Skip to main content

The Human Scale of Democracy: Trust and Responsibility

By this point you'll have noticed a common theme throughout these posts: namely that democracy is so much more than what happens at the voting booth or in representative assemblies. In today's world, deliberative, locally centred, decision-making practices are overlooked at best, and ignored or abused at worst. A narrow conception of democracy concentrates power in the hands of "experts", reduces our political complexity to the anonymous expression of our desires through voting, and segregates decisions from citizens. Isolated attempts to engage community members, such as public hearings, obviate the best parts of democracy (as outlined in this previous post).

So how do we begin building and modelling better approaches?


Trust and responsibility are two places to start. Trust is the deeper, more personal, version of accountability. Responsibility is an intended characteristic of political citizenship. The idea is that if we take responsibility for participating actively in society, we'll build trusting relationships with one another.

Consider the following two democratic exercises: a public poll requesting resident approval to increase the municipal budget to pay for more street lighting, and a nonprofit organization deciding whether or not to open a second location. In the first example, individual voters may not have any context or background regarding the request, and may not have relationships with elected officials. There will not be a great deal of trust. By participating in the poll anonymously, residents are not likely to feel much responsibility for the outcome of their collective decision. Although the decision may have some impact on them personally, the majority are unlikely to seriously consider the implications of voting one way or the other.

In the case of the nonprofit, it's likely that Board members do know members of the organization, and also clients. If it's a smaller nonprofit there are likely to be many discussions, both formal and informal, about the opportunity to open a new location. Not only that, but many of those involved in the decision will also have a responsibility to participate and support the new centre if they decide to proceed. All of the members, board directors, volunteers, and staff will be implicated in the decision itself. No one is in the position where they can say 'yes' or 'no' without feeling the impact of the consequences. The process to make a decision will feel very different to everyone involved, there will be an opportunity for innovative approaches and alternatives to be explored, and the ultimate decision could be more sustainable and effective (there's research to support this).

In fact, if the board tries to make a decision through an overtly formal or bureaucratic process, they are likely to be met with resistance and disappointment from the members and staff. Where trust, relationships, and responsibility exist, impersonal democratic mechanisms like polls feel inauthentic and out of place - for good reason.

Democracy treats each of us as equal participants in community decision-making. But good decisions come about when we feel some responsibility for the outcome, and when we have trusting relationships with each other and those making the decision. This is why centralized decision-making is not conducive to robust democratic practices, and why we need to consider making decisions at a level that makes actual real-life human relationships possible. Good democracy removes anonymity from the equation; it's why online forums and comments are a nightmare - they're completely devoid of the trust and responsibility that accompanies robust, discursive, decision-making.

So if you're involved with a group decision, spend some time building trust, and think about the different responsibilities of everyone involved. Even better, ask yourself: what do you feel responsible for in your community? What could you be responsible for, and what would that make possible?


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Problem with Voting

Voting at the polls is a cornerstone of democracy today. When we think about, and understand, democratic participation, we imagine casting some kind of vote for some kind of person or issue in some kind of election.

Unfortunately, a focus on voting narrows the possibilities for democratic participation, which is really all about shared decision-making. Don't get me wrong, voting is important. It took us about 2500 years to set up voting as an actual mechanism to make decisions, and even now it's certainly not a widespread practice. The right to vote is a contested aspiration in many corners of the world, and we should support the right of each and every person to an equal voice in community decision making.

However, an exclusive focus on voting carries a significant risk. The concept of democracy is an aspiration; an aspiration to share decision-making, and to enable each other, as equals, to participate in decision-making. Decision-making cannot always be achieved with a sin…

Running for office: no experience necessary

There are moments when I hear people question the qualifications and experience of those who are running for, or hold, positions in office. Shouldn't there be some minimum, established, standard or criteria for holding a public position of power? Some minimum level of education?

The short answer is no. If we start looking to impose minimum standards or benchmarks other than: 1) residency, 2) adulthood* we've missed the whole point of democracy, and a critical part of what democracy means. A fundamental democratic principle is equality of voice, or equality of voting. Every person has decision-making power. This principle is based on the concept that not a single one of us is more qualified, or has any right, to impose decision-making or power over others, any more than they also have a right to impose decision-making or power over us.

By contrast, in other spheres of life, we want trained experts to hold some degree of decision-making power. For example, Doctors should probabl…

Why public hearings are terrible

It's a typical public hearing, and over a dozen speakers have arrived to speak for or against the proposed development. When called, each speaker heads up to the microphone and passionately relays their personal perspective on why the new development should, or should not, be permitted.

At the end of the hearing none of the speakers has changed their mind, and very few have learned anything new. Council makes their decision. Those who are aligned with the vote rejoice, while those opposed to the decision lament and decry the process as well as the decision.

A democratic exercise? Certainly doesn't feel like one. Public hearings are notorious for leaving council members exhausted, members of the public frustrated, and decisions that seldom seem connected to the proceedings themselves. This format and mechanism are partially products of our focus on democracy as accountability and equality of voice. At a public hearing, any resident can register to speak, and views are expressed…