The Developing and Deepening Conflict
Host: Farhad Saba

Citizen Participation and Influence

(Participant) FARHAD AND COLLEAGUES, WARNING: THIS IS NOT DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO OUR TOPIC HERE, BUT I THINK IT IS RELATED. I APOLOGIZE IF IT INTERFERES WITH THE FLOW. FOR THOSE PRESSED FOR TIME, I RECOMMEND SKIPPING TO THE NEXT ITEM!

Dick: Re your #19) You and I have been discussing "how to solve this problem" ever since you began enhancing the voice of "we, the people" many years ago. At first, for obvious reasons, your early followers were among the elite pioneers of model T computers. But with unexpected speed, computers are now embedded in our culture--at least as common gadgets. Meanwhile, the need for enhancing the political voice of "we, the people"--as your last message defined it --has become ever more critical.

There are many reasons for this, but one of the more obvious if little discussed reason is that our elected representatives, from Presidents to Mayors, no longer listen as carefully to WE as they do to THEM who finance their elections.

Excuse this long introduction, but--as you know from patient listening to me--one partial "solution" may be to increase development of the still ballooning power of the electronic human voice. And of course this "power" is not just in numbers and volume, but in understanding and collaborative decision making to displace sound bite coercion and adversarial obfuscation of the issues.

The Bush so-called press conference a few days ago is just one of many examples of how the press succumbed to the power of the Presidency. Even the questions were fed to the press and Bush had his choice of which correspondents to recognize.

Enough bad news. The good news is that across the nation, mainly in small communities, there are literally thousands of experiments going on using different strategies for citizen participation in local government (including electronic communication). In the little community that Beth and I now inhabit as citizens (Mt Desert Island, ME) over 100 citizens have banded together as volunteers in an effort called MDI TOMORROW. They have been in effect running a non-official shadow government (in partial but increasing collaboration with the four Town Governments). Only yesterday, we were discussing with the director of computer studies in the local high school how to continue experiments in citizen collaborative meetings using a mind-boggling array of new computer hard and software.

This volunteer group started a few years ago--just a handful. It is now growing rapidly and twice a year hosts ever larger public meetings, each meeting including new developments in "collaborative decision making". We are now discussing holding the next meeting in the high school gym to accommodate to ever larger participation. Of course, this "process" is not THE SOLUTION, but something like is certainly a fertile step towards the generation of new ideas. I

don't expect to live to see the outcome of all this, but it is one of the few ongoing things in this turbulent start of a new millennium that makes me wish I could live a lot longer!

(Participant) Not exactly a digression, Don, when viewed in the context of the ten million world citizens who gathered to protest the invasion of Iraq. They protested the old fashioned way, but it was surely organized on the Internet.

As you know, MOVE ON has in a period of a few months been able to use email and phone to mobilize millions against the actions of the Bush administration, organizing phone campaigns to legislators offices and the White House, raising money, supporting rallies, and the like.

I didn't know that Bush was answering planted questions, but I did see that he had a list of people to call on. But talk about manipulation, the inspectors declared documents from British intelligence, said to confirm that Iraq had purchased nuclear materials from Niger, as fake. Now, who could have planted such documents? Such questions are the ones to follow up, but that isn't likely given the way in which the press has so far handled, or been handled, in this crisis.

Communist James Goldborough messaged me yesterday saying that the press conference made him feel that he was watching the Manchurian Candidate.

(Participant) Dick: Move On did use email in a vigorous and effective way, but it was still what I call 20th Century politicking. It had a point of view (albeit one which we like) but it was primarily a polling process with little deliberative problem solving education. It did have one innovation which I hadn't seen before--one could write his/her own "argument" in place of the one they suggested. I used that option both times, because I knew that Bush would not accept a flat denial of war. I inserted instead a suggestion that the Council develop an alternative which just might feed Bush's ego and still do what needed to be done.

(Participant) Kip: Your #93 was most helpful in sorting out the differences. IF (a big if) others here share some of my views below, this could be helpful and important.

I will try to be brief (perhaps too much for clarity).

First with regard to different perception on "reality". I believe that international affairs, wars, adjusting democracy to current conditions, and many other topics that we are addressing are truly DIFFERENT and that we must seek to understand them as we address changes ahead. I may have got it wrong, but in my #94 I was trying to describe some REAL differences.

Let me try to be more specific with just one of your observations: You say "Most people don't vote, and I can't help but ask what is the point of the observation? We can read into that whatever we want but doing so doesn't necessarily mean anything". I believe that it does for the following reasons:

* The role of "We, the People" was critical in the drafting of the Constitution and its goal of monitoring a balance among the executive, judicial and legislative parts of government. I believe that the role of the Citizen is, today, dangerously low, and for the following reasons:

* Elected officials today pay more attention (and there have been many who have openly agreed with this statement), to the wishes of those who finance their elections than they can or do pay to those they represent.

• There is today a love/hate relationship to citizen participation in governance. When I taught courses in democratic decision making, my students often asked; "Don, are you a democrat or an elitist?"
• I finally came up with an answer which seemed to be accepted as valid: "When I consider the role of the citizen in taking us out of the Vietnam war I am a democrat, but when I ride the New York subways I become an elitist if I ask myself do I want to be governed by my fellow passengers?" This is of course an over-simplification, but it does capture the love-hate relationship which I think is critical for our future decisions.

* Democracy, as we like to think of it, is in trouble today both at home and around the world. If the citizens don't have a genuine role both in elections and in broad policies of governance, then it is not a valid form of government. But to archive this validity, we must make some fundamental changes. There are many such changes being developed and introduced--mostly in local governments--throughout our nation. I truly believe that with luck and perseverance, these will make the difference between a bright future for democracy and a slide into something far less desirable.

It may seem to many here that this is not relevant to the subject we have chosen for our current discussions. But I have taken up the above space because I so strongly believe they are critical to our international decisions.

(Participant) Don, thanks for taking the time to express and clarify what you meant. I agree with some of your conclusions; where I get stuck is in the application(?) of it. Here is what I mean. We know that only a small percentage of Americans vote--but what we don't know for sure is:
1. Why do those who vote do so?
2. Why do those who not vote do so?

I read your words and it sounds like you are saying that those who do vote are exercising undue (or unbalanced) influence over the rest of us. While that is a possible conclusion it may not be correct. Isn't it possible that a large percentage of those who don't vote are expressing their tacit approval with the decisions made by those who do vote? While some us may take a keen interest in the policies of our country many of us may be content to let our leaders make the decisions. It's just hard for me to get from the fact of low voter turnout to the fact of 'that is dangerous'. Or the fact that this makes our form of government invalid. I'm not disagreeing with you per se, just saying that the one doesn't necessarily follow the other--it's speculative.

Let me ask this: Why do you think that the people who vote do so? What do you see as being the top 5 motivators?

(Participant) Kip: To start, I certainly do NOT suggest that "those who do vote are exercising undue (or unbalanced) influence over the rest of us." I can't imagine how I gave that impression, but whatever it was that I said to give that impression was very clumsy and misleading on my part.

Here are some of the reasons I see for citizens to vote:
  * A genuine interest in current events
* A concern with special interests of different kinds: e.g: environmental, economic, education etc. These concerns can be both self-serving, altruistic, or a blend of both.
* Seeing a connection in what one does as a career or avocation and the effect of government policies on these interests
* A belief that there is a duty to vote as a citizen in a democracy

It would also be interesting to know why people DON'T vote. I suspect that there are several reasons:
* A belief that "my" vote won't make a difference.
* Unwilling to take the time for something that doesn't seem of importance to one's self interests.
* Lack of "education" --in this case, seldom reading or listening to news, little knowledge of the issues.

Perhaps more theoretical, but to me of greater importance, is what I tried to express in # 103: a belief that the people in power (and especially elected officials) need a balancing force to keep them "honest". For example I would like to see "going to war" an issue that must get a majority vote of citizens. Having this shift from the responsibility of Congress to the President seems to me to have been a shift in the wrong direction.

In saying the above, I recognize what I called earlier a love/hate relationship with people power.

To have more citizen input in decisions, there is need for a more educated electorate. If this is "elitism", I accept the charge. To be a citizen of a modern democracy demands an "elite" citizenry.

As a matter of fact, we have already accepted this notion long ago in jury duty. We pick people right off the street and "educate" them in the jury box--and by and large with very satisfactory results. But that is education in an adversarial environment.

New programs are working on citizen education in "collaborative decision making" environments with considerable success. I would like to see this kind of education precede referenda, avoiding having to make a yes/no decision on issues that have no valid yes/no answers and with sound bite information rather than true education to reach an understanding of the issues.

These are the kind of issues that I associate with paying attention to "different" realities.

Thank you, Kip, for making me try to be more coherent. I hope I am inching my way up that hill!

(Participant) Don, thanks for explaining more--I think I understand more clearly what you are saying. To answer your question, I got the impression of undue influence because you seemed to equate low voter turnout with something dangerous and something that made our government invalid.

Let me see if I understand you correctly now. It sounds like you are saying that we should have special elections on such issues as going to war. Have I understood you?

(Participant) Kip: I would agree in part with your "understanding", but I would expand it to include other kinds of participation in decision making beyond elections. As I said somewhat earlier, I think citizens should be more directly involved in the larger issues of government decision making: e.g. race relations, health coverage, immigration, funding of elections. The implementation should be left to the elected officials.

(Participant) With respect to democratic participation, the power to vote, as with all power issues, eventually erodes if unexercised.

As I see the problem of voter influence, we still don't elicit the native intelligence of the voter, let alone the educated intelligence. With modern understanding of how to frame questions in surveys, and with modern technology, we should be able to ask voters to choose among likely scenarios. Then they wouldn't look as foolish as they now do, by voting for a candidate's looks, or a proposition's deceptive title.

(Participant) Dick: There are at least two quite different factors in deciding how to use citizens in decision making:

1. Do we really want to involve citizens? Even President Bush uses the cliche words and phrases in praising democracy as he takes away from the congress the right to have a voice in declaring war.
2. If we really want to involve citizens more actively, we must consider a whole set of new strategies for decision making involving large numbers of people. Voting is usually the only strategy that is considered. But aside from electing representatives, it is the least important.

(Participant) I will admit that what I'm suggesting is doubtless too radical a departure from the multi-billion dollar commitment we have to the existing election system, but it may offer the kind of format that could answer some of your concerns.

I believe very strongly in democracy, and that the Supreme Court has always been right in outlawing any tests or criteria for participation. I will also admit that when you ride the subway, and look around, you have good reason to wonder if you want your future to rest with those unwashed folks. But the average citizen is better and wiser than we think. The media tend to treat them as if they are stupid but well-informed. It is probably the other way around. They have a natural wisdom, but are poorly informed. We cannot insist on their education, but we could transform the decision processes to involve them in assessing scenarios, and even in electronic dialogues, to elicit that natural wisdom, and help them shape their opinions. That is, Don, I see this as a social design problem that you and Dan Yankelovich and a few of your other contacts, and some of mine, can solve. No kidding. We have the necessary technology, but not the collective will. Current office holders, and special interests, would fight us every inch of the way.

But democracy is a delicate way of organizing, deeply threatened by the current system of voting. We need to give it all the vigilance, protection and loving attention it deserves.

(Participant) Well, at the risk of repeating myself . . .
Dick's litany of horrors, which I acknowledge, would all be mitigated if we reformed the financing of elections. Would they not?

Fred's horror of uninformed citizens will take something more than improved election financing, but my yet be dependent upon that happening first. A cynical public is not well-motivated to learn more about the rest of the world.

When I was a small boy, I came under the influence of a wise old man by the name of Ernest Andrew Rogers. He was at that time closely associated with the formation of the Junior Statesmen of America--and also the study of Esperanto, which came to naught.

The Junior Statesmen is still active, attracting the participation of some of our best and brightest youth. Their motto: Make politics a noble profession!

(Participant) Don, I've been mulling over, for the last few days, your recent comments about more citizen participation. It occurs to me that the UN is a microcosmic embodiment of your ideas. Its citizens are well informed, with current information, understand their own agendas quite well (and those of others), and participate regularly and ardently. Yet, the UN is terribly inept, inefficient, unfair, and unreasonable. Human rights are clearly of little real concern to the membership, and cooperation is limited--except in those cases where the cooperating parties sense a very immediate reward for themselves.

I know there are exceptions to this, but this does seem to be the general tenor of the organization. Each member country seems intent on only those agendas which will benefit them. Millions dying in ethnic or racial conflict--too bad, no opportunity there for us. Millions dying of starvation same thing. Millions living in terror under repressive regimes, gee what a shame, but nothing in it for us to help them. And, the citizens of the UN are in fact well educated, relatively urbane, aware of others, etc. They may not be the best of any country but they're certainly above the average.

So, in practice, it doesn't seem to necessarily follow that a better informed, more participatory membership leads to better leadership or policy. Am I missing something in your ideas that would mitigate this?

(Participant) Kip: This is an attempt to add something to both your comments in your # 138 and to Fred's in # 139. I recognize that none of the following will seem "realistic" to conventional AND PRACTICAL experience in current foreign affairs.

But I am also suggesting that there do no seem to be any realistic suggestions forthcoming from those who do have recent and direct participation in foreign affairs. The world seems to be in more jeopardy today than at any time in my rather long life and new ideas need to be discussed in exchanges like those we are having. First we must generate some new ideas, practical or not. Then we can try to select the "least impractical ideas" .

If I read your comments and those of Fred's correctly, there is a gap between the governors and the citizens in both the UN and in most of the must of the middle east nations. And for that matter, I also see an almost equally broad gap growing between the citizens and the government power structure here in the United States. These gaps (and corruption) seem rampant today. They are possibly more virulent in the middle east and the UN than here at home, but there are similarities that we should recognize and study.

Now comes my even more "impractical" idea. I see no power short of citizen power to alter these flaws in government and decision making activities. And this leads to my next "way out" series of thoughts.

Current structures for governmental and power centered decisions are rooted in adversarial debate, Roberts Rules of Order, and the goals of winning preconceived ideas rather than agreeing on a description of the issues and a search for solutions. The new "buzzword" for this is collaborative discussion and decision making. This may also seem hopelessly impractical in international affairs--but let me suggest just one issue that today may seem less impractical than it would have several months ago: THERE MUST BE A BETTER WAY TO DECIDE THAN "WINNING" A WAR.

There are, in this connection, a whole new "science" both in this country and in Europe where new ideas can be discussed, hooked into electronic communications involving large lumbers rather than back room closed door power holders. These procedures would also be part of my impractical bag of suggestions.

I have already discussed the equally difficult question of how much power and under what controls "We the People" should be in the decision group, and will not repeat it here--other than to acknowledge its existence.

I agree that the UN seems like a weak and faulted structure. I also agree that moving from adversarial debate to collaborative decision making seems impractical. But I haven't seen or heard of any more practical ideas that fit the new conditions

(Participant) Don: I expect you remember John Craven's proposal of perhaps 20 years ago. Take 50 citizens and put them in a room, or on a local network, and have them discuss one issue. Replicate that 25 times (or 250), simultaneously. Have two of each of these groups be members of another group of 50, where they reflect in the second group the opinions expressed in the first groups of which they were a part.

Replicate this several times and you have an enormous consolidation of thoughtful public opinion carried upstream toward the centers of government.

Fred, thanks for the concise explanations. This pretty much lays it out in easy to understand terms.

(Participant) Don, OK, I'm getting a clearer picture of what you see as being the "problem" as well as your thoughts on possible ways to solve it. Thanks.

Let's assume that your premise is worth testing--perhaps in the way outlined by Ray. Let's assume further that in testing it we actually get the participation as outlined by Ray 50 people, 250 reps. Let's also assume that we wind up with a policy derived from the consensus of the participants. Let's also, just to keep it upbeat, assume that the policy is cogent, pertinent and workable--maybe even wise. So, we have a quality product. What do we do with it?

Isn't packaging the next challenge? How do we package the product to make it attractive to consumers? Which consumers? How do we decide on which consumers.

Previous Page          Next Page

top