Citizens’ juries can help fix democracy

Featured Sponsor

Store	Link	Sample Product
UK Artful Impressions	Premiere Etsy Store

“Brexit has failed.” This is now the vision of nigel farage, the man who arguably bears more responsibility than anyone for the UK’s decision to leave the EU. He’s right, not because the conservatives screwed him up, as he thinks, but because he was destined to go wrong. The question is why the country made this mistake. The answer is that our democratic processes don’t work very well. Adding referendums to elections does not solve the problem. but adding citizens’ assemblies could.

In its farewell speechGeorge Washington warned against factionalism. He argued that the “alternating domination of one faction over another. . . it is in itself a frightful despotism. But . . . The disorders and miseries that result gradually incline the minds of men to seek safety and repose in the absolute power of an individual.” If one looks at the United States today, that danger is clear. In current electoral politics, manipulating the emotions of a rationally misinformed electorate is the path to power. The result is likely to be rule by those with the greatest talent for demagogy.

Elections are necessary. But rampant majoritarianism is a disaster. A successful liberal democracy requires restrictive institutions: independent supervision of elections, an independent judiciary, and an independent bureaucracy. But are they enough? No. In my book, The crisis of democratic capitalismI follow Australian economist Nicholas Gruen in advocating the addition of citizens’ assemblies or citizens’ juries. These would insert an important element of ancient Greek democracy into the parliamentary tradition.

There are two arguments for introducing the draw (lottery) into the political process. In the first place, these assemblies would be more representative of what professional politicians can become. Secondly, it would mitigate the impact of political campaigns, nowadays more distorted by the arts of advertising and the algorithms of social networks.

A modest way to do this is to present citizens’ juries to advise on contentious issues. These jurors would be time-limited, compensated for their time, and advised by experts. One of the best examples was on the controversial issue of abortion in Ireland. In 2016, a deliberative assembly of 100 people was established, made up of a designated president and 99 ordinary people chosen by lot. He advised the Irish parliament on abortion (declaring himself in favor of “repealing and replacing” the then current ban), and on the question to put to the people in a referendum.

There are other difficult issues that could (or could have been) handled that way: carbon taxes; the nuclear energy; and immigration. In these cases, a citizens’ jury would be formed to hear the witnesses and discuss the issues in depth. There is evidence that such a citizens’ jury would have reached a different decision on Brexit than in the referendum, as the Leavers will change their minds in response to the evidence. These juries would be advisory. But, as the Irish example suggests, the advice would matter because of who gave it.

One could go much further by choosing a popular branch of the legislature. This could also be advice. But you might decide to investigate particularly hot topics or even legislation. If he did the latter, he could ask that the legislation be returned to the legislature for secret ballots, thus reducing control of partisan politics. The town house might even have oversight of issues such as electoral redistricting or the selection of judges and officials.

Another possibility would be to leave the supervision of referendums to this House. He would analyze the underlying issues, deliver a report, and agree to an appropriate motion. This would eliminate the greatest historical danger of referendums: their use to establish despotic control over politics under the rubric of “the will of the people.”

Introducing citizens directly into the political process, as they are known to juries, could bring the common sense of the public into politics in a way that would be complementary to elections for political leaders.

Citizens’ assemblies could be started on a purely private basis. Donations would be needed to get some particularly important items off the ground. In the UK, I suggest one on immigration. Participants would need financial compensation and resources would need to be found to run them. gruen suggests that a fully funded citizens’ assembly of 100 people meeting 26 days a year and receiving a fee of $150 for each session day would cost about $15 million annually in the US or EU. Suppose a citizens’ assembly had fully investigated the claims in the Brexit debate: how much cost could it have avoided!

There is a lively debate among political scientists about whose preferences are reflected in democratic politics. The evidence is that the The preferences of the richest are overrepresented. But just as important is the extent to which manipulation influences how preferences are formed.

This is where assemblies could be most useful. After my experiences as a juror, I have come to share Alexis de Tocqueville’s view that juries are a fundamental institution of citizenship. Given time and open debate, ordinary people show great insight. Lacking the lust for power, they could contribute enormously to our public debates.

Washington was right: factional conflict is not the only way to implement democracy. We should add the voices of ordinary people, in whose name democracies are supposedly governed.

martin.wolf@ft.com

Follow Martin Wolf with miFT and in Twitter