Ready for Democracy?

Written by: Scott Trimble on May 31, 2007 10:30 AM EDT

Linked to groups: Democracy for Texas - Austin

The administration of George W. Bush has laid bare many of the loopholes and other flaws in our supposedly democratic form of government. Many of us knew, or at least suspected, that something was wrong with our system even before our current President-who-would-be-king took office, but it was easier to ignore many of the problems, or at least to claim that there was nothing we could do about it. Since the arrival of the little dictator, it has become imperative that we find a way to do something about the problems in our political system, for our personal, cultural, environmental and political survival.

Undoubtedly, part of the problem with our system is the fact that we have a single person who is both head-of-state, and head-of-government, and that this person holds far too much power within our government. A further problem is that this person, the President, and most of those who are supposed to hold the President accountable, and provide a check and balance to the power of that office, i.e. Congress, are all elected by a process that is largely dominated by money. Furthermore, because Congress is comprised of only 535 persons, so adding the President and Vice President provides a total of only 537 elected officials who have control over the national political sphere. Of course, there are a handful of persons appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, but if the President and Congress are already bought off, then it can reasonably be assumed that the Supreme Court and other federal judges, as well as the Executive Cabinet officers will also be beholden to the same financial backers.

It has long been simply a part of conventional culture to not trust politicians. But must it be that way, or is that merely a factor of a flawed political system? I contend it is primarily the latter, but also that even the former can be successfully remedied by a superior system of governance: constitutional direct democracy.

There are many people who support the idea of direct democracy, and many who oppose it, and unfortunately most of the people in both groups, as far as I have been able to find, seem to be only aware of the most simplistic form of direct democracy. These people argue either for or against a simple government by rule of the majority, usually as determined by national referendum. If this were the only form of direct democracy to be considered, I would have to agree with the detractors on many points, but in the end, would still have to point out that even this simplistic system would eliminate the ability of wealthy corporate or other special interests to simply buy votes in Congress or to buy the influence of the President, and take “politicians” as we currently know them, out of power. However, we would still have the problem of majority tyranny, so while we might avert the problem of the amalgamation of corporate and governmental power into a neo-fascist state, we would still face a tyranny which would leave many people left out.

Fortunately, that is not the only version of direct democracy, so we may simply set those arguments aside. The form of democracy that I advocate, and for which this site is intended, is one in which the will of the majority is respected, and never trampled by any minority, but neither is the will of any minority to be trampled by the majority. It is a system in which no person is forced to live under principles which he or she cannot abide, but instead voluntarily agrees to be a member, and to participate at some level as a citizen, and not merely be a subject to a government that is entirely distinct from him/herself.

Designing and creating such a system of self-governance will be a task that will require many of us, all of us…but I begin it here with these thoughts. I hope you who are reading this will choose to comment or to participate in this project in some way, if not here on this blog, then in some other way which you believe will be the most effective. Please use the links at the right in my Blogroll to find your way to other pages of this blog, as well as other sites that are in some way related to this project. Some of the sites are by people advocating a more simplistic form of direct democracy, as noted above. Responding to their efforts with your support for the general idea of direct democracy, with some rational critiques of methods that might lead to majority tyranny, combined with ideas about how to overcome such issues while still addressing the faults in our current system that these people are attempting to address can help us all begin to work together to find a better solution.

Here are my thoughts on how we might do this. I believe we need a system where people come together with their neighbors to discuss the issues of the day face-to-face; however, unlike the political arguments that might happen at the pub, or the one-sided affairs in talk-radio, in which the host can simply cut your line if he/she cannot out shout you, I am suggesting actual assemblies at the neighborhood level where legislation would originate. Legislation that passed at that level would be pushed up the line along with delegates through a series of graduated assemblies. Any legislation that passed at the city level, and then a city-wide referendum would become ordinances and/or local policy. Legislation that passed at the state level and later a statewide referendum would become state law, and any that passed at the federal level and a subsequent national referendum would become a federal law. In order to protect and respect the will of the majority, no bill or resolution that has at least majority support may be considered “failed,” but in order to protect and respect the will of all persons, including minority interests, no bill or resolution should become law or policy unless it gets at least 2/3 support without principled objection. The minute particulars of how we should handle such principled objections is a matter for further debate, but for now, let’s just say that this allows anyone to make a case for an objection to any proposal, no matter how overwhelming the support, which deflates the anti-democracy argument that it will lead to government by “the passions of the mob.” Of course, to prevent any minority or even an individual, from effectively having a veto, which would put too much power in that individual’s hands (even though we’d all share that power as well), we must include a method for addressing and overcoming such objections in a rational and effective way that allows us to move forward toward an acceptable solution.

In order to overcome the problems of poor representation in the upper level assemblies, as exhibited in our current model, I recommend that instead of single-member representation, that we use a multiple member representation system wherein we elect delegates by a preferential voting method such as Single Transferable Vote, and that each delegate carries forth the number of proxy votes (or a proportional part of a given whole) which elected that delegate.

In order to avoid the problems associated with the single-person executive with far too much power, I recommend that executive duties be divided up according to department, with oversight of the whole to be done by the delegates of the federal assembly (which we may still call Congress and/or the House of Representatives and/or the Senate, if we so choose), and with the people retaining the right to recall any member of the executive who oversteps his/her authority. Furthermore, to avoid concentration of power over any of these specific departments, I propose that the federal assembly should appoint not individuals, but Committees or Secretariats for each department. Any decision that would need to be made by an overarching executive authority would be made by a Convention of all members of the Secretariats, and subject to approval by the Federal Assembly and/or the people in a referendum….or perhaps by the Assembly, with the approval of a Convention of the Secretariats and/or the people….

For more, check out my blog.

Tags: