Left of centre thinktanks have told Ed Miliband he should adopt radical devolution as the theme of his election campaign for 2015. I say let's go further, much further.
Democracy has been spreading round the planet for more than a century, but in recent decades the ability of the representative democratic system to govern for the people has been found wanting. Officially, the majority of countries are 'democratic,' but unofficially most of us feel like we are governed and controlled by an unaccountable elite.
That is because representative democracy is merely an outgrowth of the model of aristocratic rule brought in by Britain and the new American republic in the 18th century, a system designed to keep power out of the hands of the people. The rulers and thinkers of the 18th century said this explicitly.
As James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the United States constitution, explained: “Pure democracy is the most vile form of government...such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
The system that is now universally described as democracy is misnamed. Representative democracy delegates power to elected officials and professional politicians who are not accountable to the people who elected them on a day to day basis. Other interest groups - including business, lobby groups, foreign governments, senior civil servants, military and political party elites have far more influence over our 'elected' leaders than we do. We only get to vote them in or out of office every four or five years. This is not democracy - and it was never supposed to be.
But if our politicians are too often unfit to govern, and come from a small class of privileged out of touch families, is it not time to put ordinary people right into the system of government and legislation? I propose a new People's Parliament be created to exist alongside the existing representative Parliament. It would be made of a large selection of ordinary members of the public. Members of the People's Parliament wouldnot be elected. Instead, a random selection process, with some possible representative fixtures to reflect the broad population such as 50% women, would be instituted. Why random rather than elected? To prevent the same self selecting group of careerists and professional political types from running (and ruining) the country. It cuts out the need for expensive, time-consuming elections, which favours those of deep pocket, and instead uses the same principle as the jury system, which has served us moderately well for centuries.
That is because representative democracy is merely an outgrowth of the model of aristocratic rule brought in by Britain and the new American republic in the 18th century, a system designed to keep power out of the hands of the people. The rulers and thinkers of the 18th century said this explicitly.
As James Madison, one of the founding fathers of the United States constitution, explained: “Pure democracy is the most vile form of government...such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention: have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property: and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.”
The system that is now universally described as democracy is misnamed. Representative democracy delegates power to elected officials and professional politicians who are not accountable to the people who elected them on a day to day basis. Other interest groups - including business, lobby groups, foreign governments, senior civil servants, military and political party elites have far more influence over our 'elected' leaders than we do. We only get to vote them in or out of office every four or five years. This is not democracy - and it was never supposed to be.
But if our politicians are too often unfit to govern, and come from a small class of privileged out of touch families, is it not time to put ordinary people right into the system of government and legislation? I propose a new People's Parliament be created to exist alongside the existing representative Parliament. It would be made of a large selection of ordinary members of the public. Members of the People's Parliament would
I propose that across the country, 9000 people would be chosen, 300 from each constituency, to serve one year in this new assembly. Those selected would be given 10 days off work a year, and paid to attend local assembly meetings and hearings. Volunteers from the 300 would be able to take up co-ordinator roles, to call witnesses, civil servants and members of the public to meetings to discuss government policy and issues of the day. Members would serve for one year only, with a possible option to serve a second year for the sake of continuity in the work of the people's Parliament. This way its members, either remotely online or in person, could make their decisions based on being informed about the issues. However, even if they do not attend, they would vote on all legislation. The people could watch these assemblies online or on TV (well, some would chose to do so).
The People's Parliament would have equal powers to our elected politicians. There is the question - a critical one - of who brings forward legislation. Currently the government is responsible for most legislation, but if it was up to popular proposition and members of the People's Parliament to bring forward legislation, the old party system would lose its monopoly on power. As in Switzerland and in some US states, if enough people outside Parliament sign a petition for a proposition, it should be put before Parliament.
Big media outlets will, of course, influence the public and politicians and could likewise influence the new members of a People's Parliament, but at least they would be deliberating without being controlled by party leaders.
Both the existing (not very) Representative Parliament and the Direct Democracy Peoples Parliament would deliberate on laws and policy. When it came to the vote, they would both vote and the votes would be combined. If there was a split vote, the vote of the People's Parliament, as the more representative model, would hold the casting vote.
Members of the PP might have a say in electing the Prime Minister and cabinet from the current Parliament - although for practical reasons, this might be limited. It would be too easy for deadlock to take place if the PP voted against the formation of a government from the majority party in the elected Representative Parliament. Members of the PP would not be able to serve as a member of the Government executive while they were serving for the People's Parliament. Currently, by contrast, over 100 members of our elected Parliament are actually serving in the executive, or waiting for their chance to do so, so don't represent their constituencies at all.
The Lords would of course have to go. The PP would be the new Lords - of the people.
Because members of the People's Parliament serve only one year (or optionally two years), they would not be subject to corrupting influences - and there would be too many of them to corrupt anyhow. They could not be tempted by an offer to join the government.
There is of course, the possibility that the PP and the Commons could end up in loggerheads in the way that the Congress and Senate are often deadlocked in the US. In this case, perhaps a provision would be needed for the People's Parliament to call for a general election to break the gridlock. However, Switzerland manages to combine representative and direct democracy successfully, with the latter enhancing the former.
I would suggest that no one could serve in the PP more than twice in their lifetimes. There is, of course, nothing stopping them from turning 'professional' and standing in the representative Parliament. Ideally, resources allowing, this 9000 number would be increased over time, to perhaps 90,000 people (3000 in each constituency) so that the People's Parliament was even more representative of the population.
One could argue that rather than have this half way house of semi-direct democracy, we could move entirely to a digital direct democracy system where the people are able to vote on all legislation and by petition of a minimum number of signatures (50 or 100,000 as in Switzerland) bring forward laws, as happens in US states with the proposition system. Perhaps the PP could be combined with an element of direct democracy, such as in proposing legislation, or even referenda on big issues - again, something that happens in Switzerland.
The argument for the People's Assembly is that democracy is deliberative and the 9000 can look at the issues in depth. Also, by allowing it to sit alongside the existing system, it would be less revolutionary and threatening to the existing order (addressing the fears of modern-day Madisons). This is a practical proposal that the professional politicians would find hard to argue against. They should, truly, support it - unless they really favour the current system of disguised oligarchy.
However, if we could move toward direct democracy, I would favour it, but I don't think it's practical for everyone to vote on all legislation effectively, without a mediating group of ordinary people who can do this more deliberatively, hence the need for a popular parliament.
How do we get there? I don't actually know, since this needs to become a popular demand. Perhaps it is pie in the sky - paralysis, gridlock, the fear of ineffective government would mitigate this ever coming to pass. But my ideas are just a starting point and they draw on a wide range of direct democracy experiences around the world.
The foundational principle behind this idea is that the combined wisdom and good sense of many thousands of ordinary people is inherently superior to that of a few hundred professional politicians who each have a huge personal and political stake in the preservation of the existing order. With digital technology, we have the means to make this happen. In the long run, it is probably inevitable. We are no longer a society with a small politically literate middle class and a wider population dominated by deference, although each country is different in this respect. In some religion or tribe is still very important. I don't say every country is ready for this, but then again, the representative system is clearly not able to cope with the new demands of democracy either, as seen in Ukraine and Egypt.
People tend to focus on issues of policy, rather than on the system of government that rules us. But rather than keep on electing disappointing politicians who let us down, let's create a system of crowdsourced democracy (to use the digital jargon) that genuinely brings about 'rule of the people'. After feudalism, monarch, dictatorship and elected oligarchy - let's move to the system that actually gives power to the people. Are you ready for it?
