|
Bright Future for Democracy? |
For the WFSF Regional Conference on "The future of democracy in developing countries," Islamabad, Pakistan, October 23-27.
Published as "Bright future for democracy? in The future of democracy in developing countries, co-edited with Ikram Azam and Sohail Inayatullah. Islamabad, Pakistan: National Book Foundation, 1994
Jim Dator
I very much hope that each and every person in this room is willing and able to keep those considerations, and more, in mind as we contemplate the future of democracy in developing, and in all, nations--and indeed more: as we consider the future of democracy perhaps in a world where the nation-state is much less dominant, or perhaps not existent at all.
No Democratic Governments. Let me make myself absolutely clear from the outset. Though "democracy" is one of the most popular words in the vocabulary of virtually all political systems everywhere in the world, from my perspective, there is no democratic polity anywhere on the face of the earth today. Although there are other significant differences between them, and while I am very happy that I was able to live under the aegis of one rather than the other, the government of the United States of America is no more a satisfactory model of "democracy" than were the old "people's democracies" of the heyday of Communism (but of course, those systems weren't very good examples of "Communism" in my understanding either. But that's another story).
Nonetheless, some existing governments tend slightly, and some even significantly, towards democracy more than do others. For example, the polities of Scandinavia and Holland are significantly more democratic than is that of the United States. Indeed, the polities of many European countries, and of Japan and much of Oceania, just to name a few, are significantly more democratic (though still far from adequately democratic) than is the government of the US. But of course the American situation is not the result of faulty political design, venal politicians, or lazy citizens. To the contrary, the Founding Fathers who wrote and ratified the US Constitution in the 18th Century purposefully designed the US federal government so that it would NOT be and could not easily become democratic, and they were quite clever and successful in doing that. [Parenti, Chapter 4]
At the same time, it must be said that some of the states and cities of the US have somewhat more democratic structures than does the US federal government per se, but the political powers of the US federal government are so much more important and pervasive than are those of the states or municipalities that the overall consequence of governance in the US is that it is non-democratic.
Participation.The biggest single indicator of democracy, in my opinion is participation. The more effectively each individual citizen can participate directly in all aspects of governance of interest to that citizen, the closer the polity comes to being "democratic." Please note that there thus is, in my understanding, more to good governance than just "democracy." For example there are matters concerning what it is that "government" is supposed to do--that is to say, what are the proper "functions" of government?--and the related question of what are the "structures" though which governance is carried out? There is also grave concern about the government's role in the protection and enhancement (or violation) of fundamental civil and other human rights. In addition, what is the relation of political to economic and other social, cultural, technological, and environmental institutions? What claim, if any, does government lay to the legitimate use of force either over other members of the community or over those defined as being outside of it? There are many other issues which need to be addressed when one is interested in good government for the 21st Century. And there is of course both a participatory and a democratic element in each of them as well!
Similarly, there are many issues related to "participation" itself. We normally focus concern on situations where a person is denied the opportunity to participate in an activity one wants to be active in. But we should not forget that the opposite situation is equally undesirable: when you are forced to participate in something you don't want to participate in. Moreover certain kinds of participation are more automatic, or at least more vital, than others: In the US, it is possible to live a good and full life and never participate in the US political system at all. But try as you might, it is impossible to live a good life, and hard to live at all in the US without fully, actively, and continuously participating in the US economic system. You must participate in the economic system whether you want to or not, and a great deal of time, effort, and money is expended in urging, or forcing, you to participate in the economy. Comparatively speaking, the time, effort, and money expended in helping citizens participate in governance is virtually non-existent. Indeed, while most political scientists believe that non-participation in politics is a sign of citizen apathy and an indication of an impending crisis of legitimacy, a few view it as a measure of citizen contentment: people are so satisfied they don't even bother to vote at all. Non-participation in economics, however, is seen by everyone as the sign of a lazy bum, a leech on the system, a despicable unAmerican.
Just Watching. It would seem obvious that participation usually involves some form of activity. But sometimes, "just watching" can be a viable mode of participation as well, perhaps more important than "being there" and "being active" as, for example, when "the whole world is watching" as it did when these words were first chanted while the American television audience saw police beat demonstators outside of the Democratic Party Convention in Chicago in 1968, or more recently as the world watched the events on Tiananmen Square in 1989, the coup in Moscow in August 1991 and the beating of Rodney King by Los Angeles Police in 1992 on the Cable News Network.
Voting. Of course there are many ways in which one may participate in politics in the United States. Probably the one most people think of, or mean, when they discuss political participation is voting. [Crotty] Yet, in the American system especially, voting is a very weak and indirect mode of participation. With some dramatic, and sometimes important, exceptions, there is very little of a direct connection between my act of voting once every two or so years and all the myriad policies which govern my daily life.
Indeed, voting is arguably the least important, though most frequently exercised, mode of political participation there is. Even so, very few American citizens exercise it. [Burnham, Shienbaum, Avey] In even hotly contested presidential elections, where voters were given a clear choice between a Ronald Reagan and a not-Ronald Reagan, less than half of the eligible voters voted, and so Ronald Reagan was chosen president not by the majority of his fellow Americans but by half of the third who bothered to vote. Most Americans either were so happy with their government that they didn't bother to vote at all, or were so disgusted with it that they didn't bother to vote.
Other forms of political participation. There are other ways to be politically active. In order to be able to vote in the US, you first must make the effort to register to vote. Most people don't bother register, and in many jurisdictions, it is not very easy to register even if you want to.Then, in order to make an informed vote, you need to listen to or read about political issues, platforms, and debates. This is not an easy thing to do in the US either. Not only are candidates and political parties (with some exceptions) very vague about where they stand on issues--if they were clear, they might lose some votes--but getting whatever campaign literature there is, beyond that containing empty slogans and catch phrases, is very difficult for the average citizen who has many things to do with her life besides trying to track down and understand information about complex political issues.
Most people, everywhere in the world, do not really know what they think about matters until they have talked them over with people who are important to them. Thus another important aspect of political participation is discussing political issues with family, friends, neighbors, and fellow workers. [Barber] But, again in the US, folks don't like to talk about politics with their friends any more than they like to talk about religion: that is a good way to get into an argument, and maybe a fight, and to lose a friend, or even a spouse. So it is best to avoid political discourse altogether and talk about something pleasant and noncontroversial.
Now let's move into the really active modes of political participation. You might decide you like a political candidate or political party so much that you are willing to go door to door telling other people how good the candidate or party is. This is called canvassing. In Hawaii before election time, you will also see many people standing by the side of the road, holding signs with candidates' names on them and waving at people driving by. If the people passing by like your candidate, they might wave and honk their horn. If they don't like your candidate, they might yell, gesture rudely, or throw things at you. That can be dangerous. If you really like a candidate, you might make some kind of a legal, or illegal, financial contribution. If you are wise, and wealthy, you will make some kind of a token financial contribution to all candidates who have any chance of winning, and give a lot of money--and I mean a lot of money--to the candidate you want to buy in order to be sure he or she will protect and further your interests.Indeed, money is far more important than votes. It is clearly and everywhere far more effective to buy a politician than to vote for one. At a recent workshop in New York state on the topic, "The paralysis of American politics," Murray Levin was quoted as saying that the present political system in the US is "a service industry for the affluent." (In a column written by David Broder, Honolulu Advertiser, September 23, 1993) I agree completely.
Access. Electing your preferred politician to office is certainly not enough in order to have any influence over policy decisions. Once someone is elected to a policymaking position, you need to write, phone, or personally visit that person--and all the other people--involved in making decisions which affect you in order to make sure they consider, and hopefully actively and successfully support, your position. That can be time consuming. And it requires that you thoroughly understand how the political process actually works. It also means that you have the courage to contact all of the right people, and that they will pay attention to you when you do contact them. And that might depend on how much money you gave them.
Believing that there might be strength in numbers, some people also join a political party, or a political interest group or a so-called political pressure group--one which will actively lobby on their behalf, seeking out political and administrative officers and speaking to (or even bribing) them . But very few ordinary citizens have sufficient time and money to join such groups. And anyway, joining a political action group simply raises within the group itself all of the problems about democracy and participation that I have been talking about vis a vis formal politics anyway. Most political action groups are even less democratic than are supposedly democratic governments, and it is as difficult for the average member to have her voice heard in a political interest group as it is in formal government.
Litigation. In the US system, because of the peculiar position of the judiciary, and especially the United States Supreme Court with its acquired power of judicial review, litigation--law suits--are another very important, very powerful, very time consuming, and very expensive way to influence public policy. So suing some one, or breaking the law and being brought to court, are very popular ways, comparatively speaking, of participating in American politics.Sometimes poor and underprivileged people have used these techniques successfully, as the American civil rights movement attests. But it is clearly something that the average citizen cannot expect to resort to routinely. Of course people who have enough money to obtain the services of the best lawyers can, and do.
Demonstrations. Marches, demonstrations, varities of civil disobedience, and even conscious acts of revolution are all acts of political participation as well.But they all are very costly to everyone involved and hence very infrequently used. Moreover, it is not always clear where the line between principled civil disobedience and criminal lawlessness is drawn. Some people say what happened in Los Angeles in 1992 was a riot (hence, criminal). Others say it was a rebellion (hence, political).
My bottom line conclusion is that in the US, most citizens (individually or collectively) have no way to influence public policy directly or effectively, and thus that the US is not now a democracy.
Initiative, Referendum, Recall. The only exception to that conclusion is in those few states and municipalitiies which have initiative, referendum, and/or recall. In those situations it is possible for citizens directly (and collectively) to initiate legislation (direct some legislature to consider an issue); vote yes or no on certain specifically-phrased issues (referendum), and recall (remove) an elected official. These are important rights. But it is important to realize that most states and localities do not permit any of these three modes, and that none of these three can be used at the US national (federal) level. So no US citizen can affect national public policy directly at all.
Expanding franchise. The right to vote and the ease of voting have both slowing expanded over the 200+ year history of the US. Voting at one time was restricted to a few property-holding free white men. In some matters, a religious test was applied. Until recently it was necessary to be literate in the English language. Over the years, the franchise has expanded to poor white men, non-white men, women, and, most recently, to young adults (when the voting age was reduced from 21 to 18). Isn't this an indication that the US is becoming more democratic? Not really.
While more categories of people have been given the right to vote, fewer people, in all categories, but especially in those more recently given the right, have bothered to vote. In all countries, the proportion of eligible persons actually voting is declining. And the proportion of those engaged in any of the other measures of political participation--from reading political material, watching political programs and talking about political issues all the way to contributing to political candidates, marching in political demonstrations, and engaging in political revolution--are down. And this is true even in those parts of the world that recently cast off the forms of people's democracy and have now embraced those of liberal democracy because rates of formal--and essentially forced--participation in the people's democracies was so high. But even the initial burst of participation--civil disobedience most certainly included--has now declined and is approaching the levels of democracies in these newly liberated parts of the world. Of course "riots" are up and rising, but the political trends are down.
Why is this so? Could it be that people are becoming fed up with the sham of current political structures and are refusing to participate, even though they often voice their refusal in terms of dislike of politicians or policies, rather than in terms of the inadequacies of the available modes of participation, so blinded are they by the myth of democracy? Perhaps. But unfortunately I feel the captivating power of the myth is still too strong to enable people to see that it is essential to reconceptualize and restructure democratic governance. Although huge numbers of Americans are thoroughly dissillusioned with their politicians and policies (or lack of policies), the Flag and the Constitution remain completely above reproach or even reconsideration.
Other polities. Now I admit that my discussion has focussed almost exclusively on US forms of governance. But recollect that I said at the outset that there are existing structures of governance which are markedly more democratic than is that of the US. I do not have the time here to examine any of them, but let me assure you that such an examination would convince you that while these governments are more democratic than the US, they are far from being sufficiently democratic. They all operate mainly through representatives and other indirect modes so that there is too much time, and too many intervening variables, between when a citizen "participates" and when she feels the impact of all the policies allegedly made on her behalf by her "representatives." At the same time, there are some governments which, though they label themselves "democratic," are actually so undemocratic in structure and/or practice that they make the US look wildly democratic in comparison.
Television. Much is heard these days about the role of television in political discourse, participation, and policy making. It is clear that television has rendered problematic all we think we can learn about politics and participation from anything said or done in the past. All existing structures of would-be democratic governance were invented before mass society with its mass media existed. For the most part, they were concerned with the problems of late-agricultural and emerging industrial states. Very few were designed with the problems and possibilities of mature industrial states in mind, and fewer still were concerned with post-industrialism and post-modernity, which is where most "developed" states find themselves, or soon will. [Anderson] In most of these countries, and certainly in the US, television has totally distorted if not actually destroyed, all aspects of the intended operation of representative governments--just as it has distorted and more clearly destroyed all aspects of the formal educational system which was also invented to serve the needs of the liberal industrial state. [Parenti 1986, Dye & Zeigler, Margolis & Mauser] There is no point in pretending this is not so, and there is no point in trying to "go back" to days before television was invented. The only reasonable point is to try more clearly to understand what television and all the other present and emerging forms of electronic and post-electronic communication are doing to the way we think about ourselves and others, and to envision and invent forms of democratic governance and modes of democratic participation based upon these new realities and possibilities. [Linstone, Tehranian]
So let's do that. Given the past and trends, what might the future of democratic participation be?
End of Liberal Democracy? That socio-political arrangement which most Americans, and even most Europeans, designate as "democratic" does not have a very bright future, in my opinion. "Liberal Democracy"--representative governments of the Rousseau-Locke-Jefferson type--are not long for this world. While many people were crowing about the triumph of "democracy" after the collapse of so-called communism in the late 1980s, the probable demise of liberal democracy and its handmaiden, capitalism, is everywhere apparent.
This is most clearly obvious for the case of American presidential "democracy" which itself is a particularly exotic, fragile, dangerous, and perverse form of pre-democratic governance. My colleage, Fred Riggs, at the University of Hawaii has devoted much of his time recently showing that, while the presidential system has been relatively stable in the US, it has been a complete and terrifying disaster anywhere in the world it has been exported. He recently has strongly argued against the new European nations adopting the American system, so dangerous and volatile it is. [Riggs 1988 and 1992a]
Riggs is also pessimistic about the future of democracy per se: "All representative governments are vulnerable to disruption, especially in the third world where they have only recently been established. Although revolutions and foreign interventions are possible factors, the most likely causes arise from an imbalance between the effective power potential of constitutive systems and the state bureaucracies under their authority. Angered and frustrated officials, anxious to protect their income, perquisities and status will, under the leadership of a military cabal and with popular support, seize power and attempt to restore order and security while promoting developmental ambitions." [Riggs, 1992b, p. 44]
So the optimistic view might be that some forms of European parliamentary governance might continue to exist in some of the smaller countries of Europe, especially those which continue to have monarchies (again, Scandinavia and Holland--not England, certainly) and perhaps--though probably not-- in Germany and France; and in one or two of the newly emerging countries--I am thinking primarily of Catalonia though there may be some others. But good old liberal representative democracy will likely come to an end by the early 21st Century in the rest of Europe, old and new, and in Japan and India, and fail to become established in the rest of Asia, Africa, and South America.
An opportunity.It would be a grave error if anyone were to conclude from the above that I believe it is futile to attempt to create democratic governments in and for the future, especially in what is now called "the third world." Quite to the contrary! My point is to stress that, since no democratic governments exist in the world today, and the trends are against their emergence anywhere, there can be a bright future for democracy if, and only if, democrats seize the opportunity of the present to envision and create new forms of democracy. Plainly there is much to learn from the limitations and failures of past and present democratic attempts. But there is little to be gained, I feel, by merely copying and only marginally adapting any existing form of government. We can, and must, do better if we want to attain true democracy.
Neo-confucian. In my judgement, various Neo-confucian forms show great promise in East Asia. Singapore is more likely the wave of the future than an aberration. In Japan, the movement to junk the present constitution, which was probably originally written in English by Americans and thrust upon the Japanese by the American Occupation, will continue to grow, and probably succeed. While the Japanese have done a marvelous job of adapting the foreign parliamentary system to their preferred cultural modes of decision making, it is only natural that a more indigenous form of government--and, I hope a more futuristic one as well--will eventually, and probably rather soon, emerge. Neo-confucian political theories, practices, and structures are likely to have a larger role in a new Japanese constitution (or whatever it will be called) and Anglo-American and other European political theories, practices and structures will surely become much more rare.
Islamic. Islamic forms of governance seem certain to demonstrate great vigor for the future everywhere. But I leave their discussion to the many in attendance here who are vastly more wise in these matters than I could ever pretend to be.
It is likely that all these governments everywhere will, at least initially, call themselves "democratic" though I suspect that even the term will die out, or becoming negatively evaluated, everywhere as it declines in the (and with the) West. There is plenty of room for "participation" in Confucian, Islamic, and other revitalized forms of governance, just as there was in the old people's democracies of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.
New forms of democracy. Are there any new forms for democracy? In the mid 1980s, David Held and Christopher Pollitt of the Open University in England, edited a book with that very title. [Held and Christopher] Most of their examples don't seem all that new to me. Generally, they beg the very questions of democracy and participation within the organizations they feature in ways I mentioned above. The book has chapters on industrial democracy, community politics, feminism (a perspective on democratic governance which I very strongly commend), democratization of political parties, electronic direct democracy, democratizing bureaucracy, and the possibilities of a democratic world system.
This last essay is particularly interesting, however. In it, John Burnheim of the University of Sydney, Australia, suggests the validity at the global level of the essential idea of his 1985 book Is democracy possible? That is the idea of "demarchy" which Burnheim defines as a "system in which each citizen or group would have a say in each specific area of decision in proportion to its material interest in that area." [Burnheim in Held and Pollitt, p. 227] Who such people might be for any particular political issue is not determined by conventional voting in elections or referenda. Rather Burnheim says, "The simplest way of arriving at a committee that is representative of the diverse interests in a particular population is to take a statistically representative sample of that population." [Ibid., p. 228] I will come back to that idea, as well as global governance, in a few minutes.
Electronic direct democracy. But first let me comment on another new form for democracy which is also mentioned briefly in the Open University volume. Those of you who have known me for a while know that I still believe that it is possible to use television, and other, newer, forms of electronic communications, to invent a form of democratic governance that would make old Pericles, and the other theorists and practitioners of Athenian direct democracy, quite proud.
Like everyone else, I don't know whether to thank or curse Ross Perot for his brief venture into American presidential politics. In my case, because of his apparent interest in electronic town meetings, Perot did for direct electronic democracy what no one else has been able to do: to start a serious discussion of the possibility of electronic democracy. But, like everything else Perot did, or tried to do, the discussion went nowhere, and where it did go was mainly trivial or maliciously wrong. In the hands of a person like Ross Perot, democracy, especially electronic democracy, might end up as simply one more roadside attraction in a big theme park called "Democracy Land."
Still, I am absolutely convinced that something much more closely approaching true democratic, participative governance is possible using the concepts of electronic democracy which Christa Slaton, Ted Becker, Majid Tehranian and myself in Hawaii, and others elsewhere, have already very well explored. I have encountered no objection to electronic direct democracy which has not already been satisfactorily answered by their research and publications. Virtually all current discussion, academic as well as popular, about electronic democracy simply reveals the utter ignorance, unconscious fear, or purposeful distortion of the extensive research which has already been done on various forms and possibilities of electronic direct democracy. Indeed, I feel that it should be possible, with dedication, care and time, to knit together a global governance network via electronic direct democracy.[Slaton, Tehranian, Dator 1983a. See also McLean]
The most recent World Conference of the World Futures Studies Federation, held last October in Barcelona, Catalonia, was on the theme, "Advancing Participation and Democracy." I wrote a little paper for the working group on Communication and Participation there which I titled, "I want my ITV" (ITV meaning "interactive television"; television systems where viewers can fully interact with program performers and/or producers as well perhaps with other viewers). The paper was a summary of my understanding of the way changes in communication technologies have changed the possibility and substance of governance, including democratic governance, over time. It concluded with an initial exploration, very preliminary, of the impact of virtual reality and other emerging forms of communication on democracy and democratic participation. It also summarized some of the discussion about the emerging political and other Rights of Robots and of other forms of artificial intelligence and post-homosapiential life. [Dator, 1992a]
If you don't like high tech democracy, then consider other more appropriate forms of participatory democratic governance. Almost all other social institutions everywhere are in the throes of such reconsideration--businesses, labor unions, social movements, even churches and the military. Yet almost no one is focussing on the design of new forms of civil governance.
Global governance. It is clear that the biggest immediate challenge from the future is the invention of democratic forms of global governance. I have shown above that there are many people focussing on local, community-scale governance, and some suggestions for new nations, but the real need is for democratic, participatory global governance to balance, and regulate, all the other global economic, technological, social, cultural, and environmental forces and institutions of the present and the future. One of the things that I hope we will consider seriously in this conference is the inability of the nation-state system, and of each nation-state, to define, contain, control or enchance these global forces. In my judgement, replacing nation-states, and the nation-state system, with something more viable and appropriate to the challenges and possibilities of the future is absolutely essential. And yet even mentioning such a thing may be dangerous and literally seditious. It is small wonder I view the future with such concern if we are restrained from even discussing what may be one of the major obstacles to obtaining a livable one. [Cleveland, Dator 1981b&c]
Non-citizen participation. One step towards global governance but within the nation-state system might be to invent ways by which non-citizens can participate in the governance of the major economic nations of the present. Two or three years ago, another colleague of mine at the University of Hawaii, Prof. Yasumasa Kuroda, and I suggested that this be a part of a new democratic form of governance for Japan. Through international trade and communication, among other means, "foreigners" from powerful nations can and often do greatly impact the economy, polity, and culture of weaker nations for good or ill. Why not allow "foreigners" from weaker nations to participate in political decisionmaking in the big nations as well? Here again I see a strange lack of symmetry between the political and economic systems of the world at present!
Random selection. Kuroda and I also suggested that some, or ideally all, of the representatives to the Japanese Diet be chosen at random, by lot. We feel that this is the only way to achieve true representative government. All systems relying on political parties, including those with schemes of proportional representation, result in legislators who do not "represent" the population as a whole in any way whatsoever. Legislators are always and everywhere skewed towards some, and away from other, interests. If we insist on keeping our governments "representative" instead of "democratic," then at least let us have legislators chosen randomly. That is the only way legislatures can ever be approximately representative of the public.
Choosing legislators by lot should also have a salutory influence on public education as well. If we know that anyone, literally anyone, might be chosen to the highest, as well as lowest, public offices, then everyone had better be adequately prepared for the job. I can't think of any better way to see that civic education is taken more seriously. If the dumbest kid in the school might be chosen at random to be President, then we had better be certain that there is not much distance between the knowledge and abilities of the smartest and the dumbest kids in the school.[Kuroda & Dator]
Entrepreneurial government. The hottest new view of governance in the United States at the present time is that best expressed by David Osborne and Ted Gaebler in their book Reinventing Government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. The subtitle tells it all: let's run government the way the best modern businesses are run.
"Voters don't want more government, as Democrats have traditionally offered. But they don't want less government either. They want better government--and less expensive government. They are frustrated with slow, unresponsive, inefficient bureaucracies that soak up ever more tax dollars and deliver ever poorer services. Without articulating it in so many words, the American people are demanding governments that are less bureaucratic and more entrepreneurial. ... To be effective in these times, institutions (public or private) must be flexible, adaptable and innovative. They must search constantly for new ways to improve services and heighten productivity."
Osborne and Gaebler then label the styles which a properly entrepreneurial government should adopt: "catalytic government" (government should encourage and enable people and groups to do things, but should not do these things themselves); "community owned government" (rather than centrally-controlled); "competitive government" (many governmentally-encouraged solutions to problems instead of only one legal way to do things, with citizens able freely to choose the solution they want rather than being forced to take a single legal way); "mission-driven government" (rather than rule-driven government); "results-oriented government" (instead of input-oriented government); "customer-driven government" (instead of doing things at the convenience of the bureaucrats), "decentralized government;" and "market-oriented government."
Osborne and Gaebler's perspective might well be viewed as a particularly American and capitalist formulation of an increasingly global and postmodern phenomenon. For example, in England, the British Communist Party issued The Manifesto for New Times which includes many of the same ideas in often the same, or only slightly different, words. [Hall & Jacques] And it is of course quite apparent that much of Green politics [Bahro, Capra] and/or feminist politics [Ferguson, McElroy, Biehl] is substantively oriented in the same direction. An analysis of the organizing styles and goals and objectives of the various groups around the world which have been awarded the "Right Livelihood Award," sometimes called the "Alternative Nobel Prize," [Ekins. See also Jennett & Stewart] showed that these groups, many of which are in the third world, similarly exhibit, and express the strong preference for, forms of governance which manifest the "break-up of standardized, collectivist welfare provision, and the rise of consumer choice and private provision" of all governmental services. [Kumar]
Representing the Future. But what about the future itself? That is to say, what about the people from the future? Is there no way that they, or at least their true interests, can be honestly and fully represented in democratic governments today? If there is anything truly tragic about would-be democratic government it is that it is so focussed on the present and the past, and so irresponsible towards the future. Moreover, I find this irresponsibility to be structural. That is to say, it is not because politicans wish to be ignorant of the future (although some might). It is that present structures of government require them to ignore it. Only a few elected people from "safe" districts (where they know they can be relected forever without serious competition), or people who hold their positions for life--or at least for a very long time--are able to take the future seriously, if they so wish (and only few people even in such positions do). But, generally speaking democratic/representative governmental structures require policymakers to discount the future entirely and focus only on the present and recent past. [Dator 1991]
For ethical, as well as ecological, reasons, it is absolutely essential that we find some way for future generations to participate in all the present decisions which will impact them so massively. I have made a few suggestions of my own in the past, the most detailed of which proposed that there be created a "fourth branch of government" whose only job is to evaluate the impact of actions by the other three branches and, if they find those actions to be injurious to the interests of future generations, to declare them "unfuturistic." If the two houses of the legislature subsequently vote, by a simple majority, to override that declaration, then an election is held for both houses and for those members of the "fourth branch" who are subject to election (one half of the members are to be elected, and one half chosen by lot from the list of eligible voters). [Dator, 1981a]
A more recent suggestion has been made by Bruce Tonn. He proposes a constitutional amendment to the US Constitution which sets up a "Court of Generations" The wording of his proposed amendment clearly indicates the need and composition of this "court":
"Section I. The power to judge threats to the security of the blessings of liberty to our posterity shall be vested in the Court of Generations, which shall be an adjunct of the judicial department of the national government.
"Section II. The Court shall consist of a Grand Jury and the members of the Supreme Court. The Grand Jury shall return a bill of indictment to the members of the Supreme Court if evidence suggest an intolerable threat to the security of the blessings of liberty to our posterity. The members of the Supreme Court shall decide whether we and/or our ancestors are in contempt of intolerably threatening the security of the blessings of liberty to our posterity.
"Section III. Each state and territority may appoint one person to sit on the Grand Jury.
"Section IV. The Court shall convene within five years after the passage of this amendment and within every subsequent term of five years, unless specially convened by Congress, in such manner as Congress shall direct by law. Congress shall ensure that the Court has reasonable resources at its disposal to assist its delibertations." [Tonn, p. 483]
Both Tonn's and my proposal are very modest, conventional, and totally "within the system." But at least they are specific suggestions for dealing with one of the most serious shortcomings of all political systems today: the failure to take the future seriously in making present day decisions.
Quantum Politics. In many ways, it might be said that before we try to think of new structures for democratic governance, we need to re-evaluate the epistemological assumptions underpinning all existing systems, and virtually all proposals for new systems. Several of my colleagues and myself have tried to do that by pointing out that while quantum physics has limited the application of the old Newtonian physics, Newtonian assumptions are still at the base of all present and most proposed political systems. Some of us have therefore urged the creation of a "quantum politics" which takes the perspectives of quantum physics more seriously, and more directly, as a basis for political design. [Becker, Dator 1983b]
Evolutionary systems theory. However, there is another perspective which is also emerging which questions the old Newtonian bases of political design. This is evolutionary systems theory. The next World Conference of the WFSF, to be held in Turku, Finland, in August 1993, is on a theme which is related to evolutionary systems theory: "Chaos and Coherence in our Uncommon Futures." WFSF President-Elect Pentti Malaska and his colleague Mika Mannermaa are among the more active WFSF members of the General Evolutionary Research Group under the direction of Ervin Laslo. The ideas of Erich Jantsch, Ilya Prigogine, Benoit Mandelbrot, Walter Freedman and others are central to this perspective
However, I would like to recommend for your consideration the work of a younger scholar at the University of Hawaii who I believe is destined to become one of the major political theorists of the 21st Century: Jan Huston. In a paper titled, "What are the Greatest Challenges for Evolutionary Theory in Our Times?" Huston explained the basic principles and components of evolutionary systems theory. Then he sought to apply them to the future of political systems:
"For a system to transform consciously toward a preferred higher level system, the past luxury of dialectically muddling through via reform will not suffice. Moreover, it is human-centered hubris to conclude that the territory quaintly called 'recorded history' can map the future. Critically absent is the realization that recorded history lacks precedent for exploring a spontaneous, nonlinear sociopolitical system bifurcation [which we are about to experience]. Yet virtually every planner, economist, bureaucrat and politician is slavishly pursuing linear, dialectical reforms that invariably increase total system complexity and instability. Meanwhile, we lack the strong creativity that can explore or design a nonlinear future." [Huston, p. 8]
"Nonetheless, in the soft-determinism of punctuated evolution, the next system bifurcation is capable of moving in either direction: towards negentropic or towards cyborg extinction of humanity. Only a conscious, widespread effort to apply the insights of evolutionary theory to the sociopolitical system affords humanity an epistemological framework to steer its transformation toward a cybernetic design system." [Huston, p. 10]
Neither Huston nor I nor any other person who tries to comprehend the future through evolutionary systems theory can be absolutely clear what the consciously-transformed emerging sociopolitical system will look like. We only know that it will be self-selecting and self-directed. As I phrased it in my opening remarks at the last WFSF World Conference in Barcelona in September 1991: "We should move beyond democracy to participation; beyond the delusion of each citizen controlling the system, to the illusion of each individual participating in a self-controlling system. A government 'of, by, and for the people' assumes much more than anyone can attain, and leads inevitably to disillusion, apathy, and fascism." [Dator, 1992b, p. 8]
Friends, this I believe is the challenge before us. It most certainly is not enough for developing nations to adopt the obsolescing forms of Western liberal democracy. But neither should anyone expect to find more viable or more truly democratic forms for the future in the past of any culture. Huston is right, I believe, in stressing that the challenges from the future are too novel for the past to offer sufficient guidance. This of course is not to say that there might not be elements in past or currently marginalized cultures which can be revitalized successfully. But creativity, courage, and a lot of luck are going to be needed if humanity is to create a system which provides "the illusion of each individual participating in a self-controlling system." Let's hope that we show plenty of creativity, courage, and have lots of luck, during our deliberations here these few precious days in Islamabad.
The whole future is watching.
Cited references.
Walter Truett Anderson, Reality isn't what it used to be. Harper & Row, 1990
Michael Avey, The demobilization of American voters. Greenwood Press, 1989
Rudolf Bahro, Building the green movement. New Society Publishers, 1986
Benjamin Barber, Strong democracy. University of California Press, 1984
Theodore L. Becker, ed., Quantum politics. Applying quantum theory to political phenomena. Praeger, 1991
John Bernheim, "Democracy, nation states and the world system," in Held and Pollitt, cited below
Janet Biehl, Rethinking ecofeminist politics. South End Press, 1991
Walter Dean Burnham, The current crisis in American politics. Oxford University Press, 1982
Fritjof Capra and Charlene Spretnak, Green politics. Dutton, 1984
Harlan Cleveland, "Rethinking international governance," The Futurist, May 1991
William Crotty, ed., Political participation and American democracy. Greenwood Press, 1991
Jim Dator, "Responding to the future," in Dorothy Douthit, ed., Planning the good life for Hawaii. Hawaii Committee for the Humanities, 1981a
Jim Dator, "Beyond the nation-state?" World Future Society Bulletin, November-December 1981b
Jim Dator, "Three images of global governance," The Futurist, December 1981c
Jim Dator, "The 1982 Honolulu Electronic Town Meeting," in William Page, ed., The Future of politics. Governance, movements and world order. Frances Pinter, 1983a
Jim Dator, "Quantum theory and political design," in Rolf Homann, et al., eds, Changing lifestyles as indicators of new and cultural values. Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute, 1983b
Jim Dator, "Lack of governmental foresight: Twenty years of trying to link decisions to visions," Futures Research Quarterly, Fall 1991
Jim Dator, "I want my ITV," in Bart van Steenbergen, et al., eds., Advancing democracy and participation. Challenges for the future. Selections from the XII World Conference of the World Futures Studies Federation. Centre Catala de Prospectiva, 1992a
Jim Dator, "Participating with the universe," in Bart van Steenbergen, et al., eds., Advancing democracy and participation. Challenges for the future. Selections for the XII World Conference of the World Futures Studies Federation. Centre Catala de Prospectiva, 1992b
Thomas Dye & Harmon Zeigler, American politics in the media age. Brooks/Cole, 1989
Paul Ekins, A new world order. Grassroots movements for global change. Routledge, 1992
Ann Ferguson, Sexual democracy: Women, oppression, and revolution. Westview Press, 1991
Stuart Hall and Martin Jacques, New times. The changing face of politics in the 1990s. Lawrence & Wishart, 1989.
David Held and Christopher Pollitt, eds., New forms of democracy. Sage Publications, 1986
Jan Huston, "What are the challenges for evolution theory in our times?" Prepared for the Conference on Evolutionary Theory, September 1992.
Christine Jennett and Randal Stewart, eds., Politics of the future. The role of social movements. Macmillan, 1989
Krishan Kumar, "New theories of industrial society," in Phillip Brown and Hugh Lauder, Education for economic survival. From fordism to post-fordism? Routledge, 1992
Yasumasa Kuroda and Jim Dator, "The Japanese Diet in the 21st Century," International Centennial Conference on the Japanese Diet, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 1990
Harold Linstone, "Mediacracy, mediocracy, or new democracy: Where are the information age Jeffersons and Madisons when we need them? Technological forecasting and social change, August 1989
Michael Margolis and Gary Mauser, eds., Manipulating public opinion. Brooks/Cole, 1989
Iain McLean, "Mechanisms for democracy," in Held and Pollitt, cited above
Wendy McElroy, ed., Freedom, feminism, and the state. Holmes & Meier, 1991
David Osborne and Ted Gaebler, Reinventing government: How the entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. Addison-Wesley, 1992
Michael Parenti, Democracy for the few. St. Martin's Press, 1988
Michael Parenti, Inventing reality. The politics of the mass media. St. Martin's Press, 1986
Fred Riggs, "Survival of presidentialism in America, " International Political Science Review, Vol 9, 1988
Fred Riggs, "Presidentialism: An empirical theory," in Mattei Dogan and Ali Kazancigil, eds., Comparing nations. Basil Blackwell, 1992a
Fred Riggs, "Fragility of the third world's regimes," (Draft paper for comment, 1992b)
Kim Shienbaum, Beyond the electoral connection. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984
Christa Daryl Slaton, Televote. Expanding citizen participation in the quantum age. Praeger, 1992
Majid Tehranian, Technologies of power. Information machines and democratic prospects. Ablex Publishing Company, 1990
Bruce E. Tonn, "The court of generations. A proposed amendment to the US Constitution." Futures, June 1991