Dear Kossacks,
From time to time I've pondered the nature of democracy and how it could be improved both here in the US as well as worldwide. And over the past few months I have stubled upon an idea which I think is strangely underrepresented in the world of political philosophy. I'd like to share it here with you today, and I would love to hear your feedback ...
Democracy, as we know, is divided into two species: direct democracy and representative democracy. But direct democracy, although proven succesful on a small scales, encounters serious logistical problems when implemented on a continental scale. In addition, it does nothing to ensure that the most weighty problems facing the nation are solved by those most capable of addressing them. Everyone's opinion is regarded equally regardless of how ignorant or enlightened it is. For these reasons I don't believe that direct democracy is appropriate for any modern nation -- and for this reason most governments right now are representative democracies.
Yet I am even more dissatisfied with representative democracy. Even in its relatively short history, we have seen it too easily subverted. Among its greatest weaknesses is that the the process of choosing candidates is too arduous, and virtually guarantees that representatives will not be representative of the average citizen. Because it takes a great amount of hard work, dedication, and most importantly -- money -- to fight a winning campaign, a representative democracy will always be lead by whichever wealthy career politician wages the most successful propaganda war.
Moreover the system can be gamed with time-honored illegal tactics -- such as stealing votes and purging voter rolls -- and it can be gamed in ways that are very legal. For example, consider how third parties can be disenfranchised by a Winner-Take-All ballot. Or consider how the US's curiously constructed Senate represents the interests of imaginary entities called "states", and so a resident of a larger state has much less influence than would a citizen of a smaller state. Or consider how legislatures gerrymander districts so as to be immune from the people's true will. Or consider that even once a Congress has been elected there is no guarantee that it would be vested with any real powers -- as, for example, the NPC is in China.
After all this consideration, can we have any confidence that the emerging system represents the true democratic interest?
To solve these problems, I propose a third system of democracy which I refer to (for the lack of a better term) as "stochastic democracy". The underlying axiom is quite simple: the interests of the average citzen are best represented by choosing average citizens at random to perform civil service.
The idea has been tried a handful of times in history; the most notable is the Athenian Council of 500 under Cliesthenes, where 50 representatives were chosen at lot from each of the 10 tribes to serve one year terms. But I believe this model can be improved on -- such as with a possible system I now describe:
Imagine that a town of 20,000 residents has 3,000 citizens willing to perform civil service. Every year out of these 3,000 we choose 20 to serve on a town council. In return for their work, each member will be compensated with a reasonable stipend. Twenty is a good number -- not too small to be affected by random fluctuations, but not too large as to be easily fragmented. For the sake of keeping the number odd, let the size be 19 or 21. This council will then make all decisions regarding the common good by majority vote.
This may work well for a small town, of course, but what about the next town over, or a larger city, or even a larger territory? This problem -- of keeping a uniform government over a large area -- has been solved in the past by establishing a federal hierarchy. We can do the same. Join 20 of these town councils together and have them be ruled over a superior council, which has the power to hear appeals and overturn decisions made by lower councils, as well as create new legislation for their jurisdiction.
But how then should this superior council be populated? We could again choose these members at random -- but consider that each lower council, by virtue of having served together for a full year, will easily recognize who among their group is the most capable member which conveys best the consensus of the group. So instead, let the superior council be composed of delegates from lower councils who have been chosen to serve at the next higher level.
The hierarchy of councils continues upwards: towns, then counties, then provinces, until at last a single council governs the entire nation.
The benefits of this system are (as I see it):
- It is much less costly than the system of political campaigning.
- It is of the people, by the people, and for the people. The system ensures that representatives chosen are truly more representative of the average citizen.
- Each higher level of government consists of more capable and more moderate representatives than the one before. Hence it is more immune to extremism.
- Short terms (at most four years to progress through the entire system) discourage corruption.
- Because anyone can participate, government is not percieved as some alien "Other" entity.
Now I doubt that'll we'll ever see this idea in real life; even with our Rube Goldberg system of checks and balances enshrined in the US Constitution, there is a huge amount of inertia within the American system that I doubt this idea could ever take root in the next 100 years. But I would be interested to see it implemented in an emerging democracy -- for example, in Iraq.
All this said, and now I want your opinion: