Rethinking Democracy

Democracy is failing. In Western Europe this can be measured by the declining voter turnout at election, declining party membership and decline in trust with the established politicians, but in the Mediterranean the fall of democracy is measured by the imposition of non-elected governments and the control unelected bodies, the IMF and the markets, have over domestic policy. We could be witnessing the end of democracy and the rise of Technocracy.

And yet, direct participation is surely increasing. Protest movements such as the Occupy Wall Street and other anti-capitalist movements, popular protests against austerity and even the introduction of an online e-petition in Britain would suggest that people are not less interested in politics or about changing society, but are less interested in the established ways. In other words, there has been a shift from representative democracy (traditional Western democracy) towards direct democracy.

Representative and Direct democracy are two extremes of the system, and both are insufficient for modern society.

Direct democracy leads to chaos; two examples here. The first is California, the richest US state and if it were a separate country it would be the seventh richest in the world. Yet it has the second worst school system in the USA because of direct democracy; the citizens hold referenda against all new taxes and always vote against them. The other example is of the e-petitions; currently there is a petition to bring back the death penalty, all it needs is 100,000 people. One can find 100,000 people to say anything. Incidentally, there is also an online petition against the discussion of the death penalty; what happens if both reach 100,000? People are uninformed, and this is most evident by any discussion on the EU. It is tempting to say leave politics to those who know what they’re doing; if I was in a doctor’s surgery, I would ask the advice of the expert – the doctor – not the majority. Direct democracy asks a bunch of people who are not experts what to do.

The other extreme is just as outdated. Western democracies have been using representative democracy since the start of Western democracy, basically. There was a time when it was acceptable for an MP to only visit their constituency twice a year and never engage with their people. There was a time when what happened in Westminster was labelled ‘government business’ and no other questions were asked. That time is over. The media and new technology has created new demands and expectations for politicians. Politicians lose touch with the social reality; politicians thought that the average income was £40,000, the reality is more like £21,000. Representative democracy creates, and has created, a dichotomy, a split between “we” the people and “they” the politicians. This separation is entirely undemocratic; we should not have to build bridges but be on the same side.

There are two fundamental flaws in democracy; one is that it allows people who don’t know what they’re talking about to have a say, as outlined above. A fantastic example is of a Manchester City fan who votes Conservative because they are blue. The other flaw is that we humans are not very good at democracy. If there was a referendum on EU membership and 98% voted to leave, I would still call it a huge mistake, refuse to accept the result and, probably, emigrate. Humans do not like being on the losing side and it is hard to accept decisions voted democratically.

So what shape should democracy have? Should we even have a democracy? Is democracy compatible with the free markets? To answer the second question, yes now go and read Locke. To answer the third question, no now go and read John Gray.

Perhaps the most famous quote about democracy which succinctly summarises it is Abraham Lincoln’s oft quoted “democracy is government for the people, by the people and of the people”. This describes representative democracy (for), direct democracy (by) and the equal opportunity for anyone to run for office (of). But there is one important preposition Lincoln missed off and which is relevant for modern democracy; democracy is government with the people.

Time for a metaphor; “a slave who elects his master is still a slave”. But a slave who is cared for by his master, who is fed and cared for by his master, and whose grievances are addressed by his master, he is not a slave. It does not matter if we elect our politicians or not, what matters is their relations with their constituents. A dictatorship could be more democratic that an elected government if the dictatorship maintained effective communication with the constituents. Democracy means more than the ballot box; it means engagement and communication.

Communication is really the key word here, and it is what Deliberative democracy is all about. Deliberative democracy is basically the middle road between the two extremes (no surprise I’m taking the third way). Deliberative democracy engages with the voters, like Direct, but keeps power in the arms of experts, like Representative. It is the model for modern governance.

There are three methods of creating deliberative democracy; the Polder Mode, the Nihil Novi principle and to assess the role of the party.

The Polder Model was the model of government in the Netherlands in the 1980s and 1990s, responsible for the ‘Dutch Miracle’. Government, trade unions and employers consulted each other and compromised to get the best deal. This is linked with the principle of Nihil Novi Nisi Communae Consensu or “nothing about us without us”. Basically, education policy should be made with the collaboration with teachers via the NUT, and hospital policy made with the collaboration with doctors, nurses and so forth. Policy is made with people who are affected by it; they know what is needed more than politicians, yet government can keep an overall eye on all areas and how they link. Deliberation means communication, collaboration and compromise to produce stability and fairness.

It is no secret that Social Democracy is in electoral crisis. There is one common factor across all social democratic parties; they have become part of the establishment they sought to change and lost touch with their original audience; the people. They have focussed too much on the ‘Social’ and not on the ‘Democracy’. Deliberative democracy can remedy this. For too long they represented interests of a particular group; a class, an ideology, a pulse, an issue. Now, in the modern, post-ideological age with blurred class boundaries, the modern political party must become a vehicle for deliberative democracy. Each party still has a ‘unique selling point’; a set of policies, the people who run it, an ideal. The social democratic selling point is its relation with the people; we listen, we respect, we fight for and we alleviate their burdens. We need to revolutionise the Labour Party, take it back to its roots as a social movement rather than revolutionise the system. Labour needs to become a social movement once more.

There are two ways to create a more democratic system; reform the institution of government, and reform the attitude to and of politics which requires an assessment of the role of the people and politicians. If democracy is to improve society, it needs to embrace the people and the parties need to start practising deliberative democracy or else face growing protest. Because this change comes from the party it is possible – its possibility is what makes it necessary. We face a New Democratic age; democracy and politicians need to readjust themselves.