Direct democracy

[Michael Allan]

Martin Gustavsson wrote:
> 
> Yes. Authenticated voter lists would make more sense, in a system like
> yours, but as I interpret the system it is NOT a direct democratic
> system. Do you agree?

In a direct democracy, the citizenry is sovereign.  Ideally, state
decisions are made by the assembly of all citizens (not by a smaller
body of representatives).  Ideally, state magistrates are citizens
(not professional politicians).  Classical Athens, for example, came
close to these ideals (following on the reforms of Kleisthenes).

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

(Let us assume that direct democracy and participatory democracy are
more-or-less interchangeable terms.  They both mean 'democracy' pure
and simple.  In the original Greek, it means 'the people rule'.)

In open elections, yes, decisions are made by the assembly of all
residents (the community).  The community decides who the magistrates
are; what their policies are; and what the laws are.  With regard to
direct democracy, this raises two questions: 1) Are these decisions
acted upon?  2) Are the chosen magistrates ordinary citizens, or are
they professionals?

With respect to action: I have argued (in previous posts) that, yes,
in *practice* a consensus decision will be acted on.  But that
practice is not enforced by law -- not unless the constitution is
changed (per further below).

With respect to magistrates (executives): In open elections, the
elected magistrates may be either professionals or ordinary residents.
Ordinary residents will enjoy a rough equality vis professional
politicians.  Cascade voting can elevate any person to a high position
of responsibility, step by step. But she would have to win the
public's confidence at every step.  She would have to engage her
backers (ordinary residents) in a direct and continual dialogue.  So,
whether the magistrates turn out to be ordinary residents, or
professionals (and it will probably vary, case by case) they will all
have the direct support of the community assembly.

  http://zelea.com/project/votorola/a/design.xht#delegate-cascade

Whoever the magistrates are, one thing seems certain, they will be
very different from today's politicians.  In order to retain power,
they will have no need of financial backing; no need of political
organization or party discipline.  Their power will derive directly
from the support of the community.  They will answer directly to the
community (and to the laws). They will answer to nobody else.

Arguably, this is already a direct democracy.  One more step might
bring it closer.  This step would depend on a *constitutional change*.
If the community assembly were to agree to formalize its own political
function, to give that function a legally binding force, then it
could.  But it would have to reach a further consensus, in addition,
on some specific constitutional changes.  Then the open electoral
system could be established as a formal institution, replacing the
existing electoral system and legislature, and being backed by state
power.  That would constitute a traditional direct democracy that
would match (or even surpass) ancient Attica.

But it is not clear (to me) that such a change would be more
effective.  It would be difficult to formalize.  It would be difficult
to design a mechanism for deciding when, exactly, a community
consensus had formed and ought to be enforced.  Maybe (I am thinking)
it is better to just let the politicians (executive and legislative)
continue to use their own judgement?  So, if an eager politician were
to jump to a premature conclusion and begin acting on a consensus that
had not yet fully matured, she might be held back in her efforts by
her more cautious colleagues.  Unable to act alone, she'd then have to
stop.  She'd have to wait for her colleagues to agree that, yes, a
consensus had emerged.  Then, together, they could proceed to act on
it. (I have heard that the wheels of government turn most easily when
motivated by a consensus.  I have heard that even presidents and prime
ministers are ineffective without a consensus to help them.)

Three reasons in support of the default, informal connection between
the community assembly and state power:

  1. When in doubt, allow actors to *pull* information, rather than
     *push* it at them. (A systems engineering rule of thumb.)

  2. It is to the advantage of every politician to act on a consensus.

  3. The 'antennea' of politicians are naturally sensitive to
     consensus.

Politicians will know better than anyone how to interpret a consensus
as it forms.  They'll know, for example, the appropriate quorum for a
community bill to regulate the vetrinary profession, versus one to
regulate the medical profession.  We ought to allow them (and the
specialized bureaucracy) to use their own judgement and knowledge in
deciding when a consensus is formed, when it can be acted on, and
exactly how.

The last point is critical.  Often the politicians (actors who
understand the means) will have to dialogue with the community
(deciders who understand the aims) before acting.  This is because the
means (known to politicians and bureaucrats) will often have a
technical influence on which aims (known to the community) are
actually feasible.  There can be no rational dialogue between two
parties if force is employed by one of them.

Only a few (the politicians and bureaucrats) can act on a consensus.
To make it happen, those few must cooperate amongst themselves,
more-or-less willingly.  We ought not to push them.

Here are my latest slogan and sound bite (take 2):

  Consensus is Sovereign

  Government knows what it wants (power).  Commerce
  knows what it wants (wealth).  Yet who can predict
  what a community will aspire to?

What do you think, Martin?  Are we headed for direct democracy -- with
or without my cheesy slogans?
-- 
Michael Allan

http://zelea.com/