Getting Back to Work On Our Democracy

We have had no local government representation in South Gippsland since the State Labour government sacked the elected shire council in June last year. South Gippsland Shire Council was removed and local democracy expunged when poor behaviour by some councillors, and a disabling lack of ability in others, disrupted Council processes. Vested interests and opponents of the Council took advantage of the disruption to successfully agitate for the sacking. You might think this is a contentious analysis, but the essential point is that dissatisfaction with Council had rumbled on for years, across multiple councils and election outcomes, which, if it proved nothing else, certainly proved that voting does not equal effective and satisfactory representation. South Gippsland is merely a microcosm of the larger national sentiment. The evidence is that trust in Australia’s democracy as the best political system has crashed. A survey conducted by the Museum of Australian Democracy and the Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis at the University of Canberra, which was released at the end of 2018, showed only 41 percent of Australians were satisfied with the way our democracy works. This compared to voter satisfaction levels of 86 percent in 2007 and 72 percent in 2010, where it plateaued for three years before diving to an alarming level. The survey found that “there is compelling evidence of the increasing disconnect between government and citizen, reflected in the decline of democratic satisfaction, trust in politicians, political parties and other key institutions, and lack of public confidence in the capacity of governments (of whatever colour) to address public policy concerns.” “So what,” I hear you say. Australian voters get the representatives they vote for, and our system says it’s they who identify the issues, come up with the policies and enact the laws, and we live with the consequences. But does that seem like the best way to have a vital democracy? If the only opportunity citizens have to participate in politics, to the point where their actions have an outcome, is to visit a voting booth every three or four years, then it’s fair to say our participation in the political process is pretty limited. Voting does not give you a voice in policy formulation, nor does it give you a voice in the framing of legislation, or even in what issues are going to be discussed, let alone acted upon by governments. For instance, 70 per cent of Australians believe in government action to close coal-fired power plants and replace them with clean energy. Yet, the government is doing the opposite by ignoring public concerns and proposing to extend the life of coal power stations.

If the public sees it has no real power in the political system that should be dealing with a problem it believes is serious and urgent, then perhaps it is entitled to doubt the legitimacy of that system. Unfortunately, this doubt can lead us into dangerous territory, such as the rise in some countries of populist politicians promising easy, phony solutions that further undermine faith in political systems. But what to do about this crisis of the legitimacy of our political system? How can we revitalise our democracy? The political thinker, Hannah Arendt, believed “no one could be called happy or free without participating, and having a share, in public power.” Sortition is one approach that gives ordinary people a direct share in exercising political power, and it’s being talked about and implemented by all levels of government in various countries, including Australia. Sortition is a catch-all term for various forms of citizen involvement in the process of government. It’s a timely reintroduction of a very old idea, because it used to apply in Ancient Greece, with citizens (and yes, women and slaves were excluded), being chosen by lot to deliberate and decide on matters of government. So instead of our current professional class of politicians, who prioritise managing the message, avoiding accountability for decision-making and abiding by party ‘groupthink,’ ordinary people can be chosen at random to advise legislative bodies on complex issues requiring legislation – perhaps by nominating themselves to an issue, or for engagement for a whole term of government. Systems of sortition include citizens’ juries or assemblies, where randomly selected members of a community – at local, state or federal government level – come together to consider a given issue and propose, even decide, a binding recommendation to government.

In 2018, 66 per cent of Irish citizens voted in a referendum to overturn the country’s highly restrictive abortion laws. The vote came after 100 randomly selected citizens had met as a Citizens’ Assembly across a number of weeks to contemplate and discuss what they’d heard from legal, ethical and medical experts. A majority of the Citizens’ Assembly then voted in favour of recommending that the laws be changed, and the Irish government duly ran a referendum which saw the repeal of its near total ban on abortion. In the UK there are high hopes for a Citizens’ Assembly on climate change that’s deliberating on a strategy of action to overcome the current political deadlock on dealing properly with the crisis. 110 citizens are attending sessions where they are briefed by experts before recommending a set of policies to solve it.

On a smaller scale, in 2014, Melbourne City Council’s Peoples’ Panel was set up with citizens developing a 10-year financial plan. In 2016, Infrastructure Victoria undertook a citizens’ jury to develop a 30-year infrastructure plan for Victoria, and South Australia selected 350 people to sit on a citizens’ jury to consider whether or not the state should accept nuclear waste. There are serious issues we need our governments to address. Voting in elections does not guarantee proper policies and legislative action, instead delivering governments compromised by corporate affiliations and ideological blind spots. Sometimes, governments seem so paralysed by fear of failure and accountability that they appear uninterested in governing altogether. So, if governments won’t, or can’t, govern, and citizens are disaffected, then surely it must be time to look for different institutional structures that renew engagement and participation.

Methods of sortition allow ordinary people to represent themselves and participate in the process of government decision-making on critical issues. Perhaps we should be thinking of ways in which a form of sortition could be developed to help restore and revitalise local government processes in South Gippsland, once we are again allowed to vote for a shire council. After all, South Gippsland ratepayers have sat on community panels convened to consider how best to spend capital works budgets. Why not expand citizen participation to consider some of the really big and vexing issues, such as how do we implement a Green New Deal for South Gippsland that addresses issues such as energy use, employment, housing, transport, natural resource usage and waste, food production and consumption, the way we live and work, and the way that the local economy works and supports itself? There are decades of work in these challenges, so why not begin drawing on the wisdom and experience of informed local citizens to work out the right answers and build common ground right from the beginning? There is much more to be said about sortition as a method of reinvigorating our democracy. There are objections to it, of course, and there have been failures. But at a time when our lives are dominated by uncertainty and a degree of fatalism about our political processes, it seems worth thinking seriously about this alternative. Tony Walker Fish Creek

Printed from justcommunitysg.com with permission