“Brexit failed.” Here’s the view now Nigel Farage, a man arguably more responsible for Britain’s decision to leave the EU than anyone else. He was right, not because he thought the Tories had screwed up, but because it was bound to go wrong. The question is why the state made this mistake. The answer is that our democratic process doesn’t work very well. Adding a referendum to elections does not solve the problem.but add town hall possible.
in his farewell message, George Washington warns against factionalism. In his view, “the alternating rule of one faction over another . . . is in itself a terrible despotism. But . . . safety and peace”. Looking at America today, the danger is clear. In current electoral politics, manipulating the emotions of rationally uninformed voters is the path to power. The result is likely to be ruled by those with the most demagogic talents.
Elections are necessary. But unbridled majoritarianism is a disaster. A successful liberal democracy requires binding institutions: independent oversight of elections, an independent judiciary, and an independent bureaucracy. But are they enough? No, in my book, The crisis of democratic capitalism, I follow the Australian economist Nicholas Gruen in arguing for the addition of citizens’ assemblies or juries of citizens. These would insert an important element of ancient Greek democracy into the parliamentary tradition.
There are two arguments for introducing a lottery (lottery) into the political process. First, these rallies are more representative than career politicians. Second, it moderates the impact of political campaigns, which are now even more distorted by the art of advertising and the algorithms of social media.
A modest approach is to have a jury of citizens make recommendations on controversial issues. These juries will be time-limited, compensated for their time, and hear expert advice.One of the best examples is On the tricky topic of abortion in Ireland. In 2016, a 100-person Review Conference was established, selected by lot by a designated chairperson and 99 ordinary people. It made recommendations to the Irish Parliament on abortion (in favor of “repealing and replacing” the ban then in force), as well as questions to the people in referendums.
There are other difficult problems that could (or might have been) tackled this way: carbon taxes; nuclear power; and immigration. In these cases, a jury of citizens will hear witnesses and discuss issues in depth.have evidence Such a jury of citizens would make a different decision on Brexit than a referendum because Brexiteers would change their minds based on the evidence. These juries will be advisory. But, as the Irish example shows, the weight of advice depends on the provider.
One can go further, by choosing the people’s branch of the legislature. It may also be advisory. But it can decide to investigate particularly controversial issues or even legislate. If it’s the latter, it could call for legislation to be sent back to the legislature for a secret ballot, reducing the grip on partisan politics. The Lok Sabha can even oversee issues such as electoral redistricting or the selection of judges and officials.
Another possibility is to hand over oversight of the referendum to the House of Commons. It will analyze the underlying issues, submit a report and agree on an appropriate motion. This would remove the greatest historical danger of referendums: their use to establish authoritarian control over politics, under the heading “the will of the people”.
Bringing citizens directly into the political process in a way that juries are familiar with can bring the public’s common sense into politics to complement the election of political leaders.
Civic assemblies can begin on a purely private basis. Contributions are required to address particularly important issues. In the UK, I suggest one on immigration. Participants will need financial compensation, and resources will need to be found to run them.green suggestion In the US or the EU, a well-funded 100-member citizens’ assembly that meets 26 days a year and receives a $150 honorarium costs about $15 million a year. Assuming the Citizens’ Assembly had fully investigated the claims in the Brexit debate – what a cost it might have avoided!
There is a lively debate among political scientists over whose preferences are reflected in democratic politics.the evidence is Preferences of the wealthiest are overrepresented. But, equally important, is the extent to which manipulation influences preference formation.
This is where assemblies are most useful. After my experience as a juror, I came to agree with Alexis de Tocqueville that the jury is the fundamental institution of citizenship. Given time and public debate, ordinary people show great insight. Lacking ambition for power, they can make a huge contribution to our public debate.
Washington was right: factional conflict is not the only way to achieve democracy. We should join the voices of ordinary people, in whose name a democracy is supposed to govern.
martin.wolf@ft.com
follow martin wolf my financial times etc. Twitter