The participation state
The impact of the changes set out in Part II would mean that governing in the traditional sense almost ceases to exist.
People choose the policies directly, rather than having a government intermediate for them, while the state then administers the choices.
It is possible to imagine that a central government might provide a default policy framework and play a role in setting the minimum standards that policy frameworks must adhere to.
In a sense the role might be much as the UK government has taken on in pensions policy, where it provides a default 'stakeholder pension scheme' for those who do not opt out and make their own private arrangements.
But being involved in making these choices will bring people back into this new participatory democratic framework who are currently excluded from the political process and feel alienated from today's parties, the language they use and the positions they take.
Participation will no longer be about making occasional choices about remote leaders, but about choices that have an immediate impact on the services that the individual directly receives.
And the aim would be that education or health choices should become as easy to make as any comparably significant commercial transaction.
While the party structures that exist now may continue to play a role, it will become both broader and shallower. Instead of directly applying policies, they will help like-minded groups develop and promote policies, and assist with technical compliance, costings and policy expertise.
But the important point is that the tools for these changes should also make it possible for all of these to be developed by committed citizens, who can uploaded a framework into the central repository, from where it would be available to all so people can 'vote' on it by choosing to opt into it or not.
Beyond parties, it is possible that an initial source of change could be think tanks, which already have as much if not more policy expertise as political parties.
It could also be the job of the state to supply impartial expert advice to all those who seek it, much as the UK civil service advises the political party which wins a general election now.
As Dominic Campbell of Enabled by Design wrote in Social by Social:
"In this new world, the role of government in the provision of public services is being fundamentally challenged. Increasingly, the state is being seen as a facilitator, cheerleader and champion, rather than commander-in-chief; government as a convenor of interests, just one (albeit important) player in a patchwork quilt of public service delivery. It is increasingly accepted that no government can have all the answers nor be best placed to tackle the issues at hand, and now is the time for the government to be brave and begin to relinquish a degree of control to civil society, supporting it to make best use of its own energies and skills to overcome the challenges it faces.
"Going forward, the government needs to learn from and work with these nimble micro public service uninstitutions that are redefining public services as we've come to know them. It needs to learn to listen, to work collaboratively, to mimic the behaviours of these successful social communities and work with the people it is there to serve - these small, agile and low-cost networks of passionate, creative and knowledgeable public service users. The web provides limitless possibility in every direction and it is now up to the government to work out how best to shape and support 'public services 2.0' – and define its own role within it."
The concept of disaggregating the traditional single democratic vote into a series of specific policy choices which voters sort by preference also provides a response to another criticism of direct democracy raised by Parvin and McHugh (2005).
"For a system to be viable, it must do more than merely get people talking: it must decide and do things. Participation and inclusion are only meaningful if people's views can be seen to make a difference and to influence the development of policy. The problem with direct democracy is that its advocates seem so preoccupied with working out how to include as many voices as possible in democratic debates that they forget to explain exactly how these dialogues will produce actionable policies or decisions. This important and obvious point is often neglected by those who fail to make any real distinction between what makes for a fair democratic debate, and what makes for a fair democratic decision making process." [i]
In the ideas set out here, the deciding would be done by all those who wish to participate in actively changing and selecting policy frameworks. The doing would be done by the neutral administration of the state, which would no longer take its instructions from a government or political representatives.
Footnotes:
Recent comments