Prophesizing The End of Democracy?

 A blast from 8 years ago via The Guardian feels too prophetic this week: Why elections are bad for democracy by David Van Reybrouck.

But this is just the latest in a series of worrying blows to the health of democracy. On the surface, everything still seems fine. A few years ago, the World Values Survey, a large-scale international research project, asked more than 73,000 people in 57 countries if they believed democracy was a good way to govern a country – and nearly 92% said yes. But that same survey found that in the past 10 years, around the world, there has been a considerable increase in calls for a strong leader “who does not have to bother with parliament and elections” – and that trust in governments and political parties has reached a historical low. It would appear that people like the idea of democracy but loathe the reality.

They certainly do not like black women extolling the virtues of democracy when they can have a white man denouncing self-government.

 There is something explosive about an era in which interest in politics grows while faith in politics declines. What does it mean for the stability of a country if more and more people warily keep track of the activities of an authority that they increasingly distrust? How much derision can a system endure, especially now that everyone can share their deeply felt opinions online?

This leads to the question of voting as the sole criterion of democracy. 

Isn’t it bizarre that voting, our highest civic duty, boils down to an individual action performed in the silence of the voting booth? Is this really the place where we turn individual gut feelings into shared priorities? Is it really where the common good and the long term are best served?

I may suffer from what the writer called electoral fundamentalism:

It would appear that the fundamental cause of democratic fatigue syndrome lies in the fact that we have all become electoral fundamentalists, venerating elections but despising the people who are elected. 

 Except I found an even older idea of mine further down the page:

Parties began to see themselves less as intermediaries between people and power, and instead settled into the fringes of the state apparatus. To retain their places there, they had to turn to the voter every few years to top up their legitimacy. Elections became a battle fought out in the media for the favour of voters. The passions aroused among the populace diverted attention from a far more fundamental emotion, an increasing irritation with anything and everything pertaining to politics.

I got the idea from reading Daniel Patrick Moynihan that political parties were intermediaries between their members and the government; even crypto-social work agencies. More than 20 years ago, it looked to me like the Green Party was following this model. Precinct committeemen should know everyone in their precinct, not just as possible voters but as citizens. If someone needs groceries, the precinct committee person should know and do what can be done to get groceries for the citizen.

Long ago, I wrote on here that the Democrats should visit every county in the state with a panel of state legislators. The purpose was to listen to citizens while at the same time explaining Democrat ideas and exhibiting Democrat candidates. I thought of it as a version of the old touring exhibition baseball teams. Its purpose was to sidestep, but not entirely ignore, social media/mass media. I passed this along to the state party - probably too late - only to see nothing come of it.

Which seems akin to what I found in his paragraph; I had not gotten far enough for specific legislation needing a group selected by lottery:

People care deeply about their communities and want to be heard. But a much better way to let the people speak than through a referendum is to return to the central principle of Athenian democracy: drafting by lot, or sortition as it is presently called. In ancient Athens, the large majority of public functions were assigned by lot. Renaissance states such as Venice and Florence worked on the same basis and experienced centuries of political stability. With sortition, you do not ask everyone to vote on an issue few people really understand, but you draft a random sample of the population and make sure they come to the grips with the subject matter in order to take a sensible decision. A cross-section of society that is informed can act more coherently than an entire society that is uninformed.

What remains unclear to me is if the Democrats have the will to change their ways, and descend to the street level; certainly to the precinct level. Input from actual citizens is better political intelligence than what they have been obtaining from pollsters or consultants.

 By talking to a diverse cross-section of Irish society, politicians could get further than they could have by just talking to each other. By exchanging views with elected officials, citizens could give much more relevant input than they could have in an election or a referendum.

I am not as ready as Mr. Reybrouck to do away with all elections. For example, I think Indiana's Constitution should be amended for direct action by us, the citizens. Whether Democrats are willing to promote a loosening of its grip on Indiana's political power is, to me, an open question. 

Likewise, I think rotation in office is necessary. This was a mark of a representative system at the time of America's founding. Term limits banning any return to an office have their problems with the loss of expertise. However, there needs to be an opportunity for non-incumbents to enter politics. Rotation should be seen as benching a player for an inning. However, this means finding politicians willing to give up power willingly.

Lastly, there needs to be an end to partisan gerrymandering. Direct action may weaken it, but a direct ban still feels necessary. But what political party wants to rid themselves of that power?

Mr. Reybrouck offers a concrete example that might be implemented locally if we can find any Indiana mayor and city council willing to take the chance (or if the General Assembly would allow it since we do not have Home Rule for our cities):

In order to keep democracy alive, we will have to learn that democracy cannot be reduced to voting alone. Elections and referendums become dangerously outmoded tools if they are not enriched with more sensible forms of citizens’ participation. Structured deliberation with a random sample of citizens promises to generate a more vital, dynamic and inclusive form of democracy. In Utrecht, the fourth city of the Netherlands, the city council now drafts by lot 150 citizens to co-create its sustainable energy plan. These processes may become a permanent feature of any modern democracy.

sch 9/10