OPINION:Popular faith in politics is at an all-time low. Could the ancient Greeks and modern Chinese teach us about reinventing democracy asks Joe Humphreys
IRELAND, LIKE much of the western world, has in recent decades smugly assumed that it had reached the promised land in terms of political development. Save the odd debate about local government reform and the merits of abolishing the Seanad, there has hardly been a significant discussion about how to strengthen democracy in Ireland over the past 80 years. Certainly, there has not been a memorable one.
It is as though the creation of the Free State Dáil in 1922 was the universally accepted last step in the evolution of participatory government, and all we had to do to sustain Irish democracy was turn up every five years to vote for this party or that.
Recently, our self-confidence has been dented somewhat - in tandem with a heightened realisation in the West that our model of democracy might not be perfect after all. From Brussels to New York, politics is under strain. Low voter turnouts, democratic deficits, rising public cynicism and a widening "disconnect" between politicians and the general public are everywhere to be seen. And that is only in developed nations.
In the early 1990s, the American academic Francis Fukuyama predicted the global acceptance of liberal democracy, or "the end of history", as he termed it. Today, his thesis is viewed even by neo-cons as embarrassingly optimistic, with attempts to run mere elections in developing states proving to be a hazardous and complex task.
Weaknesses in Ireland's democracy have become more obvious since the Lisbon Treaty referendum. An uneasy stand-off has emerged between a largely untrusting population, and - it must be said - a largely uninspiring political class. Resentment is building up on both sides, as illustrated this week when Fine Gael MEP for Dublin Gay Mitchell challenged businessman Ulick McEvaddy's right to participate in the anti-Lisbon Treaty campaign.
"Let me just put this to you about referendums," said Mitchell, in an interview on RTÉ Radio with Myles Dungan. "Do you know the people in Germany voted for the Third Reich? The people outside Caesar's palace voted for the crucifixion of Christ."
Addressing McEvaddy, Mitchell added: "I will tell you what has to happen, Ulick. We have to put people like you in your place. You are a good businessman; you know sweet damn all about politics."
Mitchell here articulates a dominant view within politics, where politics is the privilege of a certain number of professional public representatives to whom we delegate our sovereignty, except for the odd constitutional ballot (and then, as history has repeatedly shown, we might be asked for a second option).
But do we really have to accept such a limited concept of democracy?
Ironically, we could find some inspiration by looking to China - not a place known for democratic vibrancy, but the very place which pioneered a new form of inclusive decision-making a few years ago.
In what has been described as the first experiment of its type anywhere in the world, a "jury" of residents from the Zeguo township in the prosperous Zhejiang province was selected at random to decide how to spend its 40 million yuan (€4 million) public works budget. Some 257 residents were appointed as "popular-will representatives", meeting with engineers, town planners and other experts before presenting a plan to local Communist Party chiefs who voted it through in its entirety.
The beauty of this form of "deliberative democracy" is that it gets citizens to better appreciate, and take responsibility for, the trade-offs involved in political decisions.
It also has advantages over traditional forms of consultation, which tend to attract only the most vocal complainants and vested interests, not to mention downright cranks.
The Zeguo experiment was carried out in consultation with a Stanford political scientist called James Fishkin, who is so taken by its success he has trademarked "deliberative polling", claiming to have invented the concept in 1988.
This is a bit rich, given that the idea hails from ancient Greece where people were chosen by lot to make decisions on behalf of the Athenian government.
As well as promoting active citizenship, such deliberative mechanisms were aimed at stopping the mob from steering what Plato described as the "ship of state" in erratic, and potentially dangerous, directions. (Plato had perhaps an even dimmer view of public opinion than Gay Mitchell.)
Whichever version of deliberative democracy you prefer (and there are several others, as mentioned by UCC lecturer Dr Clodagh Harris in these pages on July 8th), the innovation could prove to be a hugely valuable weapon in combating public apathy, and creating an altogether more mature body politic.
So why aren't we testing it already? A deliberative poll might well have been preferable to a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, although that point is academic now.
What is important is the future, and the need to breathe new life back into our sickly democracy.
Mitchell might not be a fan of referendums. But perhaps even he would agree that a jury of informed citizens could, on many a public matter, produce more balanced - and better - judgments than a chamber of sometimes excitable politicians.
...
Joe Humphreys in an Irish Times journalist