aim was to study how young people in (west) Germany coped with the cold war. Framework for the research was called Psycho-Social and Medical Research PSAMRA.
Now times have changed (a bit) i am looking for new working connections and partners. A brief statement about aims and proposals is below, entitled "proposal: integral studies".
Sincerely,
Michael Macpherson.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Proposal "integral studies".
A transcultural programme involving field studies, empirical research and public discourse concerning subjects which include: (a) Human dimensions of global change, e.g. children and youth coping with macrosocial and political problems. (b) Psychic trauma and “Vergangenheitsaufarbeitung” (German word, roughly: “facing history and ourselves”). (c) Political behaviour, including the non-conventional and extra-parliamentary; participation in decision-making in western-style democracies (d) economic perceptions, behaviour and "sustainability".
Experienced scholars (with, e.g., post-doctoral research experience) from a range of academic disciplines, based in Germany and in other countries, are sought to cooperate in developing new work.
Please write (in your language of choice) indicating your experience and interests, to: Dr. Michael Macpherson, Psycho-Social and Medical Research PSAMRA, Derfflingerstrasse 17, 10785 Berlin, Germany.
E-mail <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
END OF DIGEST
E-DEMOCRACY WORLD WIDE WEB LINKS
Participation/democracy slater, becker
http://www.auburn.edu/~tann
Minneapolis
http://freenet.msp.mn.us/govt/e-democracy/
Centre for Networking and Democracy
http://www.igc.apc.org/cvd/
Elections and proportional representation, many good links
http://www.csv.warwick.ac.uk/~esrhi/vote/vote.html
Rob Lanphier
http://www.eskimo.com/~robla/politics
demos
http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/www/e-demos.html
World-Wide E-Democracy Projects Page
http://www.dar.cam.ac.uk/www/e-demos.1.html
Elections and proportional representation, many good links http://www.csv.warwick.ac.uk/~esrhi/vote/vote.html
Democracy and Internet Workgroup
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/~eumansky/net.dem.html
Interactive democracy
http://www.cgx.com/id.html
Economic democracy information network
http://garnet.berkeley.edu:3333/
Democracynet Home Page
http://www.ned.org/
Interactive Democracy/women voters league
http://informns.k12.mn.us:80/id/
Electronic Democracy Toolkit
http://www.well.com/user/hlr/electrondemoc.html
The Political Participation Project
http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/ppp/home.html
Related:
List of political science & related lists
<gopher://APSA.TRENTON.EDU>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
POST SCRIPT
Date: Tue, 24 Oct 1995 22:53:29 -0700
X-Sender: brussell@harborside.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
To: collegium@civic.net
From: "William P. (Bill) Russell" <brussell@harborside.com>
Subject: Re:democracy in action digest
Cc: simpson@uic.edu (Dick Simpson), mjm@BERLIN.SNAFU.DE
Well Dick Simpson, my first inclination was to chide you (privately of
course) for unloading such a mass upon us. Then I got caught up in reading and appreciating the content. I think I will be working on understanding some of it for a long time.
I think that Bo Walhjalt (bosse@vest.gu.se), our corespondent from Sweeden, was "Right On" when (s)he asked:
>Your request catches my interest. Democracy is no easy thing. The problems start already with trying to ask the question: What is it?
With a very "Yankee-centric" attitude, we in the U.S.A. tend to think that REAL democracy is our form of government. The discussion among us is even more difficult because the two major political parties have appropriated two of the key words into their names which confuses any discussion. According to my understanding of the terminology, most of the nations we usually call the "Western Democracies," are actually governed by Republican forms of government, ie what has been called "Representative Democracies." Even in the "Constitutional Monarchies," the real power is vested in a parlement of elected representatives. What is, I believe, called "Direct Democracy" as typified by the New England Town Meeting has never been shown to work in any wider setting.
My home state of Oregon was the first in the US to adopt a step toward more direct democracy. I should know whether the idea started here, I'll try to find out one of these days. There are actually two parts to the process:
(1) The "Referendum" which permits the people to over-ride the Legislature and
(2) The "Initiative" which allows the people to write a law or amend the
state constitution. Both procedures are based on a petition process in
which the proponents must obtain signatures from some required percentage of the voters who voted in the last previous election. There is another closely related process the "Referral," in which the legislative body refers a matter to a vote of the people. This may be manditory as in the case of a change in the constitution or city charter, or voluntary as in a case where the legislature seeks voter affirmation of a new law or ordainance. For some reason, very few referenda have been tried lately, most have been initiatives.
These "more democratic" processes have spread to many other states; again, I should know how many, but don't. I do know that the quality of the laws thus enacted have been almost universally low (at least the recent ones have been in my opinion from bad to disasterous). The problem seems to me to have been that the results have not been clear to the voters and they have "voted their pocketbook" based on the lies fed to them by special interest groups. Particularly egretious have been the property tax revolt issues. I am most familiar with Proposition 13 in California and Measure 5 in Oregon; two very different but equally bad laws. Both are based on the idea that WE should not have to pay our share of the costs of government, THEY should have to pay for it.
In Oregon the Initiative and Referendum provisions of the State Constitution apply also to counties, cities and even school districts, port districts, rural fire protection districts etc. I think many Europeans have trouble concieving of the mish mash of overlapping and interlocking semi-independent levels of government - no one seems to be really in charge.
On a more local and more personal level, in the little town in which I serve as a volunteer City Councilor we just had an election in which the voters passed an amendment to the City Charter rolling back all increases in taxes, fees and charges passed since February 1995 (when the petition was started) and requiring that all future increases would be "subject to a vote of the people." We do not know how this is going to work, but at first impression, it seems to me that it is not going to. We have been in contact with Jackson County which has been suffering under a similar law for several years. They confirm my US and THEM dichotomy as stated above. The voters approved a motel tax but turned down an increase in the fines in the Library.
All this and no mention of "Computer Mediated Communication!" Out here in what I call "The Boondocks," the penetration of computers into our homes is probably not more than about 5%. Only a fraction, perhaps a half a percent have even e-mail connection. The era of Electronic Town Halls seems pretty far in the future for us.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
| William P. (Bill) Russell |
| P.O. Box 2029 |
| Bandon, OR 97411 |
| Phone: 503-347-3683 Fax: 503-347-6303 |
| |
| Where the Coquille River meets the Sea |
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
END OF POST SCRIPT
CYBER POST POST SCRIPT !!!!!!
THE LAST WORD GOES TO CYBERTED ::::
Date: Sat, 28 Oct 1995 10:46:36 -0500 (CDT)
From: Theodore L Becker <becketl@mail.auburn.edu>
X-Sender: becketl@mallard
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Subject: TAN+N
Mime-Version: 1.0
Dear Cybermacph:
I know Christa had told you about TAN+N. As I note on the homepage and Editorial-1, it is biased towards "true TeleDemocracy," although I will continue to make the distinction clear by contrasting transformational projects against reformist ones. I will have a major update and improvement of the website by or before early December. Keep up the good work.
Cyberted.
FINAL END OF:
DEMOCRACY IN ACTION :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: DIGEST
integral studies home page | website contents | integral studies background | psycho-social and medical research | fund appeal