The paradox of Eureka: Moving forward with the spirit of democracy

The evidence we have seems to be telling us that the spirit of democracy is alive and well in Australia 150 years after Eureka, but is again feeling some constraint. There is pressure to re-release the spirit of democracy. This pressure has not gone unnoticed by the promoters of more direct forms of democracy such as CIR but also by astute political actors working within the conventional representative form of democracy. The elite response, favoured by the major political parties - to a greater or lesser extent - is to encourage public consultation under conditions in which they can retain ultimate control. And the populist response, favoured some minor parties and independents is to give power to the people to decide on public policy through CIR.

There are problems, however, with both these approaches and the long-term outcomes may not deliver the benefits their promoters claim in making people feel more involved in political decision-making. For CIR to really work we need an informed electorate engaged with the issues of the day. This we do not have and overseas experience indicates that CIR will not change this state of affairs much. The upshot would be that the process would be susceptible to manipulation by powerful interests and ideologues. More public consultation, which leaves the agenda and the final decision in the hands of government bodies, is also unlikely to bridge the democratic divide.

My proposal to meet the desire for greater public participation in decision-making and, at the same time, overcome most of the objections that have been raised to CIR and the elite response of increased community consultation, is to establish a new institution which I have termed the Deliberative People’s Assembly (DPA). This institution would operate in a similar manner to Deliberative Polls which are familiar to some people.  As an alternative to existing proposals for CIR, 300 to 500 citizens, randomly but scientifically selected, would form a microcosm of the population at large to deliberate on issues referred to them by citizen petition. After being fully briefed on the proposal, listening to evidence and argument from advocates and opponents and discussing the issue among themselves in small groups, they would vote to accept or reject the proposals on behalf of all of us.

Because the “raw opinion” and political attitudes of an assembly of this nature and size would approximate those of the population as a whole, a DPA would provide a counterfactual of what the Australian people would have decided in a referendum if we all had had the time and the inclination to inform ourselves about, and to deliberate upon, the issue.  It would represent the “informed” judgment of the people.

DPAs have a much greater potential than merely serving as a deliberative alternative to CIR. They could also replace the Senate and state Legislative Councils, or upper houses. DPAs would allow informed public opinion to be consulted on contentious legislation on which the major parties cannot agree. Legislation which attracted broad support in the lower house (say two thirds majority support) would pass automatically without being referred to a DPA. In the case of the minority of contentious legislation, however, the government and the opposition would have to argue their case before randomly selected representatives of the people. If the government proposals were voted down, then the situation would be as it is now when the government is unable to get legislation through the Senate. It could be put up in the same or an amended form to another DPA.

DPAs would provide an opportunity for large numbers of citizens, over time, to play a direct part in the policy-making process, perhaps with each group being brought together to  consider one major piece of legislation and then being replaced by another to provide the maximum opportunity for as many citizens as possible to serve. If everyone had a reasonable expectation of being asked to serve on an assembly at some time during their lives this should increase the general interest in the political process. DPAs would also provide a considerable impetus to place greater emphasis in the educational system on training in citizenship in the classical sense of the word.