Framework for a new liberal democracy

Introduction:

The Arab Spring movement has illustrated that populations can mobilize and act in hours or days after key events have galvanized public opinion.  Social networking through tweets, blogs, facebook posts and the like allow popular consensus to grow and the physical mobilizing of the population to take place.  Governments can police society, but the police and military rely on the ability to control a disorganized public:  shifting from place to place to extinguish subversive sparks before they burst into flames.  It used to be possible to control activists by controlling the leaders, but in the age of social media activism the leadership comes more from common discontent...it may not be possible to identify specific leaders, without whom the mass movement would come to an end.

There is a lesson here for western democracies; either find solutions to social discontent or social activism will mobilize activism that will force change and find new leaders who will provide it.

Curiously our earliest ancestors of western democracy had the solution.  All responsible voters (all male regrettably) were expected to gather to discuss matters of importance to the city state.  One man one vote and with all interested voters assembled the mood of the masses could galvanize into popular action the way modern activists convene across huge distances.

Controversy aversion vs public discontent:  How to reconstruct democracy to make use of broader public input

Western democracies have adapted to function over a distance through use of representative democracy.  We don't truly have democracies any more except when our elected representatives convene. They assemble and democracy is possible within the walls that surround them.  In our current age the public wants to be heard within those walls and is watching through the mass media.

Social networking and mass media now place our democratic assemblies into a difficult situation.  Any view expressed by a representative runs the risk of alienating a section of the public.  During a debate about medicare a representative inadvertently makes a joke about traditional Catholic families being large because of outdated views on birth control.  Overnight  that representative may lose the support of 1/3 of her Catholic voters.  This tends to happen more for negative than positive reasons.  The media overlooks all things reasonable and focuses on negative controversy which attracts readers and viewers. 

The paradox is this:  the greater the need for government action, the greater the controversy involved, and the greater the possibility for loss of popular electoral support.  Standing up and saying "I want to reduce the number of handguns in our nation, enable more single parents to work, and give away condoms in all schools," would be enough to lose you an election for an incumbent, even one who has performed admirably and responsibly.

Every voter  over 40 surely will remember the controversy over the debates over GST, free trade and gun registration.   Despite huge opposition governments have not simply repealed these measures because attempted repeal would activate new opposition and lose votes.  The safest course to win elections is always inactivism except where public sentiment nears the unanimous.  The United states is now having to deal with a hangover from the 9-11 disaster which has resulted in multi-billion dollar wars and Draconian restrictions on public liberties. These actions and measures were possible because at a single point in time the public was willing to entertain extreme measures to cope with a perceived Arab threat to the homeland.

Solution to the problem

Their needs to be a role shift for our elected leaders, a role  for leadership in an age of electronic activism.  Our representatives need to shift from being solvers of the problem to being framers of alternative solution.  Here is an example that resonates in Manitoba at the moment.  There is concern because a driver in his 80's killed a child driving his car.  Suddenly there is sentiment to get old drivers screened and make it difficult for them to keep their licenses.

This furor will of course wane, and next month the concern will be for drug free driving, then a controversy will spring up about prescription drugs and driving and so on.  Each movement will be followed by politicians making grave statements and taking no actions for fear of losing votes of the old, the young, and the sick respectively.

Our representatives should be encouraged to construct a range of alternatives for public debate, obtain research on the support for these alternatives, followed by debate and action on an alternative that has the broadest range of public support.

For example with respect to the old and driving, legislature debate could be held on "what alternatives are reasonable." Let us suppose the views of the legislature roughly grouped as per below.   I constructed these alternatives in minutes,  they are only intended for example not realistic debate.

a. Mandated cessation of driving privileges at a set age
b. Driving tests for everyone past a certain age repeated every <so many> years
c. As per (b) except the tests are for reactions, perception, and decision making
d. End of driving privileges at an age when statistics show a high rate of accidents and fatalities
e. More rigorous testing equally for the entire population to all populations of high-risk drivers off the road
f. Scale insurance so that risky drivers have to pay more than they are likely able to afford to keep driving.

Committees could then "fine tune" proposed legislation, and summarize their proposals in a form suitable for debate. The public would be polled to assess general support for the possible solutions.  Let us suppose that one of these views captures 20% more public support, and for sake of argument assume it is alternative e.

The government then should feel obligated to construct legislation based on that alternative and the public comments, and bring it to a vote. 

This solution offers some notable advantages:

• action can be taken without risk from minority and sensational opposition, the proposed solution would already have broad public support,
• leadership can make use of the diversity of opinion within the party rather than suffer from it,
• the public realizes that for better or worse it has been seriously consulted,
• action is not taken just because the issue is perceived as critical due to sensational media reporting,
• the media would be unable to call "foul" if the electorate had been consulted
• action would be enabled on issues that everyone insists are important but serious social divisions exist making huge pluralities impossible for any action.

Think of all the issues that exist currently that everyone agrees are serious but our representatives are reluctant to tackle such as:

• the need to decide on which if any drugs that are currently illegal need to be considered for legalization
• the need for universal daycare that is affordable
• the need to deal with the issue of right-to-die under suitable conditions, or simply as a democratic right
• the need to find a solution for rising health-care costs and the demand for wider access to expensive services that have been proven effective
• action on lowering crime through more severe punishment or through better rehabilitation
• significant settlement of issues related to Aboriginal peoples and public response to unfair treatment historically

At our current rate of decision making each of these issues would take decades to solve. Basically our democracies do nothing until cricis necessitates action (wars and disasters), the courts force decisions (Canadian courts decrimilize prostitution), or public optinion moves so far ahead of leadership that decisions can me made without risk (leglaized abortions).  Exceptions to this rule such as the Canada-US free trade agreement do happen occasionally but tend to bring the government down with the action. 

However social media is gaining power day by day, and an eHannibal armed with iPhones will soon be at the gates.  It is time to reform western democracy to take advantage of a responsive socially aware public to find the mechanisms to build consensus around the most supportable alternatives. When that happens democracy will truly be more than representative, and an end can be seen to widespread government lethargy and public alienation.  In particular we might have a solution to almost universal alienation of the young who have long sensed the irrelevance of government to their lives.