2. Governing processes

The second of the two key processes we wish to research and analyze to solve our root cause is the governing process, how solutions are created such as laws, policies, and expenditures. Throughout this book, I emphasize developing solutions rather than making decisions. Decisions are whatever the ruler decides. Alternatively, "solutions" imply an effort to eliminate the issue and arrive at a favorable outcome for the people. Therefore, while I sometimes use the word "decision" and "solution" interchangeably, our objective is to find a process for producing better governing solutions for the people. The following three types of governing processes are used by rulers throughout the world.

1. Dictatorial governing processes – one or a few people make governing decisions unilaterally with no oversight

2. Representative governing processes – one or a few people make governing decisions serving another larger group who can remove them in the next election if they are not happy with their decisions

3. Democratic governing processes – the people make the governing decisions as a group for themselves

There are many versions of each type of solution process because the same type may be designed or implemented differently from country to country. We also find that a particular government may use multiple types of governing processes. For example, some governments have both representative governing processes and democratic governing processes.

A. Dictatorial governing processes

Dictatorial governing processes enable a single person or a few individuals to make the key national decisions that affect everyone. They have absolute power with no effective limitations on their rule. "No effective limitations" means that either constitutional limitations do not exist or they are not enforced by any other body such as a legislature or a court.

Constitutions may exist with dictatorial processes, but they either grant the dictator absolute power or they are ignored and the dictator makes decisions unilaterally regardless of the constitution. Those below the dictator in the power structure obey the decisions of the dictator out of collusion or fear. Anyone opposed to the rule by the dictator or his solutions is typically punished, often severely.

Xi Jinping, the General Secretary of China, has received a considerable amount of press for his arguments that a dictatorship serves the people better than a democracy. His view is the classic elitist view that the people must be led and controlled by the elite, who make better rulers. Some western leaders have stated publicly that they admire China's dictatorship because it can act much faster than democracy. There is no doubt that a dictator can make a decision faster than Congress or the President but does that mean it's better for the people?

Communism and socialism

Some look to communism or socialism for solutions to the elite class confusing them with the capitalist class. According to The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederick Engles, the objective of communism is to eliminate classes by creating a single mass class of citizens without business owners or elite. To accomplish this, communism imposes these rules.

• The state owns all real property, businesses, banks, media communications, and transport.

• All citizens have an equal obligation to work and all are taxed with a heavy graduated income tax.

• All inheritance goes to the state.

• The property of all emigrants is confiscated.

As a result, everyone is economically equal (except for the dictator and the party elite who rule, who remain the elite class). As the ruler over all resources, regardless of the propaganda, the dictator becomes the practical owner of everything even more than a monarch does in a kingdom. Marx's ideology was that economic equality with strict control by a dictatorship would result in peace and happiness for all concerned. Obviously, those lofty claims have never been achieved. While Marx envisioned a dictatorship of the people, socialist and communist countries have all instituted dictatorial processes empowering the few elite. In a socialist society, the road to wealth and elitism is not through business but through political partisanship. Consequently, communism and socialism are not solutions for us.

Dictatorial governing processes would not be helpful

Dictatorial governing processes would not resolve the root cause of the power elite ruling through the political parties. If anything, they would support the root cause. They give the few absolute control over the many with no recourse by the many. Political parties are often under control of the dictator and are used to legitimize and enforce his power. As an example, under the command of Xi Jinping China changed its constitution removing the two-term limit for the General Secretary to allow Xi to rule for life.

In dictatorships, information hiding, misinformation, and propaganda including complete fabrications are common. Whatever the dictator says becomes truth. Dictatorial governing processes do not consider individual rights or freedoms. Regardless of what their constitution might state, people do not have rights. A dictator or the dictator's agents can do anything to people or take anything from them that they wish without recourse. Political prisoners and control of the media and commerce are indicators of a dictatorial decision process.

Dictators may ethically believe that they are making the best decisions for their country as a whole and consequently for their people. That is certainly Xi Jinping's propaganda. However, a dictator's decisions are subject to his ego, personal biases, prejudices, and beliefs (as are those of any individual). All decisions are driven by the personal values of what the dictator believes is important and usually by what benefits him personally. His beliefs are the only "right" beliefs. Beliefs contrary to his are "wrong." Dictators often see the people as incompetent to make even basic personal life decisions. Consequently, the dictator may create social laws such as the law in China limiting children under age 18 to three hours a week of video game play. [6]

A dictator can appear to be benevolent, unless you gain too much power, disagree with his decisions, want more freedom to make your own decisions, point out his biases or flaws, publicly disclose political corruption, or want changes that he doesn't agree with. In any of these cases, he could decide to label you "an enemy of the state" with severe consequences.

B. Representative governing processes

Every national government claims to represent the people, even dictatorships. That is the justification for their power over everyone in their country. However, dictators represent and speak for themselves and those political party cohorts they empower, not the people. No one speaks for the people in a dictatorship because the people are seen as a single class without individual rights. Therefore, I define representative governing processes as those used by officials elected legitimately by the people with expiring terms who could actually be removed by the people in the next election. Representative governing processes must comply with the laws and the constitution of the country rather than subvert them.

Legitimacy of government decisions

Representatives may claim their decisions proceed from or comply with a mandate of the people. Indeed, to be legitimate, representative decision processes should decide in the best interest of the people according to their needs and contain transparency, discussion, and choice among all the representatives involved. Regardless, representative decisions are never required to conform to the wishes of the people. The representatives believe they know better than the people do what is best for the country. That is the basis of representation.

Even legitimate representative rulers may make decisions according to their personal ego, bias, and beliefs. They often seem to feel that being elected demonstrates that their personal beliefs and prejudices are aligned with the people. Some go further, believing that they are meant to rule and that the people don't know what they need.

The representative decision process is not legitimate when the primary objective of most representatives is to benefit their personal career, their political party, and those special interests and elite who fund them. Likewise, the representative decision process is illegitimate when political parties decide for the entire legislature as occurs in the US and in most republics. Representative governing processes would be more accurately described as "political party governing processes."

Switzerland uses representative and democratic processes

Switzerland provides an example of a combination of representative governing processes and democratic governing processes. Switzerland is interesting to us for two reasons. First, it demonstrates the plural executive concept proposed by Benjamin Franklin. Instead of an individual chief executive such as a president, Switzerland has a seven-member Federal Council that makes executive administrative decisions by majority vote. The Federal Council is elected by their full legislature from among their ranks. As an executive administration body, it cannot make laws or veto laws made by the legislature. It cannot declare war or send troops to foreign countries. It only manages the departments of the Swiss government. For us, the lesson is that it may be better not to trust such powers to a single individual.

Second, Switzerland combines many political parties without a single majority party. Some in the US believe that having many smaller parties would be a solution to control by the two major parties. In the current Swiss legislature (from 2019 to 2023), there are 13 political parties as shown in Figure 5-1. They combine themselves into groups as they desire to increase their political influence. Each group is equivalent to a major political party in the US Congress, creating the committees that write the laws. The groups are not fixed but can combine, split, or form as desired. [7]

Currently, there are six groups as shown in Figure 5-1. The Swiss People's Party has the most seats in the National Council as does their group, the People's parliamentary group. However, the Christian Democratic People's Party has the most seats in the Council of States as does their group, the Centre parliamentary group. Nevertheless, as you can see, no group has a majority in the National Council or in the Council of States. Each must collaborate with other groups to accomplish their objectives, which doesn't always work. [8]

Figure 5-1

Political parties causing polarization in Switzerland

A Swiss article blamed the polarization in Switzerland on their multiple parties. [9]

Polarization in Switzerland has increased as a result of the pluralization of political parties and economic interest groups. In the 1970s and 1980s, new social movements and new parties entered the political scene with a libertarian-progressive agenda. … [This] triggered a reaction on the right: new political parties on the radical right side were founded in the early 1990s, and the Swiss People's Party started its transformation into a more radical, national-conservative right-wing populist party. …

Several contributions in this volume…emphasize the increase in party polarization as the key factor that has thrown a spanner [wrench] in the works of the Swiss political system. … By polarization, we mean strong divergence among political parties on the key political questions.As the political divide and our root cause exist in countries with many political parties as well, we can conclude that multi-party systems are not solutions to polarization or its root cause.

Representative governing processes are not helpful

We currently use representative processes in the US. Our root cause of rule by the elite and political parties is enabled by our representative governing processes that allow the political parties to become the government when they have the majority. This occurs throughout the world. Therefore, representative processes are the problem, not an answer.

C. Democratic governing processes

Democratic governing processes provide some interesting features that might be useful for our solution. Unlike dictatorial and representative governing processes controlled by political parties and special interests, the people make the decisions together in democratic governing processes. The common theory behind democratic governing processes is that collective decisions by the people are more legitimate than representative decisions assuming the democratic process includes transparent information, deliberation, discussion, and choice by everyone who's interested. Government officials are only there to support the people to enable them to make the decisions, not to make the decisions for them.

No country in the world uses democratic governing processes as its primary method of solving issues and making governing decisions. They are only used as minor parts of an overall representative system. However, their use is widespread. In 2019, 214 countries and territories allowed one or more types of democratic governing processes. [10]

Three basic types of democratic governing processes are used in federal governments around the world. The specific implementation of each type varies from country to country.

1. Referendums

2. Citizens’ initiatives

3. Participatory budgeting

Referendums

A referendum is a vote of approval by the people on a single issue that is put forth by a representative governing body. Mandatory referendums may be required by law for certain changes such as a change to a constitution or a change that increases taxes. Other referendums may be optional for use by a governing body, equating to a survey of the opinions of all voters.

Citizens' initiatives

Citizens' initiatives allow the people to create a new law or remove an existing law without the approval of the legislature. Although in some countries, confirmation by the legislature is still required. For some initiatives, a higher majority is required such as 60%. In addition, some governments only provide for agenda initiatives that simply require the legislature to consider an initiative if it passes. Such initiatives are non-binding on the government.

To get an initiative on the ballot, a petition must be circulated and a minimum number of petition signatures gathered. If the initiative passes, it becomes law or is written into law by the legislature.

Problems with referendums and citizens' initiatives

The International IDEA Handbook published by the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance lists a number of potential problems that can occur with referendums and citizens' initiatives. [11] 

1. Some political parties and elected representatives contend that any democratic governing process can damage the perceived worth of political parties and of elected representatives and undermine the theory of representation. (Honestly, I laughed when I read this and wondered if this point should have been listed as a positive result instead! However, I realized that the intended audience of the handbook was government entities, not their citizens.)

2. Legislatures sometimes are critical of referendums and initiatives because the citizens vote down proposals or laws that the legislatures support.

3. Sometimes the wording on the ballot is confusing or there is not sufficient information available to allow a voter to make an informed decision.

4. Effective use of these tools requires citizens to become informed about issues that are sometimes complex. Voters may not put forth the effort to become informed or they may be swayed by political or special interest advertising, the media, their political party, or popular personalities. One side may overwhelm the other side with advertising spend.

5. Initiatives are expensive and time-consuming for the originators. Therefore, they now require support and usually funding by a political party and its elite to have a chance for success. That's very disappointing.

6. Special interests including the elite in some states and countries have used initiatives for their own political, business, or social interests. With abundant funding for advertising, they may use such tools to their advantage, bypassing legislatures and opponents. To combat this, some countries prohibit such advertising and provide independent, nonaligned committees to provide balanced information.

7. When elections are only held every two or four years, voters may sometimes feel overwhelmed by the number of propositions on the ballot.

8. Governments have sometimes ignored referendums even when required by law to follow them. This can cause voters to give up and become apathetic.

9. Representatives have used many tricks to sabotage citizens' initiatives that passed.

10. If minority rights are not protected by the constitution and excluded from initiatives, majorities can deprive certain minorities of their rights. (On the other hand, many laws created by legislatures have done the same. Representatives can be bigoted as well. Consider how long it took women and all minorities to obtain the right to vote. In Oregon, multiple citizens' initiatives eventually led to changes in the constitution allowing women to vote 7 years before the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution.)

Positive outcomes from referendums and initiatives

On the positive side, the following benefits have been reported from these democratic governing processes. [12]

1. Initiatives have given citizens a voice and the power to overturn one-sided laws.

2. Referendums and initiatives create democratic legitimacy for political decisions.

3. Referendums and initiatives engage the citizens directly, potentially increasing voter turnout (especially on important issues), reducing voter indifference and disillusionment, and increasing satisfaction with the government process.

4. Referendums create transparency and can reduce the pressure on a legislature by sharing the solution process with the people. Therefore, legislatures may choose to involve citizens on important decisions.

5. Minorities can be empowered by initiatives as alternative methods to accomplish their goals when they have little representation. Even when initiatives do not pass, they can support movements through raising public awareness.

6. These democratic governing processes are popular in US states and in countries where they are used regularly.

Participatory budgeting (PB)

Participatory budgeting (PB) allows the citizens to allocate government spending to projects chosen by them in specific government areas. PB has been used at all levels of government around the world from neighborhoods and cities to counties, states, and national governments. Most commonly, it is used at the local, municipal level.

Issues with participatory budgeting

Several issues have been reported regarding PB [13]

1. "Many legislators tend to be opposed to PB because they view it as a threat to their position in a representative democracy—the argument is that popularly elected legislators have greater legitimacy to make decisions surrounding public resources."

2. Governments have refused to fund budgets determined by the people after agreeing to participatory budgeting and supposedly setting aside the funds. If the funds committed for participatory budgeting are not delivered, people become apathetic and see their participation as a waste of time. In Croatia, Poland, and Slovakia, only a relatively small amount of the budget was available to PB so many citizens concluded participation wasn't worth the effort.

Positive results from participatory budgeting

Participatory budgeting (PB) has produced very positive results. These are expounded in a later example from Venezuela.

1. In the most successful cases, PB required actual participation, not just voting, which reduced apathy. Many citizens became involved, becoming educated on government functioning and true democracy in the process.

2. The participants represented diverse demographics. Minorities were far better represented than they were normally.

3. Even though people had different needs and perspectives, political polarity ceased as everyone worked together on specific, common issues.

4. Complaints ceased to the point that people were even more willing to pay taxes in some cases.

5. Less corruption and more transparency occurred.

6. More money went to infrastructure, education, and healthcare, particularly in poorer areas.

Wow! You can't argue with those achievements. That's just what we're looking for. The concept of people working together to determine projects that better their lives is something worth considering in our new governing process. Unfortunately, PB has been eliminated in many places where it was used. We'll see why in the examples later in this chapter.

Democratic processes are not solutions for us

We can learn important lessons from the different applications of these democratic governing processes around the world. These processes are a step in the right direction.

Referendums poll all the voters for their opinion, not just a statistical sample collected by a government-sponsored survey with leading questions. They can engage citizens and they have provided meaningful changes on a few issues (that is few compared to the numerous laws created by legislatures and national executives).

Citizens' initiatives give citizens a voice, starting with the few who can afford to gather the required signatures for their initiative and to advertise it. They give everyone else a voice through the opportunity to vote on the initiative. Without democratic governing processes, citizens have no effective voice in any solutions enacted by legislatures.

However, none of these three democratic processes solves the root cause. Even though the people may raise their voice on an issue, the political parties and the power elite continue to rule with minor constraints. Consequently, the same political division and other problems occur in countries incorporating these democratic processes. Therefore, they are not an answer to our root cause and actually help very little overall at a federal level.

Key takeaway: The concepts of participatory budgeting may be useful to us. However, current democratic governing processes would not solve our root cause.