Archive for May, 2010
Citizen Circles as Long Term State Building no comments
Whatever our government decides to do about Iraq and Afghanistan in the near term, it seems that there are no convincing solutions. The choices unfortunately are between bad and worse. Leaving these countries would, in all likelihood, result in short term violence and chaos. In the long term the fates of these two countries would not be desirable for the citizens of those countries and ourselves. On the other hand escalated military action and monetary aid is not sustainable and have been ineffective in creating stable nation states that are reasonably democratic. Not many are convinced escalation will create the lasting change we want. Even the experience of our normal democratic processes such as voting have not been transformative.
We need a new strategy working in tandem with military operations. I suggest trying new democratic forms. What follows is an example. The evidence is clear that when citizens deliberate face to face and are given information they are likely to tolerate and understand others that are different from themselves. They are likely to act out of a wider view than their own private interests. They are likely to change their minds and/or find unthoughtof solutions that most everyone can agree to. Face to face interaction is the key. Of course it is absurd to think all the citizens in even the smallest country could all go through such a process together, nor would such a chaotic debate be productive. But if we take random samples of citizens, it becomes more doable. A random sample provides the adequate representation needed for real and perceived legitimacy. Let’s call this sample a “Citizen Circle”. Citizens not in the Circle are represented because their views, life situations, and interests are represented proportionally in the circle.
These Citizen Circles would be small groups, say thirty or so, of randomly sampled citizens in the local jurisdiction. The circles should hear testimony from different power centers in the society as well as experts. There should be time allotted for debate and discussion. Procedural rules and trained moderators will be needed. The Circles need real power. At the end of the process a vote on a proposal would still probably be needed, but a 2/3 or higher majority should be required for ratification. The whole process should take place every day for a few weeks, or a few times a week for a couple months. Transcripts of the circles’ deliberation and the results should be widely disseminated. At first, and perhaps for many years, outsiders would need to provide the moderators and other key functions. But as the practice becomes entrenched, locals should take over.
I suggest a two fold strategy. First, run circles at the grass roots levels to identify major problems. Run a smaller set of circles (say three simultaneously) to debate a specific problem and draft a proposal. If done properly, I contend the outcomes of the Citizen Circles would be seen as legitimate by local citizens (that is why it is important to disseminate the transcripts, to counteract charges of foreign interference and so citizens who did not participate can internalize the structure of the debate). moreover, since it was created by citizens themselves, the outcomes would more likely to be feasible, positive and perceived as legitimate.
For example, the problem of how to divvy up the oil wealth in Iraq is ripe for this sort of solution. Once the Citizen Circles provided a solution it would serve as a concrete reference point for the various groups to build trust and resolve grievances.
Given how much we are spending on a daily basis in these two countries trying this experiment would be a drop in the bucket. And while it is a risky endeavor, what do we have to lose?
There would be security issues of course. But the fact that there will be casualties during this process is not a problem that is peculiar to this plan. Also, since the samples will be specific individuals, rather than open “town hall” style forums, security will be doable. Those in the circles will be checked, and those not in the circles will not be admitted.
Some may worry about the legitimacy of such bodies. There is much to be said on this topic. A short response is that the supposed representation between an elected official and an average citizen is only the yay or nay of the ballot, a very uninformative and distant connection. Nor is there a great connection between what a voter thinks a candidate will do in office and what an elected official actually does. While in the Citizen Circle, views and concerns are represented proportionally by actual citizens, not professional politicians.
In order to ramp up the trust of the population, circles should probably start with non-political problems, such as issues surrounding farming and transportation for example. Once trust is built, political questions could be introduced. This support from the populace, and the fact that the citizens would be participating would make it less likely that violence against the circles would pay off for any group.
Experimentation with this form should occur to accommodate the local culture. But on certain issues we should stand firm, such as on the inclusion of women. Solutions that affect everyone must be supported by everyone. And if many women decided to stay home, we could randomly pick more women until the sample was representative of the population.
Obtaining the information needed to create an accurate sample will also be a challenge, but I believe that we can get samples that reflect the population clearly enough to be, and to be seen as, accurate reflections of the population.
What the Citizen Circle would do is place the ultimate responsibility for the solving of local problems in the hands of locals. Real, lasting solutions cannot come from anywhere else The outside powers would lend a helping hand, but the locals will do the heavy lifting.