I haven’t studied the works of political scientists in all these years. As an inventor of an alternative democracy, I should be. You might be asking “Why not read their works?”
Here is the reason for not doing so. When I watch political scientists on the TV news or read their short newspaper columns, they fail to understand the disease, so they have no effective remedy for improving democracy. At best, they can only explain things as they currently work. Even then, politics often takes surprising turns the political scientists have failed to predict.
A few months ago, a Medium contributor recommended a political science book to me. “Open Democracy” is written by Hélène Landemore, who teaches political science at Yale. It seemed this book was advocating serious political change, from a structurally perspective. “Maybe I need to know where this political scientist is at,” I thought. At $35, it was the priciest e-book I have ever bought. But I’m glad I bought and read it. It was useful to know where the leading edge of political science is at.
Throughout Ms. Landemore’s book, she is referencing many sources from her field. All these references slowed my reading down. And I will say that there were places where my comprehension was about 50%. This book is not an easy read.
Ms. Landemore is an advocate of “open democracy.” This means that the people take a bigger role in governance than they do in current democracies. Ms. Landemore offers different alternatives of open democracy. She summarizes pros and cons of each alternative. Studying these pros and cons should enhance any intelligent discussion on improving democracy.
Representative Democracy
The author lists some of the faults of current systems, in particular, representative democracy as we currently have. This system creates a class of political elites, that is difficult for average people to join or engage with. With these faults laid out, the author then lays out alternatives to engage the citizenry more fully.
Direct Democracy
This involves referenda, where citizens vote on specific proposals. If the vote is favorable, the referendum either passes into law or is seriously considered by the legislature.
Self-Appointed Assemblies
Basically, any citizen who wants a say in the deliberations need only show up to the forum, listen, sometimes speak, and later cast a vote. Switzerland is a good example.
Lottocratic Assembly
Citizens are chosen at random to sit on a committee addressing a societal issue. The hypothesis is that when citizens should see someone like them working in the deliberative process, this increases the legitimacy of the resolution produced in this way.
Mini-publics (Citizens’ Assembly)
Similar to lottocratic assemblies, mini-publics choose their citizens somewhat randomly. But citizens are sorted in some way to show some willingness and capacity to serve. To be effective, the mini-publics should not have any partisan players in its decision making.
Liquid Democracy
This system involves internet technology where citizens can directly engage with governance, like voting for certain legislation.
The Iceland Experience
Ms. Landemore goes into a lot of detail on Iceland’s foray with open democracy.
In 2008, the world went into a recession because of too many bank failures. Iceland’s banks were greatly affected by the crisis, which then put this small nation into great economic distress. Icelanders were demanding accountability and reform.
The political climate was there for more citizen involvement. The Icelandic parliament, with expertise of a few political scientists, created a forum for citizen engagement that used principles of open democracy.
As I was reading this story, I could see Iceland went a lot further with open democracy (circa 2010) than Canada’s recent attempt to change its electoral processes (circa 2016). Iceland went through an interesting political experiment, using a lot of the “open” features as described above. In contrast, Canada’s process was shut down early because politicians and academics were the only citizens involved. The Canadian optics weren’t good.
The open democracy of Iceland’s reforms produced six amendments to Iceland’s constitution. The six amendments were put to non-binding referenda. All six passed the citizens’ approval.
While the open democracy did produce a better result that what “just politicians” could have attained, I gleaned that a significant portion of the Icelandic public was not all that engaged with the open democracy process. Was it because the process was not “open” enough? Or do many citizens just want government to go to the background of their lives? As the open democracy moved forward with these constitutional changes, Iceland’s economy improved — and citizens were losing interest.
When the referenda passed, a new political party was in control. This party was not exactly supportive of the open democracy experiment. It did not approve of any of the referendum initiatives. The Icelandic Constitution remains unamended to this day. There seems to be no incentive to bring the six initiatives back. It’s been a decade.
The Political Party
I have to applaud Ms. Landemore and the authors she cites for getting into a fair bit detail about the various alternatives for open democracy. This kind of discussion should lead to better solutions in all human affairs.
But she has one important thing to say about the institution known as the political party:
Political scientists and theorists alike, however, unanimously attest that a no [political] party is unthinkable and unworkable in general . . . in large-scale polities. Landemore p. 211.
There! That’s it! Everyone instinctually understands this statement! Almost as if the no-party concept didn’t even deserve being mentioned! The entire profession of political scientists believes the political party is the foundation of democracy. That debate is closed.
Anyone who has read my books knows that I advocate for a total removal of all political parties. They are the disease that is holding humanity back. This is why I haven’t been and won’t be reading many books from political scientists. Because of my obtuse position, I likely won’t be invited to any of their cocktail parties!
Ms. Landemore advocates for some kind of arrangement between the political parties and assemblies of open democracy. But she offers no possibilities of how this could happen.
The Conclusion of Open Democracy
The book was written during the Trump presidency. I was wondering if the author was going to mention this strange and unusual turn of modern western democracy. She talks about this presidency in the last chapter but really doesn’t say much. She offers no explanation for this presidency or forecasts where it could go next. It seemed to me that she threw it in because she knew readers like me would want to know her perspectives on this topic. But I understand her brevity. Her book is about open democracy. Discussing the Trump presidency is worthy of a book all by itself. Mr. Trump is no Mr. Open Democracy.
She finally gets to her solution for improving democracy. Her version of open democracy would involve many mini-publics. Most citizens should expect to serve on one mini-public at least once in their lives. But there is no path from HERE to THERE suggested. Not even several possible paths. Why?
Ms. Landemore dovetails the Trump presidency into the difficulties of constitutional change. She mentions that it might be easier for China to move toward open democracy when compared to the United States. No HERE to THERE is offered for the USA. So the reader can interpret that the only way for significant constitutional change is for some kind of cataclysmic social collapse — in which the old order is soundly thrown out. In the vacuum, a new order is instituted. That path is not suggested by Ms. Landemore. But in the absence of any other path, it seems to be the only one.
So here is my HERE to THERE for open democracy. The political scientists who favor open democracy are waiting for that cataclysmic social collapse. While waiting, they are positioning themselves to be regarded as experts in this field. They write books and teach at universities and hold conferences.
When the collapse throws out the old order, the political scientists will rush in with their ideas. There will be an informal competition of which political scientists are more influential than others in establishing the new order. However, I predict that a lot of compromising will be happening as the experts and temporary holders of power reach their new constitution. And they will not have as much time as they should have for this monumental process. Expect expedient deals, which may or may not have elements of open democracy. Expect political parties to play a dominant role of this new order.
Most of the citizens in this reconstituted society will see their new constitution being built around them. They will just wake up on morning — and there it is. At best, they will have a referendum that basically offers them: “This social order or no social order.” The citizenry will have had little to do with this process.
Tiered Democratic Governance
Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) is my alternative democracy. I’m sure the readers of this article have figured out that political parties should play no role in this new system.
Having said that, I do acknowledge the role of political parties in the past 200 years. They have corralled those overly ambitious people who want to run their societies. These leaders are forced to look more toward the whole of society rather than just their myopic view of their own musings.
For the 21st century, we need to cast the parties aside. But to do that, we need to learn a few humanistic attributes to develop a new political culture. Otherwise, the TDG will evolve into another collection of political parties — with all the same flaws as they have in the 20th century. My book describes these humanistic attributes — and how to acquire them as we move from HERE to THERE.
As we are learning these new attributes, we are co-currently building the TDG. Interested citizens (including open-minded political scientists) can partake in the construction of the TDG. It will mature and grow stronger. As this maturation happens, the current order will crumble to the point it is obvious the TDG is the path forward. The current order will be cast aside with a referendum and a final legislative act. The TDG will put its proven constitution in place — and assume authority and responsibility for governance.
Strange it is that I somehow included an option to the TDG that is very similar to Ms. Landemore’s mini-public. The “TDG legislative committees” will work fulltime on particular pieces of legislation while the elected TDG representatives handle the bigger picture of governance. The elected representatives will appoint people to these committees, which should include a few elected representatives, experts, stakeholders, former TDG representatives, and random citizens. Each committee should have an advisor to help them in their deliberations and consultation. The committees focus on the legislation; the elected representatives focus on the big picture.
So, my answer is: “Yes, the TDG is free to develop features of open democracy into its system of governance.” Early TDG builders should read a more reader-friendly version of Ms. Landemore’s book.
When that version comes out, pay little attention to the parts about the importance of political parties. All parties really need to be cast aside.
Published on Medium 2022
