Instructive examples of democratic processes

The tools of direct democracy have been used with varying degrees of success. Sometimes governments ignored the results of referendums and initiatives. Some politicians even used the promises of incorporating these tools in a new government to win the election only to change the laws and become dictators.

However, in countries where the tools were used legitimately, citizens report that they appreciate the tools as methods to communicate and implement their policy preferences. The following stories contain useful lessons that will be instructive to us as we develop our solution.

Example 1: United Kingdom

This example illustrates that citizens can elect to change the entire regime with enough support. It provides hope that we can be successful with our implementation plan.

The 2016 Brexit referendum was a non-binding referendum asking voters if Britain should exit the European Union (EU). The referendum passed with 52% voting to leave the EU. In a similar previous referendum in 1975, 67% voted to remain in the EU, illustrating that citizens' opinions can change over time.

The UK government was strongly against leaving the European Union. Many UK officials including politicians and economists predicted disaster for the UK if they withdrew. Regardless, the majority of voters chose to exit. British Parliament voted three times over the next five years against ratifying the referendum. In response, voters elected a large pro-Brexit majority in Parliament and the withdrawal was ratified in Jan. 2020. It was the first time that a national referendum result had gone against the preferred solution of the UK government. [14]

Example 2: Switzerland

Switzerland is known the world over for its democratic governing processes. In reality, they are ruled by their representatives and political parties with minor limited influence by the people through referendums and citizen's initiatives. Switzerland illustrates some important lessons from their experience with these processes.

In Switzerland, the elite pulled every trick they could come up with to thwart citizens' initiatives. The lesson for us is that you cannot subordinate a democratic process to a representative process and expect success. The representatives will sabotage the democratic process. After initiatives became a part of the Swiss governing process in 1891, if the elite representatives in government didn't like a citizens' initiative, they would simply ignore it until the people forgot about it or it became irrelevant.

After substantial negative press, they changed their tactics. When an initiative was presented, they would immediately offer a counter proposal as a referendum. Voters had to choose between the initiative and the referendum. This effectively divided the supporters of a cause into two groups without a sufficient majority in either group to pass the initiative or the referendum. For example, if a sizable consensus of 65% of the people were in favor of an initiative, the government's referendum might convince 20% to vote for its referendum instead. That would leave 45% of the vote for the initiative and 20% for the referendum and both would fail, falling short of the 50% needed to pass.

That trick was finally removed in 1987 after almost 100 years of subverting the initiative process. After the change, citizens were allowed to vote "yes" for both the citizens' initiative and the government's referendum. In addition to voting for one or both, the people would choose which one they would want if both passed. While this change prohibited the government from subverting initiatives, it also illustrates that the entire process of initiatives is not a purely democratic governing process.

Voters do not make decisions directly through initiatives in Switzerland. Initiatives provide additional direction to government representatives. The elite representatives keep control but they are forced to take direction from the people on occasion. Therefore, their solution process is less democratic and more representative.

Another trick that we need to watch out for in our design is the definition of "single subject." The Swiss constitution allows initiatives on any subject. However, they must contain only one topic to make the choice a simple "yes" or "no" for the voters. (The government, on the other hand, creates large bills with many topics just as they do in the US.) The government has cancelled some initiatives using this requirement as the excuse as quoted here. [15]

For example, the popular initiative which called for a reduction in military spending and the use of the money for social purposes, was canceled. The government's argument was that the financing of the army and the financing of social affairs are two independent issues that cannot be [combined into one initiative].

Controlled by political parties

Switzerland demonstrates that there is no way for citizens to fight political parties in a representative system even with initiatives. When initiatives are passed, they are seldom fully implemented by the politicians. The legislature creates the final wording, leaving out what they deem as objectionable and adding additional clauses for their own purposes. [16]

Over the last 50 years, in many governments including Switzerland the favorable use of initiatives has waned. They have been used more by politicians as marketing tools for gathering media attention to compete in elections than by citizens. Which brings into question whether they are still democratic governing processes for citizens at all or whether they have simply become another tool for the elite. [17]

Increased voter turnout

When discussing democratic processes, a common critique is the belief that people are apathetic or don't have the time to participate. To that end, some media articles have criticized Switzerland for their 45% voter turnout on average as a sign that democratic governing processes are not working. In contrast, voter turnout in the US averages about 40% for midyear elections and 60% for presidential year elections. [18] However, this is an "apples to oranges" comparison.

The Swiss vote four times each year with numerous referendums and initiatives. They are much more involved politically than citizens of the US. However, they are selective about what they vote for. Most show up to vote for what affects them personally where they feel they have the information to make a competent decision. Consequently, while voting turnout averages 45% overall, 75% of their citizens vote at least once every four years. [19]

Example 3: Various countries in Latin America

Do not assume that democratic governing processes are always instituted due to demands by the people or that they only serve the people. Mexico, Uruguay, and other Latin American countries demonstrate how referendums, citizens' initiatives, and even recalls can be created by the government to enable political elites, political parties, presidents, and legislatures to further their agendas and increase their power when they lack sufficient legislative support. Therefore, appealing to the politicians to create democratic governing processes would be a mistake. From examples in these countries, we learn the following. [20]

1. Citizens do not have the resources or power to launch an initiative effectively without the support of a political party. Almost all initiatives are generated by the political parties themselves as competitive instruments. Political parties line up on each side of a referendum or initiative, creating polarization and causing the people to vote on party lines rather than on the benefits of the initiative itself.

2. Once a legislature added the democratic tools to the constitution, it then created additional legislation dictating the process for how, when, and by whom the tools could be used. The resulting democratic governing process enabled the political parties and the government to control initiatives and referendums on their own terms.

Example 4: Oregon

The state of Oregon inspires us with their democratic accomplishments but demonstrates yet again that the political parties will find a way to use or to nullify the democratic process. The Oregon legislature created a constitutional amendment in 1902 creating initiatives and referendums, becoming the second state in the US to include democratic governing processes. Citizens' initiatives in Oregon can create laws and amendments to the state constitution independently of the Legislative Assembly. In addition, initiatives can be used to reject new laws passed by the legislature. The amendment created both mandatory and optional referendums. [21]

About 46% (78 of 168) of initiatives on the ballot in Oregon passed during the 25-year-period from 1995 to 2020 and about 54% failed. [22] Examples of successful initiatives in Oregon since 1902 are the following. [23]

• the ability to recall public officials

• creation of presidential primary elections

• election of US senators by the people

• women’s suffrage giving women the right to vote

• an 8-hour work day

• physician-assisted suicide

• requirement of voting by mail

• the use of medical marijuana

• tougher sentences for violent criminals

Unfortunately, democratic governing processes in Oregon have been hampered by recent changes. The lesson for us is that our governing process must be inoculated from being controlled by political parties and big money. The money will always win unless our process design prevents it. [24]

For example, in Oregon, when rules governing petitions were tightened, costs rose significantly. Many groups, such as consumer interest organisations, that used to regularly sponsor initiatives have been effectively "priced out" of direct democracy. Practically the only initiatives that can now make it to the ballot in Oregon are those favourable to "big money" interests.

Example 5: Venezuela

Venezuela provides us with an inspiring example of how the people create better solutions than their representatives do and how allowing the people to make decisions solves the political divide and many other political issues. This occurred in spite of Venezuela being a socialist dictatorship rife with corruption masquerading as a representative government.

Within this context of dictatorial control and corruption arose an amazing example of a new democratic governing process. In 2004, the newly elected mayor of Torres, a municipality in Venezuela with about 200,000 people at the time, immediately formed a "Municipal Constituent Assembly" of ordinary citizens. In three months, they produced new municipal ordinances including a participatory budget.

In most municipalities in the world, the mayor and/or the city council make all budget decisions under the classic rule-by-representation model. The Torres process is markedly different as described by Gabriel Hetland. [25]

1. Volunteers from 550+ communal councils perform a "participatory diagnosis" to "map out their community’s resources and needs." (These councils are civic associations of all adults living in the local communities; typically 200 to 400 families in urban areas and 20 to 40 in rural areas.)

2. Each council meets to "discuss and vote on the community’s priorities and choose a community delegate." A minimum of 30 percent attendance is required.

3. Delegates then attend a training assembly, "where municipal officials explain how to transform proposals into projects and collect each community’s priority list."

4. "About a month later, during a second parish assembly, delegates discuss project proposals and make binding decisions about budget allocations." The decisions are final and cannot be vetoed by the mayor.

What the heck? Are they nuts?

We have been indoctrinated that such a democratic governing process would lead to chaos and to mob rule by the majority and to suffering by the minority. How could 200,000 ordinary citizens in an agrarian society without college degrees in economics, community management, or the law possibly make sound decisions about how to spend tax money? It is dangerous enough to allow initiatives and referendums. But to allow amateurs to control the budget strings? Preposterous, right? Hetland describes how the people meet each year. [26]

[They meet to] discuss a range of issues, from sewage and electricity to housing, education and healthcare. These discussions are both concrete (e.g. debates over whether and how to fund roads, schools and drainage systems) and abstract, with delegates broaching subjects like class inequality, communal solidarity, and fairness. One of the most exciting aspects of PB is that for the thousands of Torrenses who participate, democracy is not a distant ideal but a vibrant part of their everyday lives.

Naturally, there are different perspectives and disagreements. Hetland was told by those involved that "individualism is a big problem, noting that some delegates think only about their own community rather than look at the needs of all." However, where the people in Torres had been an example of a disruptive political divide between the left and the right, the success of this truly democratic budgeting process was "confirmed by conversations with local communal council activists of all political stripes, who regularly told me, 'We don’t discuss politics in communal councils'." [27]

Far beyond Torres in Brazil

Porto Alegre, Brazil originated participatory budgeting, taking the risk of allowing the people to determine one fourth of its budget in 1989. The idea spread across Brazil and up to Venezuela and then around the world. Even though local and regional politicians claimed that participatory budgeting in Torres was "anarchy" and that it could never work, this "simple yet subversive idea that ordinary people should have decision-making authority over issues affecting their lives" has continued to spread to other countries. (Bold emphasis added.) [28] Rutger Bregman described how the use of PB has grown and why most people have never heard about it. [29]

By 2016, more than fifteen hundred cities, from New York City to Seville and from Hamburg to Mexico City, had enacted some form of participatory budgeting.

What we’re talking about here is in fact one of the biggest movements of the twenty-first century–but the chances are you’ve never heard of it. It’s just not juicy enough for the news. Citizen politicians don’t have reality-star appeal or money for spin doctors and ad campaigns. They don’t devise pithy one-liners to throw around in so-called debates, and they couldn’t care less about daily polls.

What citizen politicians do is engage in calm and deliberative dialogue. This may sound dull, but it’s magic. It might just be the remedy for the seven plagues afflicting our tired old democracies.

The actual results of participatory budgeting

Bregman lists the following benefits that Porto Alegre, Torres, and other municipalities have experienced from this democratic governing process. [30] These are the same advantages we are looking for from our new process.

1. Less corruption and more transparency occurred. "According to a Brazilian sociologist who spent years researching Porto Alegre, the participatory process undermined the old culture of greasing palms. People were better informed about civic finances, and that made it harder for politicians to accept bribes and award jobs." In Torres, the widespread practice of requiring a 10% bribe to get a government contract became much more difficult. According to a University of California study, "corruption and clientelism were way down and the population was participating in politics like never before."

2. Citizens became directly engaged, which reduced apathy and the grumbling. "Not happy about how things are going? Help fix it. … Give people a voice in how things are run and they become more nuanced about politics. More sympathetic. Even smarter. Time and again, researchers remark on the fact that almost everybody has something worthwhile to contribute–regardless of formal education–as long as everyone’s taken seriously."

3. The political divide ceased. Prior to participatory budgeting, the people of Brazil were more divided with less trust than in most countries. The experts gave the PB process no chance of success. They advised to first "band together, form clubs, and tackle discrimination." But the opposite occurred. Trust grew after the participatory budgeting process began. The traditional political parties and skin color became irrelevant. Community groups practicing PB increased from 180 to 2000. Engaged citizens began referring to each other as companions and brothers. The same occurred in Torres. As Hetland noted in his article "the degree of openness in Torres is a far cry from the past, when the traditional parties, Acción Democrática (AD) and COPEI, thoroughly controlled the neighborhood associations (precursors to the communal councils). Myriam Gimenez, a neighborhood association cum communal council activist, recounts, 'When AD ruled, everything went to the Adeccos. When COPEI ruled, everything went to the Copeyanos'." [31]
   There are several lessons for us in this story. 1) The indictment against majority rule that it produces unfairness seems to apply more to political parties than true democracy. 2) We have come to accept the belief that the political divide is just the way people naturally are. However, this example demonstrates that the division between the left and the right is the result of the political parties, not the people.

4. Instead of minorities being disenfranchised, they were far better represented. "Citizens of democracies are, at best, permitted to choose their own aristocracy. But in the hundreds of participatory budgeting experiments, it’s precisely the traditionally disenfranchised groups that are well represented. … Unlike the old political system, the new democracy is not reserved for well-off white men. Instead, minorities and poorer and less-educated segments of society are far better represented." Another indoctrination that democracy punishes minorities is shown to be a lie.

5. People started feeling and acting like citizens. "Unbelievable as it may sound, studies find that participatory budgeting actually makes people more willing to pay taxes. In Porto Alegre, citizens even asked for higher taxes–something political scientists had always deemed unthinkable. … This redefines taxes into a contribution you pay as a member of society. Many of those involved in participatory budgeting say the experience made them feel like real citizens for the first time. After a year, as one Porto Alegren put it, you learn to look beyond your own community: 'You have to look at the city as a whole'." This example shows that self-interest in the people produces cooperation, sacrifice, and mutual benefit. The people saw that paying taxes would provide needed services to them so they requested it.

6. The cities prospered compared to those without a participatory budgeting process. "Within ten years, Torres had pulled off several decades’ worth of progress." In Porto Alegre, "access to running water went from 75% in 1989 to 95% in 1996, and access to city sewage service went from a measly 48% to 95% of the population. The number of children attending school tripled, the number of roads built multiplied fivefold, and tax evasion plummeted. … The World Bank found that more went to infrastructure, education, and healthcare, particularly in poorer communities. In 2014, an American research team published the first large-scale study on the social and economic impact of participatory budgeting across Brazil. Their conclusion was loud and clear: 'We find PB programs are strongly associated with increases in health care spending, increases in civil society organizations, and decreases in infant mortality rates. This connection strengthens dramatically as PB programs remain in place over longer time frames'."

Example 6: Taiwan

Taiwan is notable for two reasons. First, they recently incorporated the democratic governing process of citizen's initiatives. During their learning curve, they found that the percentage of votes needed to pass an initiative had to be adjusted downward. Second, citizens created two online platforms containing digital democratic solution processes to allow citizens to contribute ideas for solutions to major issues. These online platforms can help us design democratic solution processes through a website that would scale nationally in the US.

Taiwan made referendums legal in 2003. However, no referendum could realistically pass because the law required 50% of the total electorate to vote for a referendum for it to pass (not just 50% of those voting). For example, if 80% of the electorate voted and 60% voted for the referendum, it would still fail because only 48% (60% x 80%) of the total electorate would have voted for it. Obviously, that standard was impossibly high. In 2017, they revised the law to require that 25% of the electorate must vote for an initiative and it must achieve a majority of the votes. [32]

A very interesting democratic solution experiment occurred in Taiwan in 2015. A website called vTaiwan was developed outside of government as a prototype process to help everyone in their society discuss national issues and reach a consensus on each issue. Negotiators then used the consensus to develop a solution to the issue. Obviously, there was no obligation for the government to use the solution as the process was developed and operated by private citizens.

Between 2016 and 2018, vTaiwan was used to address 26 major issues "with 80 percent resulting in 'decisive government action'." Two major issues were Uber vs. private taxi drivers and online sales of alcohol. With both of these issues, a consensus was quickly formed eliminating the gridlock between the opposing factions, leading to a solution that 80% or more of those from all sides supported.

Unfortunately, when a new administration took office in 2016, all bills in the legislature were withdrawn, including those resulting from vTaiwan. The new administration then decided that any issue outside of the digital economy was not appropriate for vTaiwan. [33] In response, a new, larger platform was created on the same premise as vTaiwan called "Join." Join is sponsored by the National Development Council of Taiwan and is used by many government ministries to survey citizen input. Join allows anyone to make and to comment on a proposal, including government officials who want input from the people. [34]