For those who were at our previous, agenda-setting meeting of the RA, I mentioned that one of my goals for this term is to raise consciousness and spur discussion on what may seem to be a "radical" proposal, but which I think is sensible. I am talking about my proposal for replacing our representative democracy with a direct democracy.
Please forgive me in advance because I much prefer the discursive, colloquial space of talking in world. To this end, I hope to organise a few meetings over the next few months to talk about this proposal, whether in chat or in voice. For now I know many of you are expecting a fleshed out proposal from me—I think that premature and, frankly, unbefitting a democracy. I am no nomothete.
I have mentioned this idea before, a few terms ago. It is fairly simple: instead of having a group of five elected representatives (or, more realistically, volunteers), a direct democratic body would be made up of the citizens who take part in the individual meetings. As I mentioned after the RA meeting, this does not mean that we would have to get rid of the LRA, the LRA pro tempore, the archivist, or necessarily even the five elected/volunteered seats on the dais. A direct democratic assembly would still require leadership and officers, and the composition of the RA as it is now would still be appropriate to be a steering committee or prytaneis.
Realistically, this means a minor change: instead of having only five people empowered to vote on motions and proposals, all citizens could vote. Effectively, I would say, the structure would largely remain unchanged. But this minor change means that all citizens have a direct vote on all matters that affect our laws, our political decisions, our plans, etc.
We would still have our legitimate procedures. For all changes, like the recent change the RA voted on today to the general covenant, we would still need a period of public input. We would still need to wait to vote on substantial changes in policy and in law. Citizens, not just RA members, could have the potential for a "seven-day vote" in their absence.
We would still need elections. We would still need referenda. I do not imagine that all citizens will come to meetings of the assembly, nor would they be able to! But with only eight citizens at today's RA meeting I do not think we need to worry that we will be swamped and, even if a problem like overcrowding would arise there are other outlets to remedy whatever technological constraints we might have: citizens can express themselves here on the forums and, as I said, they could still request a seven-day vote—or perhaps this will become standard practice, to give all citizens seven days to vote.
What about the historical excesses of direct democracy? (Thank you, Aristotle and Polybius.) It is fair to point out that even with a representative democracy or with a direct democracy we do not live in a "democracy" alone. We have a division of powers: we are a republic. This fact does not change whether we have a representative or a direct democratic assembly. The procedures that are already part of our political culture with the RA, too, already put brakes on the kind of excesses one might think of.
But why change our constitution "so radically" at this point? For one, turnout and citizen activity is low. Does it not make sense to encourage participation one way or another? How many more "elections" will we have to have where we cannot even elect citizens who may be hardly "representative"? As a member of the RA, and who has been a member of the RA on-and-off for years now, do we really presume that the RA can claim to be "representative" any more? How is our "representative" democracy at this point any more defensible than direct democracy?
We are a small community. We can make this reasonable change, thanks to our size. When you interrogate what this proposal really means, it means making a slight change to our constitution (giving all citizens suffrage in our assembly) and recognising in our laws the constitutional inheritance of a democratic assembly from the representative assembly. We do not need RL, macronational spectres in our virtual micronation.