I think you seriously undervalue the citizens' assembly as a means of bringing citizens closer to the decision-making process. You say that their agendas are 'driven by the politicians not by the people', but this is not necessarily so and has not been the case in many recent examples. You also say that 'participants are highly malleable by influential experts', as if this were not the case with our elected representatives. With CAs, it is down to the participants and the advisory group to agree the topics and questions to be deliberated upon and the experts and stakeholders to consult. And of course for the citizens themselves to do the deliberating. Given the choice between having an 'elected' party animal and her/his equally inexpert parliamentary cronies do the deliberation for us, and having citizens themselves produce recommendations which a proper constitution could require parliament to act upon, I know which I would choose.
1.The Uniparty is in the driving seat, and the chances of them willingly vacating it are, at a rough guess, about zero
2. The bulk of the population are too busy watching Love Island, and in any event probably place safety higher than freedom on their list of priorities
3. Human nature
An actual, real-life, in-your-face revolution would be the only way to implement any half meaningful change, and to that end I've just placed an order on Amazon for a pitchfork
You make very valid points about the misrepresentation of democracy. Our electoral party political system is neither representative nor democratic. The wool has been successfully pulled over the public's eyes into believing we live in a democracy. But you have put forward a rather skewed notion of citizens' assemblies, not perfect but a whole lot better than what we have.
While they might be commissioned by Parliament/Government they need to be run completely independently of the vested interests of politicians, corporations, media magnates, NGOs etc. Assembly members are anonymous (except in France) until the process is over and not targets for manipulation by lobbyists.
They are representative - sortition followed by stratification would ensure that the age, disability, gender and geographical demographics reflects the population, a true representation of young people would be around the table. The collective intelligence of a group of diverse people come up with bolder recommendations than politicians, everyday people have nothing to lose, politicians do and are generally more concerned with retaining power, than the common good. And that wisdom, is not down to the individual 'intelligence' of the members but to its diversity. Unlike politicians, assembly members do not have to follow party lines. More than ever we need to move to a model of collaboration, where people learn together, weigh up the pro and cons and trade-offs and generally make sound recommendations.
Politicians have done everything to keep power in the hands of money, landowners and the corporate world ( 1%) and have done next to nothing as we face the breakdown of climate, nature and justice.
I think however that there is one further alternative to the current authoritarianism and dictatorship of the British Ruling Elite, and that is the following concept of Direct Democracy.
Direct Democracy. It is proposed that the House of Commons is reformed with a "New Parliamentary System" whereby the corrupt Political Party system is abolished and all the present party MPs are removed and replaced. All MPs in the future would be independents and legal control over them would be given entirely and directly to their constituents. If any MPs break their legal duties to their constituents, those constituents could legally remove them. Constituents would then be able to insist that their MP always does exactly what they want.
This is the thread of my own Substack - The Counter Revolution.
Please see the following article setting out my proposals:
The figures (percentages) are irrelevant. They come from a simplistic view of humans, human society and democracy. It is not the case that anyone (everyone) has a duty to form views on politics or political personalities. Those whose profession destines them to (e.g. lawyers), and anyone who feels a calling, i.e. is drawn to political issues, might normally have some such duty. But not people whose personality, livelihood or lifestyle is far removed from the political mindset, and so do not observe current affairs. We do not all have the same calling in life, and this is good so. High turnouts are not necessarily better than low turnouts. A low turnout may be indicative that those voting are better informed, more affected, or more motivated than the majority, enabling them to make wiser collective decisions. Why should their thoughtfulness be destroyed (overruled) by the uninformed, encouraged to vote by propoganda, election posters and the like?
A democracy (i.e. with univeral suffrage) is where anyone who wishes can register their opinion. They will not all have the same weight, incidentally. People are not obliged to have an opinion about everything, nor is a properly informed opinion always possible.
Excellent article, but: why do you need, why do you continue to want, political parties, new or old, large or small? The year is 2024, not 1924, nor 1832. Times and options have moved on. Much of our malaise can be attributed to the fixation on political parties, which as aggregating entities once made some sense, no longer.
The alternative is my "fuzzy democracy" at an eu site, which enables you always to vote for the best candidate you can personally find, or to easily stand yourself. For election, a candidate must obtain a fixed number of votes, but can be assigned these by candidates which have fallen far from the threshold. Think of recycling.
My concept has been available at a dedicated website for many years, but experience has taught that giving exact addresses in comments sections leads to non-publication. There I have also addressed, separately, the misleading allure of proportional representation and second choices as well as the defects of referenda.
One other issue, apart from proper representation, is the common and mistaken understanding of democracy. Democracy is the icing on the cake, once the rule of law, property rights and freedom of speech have been established. (Now appallingly under threat.) Democracy is about votes being held and honoured. But majorities do not have the last word. Other forces, some long-term, play a part, not least those of the market. Universal suffrage acts only to give a direction of travel and, more importantly, to act as the emergency brake on the runaway train.
I posted what I took to be step towards a solution, Rusere. https://halva.proboards.com/post/2470 But it has been deleted. Admittedly, I had made a brief comment, followed by a link to an article written by me. Quite similar to what a number of others posting here are doing, and they have not been deleted. This article of mine was not reactive. I made a reactive posting here also, not attempting to propose anything. Just sniping. And that has not been deleted. So that is what is wanted from me it seems.
Bob Bater, April 25, 2024
I think you seriously undervalue the citizens' assembly as a means of bringing citizens closer to the decision-making process. You say that their agendas are 'driven by the politicians not by the people', but this is not necessarily so and has not been the case in many recent examples. You also say that 'participants are highly malleable by influential experts', as if this were not the case with our elected representatives. With CAs, it is down to the participants and the advisory group to agree the topics and questions to be deliberated upon and the experts and stakeholders to consult. And of course for the citizens themselves to do the deliberating. Given the choice between having an 'elected' party animal and her/his equally inexpert parliamentary cronies do the deliberation for us, and having citizens themselves produce recommendations which a proper constitution could require parliament to act upon, I know which I would choose.
Excellent article, but...
1.The Uniparty is in the driving seat, and the chances of them willingly vacating it are, at a rough guess, about zero
2. The bulk of the population are too busy watching Love Island, and in any event probably place safety higher than freedom on their list of priorities
3. Human nature
An actual, real-life, in-your-face revolution would be the only way to implement any half meaningful change, and to that end I've just placed an order on Amazon for a pitchfork
You talk of revolution. Please see the following article setting out proposals for the abolition of the UK Political Party system:
https://TheCounterRevolution.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TCR/Article-The-Political-Party-system-must-be-abolished-(April-2024).pdf
You make very valid points about the misrepresentation of democracy. Our electoral party political system is neither representative nor democratic. The wool has been successfully pulled over the public's eyes into believing we live in a democracy. But you have put forward a rather skewed notion of citizens' assemblies, not perfect but a whole lot better than what we have.
While they might be commissioned by Parliament/Government they need to be run completely independently of the vested interests of politicians, corporations, media magnates, NGOs etc. Assembly members are anonymous (except in France) until the process is over and not targets for manipulation by lobbyists.
They are representative - sortition followed by stratification would ensure that the age, disability, gender and geographical demographics reflects the population, a true representation of young people would be around the table. The collective intelligence of a group of diverse people come up with bolder recommendations than politicians, everyday people have nothing to lose, politicians do and are generally more concerned with retaining power, than the common good. And that wisdom, is not down to the individual 'intelligence' of the members but to its diversity. Unlike politicians, assembly members do not have to follow party lines. More than ever we need to move to a model of collaboration, where people learn together, weigh up the pro and cons and trade-offs and generally make sound recommendations.
Politicians have done everything to keep power in the hands of money, landowners and the corporate world ( 1%) and have done next to nothing as we face the breakdown of climate, nature and justice.
Things can be done differently.
Excellent. Thank you.
I think however that there is one further alternative to the current authoritarianism and dictatorship of the British Ruling Elite, and that is the following concept of Direct Democracy.
Direct Democracy. It is proposed that the House of Commons is reformed with a "New Parliamentary System" whereby the corrupt Political Party system is abolished and all the present party MPs are removed and replaced. All MPs in the future would be independents and legal control over them would be given entirely and directly to their constituents. If any MPs break their legal duties to their constituents, those constituents could legally remove them. Constituents would then be able to insist that their MP always does exactly what they want.
This is the thread of my own Substack - The Counter Revolution.
Please see the following article setting out my proposals:
https://TheCounterRevolution.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/TCR/Article-The-Political-Party-system-must-be-abolished-(April-2024).pdf
The figures (percentages) are irrelevant. They come from a simplistic view of humans, human society and democracy. It is not the case that anyone (everyone) has a duty to form views on politics or political personalities. Those whose profession destines them to (e.g. lawyers), and anyone who feels a calling, i.e. is drawn to political issues, might normally have some such duty. But not people whose personality, livelihood or lifestyle is far removed from the political mindset, and so do not observe current affairs. We do not all have the same calling in life, and this is good so. High turnouts are not necessarily better than low turnouts. A low turnout may be indicative that those voting are better informed, more affected, or more motivated than the majority, enabling them to make wiser collective decisions. Why should their thoughtfulness be destroyed (overruled) by the uninformed, encouraged to vote by propoganda, election posters and the like?
A democracy (i.e. with univeral suffrage) is where anyone who wishes can register their opinion. They will not all have the same weight, incidentally. People are not obliged to have an opinion about everything, nor is a properly informed opinion always possible.
Excellent article, but: why do you need, why do you continue to want, political parties, new or old, large or small? The year is 2024, not 1924, nor 1832. Times and options have moved on. Much of our malaise can be attributed to the fixation on political parties, which as aggregating entities once made some sense, no longer.
The alternative is my "fuzzy democracy" at an eu site, which enables you always to vote for the best candidate you can personally find, or to easily stand yourself. For election, a candidate must obtain a fixed number of votes, but can be assigned these by candidates which have fallen far from the threshold. Think of recycling.
My concept has been available at a dedicated website for many years, but experience has taught that giving exact addresses in comments sections leads to non-publication. There I have also addressed, separately, the misleading allure of proportional representation and second choices as well as the defects of referenda.
One other issue, apart from proper representation, is the common and mistaken understanding of democracy. Democracy is the icing on the cake, once the rule of law, property rights and freedom of speech have been established. (Now appallingly under threat.) Democracy is about votes being held and honoured. But majorities do not have the last word. Other forces, some long-term, play a part, not least those of the market. Universal suffrage acts only to give a direction of travel and, more importantly, to act as the emergency brake on the runaway train.
Great analysis, thanks John. Looking forward to the solution instalment!
I posted what I took to be step towards a solution, Rusere. https://halva.proboards.com/post/2470 But it has been deleted. Admittedly, I had made a brief comment, followed by a link to an article written by me. Quite similar to what a number of others posting here are doing, and they have not been deleted. This article of mine was not reactive. I made a reactive posting here also, not attempting to propose anything. Just sniping. And that has not been deleted. So that is what is wanted from me it seems.