William M, "Boss" Tweed, notorious 19th century NYC political fixer, said "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating". Like the electoral college this also seems like an oligarchic knee on the neck of democracy.
Municipal politics seems a lot more democratic; but, you're right, our voices could use a little more amplification than just when you MIGHT (don't hold you breath) see a candidate at your door at election time or taking part in a one off, well managed debate.
The question is whether any form of democracy always leads to some kind of soft-or-hard oligopoly--unless there is formal way for the "many" to overrule the "few" without restoring to some form of revolutionary violence. Nova Scotia could not be a better example of the principle at work. We are in a fully-throaded hard version of oligopoloy, where a very small group of elected officials, bureaucrats, and the rich, are the ones who are making decisions. Take the Coastal Protection Act. Passed by all three parties, and then Houston kills it. His decision, which he as never even bothered to offer some --any--feeble rationale for his decisions, Houston shows his complete contempt for the people of the province having an active role in civic life.
The "few" are not interested in the messiness of democracry, escept when it threatens to impepe their wealth-driven agendas. This tendency to oligarlicy is not a recent theory; Artistotle warned about this exact problem.
Whatever we do, making democracy better means setting things up in such a way that everyone has to participate in democratic debate. One of the ideas that has gathered much more momentum than I was aware of, the approach called "sortition." Under this system, people are chosen by lot to run the government for fairly short terms, like 2 years or years. The Greeks did not have what we would call elections. They chose by using this lottery process. The fact that I did not know that lottery was how the Greek "election" process works was written out of the history I had access to. It's easy to understand why any budding oligarchy would want to completely erase from history a method for picking leaders that would power into the hands of the many, instead of the few.
As I said earlier, I have been surprised to learn how much work has already taken place in various experiments in using some form of sortition. Take the recent Ireland referendum lealizing abortion. I did not know the process. The government appointed a group of people chosen at random,, maybe 100?, and provided them with he resources they needed to conduct a thorough public review of the evidnce, and then make a recommendation. The group met, listened, and recommended amending he Constitution to make abortion legal. The elected representitives were not legally required to enact whatever such a sortition might recommend, but in this case, the government accepted the recommendation.
The other idea I hafe been exploring is one that goes under many different names, but the most inclusive one is "assemblies" In most models, the assemblies are fairly small, 900-1000. In one model any member of an assembly can put a motion for some action forward. If that assemhbly votes to accept the recommendation, and the recommendation calls for action beyond the boundares of the assembly, then the proposal goes to some set of other local assemblies, depending on the reach of the proposal
I served on several criminal juries in DC, including one for first degree murder. I did another one where the defendant had tried to run over a police officer. I had to send a note to the judge to disqualify one of the jurors because she had violated the judge's instruction not to talk about the case with other jurors until deliberations. He knocked her off. Then one of the jurors refused to vote with the rest of us, and we went round and round for hours.
I came away from this jury experience telling people that serving on a jury was the most democratic exercise of power that we have. Think about it: our whole judicial system is set up so that we give 12 randomly chosen people the right to rule on intensely complicated cases, and except in rare occasions, we all agree to abide by whatever the jury decides. I now see how the power we give to juries is the power we need to give to ourselves. I am wandering through ideas about a long-term strategy focused on a radical devolving of decision-making, working through the institutions we have to work withl. A daunting challenge. But I've been pretty deep into the belly of the electoral based oligolpoly-spawning first-past-the-post system we use to elect people who are then said to "represent" us.
"I now see how the power we give to juries is the power we need to give to ourselves."
This is all fascinating Richard. And it brings it all to a good point. We have a very narrow view of what comes under the heading of democracy based on our experience and education. But in truth from choosing methods, to the desired short and long term outcomes, the path is longer and wider than we imagine.
And of course you're right about the oligopoly.
I love the story of Charles Dickens short visit to Halifax where he got to attend the opening of the legislature and noted it was like looking at Westminster trough the wrong end of the telescope.
"--It happened to be the opening of the Legislative Council and General Assembly, at which ceremonial the forms observed on the commencement of a new Session of Parliament in England were so closely copied, and so gravely presented on a small scale, that it was like looking at West- minster through the wrong end of a telescope. The governor, as her Majesty's representative, delivered what may be called the Speech from the Throne. He said what he had to say manfully and well. The military band outside the building struck up " God save the Queen " with great vigour before his Excellency had quite finished; the people shouted: the in's rubbed their hands; the out's shook their heads; the Government party said there never was such a good speech ; the Opposition declared there never was such a bad one ; the Speaker and members of the House of Assembly withdrew from the bar to say a great deal among themselves and do a little; and, in short, everything went on, and promised to go on, just as it does at home upon the like occasions."
You've definitely inspired me to go back to the books and contemplate writing some sort of list of democratic choosing rules... including random lottery, with an eye to comparing and contrasting each.
It may be that the seemingly low bar you mentioned in the opening - some process where the government can be changed from time to time without fear of violence - is democracy's best and only ultimately important feature.
William M, "Boss" Tweed, notorious 19th century NYC political fixer, said "I don't care who does the electing, so long as I get to do the nominating". Like the electoral college this also seems like an oligarchic knee on the neck of democracy.
Municipal politics seems a lot more democratic; but, you're right, our voices could use a little more amplification than just when you MIGHT (don't hold you breath) see a candidate at your door at election time or taking part in a one off, well managed debate.
The question is whether any form of democracy always leads to some kind of soft-or-hard oligopoly--unless there is formal way for the "many" to overrule the "few" without restoring to some form of revolutionary violence. Nova Scotia could not be a better example of the principle at work. We are in a fully-throaded hard version of oligopoloy, where a very small group of elected officials, bureaucrats, and the rich, are the ones who are making decisions. Take the Coastal Protection Act. Passed by all three parties, and then Houston kills it. His decision, which he as never even bothered to offer some --any--feeble rationale for his decisions, Houston shows his complete contempt for the people of the province having an active role in civic life.
The "few" are not interested in the messiness of democracry, escept when it threatens to impepe their wealth-driven agendas. This tendency to oligarlicy is not a recent theory; Artistotle warned about this exact problem.
Whatever we do, making democracy better means setting things up in such a way that everyone has to participate in democratic debate. One of the ideas that has gathered much more momentum than I was aware of, the approach called "sortition." Under this system, people are chosen by lot to run the government for fairly short terms, like 2 years or years. The Greeks did not have what we would call elections. They chose by using this lottery process. The fact that I did not know that lottery was how the Greek "election" process works was written out of the history I had access to. It's easy to understand why any budding oligarchy would want to completely erase from history a method for picking leaders that would power into the hands of the many, instead of the few.
As I said earlier, I have been surprised to learn how much work has already taken place in various experiments in using some form of sortition. Take the recent Ireland referendum lealizing abortion. I did not know the process. The government appointed a group of people chosen at random,, maybe 100?, and provided them with he resources they needed to conduct a thorough public review of the evidnce, and then make a recommendation. The group met, listened, and recommended amending he Constitution to make abortion legal. The elected representitives were not legally required to enact whatever such a sortition might recommend, but in this case, the government accepted the recommendation.
The other idea I hafe been exploring is one that goes under many different names, but the most inclusive one is "assemblies" In most models, the assemblies are fairly small, 900-1000. In one model any member of an assembly can put a motion for some action forward. If that assemhbly votes to accept the recommendation, and the recommendation calls for action beyond the boundares of the assembly, then the proposal goes to some set of other local assemblies, depending on the reach of the proposal
I served on several criminal juries in DC, including one for first degree murder. I did another one where the defendant had tried to run over a police officer. I had to send a note to the judge to disqualify one of the jurors because she had violated the judge's instruction not to talk about the case with other jurors until deliberations. He knocked her off. Then one of the jurors refused to vote with the rest of us, and we went round and round for hours.
I came away from this jury experience telling people that serving on a jury was the most democratic exercise of power that we have. Think about it: our whole judicial system is set up so that we give 12 randomly chosen people the right to rule on intensely complicated cases, and except in rare occasions, we all agree to abide by whatever the jury decides. I now see how the power we give to juries is the power we need to give to ourselves. I am wandering through ideas about a long-term strategy focused on a radical devolving of decision-making, working through the institutions we have to work withl. A daunting challenge. But I've been pretty deep into the belly of the electoral based oligolpoly-spawning first-past-the-post system we use to elect people who are then said to "represent" us.
"I now see how the power we give to juries is the power we need to give to ourselves."
This is all fascinating Richard. And it brings it all to a good point. We have a very narrow view of what comes under the heading of democracy based on our experience and education. But in truth from choosing methods, to the desired short and long term outcomes, the path is longer and wider than we imagine.
And of course you're right about the oligopoly.
I love the story of Charles Dickens short visit to Halifax where he got to attend the opening of the legislature and noted it was like looking at Westminster trough the wrong end of the telescope.
"--It happened to be the opening of the Legislative Council and General Assembly, at which ceremonial the forms observed on the commencement of a new Session of Parliament in England were so closely copied, and so gravely presented on a small scale, that it was like looking at West- minster through the wrong end of a telescope. The governor, as her Majesty's representative, delivered what may be called the Speech from the Throne. He said what he had to say manfully and well. The military band outside the building struck up " God save the Queen " with great vigour before his Excellency had quite finished; the people shouted: the in's rubbed their hands; the out's shook their heads; the Government party said there never was such a good speech ; the Opposition declared there never was such a bad one ; the Speaker and members of the House of Assembly withdrew from the bar to say a great deal among themselves and do a little; and, in short, everything went on, and promised to go on, just as it does at home upon the like occasions."
You've definitely inspired me to go back to the books and contemplate writing some sort of list of democratic choosing rules... including random lottery, with an eye to comparing and contrasting each.
It may be that the seemingly low bar you mentioned in the opening - some process where the government can be changed from time to time without fear of violence - is democracy's best and only ultimately important feature.