Referendum [plural: referenda]:
"The submission of a proposed public measure or actual statute to a direct popular vote."
-- American Heritage Dictionary
From Loka Alert 8:1 (February 1, 2001) - Loka Alerts are an occasional series on the democratic politics of research, science, and technology issued free of charge by the nonprofit Loka Institute. TO BE ADDED TO THE LOKA ALERT E-MAIL LIST, please send a message to Loka@Loka.org.
One of the many extraordinary surprises of our new century is the widespread acceptance of Winston Churchill's famous observation that democracy is the worst form of government except for all others. And yet even for us in the United States who have one of the longest histories of democratic governance, its is increasingly obvious that it may not be good enough to meet the challenges of the 21sr century. The recent U.S. Presidential election debacle was a clear indication of the threat to U.S. democratic processes. Unless we make some fundamental revisions to the way we conduct our democratic decision making, we may well lose our democracy. Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. expressed similar worries as follows in Foreign Affairs. [1]
"By 1941, only about a dozen democracies were left on the planet. The political, economic, and moral failures of democracy had handed the initiative to totalitarianism. Something like this could happen again. If liberal democracy fails in the 21st century, as it failed in the twentieth, to construct a humane, prosperous, and peaceful world, it will invite the rise of alternative creeds apt to be based, like fascism and communism, on flight from freedom and surrender to authority."
This Loka Alert examines one inadequacy of citizen participation - the referendum - and offers for comment a possible solution to improve the quality of decisions when involving "we, the people". My intent is to begin a discussion on, or any examples of, actual or experimental programs for rectifying flaws in democratic government.
The referendum, in its design, is the most direct route for official citizen participation. In practice, however, it is a seriously damaged route. In a recent book on referenda, David Broder [2] sounds an alarm with these opening words:
"At the start of a new century a new form of government is spreading in the United States. It is alien to the spirit of the Constitution and its careful system of checks and balances. Though derived from a reform favored by Populists and Progressives as a cure for special-interest influence, this method of lawmaking has become the favored tool of millionaires and interest groups that use their wealth to achieve their own policy goals - a lucrative business for a new set of political entrepreneurs." [3]
After describing a number of cases in which lobbyists have chosen that route as a cheaper and more certain way to secure legislation for their cause than by old-fashioned lobbying in the legislature, Broder then makes this prediction:
"I do not think it will be long before the converging forces of technology and public opinion coalesce in a political movement for a national initiative - to allow the public to substitute the simplicity of majority rule by referendum for what must seem to many frustrated Americans the arcane, ineffective, out-of-date model of the Constitution. --- But the experience with the initiative process at the state level in the last two decades is that wealthy individuals and special interests have learned all too well how to subvert the process for their own purposes." [4]
Of particular interest to Loka Alerts readers, Broder speculates on current developments, as espoused by Ted Becker of Auburn University in a meeting sponsored by the Initiative and Referendum Institute in Washington, DC in May of 1999. Here is what he quotes from Becker's presentation:
"We will soon have an integrated Internet-television-telephone connection in every home that will allow the unlimited distribution of information and interchange of ideas. Second, we have made great advances in our conflict resolution techniques that facilitate reaching consensus. Third, groups of all kinds are learning to use the Internet to organize like-minded people, wherever they live. And fourth, the development of scientific, deliberative polling -- where random samples of citizens actually discuss and debate alternatives -- makes it far more feasible to formulate ballot initiatives without the distortion of money." [5]
Broder then proceeds to discuss in some depth the rapid advances in both technology and human skills for encouraging deliberative problem solving among large numbers of citizens. But he ends his book with the wish to end the trend towards direct citizen decision making of any kind in these words:
"Admittedly, representative government has acquired a dubious reputation today. But as citizens, the remedy to ineffective representation is in our hands each election day. And whatever its flaws, this Republic has consistently provided a government of laws. To discard it for a system that promises laws without government would be a tragic mistake." [6]
The weakness I see in Broder's conclusions is not in his criticism of current uses of the referendum, but in his failure to imagine other alternatives for direct citizen involvement in governing. The survival of democracy depends on more, not less citizen involvement. Surely the diminishing number of voters for president to under 50% of the eligible electorate is not healthy. Let us not forget that the New England Town Meeting has always been an honored forum for reaching local decisions.
There is not much point in an either/or debate over direct
citizen governance vs. governance by elected representatives.
I am assuming, and take pleasure in doing so, that the referendum
will not be abolished. I hope that Becker's prediction of increased
direct citizen involvement in decision making is a more plausible
alternative than Broder's wish to have it disappear. The proper
questions, therefore, are rather how best to utilize the wisdom
of "we, the people" in a way that will strengthen our
democratic decision making rather than putting a gag on it.
The proper role for "we, the people" in direct democracy
has been a subject of debate from the birth of our nation right
down to the present, and is central to current views about the
referenda. I describe below some key questions for this discussion
and, in italics, supplement
them with my strongly expressed opinions as a lubricant to get
the ideas flowing.
Other than voting for representatives,
what kinds of questions are appropriate
for direct citizen input?
A wide range of questions are submitted to U.S. citizens each
year in referenda. These questions include the ratification of
specific bond issues, laws involving abortion, environmental protection,
road construction, education, and many others. In most cases the
voter is asked to respond yes or no to a previously formulated
solution, usually in the form of a law that will be enacted if
it receives a majority vote. For our discussion here, this practice
raises these questions:
U.S. political culture is deeply rooted in adversarial communication
and "education", and like all cultural patterns, it
will not be easy to change. A first imperative for citizen participation
in decision making is to improve the quality of information provided
to citizens in connection with any referendum. There should be
publicly sponsored educational classes, supplemented by radio
and TV coverage. This should be a priority addition to any future
referenda, whether the results are mandatory legislation or advisory
indication of public opinion. But as I suggested above, most issues
today are too complex for simple yes/no answers. Issues worthy
of involving citizens demand initial education leading to an understanding
of the many factors involved and the invention of alternative
solutions before the selection of any one solution is made.
For example, a yes/no question asking whether or not a dam should be built or removed should never be presented to citizens for decision without first educating them on a number of linked concerns such as the impact on environmental issues such as fish, pollution, navigation, wildlife, recreation, water quality and use, fish ladders, etc. Adversarial sound-bite presentations, telephone and mail communications advocating a solution are all well suited to the referendum as now practiced, and is the perfect medium for those with large economic interests in a particular solution and the money to spend in getting that result. But those strategies are propaganda, not education.
When we seek the opinion of citizens on issues of serious consequence, we cannot depend upon their passive reception of adversarial opinions alone. [8] We owe them high quality education through active deliberative discussion and facilitated exchanges over an extended period of time. And it also requires the innovative use of electronic communication.
This suggestion is less radical than it may at first appear to be. The U.S. already has in place a very familiar and somewhat similar role for relying on the judgment of "we, the people" -- jury duty. Every day hundreds of cases involving life and death issues and huge sums of money are decided by jurors composed of ordinary citizens. There are, however, major differences which are not trivial:
There have been a number of experiments of this kind, usually referred to as "citizen juries". A leading organization fostering this idea in the U.S. is the Jefferson Center.[9] A citizen jury is a group of individuals selected at random very much the way juries are selected for the law courts. There the analogy ends. Such juries could be "drafted" for public service (as are court juries) or could be managed by non-profit organizations. A more important difference from a court jury is this: the process for reaching decisions introduced in most current citizen jury experiments is patterned on deliberative democracy procedures as described above. The European Consensus conference process and the U.S. Citizens Panel (as piloted by Loka in 1997) is one such example of how citizens are providing input into complex policy decisions.
Such facilitated exchanges could also conform to the procedures of modern and still evolving deliberative problem-solving. Normally, they would follow a sequence of steps designed to get consensus such as: definition of the issue, clarity of desired goals, the affected stakeholders, presentation of alternative solutions and their predicted outcomes and then, only after the previous steps have been followed, discussion of preferred solutions.
The administrative details about how to do this are numerous. For example, should we develop a cadre of facilitators for this re-invented type of referendum that are similar to mediators now supplied by the government for labor-management disputes? Should we rely on voluntary citizen participation without restrictions, or should we require that only those who sign up and participate in the educational programs be eligible to select the solution? Should we try to recruit a representative sample of the total electorate?
As we have observed above, the U.S. referendum generally results
in either a new law or the elimination of an existing law. This
is maximum empowerment of the citizen and its philosophy has deep
roots in the Town Meeting that still exists in many small New
England communities. But these roots were sewn in an age when
the complexity and technical power of most decisions were very
different.
In the sections above, I strongly opposed legislation resulting from a referendum. My opposition was based on two premises:
If we can develop an effective way to educate millions of citizens while they collaboratively solve problems (as we have learned to do for a dozen citizens on juries in adversarial court cases), we would enhance the ability of the average citizen to understand complex and technical matters. Nevertheless, I would not yield on my view that legislating is not in their best interest, for the reasons I have stated above.
No matter how we eventually resolve the sensitive issues of the citizen role in referenda, I feel certain that there would be little disagreement that better education would be desirable. Assuming that this is so, we cannot avoid an only slightly less sensitive issue: what use should be made of rapid developments in electronic communications?
When we speculate on the role of electronic communication, we are dealing with a moving target. If we were considering technology for a new kind of referendum for today, we would include radio, television, and -- with some valid concerns -- perhaps email. We would be cautious about the still unknown capabilities of digital television. With as-yet-to-be-designed facilitation skills that can be provided via yet-to-be-established electronic communication technology, a huge number of citizens -- in fact a statistical random sample large enough to be considered an accurate reflection of the eligible electorate -- could be included in a government sponsored educational endeavor.
But the use of new technology for citizen interaction is always problematical, and must be approached critically and with sensitivity for those who, for whatever reason, are slow to adopt it. The history of widespread acceptance of new means of communication is characterized by ever-decreasing time periods before they became widely used. Consider the printing press, loud speakers in auditoriums, radios, educational motion pictures, the telephone, and television. I personally recall going overseas during World War II before there were few if any tv antenna visible on roof tops and returning to see them scattered almost everywhere. Never underestimate the ability of humans to adjust to changed conditions and opportunities!
Whether or not digital tv is a suitable medium for use in future referenda is a decision of great importance and complexity. I would apply to any consideration of its use the same caution about posing the decision in yes/no terms. Certainly there should be face-to-face discussion and creative and sensitive use of the rapidly evolving electronic technology.
Once the change is made to digital tv, I would expect that prices will be reduced to the level of current tv. By providing modern facilitation methods to citizen discussion of complex issues via electronic communications, some semblance of the original town meeting might be available for millions of participants.
This may seem like a futuristic fantasy. But without new thinking, I foresee a future nightmare for those who have concerns for the future of democracy. An exciting challenge for LOKA participants could be to design a new kind of referendum that combines the facilitation of deliberative problem solving with both conventional face-to-face meetings and new electronic communication potentials.
The editors of the Innovations in Democracy site also recommend the following related innovations:
Citizen Councilor Groups. This proposal suggests officially appointing volunteer citizens to gather in small study circles in their homes, workplaces or public gathering spots to study and discuss issues of concern to public officials and then advise those officials on those issues.
Deliberative Polling. It can now be demonstrated how much people's views on an issue change when they have a chance to study all sides of it.
Direct Democracy. Citizens can make decisions, laws and policies directly in town hall meetings. Can they do it in whole states and countries?
Empowered Deliberative Democracy is popular government in which ordinary people exercise active voice over important decisions that affect them through discussion, debate, and collaborative exploration.
National Initiative for Democracy. (NI4D) Many states in the U.S. have "initiative processes" whereby citizens can propose, qualify and vote on laws of their own creation. NI4D offers a very powerful model for doing the same thing on the national level, but with lots of quality controls and in full partnership with the existing institutions of representative government.
Participatory Budget. In Porto Alegre, Brazil (and more than 70 other cities), thousands of citizens and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) participate every year in deciding how their municipal budget will be spent -- and then overseeing the resulting public works projects.
Philadelphia II/ Direct Democracy. Is it possible for America's citizens to simply take back their power to rule themselves, without asking anyone's permission? Former Alaska US Senator Mike Gravel believes it is, and offers this ambitious, sophisticated plan to do just that. See National Initiative for Democracy.
Plan for a Healthy Democracy is a project to synergistically combine two randomly-selected citizen deliberative bodies -- one, a Citizens Panel of 12-24 citizens, the other a "Televote" audience of 600 -- to pass informed public judgement on an issue, a ballot initiative, a slate of candidates, or the performance of elected officials.
Teledemocracy. There are dozens of ways telecommunications technology impacts -- or could impact -- democracy: people are proposing electronic voting methods, citizen activists are using email and websites, online dialogues are discussing public issues, candidates are campaigning through the web, governments are informing citizens through web pages.... This is a rapidly expanding field of democratic theory and practice -- also known as "e-democracy", as in Steven Clift's online book The E-Democracy E-Book: Democracy is Online.
Wisdom Councils. Every 3-12 months -- with great fanfare -- pick a dozen or two people at random from a population and then tell them to explore, using their own experience, what The People want and think should be done. Use dynamic facilitation. Then announce their agreements to the whole population.
For info about Critical Review, contact:
Critical Review Foundation,
Inc.
Box 10, Newtown,
CT 06470-0010 USA
203-270-8103
Fax: 203-270-8105
info@criticalreview.com
http://www.sevenbridgespress.com
or
Seven Bridges Press, LLC
135 Fifth Avenue, 9th Floor
New York NY 10010-7101
212.529.4686
212.529.4749 fax Customer Service
service@sevenbridgespress.com
800.382.3959