COMPENDIUM
============DEMOCRACY IN ACTION II.
Early December 1995
To: PSRT-L@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU, pol-psych@umbsky.cc.umb.edu, PARTALK-L@cornell.edu, ppp-list@ai.mit.edu,
el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be and interested colleagues
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: debate democracy
# apologies to those who may receive duplicates of this message #
Dear Colleagues, Friends,
Two months ago I sent the message "Democracy in Action" to several discussion fora and to selected colleagues. The message started as follows (quote):
"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. (unquote)
There were quite numerous interesting and substantial responses. Some of you have already requested and received a collation of these responses, the "digest". One of the digest recipients , John Götz, who roams cyberspace between Denmark and Japan, owns a World Wide Web home page focussed on futuristic urban planning, which also provides links to democracy and citizen decision making. John offered to install a tidied up version of the "democracy in action digest" on his home page: this has happened and you may visit the WWW site <http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~itsjg/macpherson.html> (Use the URL without "< >"). This "guest page" is a bit more interesting than the digest because I have added links to some active projects in democracy and citizenship and, yes, you guessed, sustainability.
A few people made encouraging remarks about the following suggestion which was included in the original "Democracy in Action" post (quote):
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? (unquote).
I will expand a bit on what I was getting at. I suggest that there is a need for digestible information about how democracy works, its benefits and deficits. I am not concerned *here* to show that democracy is or is not preferable to tyranny, dictatorship or to violent social disorder but to aid people, citizens, to seek and recognise (assuming they exist) ways to improve existing and relatively stable democratic systems. To demonstrate my viewpoint I mention that I am an academic and also have experience in promoting public debate. The fundament for the sort of work which I am proposing should be (dependent as ever upon resources) theoretical, empirical, deep and thorough. But I want to emphasise one special aspect. An early aim (of the proposal) is to produce information and analyses which can be understood and digested by a broad public such as (a) A comparison of democratic decision-making systems, with special reference to the extent of participation available to and used by citizens, in several european countries and maybe one or two others. What are the different forms of public representation, participation and decision-making? What are the degrees of interaction between the represented citizens and the representing individuals, organisations? To what extent are "direct democracy" and "deliberative democracy" practised? What innovations have been made or suggested to increase participation of citizens, specialist or lobby groups? (b) A catalogue of proposals and initiatives aimed to improve participation of citizens in government. Basic concepts, examples from past and present, role of new electronic media.
In summary, how do democracies work in practice, and how may they be improved?
SEASONAL GREETINGS TO ALL
Michael.
On peut repondre en francais!
Man spricht auch deutsch!
Please reply in your (any) language of choice.
If you reply to a list then please e-mail me a copy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Michael Macpherson,
Derfflingerstrase 17, 10785 Berlin,
Federal Republic of Germany.
tel.: +49 30 262 3768
e-mail: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===================================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 16:44:01 -0600
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
From: The Jefferson Center <jcenter@winternet.com>
Subject: Re: debate democracy
Michael,
I received your message today posted to the public policy list on the
Humphrey Institute server and followed up by reading the web digest listed in your message. Glad to see that you did get quite a few messages, and even happier to notice that our work was mentioned in one of them. I am from the Jefferson Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Ned Crosby is our founder and "brain" behind the Jefferson Center and our process called the Citizens Jury (tm).
I am planning on following this e-mail with a hard copy of information on our work but briefly, here is what the Citizens Jury is about:
Representative panels of citizens who meet to examine public policy issues and present their findings to decision-makers and to the community at large. We have run local, state and national projects on issues ranging from hog farming, congestion pricing and school-based health clinics to national juries on health care reform and federal government budgeting priorities. Our primary goal is to increase awareness and involvement through a process which is open, fair and gives citizens the proper tools to make an educated decision for themselves.
I would also like to point you to some other resources that we are aware of which you may (probably) or may not have heard:
Peter Dienel - Wuppertal University
Plannungszelle is the name of his project.
Institute for Public Policy Research
Located in London, England. They are looking at conducting Citizens Juries in England and researched both Mr. Dienel's and Mr. Crosby's work before writing their proposal for conducting a jury.
That is it as far as European sources that I am aware of off the top of my
head. For the United States, the sources given to you previously are all
very good but I would also direct you to the North Dakota Consensus Council, America Speaks, Center for Living Democracy and the Harwood Group. These are all very good starts and will provide you with information of projects they conduct or are aware of which match what you are looking for.
I hope this information proves useful to you and I am eager to assist you in any manner. Also, please check out our WWW page at
http://www.winternet.com/~jcenter/ and we would appreciate it if it could be added to the "digest".
Also, you can reach us by any of the following means:
E-mail:
jcenter@winternet.com (this is for anyone at the Jefferson Center, including Ned Crosby)
Phone:
612-333-5300
Mail:
Jefferson Center
1111 3rd Ave So. (You were given a bad address by Mark Thomas Lindeman)
Suite 364
Minneapolis, MN 55404
USA
Very truly yours,
Lance G. Stendal
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 17:29:30 -0600
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
From: The Jefferson Center <jcenter@winternet.com>
Subject: Re: debate democracy
Michael,
I just finished talking with Ned Crosby about your message and he pointed me to another very good resource. In the book, the authors compare different decision-making models used in various countries and seeks to measure the performance of citizen participation process.
"Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation" - 1995
Edited by: Ortwin Renn, Thomas Webler, and Peter Wiedemann
Published by: Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Germany
-Lance
To: The Jefferson Center <jcenter@winternet.com>
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: debate democracy
Hello Lance and Colleagues,
Thank you for all that information.
I would appreciate learning more about your citizens' juries, how they are organised and what results they have produced.
I'm in a great hurry. Will reply more fully later and will try to add your URL to my home page.
I'm looking forward to making contact with the guy from Wuppertal. Thanks for that chance.
Sincerly,
Michael.
p.s. I guess you know that Stendal is a town not too far from Berlin. Any connection? (Added note: Lance replied that his grandfather came from the town of Stendal in Norway!)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr. Michael Macpherson,
Psycho-Social and Medical Research PSAMRA,
Derfflingerstrase 17,
10785 Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany.
tel.: +49 30 262 3768
e-mail: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Date: Sat, 16 Dec 1995 12:46:48 ARG
From: "Administrador de fer.fsoc.uba.ar " <postmast@fer.fsoc.uba.ar>
To: "Dr. Michael Macpherson" <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
Me ha interesado mucho el tema de como pueden ser desarrollados los sistemas
democraticos y como estos funcionan efectivamente en la actualidad.
Deseo saber si es posible que le envie mis reflexiones en espaniol. Si no
es asi, puede hacerlo en Ingles, aunque seguramente no podre reflejar
tan claramente los matices del idioma.
Gracias,
---
Fernando Marino Aguirre
postmaster@fer.fsoc.uba.ar
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 17:59:01 +0000 (GMT)
From: El Lobo de las Tinieblas <ajf5@coventry.ac.uk>
To: Pentti Asunmaa <kupeas@uta.fi>
cc: el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be
Subject: Re: IS projects in small municipalities
Sender: owner-el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be
Dear Pentti ,
having just recieved your message through the IS , I find
that I am inclined to agree on the majority of the points thaty you have
raised. Centralised decision-making (vis-a-vis decisions left to central
government excluding the public which it affects) is the cause of many of our problems and the cause of much public upset. With the type of
decision-making which you suggest , democracy would be , in the long-term , better served. Or so I believe. I am a student at Coventry
University studying European Business and Technology(Bsc.eng) and this
topic has arisen in several of our lectures and study materials , I have
alao encountered it whilst researching into other areas , and find that I
agree with it. However , some form of regulation is important as an
uncontrolled system is a chaotic system , doomed to failure. So ,
unfortunately , it would possibly be subject to corruption. Could anyone
suggest how this problem might be overcome? Possible control from a
nuetral body (one not involved with government or formed by proportional representation ) perhaps?
Hopefully this subject may develop into reality someday , until then ,
our discussing it may bring that day further.
By the way , are there any Spanish people out there with whom political
views could be discussed , in Spanish? (?Haya algunos espa~oles alli con quien puedo discutir/hablar sobre los temas politicos , en espa~ol?)
Thanks to everyone
Lobo
__
\ /
\\
\\
___________________||/\_
(___________________()| _||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||>
||\/
//
//
/__\
(------------------------------------------------------------)
| EL LOBO DE LAS TINIEBLAS |
| aka: Alan J Fisher |
| e-mail:ajf5@coventry.ac.uk |
| telf(casa):956-677127 |
| (inglaterra) :07-44-1203-600610 |
| |
| "He dicho que no mires atras |
| Porque el cielo no es tuyo |
| Hay que empezar despacio |
| En deshacer el mundo." |
(____________________________________________________________)
(EDITOR'S NOTE: Is the above symbol what i think it is? MJM)
To: ajf5@coventry.ac.uk, postmaster@fer.fsoc.uba.ar
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: citizens' democracy
Dear Lobo, Dear Fernando Marino Aguirre,
Till now i was not able to give a satisfactory reply to Sgr. Aguirre's request (see copy of his mesage, above: he asks for materials in Spanish).
My only suggestion would be as follows. Go to my guest home page, "Democracy in Action", hosted in the WWW by John Gotze at <http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~itsjg/>.
Then follow (click) the link to other projects. Here you will find a number of active projects and progammes which aim to reform democratic systems, to experiment with electronic participation in decision making and the like. I think that especially some of the US-american projects may be able to help with finding materials in Spanish or even (if we are lucky) with translation. Are there not many millions of Spanish speaking US-american citizens?
Sincerely,
Michael.
==========================
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 1995 16:05:28 -0700 (MST)
From: m.e.morrell@asu.edu
Subject: Re: debate democracy
To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
After reading your most recent posting, I am very interested in the
project you have undertaken. While I am only a PhD candidate at the
moment, my dissertation is focusing on whether or not participation in
political decision making actually has some of the effects claimed by
J.S. Mill, Carol Pateman, Benjamin Barber and others. I am testing this
experimentally, so I am not sure if it will be of interest to you.
However, there is a book that I believe was in your digest, but if it
was not, it is one at which you should look. -Rebirth of Urban
Democracy- It is the best empirical examination of direct participation
I have come across in my research.
If you are interested, I will give more details of my research and
results.
Michael E Morrell
Arizona State University
m.e.morrell@asu.edu
To: m.e.morrell@asu.edu
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: debate democracy
Dear Michael Morrell,
Yes, i would be interested to know more about your doctoral work. e.g., which postulated effects of participation are you studying?
Thanks for the book recommendation, i'll follow it up.
Sincerely,
Michael Macpherson
Michael Morrel replied:
>I am going to test at least four different hypothesized effects:
>efficacy, tolerance, acceptance of decisions, and what I am calling
>empathy. The most interesting for me is empathy, which I have drawn
>out of psychology as a measure of what J.S. Mill is describing in _On
>Representative Government_ as the broadening of moral horizons. >Benjamin Barber also talks about empathy.
>I am also thinking about looking at common interests or the common >good, but am having a hard time developing an adequate measure that >will actually get at what theorists mean by those terms. Any >suggestions would be gladly accepted.
To: m.e.morrell@asu.edu
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: your research
Hello Michael Morrell,
When i read about your intentions i thought about Scott Hamilton from Colorado. He attended several conferences which i organised around the theme of coping with macro-social problems and environmental threats and contributed a chapter to a book which i edited (in German).
Scott researched many factors which may influence socio-political behaviour including empathy. He is, IMVHO, a psychological polymath. In 1991 he wrote to me "Much of my current research is focused on the area of collectivism, (....) I think this trait or personality characteristic is at the heart of what Milbrath called the "new envoronmental paradigm " ....".
I do not recall hearing any more, probably my failure.
So, i think it might be fruitful to approach Prof. Hamilton and ask him to comment on your developing work.
Also, if not already tried, you could post to the PolPsych e-forum - you could liven it up a bit - it seems _very_ (almost dead-) quiet.
Prof. Scott B. Hamilton
Dept. Psychology
Fort Collins, Colorado 80523
telephone: (303) 491-6363 fax (303) 491-1032
Sincerely,
Michael.
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 1996 11:10:46 -0700 (MST)
From: m.e.morrell@asu.edu
Subject: my research
X-Sender: hueys@stats2.asu.edu
To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
Thank you for the information. I will definitely contact Professor
Hamilton and look into the PolPsych e-forum.
I am proceeding with my quasi-experiment on participation. The pilot
study went well and am currently compiling the data from it. I should
have the data from my current experiment by the end of the spring.
Again, thank-you.
Mike Morrell
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: "HAGEN.MARTIN" <hagen@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de>
Organization: Univ. Hamburg, Dep. of Social Sc.
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 1996 14:59:28 GMT+1
Subject: Electronic Democracy
Lieber Michael MacPherson,
vor einer Weile las ich Deinen Rundruf und die Antworten zum Thema
Demokratie und Internet.
Ich arbeite nun an einem aehnlichem Projekt, naemlich einen Artikel
ueber "Electronic Democracy und der Information Superhighway". Haben
Sie inzwischen noch andere Literaturhinweise bekommen, oder kennen
Sie weitere Ansprechpartner?Ich wuerde mich sehr ueber eine kurze Antwort von Ihnen freuen,
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Martin Hagen cand. pol.
Martin Hagen
Institut fuer Politische Wissenschaft
Universitaet Hamburg
E-mail: hagen@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de
Mail/Home Address: Zeiseweg 4, D-22765 Hamburg
To: "HAGEN.MARTIN" <hagen@sozwi.sozialwiss.uni-hamburg.de>
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy
Hello Martin,
To start with a small joke, i do not know the answer to the problem of "you" and "thou" in english. Happily perhaps, for historical reasons the problem has almost disappeared (except when one addresses "God"!).
Wenn wir auf deutsch mal weiter kommunizieren sollen (was mich freuen wuerde) schlage ich vor, das DU anzuwenden. Im Internet scheint's mir (fast) immer die beste Loesung. Man braucht auch ja weniger e-mail bytes! Aber, aus Gruenden der Genauigkeit, Deutlichkeit usw. mach' ich jetzt weiter auf englisch!
I do not have much literature on electronic democracy. One reason for that is that my main interest here is in citizen participation in societal decision making. I agree that the electronic equipment may help, and of course there are and will be new social and political effects of increased availability and transfer of information, increased communication, more discussion etc. across the world. To try to clarify: i am suggesting that there should be a citizens' and public audit (kritische auswertung) as a base for informed decisions about how *exisiting* democratic systems should be improved. I get the impressions that there is a widespread vague hope that the "information superhighway" will improve meaningful participation and diffuse power. It is assumed that you just have to give everybody a computer and modem. I am not convinced. Also, there are some, probably many different experiments in computer aided decision making, study of public issues, debate etc. which you probably know more about than i. Offered by elites or even governments, some of them look like the continuation of "fooling the people most of the time" (paraphrasing the US president, who tried it). Others are just debating clubs.
Was weiter Informationen betrifft. Kennst Du das Projekt von Bullinga in den Niederlanden? Ich schicke seinen Brief mit (unten).
Ich habe fuer folgendes Buch ein Inhalts-Vorstellung gelesen, sieht fuer Dich interessant aus:
W.B.H.J. van de Donk et al. Orwell in Athens - a perspective on informatization and democracy. Amsterdam, IOS Press 1995. ISBN 90 5199 219 X
E-mail Adressen von Ansprechspartner sind auf meinem "Guest Home Page" (Democracy in Action Digest *plus* WWW links to good projects in e-democracy etc) zu finden, z.B. Scott London, Mark Lindeman, Ted Becker. G. Aiken scheint mir auch interresant zu sein, ist glaube ich wieder in Cambridge, England.
Guest home page: <http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~itsjg/macpherson.html>
Mit freundlichen Gruessen,
Happy Hogmanay (schottisches neujahr)
Michael.
X-Sender: roesderz@xs4all.nl
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 20:54:55 +0100
To: el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be
From: roesderz@xs4all.nl (Marcel Bullinga)
Subject: "Decision-Maker/Teledemocracy": request for your comment...
Sender: owner-el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be
A good day to you all...
Please give your comment on "Decision-Maker/Teledemocracy", a procedural and editorial model for teledemocracy via Internet that I have designed for the Dutch Institute of Public and Politics.
On the Web-page you will find an explanation of the model plus a public
guestbook for your comment in English. Suggestions on editorial problems and on software-development will be appreciated highly; the software development is going to take place in the next few monts.
Please check out:
www.xs4all.nl/~roesderz/english/teledemo/
and leave a message on the public guestbook, or send a personal email to the designer.
Kindly,
Marcel Bullinga <roesderz@xs4all.nl>
designer of "Decision-Maker/Teledemocracy"
Dutch Institute for Public and Politics
***this mail may be forwarded to any appropriate mailinglist, provided it is left intact****
=============================
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 06:57:00 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jonathan Seib <SEIB_JO@leg.wa.gov>
Subject: Electronic Democracy
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Dr. Macpherson:
I am an attorney and policy analyst for the Washington State
Senate. I came across a copy of your recent posting on electronic
democracy, which had been forwarded to subscribers of "PUBPOL-L,"
and found the discussion fascinating. The posting of your message
to "PUBPOL-L" will hopefully encourage even more suggestions and
commentary from us "practitioners" in addition to academics - a
valuable combination in this discussion. While I hope to follow
the progress of your efforts and provide more detailed comments as
time allows (here, we are in the midst of our legislative session),
here are some brief initial thoughts:
- The tone of your proposal suggests that you intend to focus
primarily on citizen participation in the legislative process - the
molding of general policies and program directives. While this is
obviously valuable, I think it is extremely important to also
address ways to improve citizen participation in the implementation
process. The notion that "policy is what happens" is certainly
true. Here in the U.S., much of the frustration with "the
bureaucracy" stems from the fact that it is where many decisions
are made which significantly impact peoples' day-to-day activities,
but to the average citizen, it appears even more inaccessible than
the legislative body. By design, (primarily through civil service
laws) we have insulated many key government decision-makers from
the "politics" that characterize the legislative process. Does
this hinder or promote democracy? It is certainly an issue with
which many government entities, including Washington State, are
wrestling.
- I would also encourage you to focus on quantity and quality,
In other words, not simply ways to provide more opportunities for
citizens to speak their minds, but also ways to encourage (or
require?) policy-makers to give what is said serious consideration
and truly incorporate the views of citizens in the decisions that
are made. The goal is meaningful participation, not just an
opportunity to vent.
- While desiring greater, more meaningful participation in
government decision-making, citizens are also demanding a
government that is "more efficient." Can the two goals be
reconciled? Isn't democracy, by its very nature, inefficient?
Consistent with the notion that "you get what you pay for" improved
citizen participation may increase government costs. Are citizens
willing to accept this?
- Finally, I think there would be some benefit in a discussion
of how to prevent procedures designed to facilitate improved
citizen participation mechanisms from being subverted. In
Washington, we have an initiative and referendum process that
allows direct citizen lawmaking. In recent years, the spirit in
which these were originally intended has been undermined by the
practice of paying signature gathers for each signature they manage
to get on the initiative petition. These mercenaries likely know
and care very little about the law being proposed, but nonetheless
station themselves outside shopping malls harassing people to sign
the petition because each signature is more money in their pocket.
Not exactly consistent with the notion of "grass roots"
participation!
Good luck with your project. I am excited to watch it develop.
To: Jonathan Seib <SEIB_JO@leg.wa.gov>
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: Electronic Democracy
Jan. 1996.
Dear Jonathon Seib,
Thank you for your comments. I'll take note of them.
I won't try to reply to your letter in full because (a) I am still gathering information. (b) There is a lot of writing on democratic theory which i cannot more than scan - have not finished trying that. (c) There is much discussion about electronic democracy but it is difficult to sort "the wheat" of well thought out proposals from the "chaff" of projects based only on the assumption that growth of the internet etc. will automatically bring with it a democratic revolution. (d) I have just completed a reply to Jean Lloyd-Jones which addresses some of your concerns so i will append below her letter and my reply.
Thanks for reminding me about the importance of citizen/consumer participation in implementation of policy. I agree. Surely progress and serious experiment can occur on several fronts simultaneously.
Sincerely,
Michael Macpherson.
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:51:46 -0600 (CST)
From: Jean Lloyd-Jones
X-Sender: rljones@black.weeg.uiowa.edu
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
cc: el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be
Subject: debate democracy
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: owner-el-democracy@www.ispo.cec.be
Dear Michael,
Your message has just reached me in Iowa City, Iowa, USA and struck a
chord. I am a former state legislator-- retired after sixteen years in
the Iowa House and Senate, and now a graduate student. I'm enrolled in
the Master's program in Conflict Resolution at Antioch University in
Yellow Springs, Ohio. My focus is on legislative decision-making and how representative democracy can be improved. I would be interested in your views on how to engage the citizens in meaningful dialogue. My sense is that people are turned off in this country because they think politicians are not really listening to them--they have no way to register their opinions other than opinion polls with loaded questions or one-on-one conversations with their legislators which takes time and many people are reluctant to do it. Anyway, legislators are so busy that they couldn't handle more responses via internet or otherwise.
Meanwhile, legislators are on the defensive and don't know how to deal with the increasingly complex and often contradictory requests from the public. They don't need a higher volume of public input--they need a higher quality of public input. Simply increasing the number of people on the internet is not going to do it--it may make the problem worse. I think that there is much promise in the theories and models of conflict resolution, and that we need to teach the public and elected officials how to use these techniques. I would be interested in your response.
Sincerely,
Jean Lloyd-Jones
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Reply to: Jean Lloyd-Jones
Dear Jean,
You wrote:
(quote) My focus is on legislative decision-making and how
representative democracy can be improved. I would be interested in your views on how to engage the citizens in meaningful dialogue. My sense is that people are turned off in this country because they think politicians are not really listening to them--they have no way to register their opinions other than opinion polls with loaded questions or one-on-one conversations with their legislators which takes time and many people are reluctant to do it. (unquote)
More people will become interested, will start to inform themselves about public issues if they see practicable ways to get involved. I suggest that winning or being granted the chance to participate will increase the likelihood that people will act (see (1) below) fairly and responsibly. I have seen a number of proposals about how participation might be improved, both in quality and quantity. I have not yet been able to decide which are the best proposals or initiatives - there are a number of experiments going on. (If you drop in on my guest home page in WWW and click on "Links ..." or similar you will find a number of such projects.) A concrete proposal, about to start experimentally on a small scale, aims to eventually allow participation of all citizens of a small country and to change the party system to a mixture of party, delegated and direct citizens' voting: "Decision-Maker/ Teledemocracy", a procedural and editorial model for teledemocracy via Internet, <www.xs4all.nl/~roesderz/english/teledemo/> (M Bullinga).
I think that a good way for legislators and citizens to take cautious steps forward is to increase the availability and amount of information about the public decision-making and implementation processes. This can be dramatically aided by computer networks. Development varies tremendously from country to country and needs to be improved. (e.g. "Thomas" and much federal information in the US, which look quite good, the German Bundestag in Internet, which looks poor).
With or without computers and networks, i suggest that a further important need is to "pep up" democratically legitimised structures by improving communication between/among legislators, administrators and citizens, using the catalysts of improved informing about issues/process plus outreach before decisions are reached and in the planning stages of implementation. Local council offices, libraries, schools might be used as information and communication nodes/centres (3). Agreed, all of these worthy improvements have been tried before, usually have petered out because of lack of interest. The new ingredient which may cause the improvements to be sustained is that (some) citizens are being offered or/and are claiming more meaningful ways to express their opinions of public affairs, more efficacious and precise ways to vote in collective decisions and more influence in the implementation of decisions.
I think that a local component of proposals to reform democracies is very important and seems lacking in many "e-democracy" projects involving computer networks. There should be built-in opportunities to meet real people, maybe at conferences on selected issues, in citizens' "working" or "issue" groups, perhaps representative panels etc..
(quote) Anyway, legislators are so busy that they couldn't
handle more responses via internet or otherwise.
Meanwhile, legislators are on the defensive and don't know how to deal with the increasingly complex and often contradictory requests from the public. They don't need a higher volume of public input--they need a higher quality of public input. Simply increasing the number of people on the internet is not going to do it--it may make the problem worse. (unquote)
Yes, i believe that many parliamentarians and (like my wife) "bureaucrats" are working very hard, long hours. That is an issue for citizens to debate, to help resolve. Such problems obviously have to be considered when reforms are being proposed, and solved before any more demands can be placed on the overworked. But it's not the same everywhere. e.g. many British MPs and government ministers have two, three or more simultaneous, additional paid jobs (really).
(quote) I think that there is much promise in the theories and models of conflict resolution, and that we need to teach the public and elected officials how to use these techniques. (unquote).
Yes, if we imagine say a panel of citizens meeting with employers who "must" close the local factory, or with the government executives who plan to tear down their village to allow coal-mining etc., etc., we can see a role for conflict mediators. Even in Internet discussions, as you probably know, there are often conflicts, sometimes bitter, enduring and hateful feuds. A new market-opening, e-conflict-resolution?
Separately i'll send copies of recent letters in "debate democracy".
Sincerely,
Michael.
(1) The latter seems like common sense and if i recall correctly is backed up by some psychological theory concerning "perceived efficacy".
(2) thanks to Jonathon Seib (see compendium) for reminder of importance of the latter -- of course, now he mentions it, i must recall that it's present in my everyday life as my wife works in implementation of federal-state policy in Brandenburg!
(3) Here i think that the information "super-highway" really can play an important role. Not only can local issues be presented, but also national and international ones. Nobody can, or should try to be an expert on everything (some people, of course will try!). There could be citizen panels for different issues and subjects. There are proposals to select and constitute such panels in a representative, otherwise random manner. The input of such panels to public decision-making would arguably be a legitimate complement to present systems. Taking the federal German system as an example, input of a local citizens' panel could e.g. be carried via the town council to the "Staedte und Gemeinde Tag" (Town and Community Meeting), which already exists as a component of the central federal representative system. (My reference to the German system is only for purposes of illustration -- i do not know in detail what the remit and powers of the "town and commnity meeting" at present are. (see P.S.)
Sincerely,
Michael.
P.S. I am advised that the German "Staedte und Gemeinde Tag" (Town and Community Meeting) at present does not have formal voting rights at the central federal assembly.
===============================
Date: Mon, 11 Dec 1995 13:02:21 -0800
From: "Thomas W. Krafft" <tkrafft@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu>
Organization: California Polytechnic State University San Luis Obispo
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Subject: e-democracy
X-Url: http://www.gbar.dtu.dk/~itsjg/macpherson.html
I'm not sure if I am at the proper starting point.. but I'd like to
contribute ideas about political reformation and/or participation via the
Internet.
I am an American student of politics and government. The concept of the Internet as a facilitator of democratic change is incredibly interesting, and will be as equally difficult to achieve without, first, making some distinctions:
There are literally people millions of "e-citizens" who have opinions related to government and politics. If this medium is to be used as a tool for any reformation, however, there will have to be a separation of these opinions from true, unbiased and accurate facts.
Yes, ...EVERYONE is supposed to be involved in democratic processes
But, only SOME are capable of working together to compose new treatises for the reformation of any existing system.
For example: All of the American colonialists were interested in the subjects of democracy and change - and there were just as many separate opinions with regard to HOW to achieve these things (most would have probably preferred to keep things the way they were). ...But it was a small group of individuals, many with substantive backgrounds in political science - intellectuals, and those with a great sense of history - who came together in a Convention to write the new treatises. Change came about as a result of this small group's capacity to see the truth, and the answers necessary for political change.
Yes, ..it was a flawed process, with historically well-known conflicts, but
it is a situation which relates well to our modern-day questions.
It would appear to me, that at present, the Internet has several resources for the general discussion of politically-related subjects - but NO area for the refined postulation of viable reforms. Perhaps what is needed is a "Philadelphia Convention" of sorts ... a site which is an interactive collective of the world's true "thinkers" (intellectuals with a capacity to work together to produce answers to some of our questions - in an unbiased, informed and coherent manner).
In that I am a student of political science, I would like to participate in
such a project, BUT (and this is the key) I MUST recognize my own
intellectual limits; accept the fact that I am not yet disciplined enough to
be of any significant contribution; and acquiesce my desire to be the author of these new treatises, to simply observing (or perhaps, occassionally offering some suggestions to) the creation of the new global political framework - by some of the most esteemed and prolific political scientists of our day.
Nothing will change, with current conditions on the Internet, for this simple reason: Millions of desparate voices are simply colliding (electronically), with each proposing some opinion or observation, with no coherant system of organization or collection.
While it is true that the current sites are allowing people to expand their
knowledge of the world, politics and governments - there is no place (such as a Philadelphia Convention) where the most focused and informed of these voices can create a new treatise on politics and human rights.
Best regards in your endevours,
Thomas W. Krafft
E-mail: <a
href="mailto:tkrafft@cymbal.aix.calpoly.edu">tkrafft</a>
My politically-related <a
href="http://www.calpoly.edu/~pols/ps_home.htm">Web-Pages</a>
To: "Thomas W. Krafft" <tkrafft@oboe.aix.calpoly.edu>
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: Re: e-democracy
Dear Thomas Krafft,
Thank you for your letter which was i think the first direct reply to my "guest home page" at John Gotze's town-planning project. How did you stumble across it?
Whether we like it or not the information revolution and computer networks will (already happened in some places) lead to voters being better informed and so better able to monitor their representatives' performance, elect on a more substantial base of knowledge and make proposals which get a public hearing, therefore exercise increased influence on politics.
I'm certainly in favour of more "deliberated" participation so share your reservation about attempts to organise mass decision-making which may not be well informed. Maybe you would find James Fishkin's book on Deliberative Democracy (see my Home Page for ref.) helpful here.
I wonder if you would be interested in the Dutch project which aims to offer all adult citizens the chance to increase their knowledge and amount of participation -- I refer to that and give URL in the appended material (M. Bullinga's project). (ADDED NOTE: this URL is to be found above, see "Bullinga".)
Sincerely,
Michael Macpherson.
p.s. I append copies of a recent leter from Jean Lloyd-Jones and my reply.
(compendium readers please see above)
=========================
To: parnet@cornell.edu (PARTICPATORY ACTION RESEARCH NETWORK)
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: "Democracy in Action"
January 1996
Dear authors of the PAR-talk WWW homepage,
Thank you very much for linking to my initiative "Democracy in Action".
John Gotze mentioned to me that there is a mistake in the PAR-talk homepage text which reads:
""Democracy in Action"
an interesting archive of personal correspondence to Mark Thomas Lindeman:
Oct. 12 - 28,1995"
The text should read:
""Democracy in Action"
an interesting archive of personal correspondence to Michael Macpherson:
Oct. 12 - 28,1995"
The mistake is understandable. Mark Lindeman was one of the most valuable correspondents who replied to my multiple-list posting. His contribution may be found in the "archive".
Sincerely,
Michael Macpherson
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 1996 17:02:32 -0500
X-Sender: parnet-mailbox@postoffice4.mail.cornell.edu
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
From: The Cornell Participatory Action Research Network <PARnet@cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: "Democracy in Action"
At 12:55 PM 1/23/96 +0730, you wrote:
>Dear authors of the PAR-talk WWW homepage,
...
>John Gotze mentioned to me that there is a mistake in the PAR-talk homepage
...
Dr. Macpherson:
Thank you for correcting our mistake, and we apologise for the slip. Our Web page has now been corrected. We would be happy to hear about any future work you do on the topic of democracy in action.
Sincerely,
Carla J. Shafer
The Cornell PAR Network
214 Warren Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853-7801
ph: 607 255-1967
fax: 607 255-9984
URL: http://munex.arme.cornell.edu/parnet/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ P A R N e t ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~ Sponsored by the Cornell Local Government Program ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~ The Mario Einaudi Center for International Studies ~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The Cornell Center for the Environment ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cornell University, Ithaca, New York ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ requests to: PARnet@cornell.edu ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
========================
Date: Tue, 16 Jan 1996 17:02:45 -0800 (PST)
From: "F. Zahraie" <faramak@u.washington.edu>
To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
Subject: Re: debate democracy
I believe real representational democracy would work by a process of
random selection, whereby there is no bias as to whom is elected.
We need that as an intermidiary form of government to interact with the present form of government.
At the same time we need disscussion on real issues, don't discuss
disscussing do it.
Electronic democracy has begun the point is to do it.
This computer base can be used as a base to gradually replace all other
forms of democracy as people become more mature and find a more readily access to computers and the www.
So long,
Faramak Zahraie
To: faramak@u.washington.edu
From: mjm@berlin.snafu.de (michael macpherson)
Subject: democracy, reform, internet
January 1996
Dear Faramak Zahraie,
Thank you for your recent message (re:debate democracy).
I am worried that we won't necesarily get new decision-making systems which are "half-ways" up to the problems which we are all facing if we simply wait for everyone to get plugged into (and hooked on!) internet and WWW.
Some concerns, questions, ideas, projects/experiments are mentioned in the following correspondence*. Here are some letters which I got in "debate democracy" plus my attempts to reply.
Sincerely,
Michael Macpherson.
(* deleted here: two messages included elsewhere in this compendium were sent.)
From: Stuart Carruthers <stuart@tagish.demon.co.uk>
Organization: tagish Ltd
To: mjm@berlin.snafu.de
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 1996 10:19:28 +0000
X-Enclosure-Info: DOS,"paperis.doc",,,,Unknown
Subject: Electronic Democracy
X-Confirm-Reading-To: Stuart Carruthers <stuart@tagish.demon.co.uk>
X-pmrqc: 1
Priority: normal
Dear Michael,
Attached is a paper on development of the InfoSoc in the UK which you
might find of interest (Word 6).
I have a feeling that we are attacking the same question (as you will
see from our web site //www.tag.co.uk/
We are attempting to document the public organisations around the
world (and in the near future with the help of the TAP) describe how
they are organised.
We maintain the UK national inventory of telematic (info soc)
projects in the UK for our government, and have also established
inventories of all the electronic links to the public sector in the
UK (and other parts of the world - the essential list). We see this
as the first stage in this research project.
We shall also shortly be launching a daily newsletter on the forces
driving adoption of info soc applications - and this will have
linkages to statutory bodies and the info soc projects available (or
being developed).
Hopefully, it will provide an additional resource base for the work
you are undertaking.
With Best Wishes
Stuart Carruthers stuart@tagish.demon.co.uk
tagish Ltd
Tel: +44 (0)191 272 2620
-------------- Enclosure number 1 ----------------
* This message contains the file 'paperis.doc', which has been
* uuencoded. If you are using Pegasus Mail, then you can use
* the browser's eXtract function to lift the original contents
* out to a file, otherwise you will have to extract the message
* and uudecode it manually.
begin 660 paperis.doc
MT,\1X*&Q&N$`````````````````````.P`#`/[_"0`&```````````````"
M`````0``````````$````@````$```#^____``````````!V````________
M____________________________________________________________
(....)
M_______________________]____@P```/[___^$````!0````8````'````
M"`````D````*````"P````P````-````#@````\````0````$0```!(````3
M````%````!4````6````%P```!@````9````&@```!L````<````'0```!X`
(.....)
M92!3;V-I86P@86YD($5C;VYO;6EC($-H86QL96YG92!O9B!T:&4@26YF;W)M
M871I;VX@4V]C:65T>2!I;B!T:&4@56YI=&5D($MI;F=D;VTJ#0T-4W1U87)T
M($-A<G)U=&AE<G,@86YD(%-I;6]N(%-M:71H#71A9VES:$QT9"X@-2!";VQA
M;7,@36EL;"P@06QN=VEC:RP@3F]R=&AU;6)E<FQA;F0L($Y%-C8@,4Q.+B!5
M2RX@5&5L.B`K-#0@*#`I,38V-2`V,#0@.#DU.R!&87@Z("LT-"`H,"DQ-C8U
(EDITOR'S NOTE: I COULD NOT DECODE THIS STUFF !!!!!!?????? After all, I'm a citizen, not a computer specialist. MJM)
==========================================================
THIS TIME THE LAST WORD GOES TO TAN TECK CHIN, MALAYSIA.
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 95 18:50:09 MAL
From: Tan Teck Chin <P-TAN@UTMKL.UTM.MY>
Organization: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
Subject: Re: debate democracy
To: michael macpherson <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
Hi, Mike! How are you in Europe? Is there any snow man right now?
Can you post me some snow? I haven't see snow in my life. (just
kidding) I have received a lot of email with this subject: debate
democracy. I'll discuss with you after finish reading this email.
Merry X'mas and Happy New Year.
"I'm dreaming of a White Christmas..."
Regards,
T C Tan
Researcher/Writer/Political Cartoonist
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 95 17:01:57 MAL
From: T C Tan <P-TAN@UTMKL.UTM.MY>
Organization: Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur
To: Mike <mjm@berlin.snafu.de>
X-Acknowledge-To: <P-TAN@UTMKL>
Did you told anybody in New Zealand that you are coming to
Malaysia to attend the Civil Society Conference next year?
T C Tan
FINAL END OF COMPENDIUM
=========================DEBATE DEMOCRACY
integral studies home page | website contents | integral studies background | psycho-social and medical research | fund appeal