More Not Less Democracy Ends Divisiveness, Voter Frustration

Voters are restless. They quickly embrace new leaders with inspiring messages only to abandon them again in the next election cycle. As a result, politics has become chaotic and there is little place for long-term policies to improve society for all.

Perhaps the problem is not the leaders but the system. Maybe there is something wrong with a democracy based on elections once every so many years?

Switzerland is one of the most stable countries in the world. One reason may be that the Swiss have a different democracy. Nowhere in the western world are citizens more closely involved in government than in Switzerland.

The Swiss have direct democracy. They have more power and that might makes them less angry and frustrated.

The roots of this power go back to the 13^th century when citizen lawmaking began in the towns of Switzerland. On any political level Swiss citizens can propose changes to laws — including the constitution — that can be voted on in referendums.

Since 1848, the Swiss have voted on national issues — including the constitution — on average four times a year. If you include regional levels, the Swiss vote almost every week! Just imagine what that could mean for the United States.

Two thirds of Americans support stricter gun laws. In a direct democracy, Americans could make sure their voices are heard.

Feeling heard is what citizens desire. Feeling heard is something very different from checking a box to choose a new representative once every two or more years and subsequently having to witness a power struggle in Congress that seems to sidetrack all the expectations and needs of any citizen.

The point is that the democracy most of us know is not real democracy. It is indirect democracy and that, I propose, lies at the root of the anger and frustration that now threatens to tear apart the very institutions of (international) government that were so carefully built in the decades since World War II.

Democracy is supposed to be the “rule of the people.” The word comes from the Greek demos for people and kratos for power or rule. But that democracy is broken. That is the increasingly louder message that angry voters are sending through the election of anti-establishment candidates.

The democracy we know is not the democracy the Greeks created some 2,500 years ago. We do not directly participate in government.

In ancient Greece all citizens — of course, painfully, excluding women and slaves — participated. By lottery a Greek citizen would be chosen to take his part in legislation and even in the executive branch.

We know that system in legal proceedings where a trial by a jury is used to decide whether someone has broken the law. We feel comfortable that juries of random people, not experts, decide whether someone is guilty.

Exactly the same system can be used to involve citizens in government. It requires a return to the central principle of Athenian democracy: Drafting by lot or, as it is officially called, sortition.

Experiments with sortition are being successfully applied around the world as David van Reybrouck describes in his excellent book Against Elections: The case for democracy.

A recent example: In Ireland in 2018, a group of 100 randomly chosen citizens debated abortion. Their recommendations led to a decisive referendum and a historic change in the law.

Abortion seemed an extremely divisive issue in Ireland — like it is today in the U.S. — but a citizen-led democratic process was able to unblock it.

What would happen if, for example, the fate of Obamacare would be discussed by a random group of drafted citizens who would hear experts and listen to proposals? What if the rest if the country would be able to follow their discussions and contribute to it through online platforms?

How would their proposals and recommendations compare to these of elected politicians who are chased by lobbyists of pharmaceutical and insurance companies and who need money for their next election? Which outcome would provide a better reflection of the voice of the people and would better serve their interests?

Of course, the obvious argument against direct democracy is that citizens are not experts. That is why the Founding Fathers devised indirect, representative democracy in the first place.

They did not want the masses to rule. They feared reckless and irresponsible behavior.

Was that ever a fair argument? Recent experiments with microfinance in developing countries show that poor, illiterate people are very well capable making wise decisions that serve their own interests as well as their communities and their environment. Tribal societies express such wisdom, too.

If we agree that 12 randomly selected people can decide in good faith about the freedom or imprisonment of a fellow citizen, we can be confident that a similar random group can make responsible decisions about any other issue in a way that serves the interests of society at large.

Despite their ultimate preference for the model of indirect democracy, it is important to note that the Founding Fathers looked at the democracy example of Switzerland with great interest. James Madison was fascinated by the way Switzerland had “no concentered authority, the Diets being only a Congress of Delegates from some or all of the Cantons.”

The secret to overcoming the current wave of divisiveness and election frustration lies in more democracy, not less. The time for true — direct — democracy has come. With some seven centuries of experience, the Swiss can lead the way.