If you will, let's reinvent democracy, improving it and making it even better. Democracy, version 2.0. This might sound like a little much, but actually, there is room for improvement.
Introducing People Cabuls, as I shall call them. Each time an issue comes up -- whether it be Bears Ears, or the homeless crisis, or whatever -- all interested parties will be brought together to discuss the issue, to weigh in, and to deliberate.
Now, here's the trick: Those attending will be charged with considering the other side's viewpoint. They'll not be there just to debate, not to just argue their own viewpoint, but to listen and consider what the other party has to say.
Indeed, they'll be charged with giving in, if and when the other person's arguments are sounder. They will not be there not to win arguments, but to find answers -- even if the answers aren't their own.
Once those in the Cabuls decide what should be done, they take their proposal to the legislative body. The legislator becomes a facilitator. He or she calls the Cabuls, sometimes to discuss bills already before the legislature, and sometimes to discuss issues breaking in the news. So, sometimes the Cabuls are not intended to result in immediate legislation, but just to facilitate discussion and provide public forum.
The Cabuls represent a departure from current practice, for the emphasis becomes on finding the best and most equitable answers, not just taking counts of which side everyone is on. The focus is on solving problems, not winning arguments.
In this, we have change. Whereas now participants usually seek only to prove they are right, and to forward their own agendas, and to seek to overcome, smash, demolish and hate the opposition, in the new system, they are asked to do just the opposite: to be considerate of what the others say, and to weigh carefully what others suggest. By asking them to do this, we attempt to strip pride and hate from the equation. It is no longer a matter of proving who is right, and no longer a matter of demeaning the other side and classing them as idiots for simply believing as they do.
This new system puts a premium on agreeing with the other person, instead of finding shouting him down. It attempts to strip the political divide from public issues. As it stands now, discussion on issues usually is not an honest attempt by the participants to find the truth, but rather just another battleground in their fight against each other. They participants seek not agreement, nor peace, nor understanding, but rather they relish the opportunity to correct, demean and find fault with the other side.
Such things should not be. Agreeing quickly with thine adversary has meaning. The phase, "If you are not one, you are not mine," has meaning. Being civil and loving both have value. Justifying our opposition (indeed, our hatred) of each other by saying there should be opposition in all things, is to ignore these other injunctions. There will be quite enough opposition if we just civilly discuss the issues.
Government of the people, by the people and for the people? You don't get any closer to government of the people, by the people and for the people, than by letting the people come up with the solutions.
So, what remains the role of the legislator? If the people are coming up with the solutions, what is left for the legislator? He becomes a facilitator, calling for the Cabuls. He becomes a judge, in a way, sorting through what is presented and judging the facts and arguments. We speak of electing wise leaders. The value of having a wise, intelligent, fair-minded and even handed leader becomes paramount, for he will not listen even-handedly and cull out the truth if he is not an even-handed
person wise enough to discern between what is beneficial and what is not.
While the legislator calls for Cabuls, not all Cabuls would be under him. The people have the right to call their own Cabuls. Anyone can call a Cabul. If the legislator attends a People's Cabul not called by him, he brings no authority with him. He is but an attendee, same as everyone else.
Lobbyists? They, too, can attend, and participate, but they carry no more weight than anyone else. Gone are the days of lobbyist rule. Whereas nowadays, the hand of the lobbyist is all over our legislation, that influence is reduced under the new system. The lobbyist folds back into the general public, having no greater voice than others at the Cabuls.
You might argue that the new system is not a reinvention of Democracy, but a doing-away of it, for voting is not even a necessary part of the Cabuls. Instead of an opinion being valued by volume -- the greatest number of votes winning -- it is valued by content. You measure what should be done by the strength of the argument, not by the popularity of it.
So, while you might suggest the new system actually derails democracy, I suggest democracy remains -- and is even stronger.
It is like I said up above. Government of the people, by the people and for the people? You don't get any closer to government of the people, by the people and for the people, than by letting the people come up with the solutions.
But, if you don't like calling the new system democracy, that's fine. Distinctions are also seen between democracy and republicanism. Even so, this might be distinct from either. So, if you like, go ahead and consider this a new form of government, being a shade different from either democracy or republicanism.
Whatever you call it, I suggest it would be wonderful if we practiced government this way.
(Note: Blog was expanded, added to, on 7/29/17.)
No comments:
Post a Comment