User:Zraerobertson/Participatory democracy

Participatory democracy or participative democracy is a model of democracy in which citizens are provided power to make political decisions. Etymological roots of democracy (Greek demos and kratos) imply that the people are in power, making all democracies participatory to some degree. However, participatory democracy tends to advocate greater citizen participation and more direct representation than traditional representative democracy.

For example, the creation of governing bodies through a system of sortition, rather than election of representatives, is thought to produce a more participatory body by allowing citizens to hold positions of power themselves.

Origins
Athenian democracy used its system of popular assembly in tandem with the selection of magisterial positions by lot and the election of a small number of high level government officials. Athenian democrats supported the use of sortition on account of the Aristotelian belief in the importance of ruling and being ruled in a democratic system. By using sortition to assign citizens to one year magisterial offices, and not permitting them to hold a particular office more than once, the Athenian system distributed power amongst a greater number of citizens who intermittently led and followed throughout their lives.

Citizens' Assemblies
Participatory democracy has been practiced more frequently as of late on account of a rise of government commissioned citizens' conventions that seek to address specific policy or constitutional issues. Participants in citizens' assemblies are typically chosen through sortition with stratified sampling to increase the representative nature of the body. Assemblies are then divided into groups to explore specific topics in greater depth, guided by the testimony of experts. Deliberation is led by professional facilitators and legal experts aid in the formulation of policy proposals or constitutional amendments in legal language. The reports of the assemblies are often put to referenda or used to advise government bodies.

In 2011, in response to growing distrust between citizens and the government following a 2008 economic crisis, Ireland authorized the use of a citizens' assembly titled "We the Citizens" to pilot the use of a participatory democratic body to increase political legitimacy. Having found an increase in efficacy and interest in governmental functions, as well as significant shifts in opinion on contested issues like taxation, Ireland sanctioned a citizens' assembly with legal remit. In 2012, Ireland held a Constitutional Convention to discuss proposed amendments to the Constitution. Ten issues were discussed in total with proposals ranging from reducing the voting age to 17 to including a provision for same sex marriage. The citizens' convention embraced a hybrid model: participants included sixty-six individuals from the greater population, thirty-three legislators from the Irish Parliament, and chairman Tom Arnold. At the end of the fourteenth month of the Constitutional Convention, several of the citizens' recommendations were put to referenda. The Thirty-fourth Amendment to the Irish Constitution, the Marriage Equality Act, was signed into law following a successful referendum with success attributed in part to the deliberation of the 2012 Constitutional Convention. In the second iteration of citizens' assemblies in Ireland in 2016-2018, the Assembly, now composed of ninety-nine ordinary citizens and one chairperson appointed by the government, was tasked with considering whether the Eighth Amendment should be removed from the Constitution, along with other issues of referendums, population aging, and climate change. The Eighth Amendment banned abortion in nearly all instances by recognizing a constitutional right to life. Debate occurred over a five month period and a secret-ballot vote was held at the end of the convention with members voting to replace the Eighth Amendment with a new provision authorizing the Irish Parliament to legislate abortion. The proposals of the assembly were put up to a countrywide referendum and sixty-six percent voted to repeal the Eighth Amendment. The two-thirds vote in favor of repealing the Eighth Amendment closely aligned with the vote taken internally in the citizens' assembly, suggesting the representative nature of the randomly chosen participants.

In response to the Yellow vests movement, the French government organized the “Grand National Debate” in early 2019 to allow one hundred randomly selected citizens in each of eighteen regional conventions to deliberate on issues that the citizens valued the most to inform government action. At the end of the Grand National Debate, President Macron committed to the creation of a dedicated citizens' assembly to discuss climate change: the Citizens' Climate Convention (CCC). The CCC was designed to serve a as a legislative body, guided by the question of how France may reduce its greenhouse gas emissions with social justice in mind. One hundred and fifty citizens, selected by sortition and stratified sampling, were sorted into five sub-groups to discuss individual climate themes such as housing and consuming. The citizens were guided by the experts on several steering committees that worked to inform the participants on the specifics of climate issues, help citizens formulate their ideas in legal language, and facilitate discussion. At the end of the nine month long process, the deliberation of the CCC culminated in 149 measures outlined in a 460 page report, ranging from the decarbonization of the car fleet to reforming environmental labeling on food packaging. The proceedings and results of the CCC have garnered national and international attention. President Macron has committed to supporting 146 of the 149 measures proposed by the CCC, and a bill containing the 146 suggestions was submitted to Parliament in late 2020.

The UK, like France, also held a citizens' assembly in 2020 to discuss paths to address climate change following the Extinction Rebellion. The framing question of the UK Climate Assembly (CAUK) asked how the UK should approach reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050. Rather than functioning as a political chamber as in the CCC, the CAUK was used more as a supplemental, advisory body with stricter rules of engagement. The UK brought 108 citizens together to deliberate over four months, resulting in more than fifty recommendations outlined in a 556-page report. The findings of the citizens' assembly helped advise the government's next steps in combating climate change.

Deliberative Polling
In 1996, in response to the emergence of renewable energy technologies, the Texas government commissioned an informed public opinion poll, also known as a deliberative poll, to gage citizens' willingness to pursue alternative energies. Prior to deliberation, a raw opinion poll was taken in which Texans were asked whether they were willing to pay more on monthly utility bills to support renewable energy. After the initial poll, a representative sample of citizens was provided non-partisan briefing books and invited to deliberate in the presence of moderators. Following a weekend of deliberation, the participants developed informed opinions that significantly diverged from their raw opinions. Before deliberation, fifty-two percent of participants supported a two to five dollar increase on monthly utility bills to support renewable energy. By the end of the experiment, participant support increased to eighty-four percent. The results of the informed public opinion poll deeply influenced the actions of the Texas government and electric power industry; though Texas was the forty-ninth largest producer of renewable energy in the United States in 1996, it is now the first, leading the nation in the production of the wind power.

Mechanisms for participatory democracy
Scholars, including Graham Smith in Democratic Innovations, have recently considered several mechanisms to create more participatory democratic systems, ranging from the use of referendums to the creation of deliberative citizens' assemblies. As contrasted with the mechanism of elections, these proposals intend to increase the agenda-setting and decision-making powers of the people through giving citizens' more direct ways to contribute to politics, as opposed to indirectly choosing representatives through voting.

Mini-Publics
Also called citizens' assemblies, mini-publics are representative samples of the population at large that meet to advise other legislative bodies or to write laws themselves. Because citizens are chosen to participate by stratified sampling, the assemblies are more representative of the population as a whole as compared to elected legislatures whose representatives are disproportionally wealthy, male, and white. Mini-publics chosen by sortition thus provide average citizens the opportunity to exercise substantive agenda-setting and/or decision-making power. Over the course of the assembly, citizens are guided by experts and discussion facilitators to ensure meaningful deliberation. The results of mini-publics typically culminate in reports to be sent to the government or proposals that are directly sent to the people via referendums. Critics of mini-publics have raised concerns about their perceived legitimacy. For instance, political scientist Daan Jacobs finds that the perceived legitimacy of mini-publics is higher than a system in which no participation is permitted but not higher than any system involving self-selection, like elections. Regardless, the use of mini-publics has grown in recent years and they have often been used to pursue constitutional reforms, such as in British Columbia's Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform in 2004 and the Irish Constitutional Convention in 2012.

Referendums
In binding referendums, citizens vote on laws and/or constitutional amendments proposed by a legislative body. Referendums afford citizens greater decision-making power by giving them the ultimate choice in the passage of legislation. Citizens may also use referendums to engage in agenda-setting power if they are allowed to draft proposals to be put to referenda in efforts called initiatives. Referendums may be made increasingly participatory by using a mandatory vote system that requires participation amongst all citizens. However, despite providing the people with additional political power, political theorist Hélène Landemore raises the concern that referendums may fail to be sufficiently deliberative, meaning that the people are unable to engage in discussions and debate that may enhance their decision-making abilities and wielding of political power. A rigorous system of referendums is currently used in Switzerland, under which all laws architected by the legislature go to referendums. Swiss citizens may also enact popular initiatives: a process whereby citizens can put forward a constitutional amendment or the removal of an existing provision, if the proposal receives signatures by one hundred thousand citizens.

E-Democracy
E-democracy is an umbrella term used to describe a variety of proposals made to increase participation through the utilization of technology. Open discussion forums, for example, provide citizens the opportunity to debate policy online while facilitators guide discussion. These forums normally serve agenda-setting purposes or may be used to provide legislators with additional testimony when considering the passage of legislation. Closed forums may be used to discuss more sensitive information. In the UK, a closed discussion forum was used to enable domestic violence survivors to provide testimony to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Domestic Violence and Abuse while preserving the anonymity of survivors. Another e-democratic mechanism is online deliberative polling, a system under which citizens are provided the opportunity to deliberate with peers virtually before answering a poll question. The results of deliberative polls are more likely to reflect the considered judgments of the people and are thought to be a better way to assess public opinion while encouraging increased citizen awareness of civic issues.

Town Meetings
In a form of more local participatory democracy, town meetings provide all residents with legislative power. Practiced in the United States, particularly in New England, since the 17th century, town meetings assure that local policy decisions are made directly by members of the public without any intermediaries. Local democracy is often seen as the first step in producing a more participatory system; as said by democratic scholar Frank M. Bryan, "For real democracy small not only is beautiful, it is essential." Theorist Graham Smith, however, notes the inherently limited impact of town meetings which focus on local issues and cannot bring about action on larger, national issues. He similarly argues that town meetings are not representative of the town as a whole as they disproportionately represent individuals with free time, including the elderly and the affluent. Nevertheless, New Hampshire continues to use a streamlined version of town meetings in which every voter is a legislator, and all issues may be put to a legally binding vote as long as its subject matter was placed on the warrant, a type of agenda.

Participatory Budgeting
The system of participatory budgeting allows citizens to make decisions on the allocation of a public budget. With origins in Porto Alegre, Brazil, the general procedure of the participatory budgeting involves the creation of a concrete financial plan that serves as a recommendation to elected representatives. Importantly, under the Brazilian system, neighborhoods are given the authority to design budgets for the greater region, with local proposals being brought to elected regional budget forums. The incorporation of deliberative processes in participatory budgeting has allowed for a decrease in clientelism and corruption as well as increased levels of participation, particularly amongst marginalized or poorer residents. Theorist Graham Smith observed that participatory budgeting still has some barriers to entry for the poorest members of the population.

Liquid Democracy
In a hybrid between direct and representative democracy, liquid democracy permits individuals to vote on issues themselves or to select issue-competent delegates to vote on their behalf. Political scientists Christian Blum and Christina Isabel Zuber suggest that liquid democracy has the potential to improve a legislature's performance through bringing together delegates with a greater issue awareness, thus taking advantage of epistemic knowledge within the populace. In order to make liquid democracy more deliberative, a trustee model of delegation may be implemented in which the delegates are free to vote as they see fit following deliberation with other representatives. Some concerns have been raised about the implementation of liquid democracy; Blum and Zuber, for example, find that liquid democracy produces two distinct participative classes of voters: individuals with one vote and delegates with two or more votes. Blum and Zuber also worry that the policy produced in issue-specific legislatures will lack cohesiveness if each group has separate and independent delegates. Today, liquid democracy is utilized by Pirate Parties, groups known for their support for more democratic reforms and greater internet transparency, for intra-party decision-making.

Deliberative Polling
Trademarked by Stanford professor James Fishkin, deliberative opinion polls permit citizens to develop informed opinions following a period of deliberation. Deliberative polling begins with surveying a random representative sample of citizens to gage their raw opinion. These same individuals are then invited to deliberate for a weekend in the presence of political leaders, competing experts, and trained moderators. At the end of the deliberation, the group is surveyed again, and the final opinions of the group are taken to be representative of the conclusion that the public would reach provided they had opportunities to engage with the issues more deeply. There are many examples of deliberative polling being used around the world: in 2008, Fishkin and team conducted a deliberative poll in Poznan, Poland to decide the fate of a Euro Cup stadium after 2012, and, in South Korea in 2011, a deliberative poll was used to discuss the issue of Korean Unification. Cristina Lafont, a critic of deliberative polling, argues that the "filtered" (informed) opinion reached at the end of a deliberative poll is too far removed from the opinion of the citizenry as a whole, thus delegitimizing the actions taken in the name of the poll. Conversely, Fishkin and other proponents find deliberative polling to be a "poll with a human face" that can be used in tandem with other participatory mechanisms to reflect the normatively desirable informed will of the people.

Mechanisms against participatory democracy
Jason Brennan, in Against Democracy, advocates for a less participatory system on the basis of the irrationality of voters in a representative democracy. He proposes several mechanisms to reduce participation, presented with the assumption that a vote-based system of electoral representation is maintained.

Restricted Suffrage and Plural Voting
In an analogy comparing the perils of an unlicensed driver to an untested voter, Brennan argues that exams should be administered to all citizens to determine if they are competent to participate. Under this system, citizens either have one or zero votes, depending on their test performance. Brennan also proposes a plural voting regime in which each citizen has by default one vote (or zero votes) but can earn additional votes through passing voter entrance exams or possessing academic degrees. Critics of Brennan, including Vox reporter Sean Illing, find parallels between his proposed system and the literacy tests of the Jim Crow South that prevented black people from voting in the United States.

Universal Suffrage with Epistocratic Veto
Brennan proposes a second system under which all citizens have equal rights to vote or otherwise participate in government, but the decisions made by elected representatives are scrutinized by an epistocratic council. Brennan notes that this council cannot make law, only "unmake" law, and would likely be composed of individuals who passed rigorous competency exams. He admits that an epistocratic veto could lead to significant gridlock but suggests that the gridlock may be a necessary evil in the process of reducing democratic incompetence. The epistocratic veto would thus serve as a back-end check, as opposed to a front-end check in restricted suffrage, that still allows all citizens to participate in electing representatives.