citizens' assemblies?
As citizens, reclaiming the right to vote directly on issues, rather than voting for representatives to act on our behalf, does seem like a more convincing form of democracy than the current model – one in which we are reduced to observers, rather than engaged participants. However, the very notion of voting is, in itself, somewhat problematic; unless there is an accepted objective against which the options we’re voting for can be measured, voting simply results in a subjective view being imposed onto everyone, merely on it’s popularity, not it’s merit.
A citizens’ assembly will be convened to consider, and then vote on, two opposing perspectives, where a spokesperson for each will take the opportunity to promote their cause, whilst discrediting the other, and then the citizens will take a side, based on that presentation and their own biases. The side with the majority wins. The point is that popularity does not equate to better, let alone best, the latter being what we should always strive for. That will only be achieved when subjective concerns are removed, and there is an agreed mandate on which the different proposals can be assessed. Voting without a broader objective is futile, and will always be a compromise, therefore not anywhere close to better, let alone best.
The intention is that citizens’ assemblies offer the opportunity to inform the people so that their vote is less biased, demonstrating that being informed and responding to that information is preferable. Taking that to its logical conclusion, if everyone were fully informed, they would all agree, and voting would be superfluous. The best approach is simply to take our guidance directly from the information and remove ignorance, self-interest, prejudice, and bias from the process altogether.
There are just too many differing points of view to realistically consider, which unavoidably create an arena for argument, rather than the vehicle for change we desperately need. We have to bypass individual perspectives and group concerns, and pursue the policies that serve the whole of humanity and the future. We know what to do – the information is there, thanks to all the organisations, scientists, researchers, and dedicated people who have amassed it over the past decades. The emphasis should simply be on implementing that understanding, not arguing amongst ourselves about how it will affect us personally.
June 2024