I came to Substack in February as a place to rabble rouse for how we-the-people could become a parallel force to the government. I had wondered why, strange but true, everyone isn’t looking for such ways considering our government is bogged down in partisanship where our legislators serve funders over constituents. And even stranger than everyone not looking for what to do is that no one is looking!
It’s a great idea. Having one voice in charge creates sides, there should be one team that represents all the different voices and concerns and needs. Everyone should work together for the world, not just for their side.
I really appreciate your effort, Suzanne. I recently ran across this info in James Bridle's book Ways of Being, which I find remarkable and antithetical to "experts." Food for thought.
"The function of the kleroterion – the ancient Athenians’ analogue computer for assigning positions in government at random – survives to this day in our processes for selecting juries. But this is not its only modern application. In recent years, a number of experiments have taken place, testing the effectiveness of sortition – selection by lottery – across a range of social and civic institutions. The results have been fascinating.
One such experiment took place in Ireland in 2016, when the government of the day created a Citizens’ Assembly to consider some of the thorniest issues faced by Irish society: abortion, fixed term parliaments, referendums, an ageing population and climate change. Ninety-nine people were brought together in a hotel outside Dublin, where over a succession of weekends they listened to expert presentations; took testimony from non-governmental organizations, think tanks and interested parties; held question-and-answer sessions; debated among themselves; and drew up a series of proposals for each of the topics under discussion, which the government had promised to review and act upon. The presentations and discussions were live-streamed on the internet to encourage public interest and awareness of the issues. The proceedings themselves were managed by a chairperson – the 100th participant – as well as a secretariat from the civil service, and drew upon procedural methods created by a handful of political theorists and other national governments and community groups over many years.
There are two points worth emphasizing about this Citizens’ Assembly. The first is that the ninety-nine participants were complete strangers to one another and were selected at random from the electoral roll, in a process akin to jury service. The results of the random selection were moderated to ensure a balance of certain criteria, such as gender, age, location and class. Beyond this, they were as random a collection of people as one could hope to find, with all the differences in experience, bias, background, education, points of view and personal philosophy that exist across any country. The second point is that the proposals which emerged from the Assembly were more progressive, more radical and potentially more world-changing than the politicians who commissioned it expected, or even believed possible. The Assembly’s recommendation on abortion – which had been made illegal in Ireland in 1861 and remained so following a nationwide referendum in 1983 – was that it should be put to another referendum. Abortion is the most contentious issue in Irish public life, with politicians losing their posts for even suggesting that it should be debated, and this fear of open discussion had strangled the possibility of reform for decades. Indeed, the press openly chastised the Assembly for ‘an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue’. But here’s the thing: a random assembly isn’t ‘interpreting’ the thinking of a mythical middle citizenry. It’s representing it, directly. And when the government acted on the Assembly’s recommendations and put the Eight Amendment, which forbade abortion, to another referendum, the result was overwhelming and historic. A full 66 per cent of the population voted for the legalization of abortion, which was signed into law in September 2018, against all the expectations of the media and the political class. Six months later the Assembly came to similarly radical conclusions, this time on the subject of climate change. After taking testimony from experts and the general public, the Assembly issued a series of recommendations, each one passed by at least 80 per cent of its members, arguing for the institution of an independent body to address climate change; the imposition of a tax on carbon and other greenhouse gases; the encouragement of electric vehicles, public transport, ecological forestry and organic farming; the ending of subsidies to fossil fuels; the reduction of food waste; and support for sustainable electricity micro-generation. All these measures had been proposed to the government before, but had been abandoned or left to languish because politicians thought them unworkable or unpopular, or both. The Assembly’s report reinvigorated environmental campaigning in Ireland, leading to the declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency by the Dáil, the Irish Assembly, and the publication of an official ‘government action plan on climate change’ in 2019.
It’s hard to overstate the significance of these results, which have been mirrored in the outcomes of similar citizens’ assemblies in Canada, France, the Netherlands, Poland and elsewhere. Not only did ninety-nine complete strangers, from every walk of life and every conceivable social and education background, come together and reach a consensus on some of the thorniest issues facing contemporary society – an almost unthinkable achievement in our age of political distrust, tribalism and division – but the proposals they put forth challenged our common idea of what is politically and socially possible and led to real, unequivocal change in the lives of their fellow citizens, and potentially in the more-than-human world. The assemblies further demonstrated that there is both an appetite and a willingness on the part of a supposedly apathetic public to seriously address some of the gravest and seemingly most intractable issues that we face. What was the importance of randomness in all this? I think its effects are twofold. First of all, random selection – sortition – returns to the democratic process something which its supporters often claim for it, but which has been largely lost: the approval and consent of the population. Sortition is transparent and verifiable. It bypasses the widely distrusted political class, and it allows each of us to imagine ourselves – even if not one of the ninety-nine – in a position of power and agency.
Its legitimacy is founded in equality, and it places power directly in the hands of the population – but not mindlessly.
This is not mob rule, or the tyranny of a vocal minority. Randomness is tempered by deliberate process. In its insistence on testimony, debate and consensus-building, the assembly returns to the people not only power, but also trust, clear communication, vital information and education – but not domination – by experts. The second effect of randomness is its inherent power to draw from the complex, fragmentary and often apparently divided landscape of our lives a coherent and effective mutual will, a yoking together of diverse forces which is greater than the whole. This is embodied in the broad consensus of the assemblies, as well as their willingness to put their names to policies which push beyond that which was previously thought possible."
(Also think the fact that it was live-streamed and they knew they were being observed was influential - transparency.)
Whew! And very smart. Thanks so much for getting it into play here. Something like this is among those blueprints being offered now but I don't encourage such a process because of the time it would take to get it going. What I'm proposing could be happening immediately. Maybe it could be a 2-step: immediate action plus longer range planning for something like this to take over when ready.
I like the Citizen Assemblies because they fit with what has long been my mantra that “people support what they create," (Margaret Wheatley) and that I have seen work over and over again. Citizen Assemblies require government agreements and getting, for instance, the US congress to agree on anything is next to impossible. At the same time, and I’m not an expert, I believe Citizen Assemblies are more local than national. They also fit with Complexity Theory: 1-The more interacting parts, the greater the complexity (keep it simple) 2-Keep it local (no top down org) 3-Negative Feedback Loops 4-Low Level Randomness or Unpredictability (More in this wonderful excerpt: https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/notes-complexity-scientific-theory-connection-consciousness-bookbite/42793/
I like the idea of contacting MacKenzie and while it would certainly be faster, it would still likely be quite a task. She probably gets hundreds if not thousands of requests that have to be organized, filtered, and evaluated. Then if she chooses, let’s say, universal basic income, she would need a process, probably in cooperation with some government agency, to implement and go through the organizing, filtering, evaluating, and administering again and again. I’m comparing it to Bill Gates and the process they had for the charity work they did. It was quite an ordeal to get through their approval process. Maybe there is an easier way.
Perhaps a letter to this group to do something on their own since I doubt, at least in the US, there will be any increased taxation of the wealthy in the very near future. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/19/millionaire-davos-tax-inequality-rich. I hope it happens and yet, even if it does, who knows how the money will be spent. A vast group of people do not even want to feed the hungry let alone give them a meager income. Again, maybe they could figure out how to bypass the taxation system.
I don’t have other ideas though I continue to think about possibilities. I also know that we have to somehow generate possibilities for changing beliefs in addition to structures. For example, we changed structures (voting laws, rights, policies…) following the civil rights movement, but many, many people have the same beliefs they had in the 60’s. Without a change in beliefs, it is still a constant battle for civil rights.
As with many things, it’s not an either or. What is for sure is that viable options will only be generated when people such as you create the intention and energy for them. Thank you for doing that, and I’ll keep following your thoughts!
My Wisdom Council is very simple to make operational and doesn't have to go through hoops to function -- nor is MacKenzie the only starter option, although I'm sure we could get to her since there are some heavyweights involved in my thinking about how to proceed. See earlier pieces of mine for more, including the bottom line for changing how we do things is changing how people think. As we think so we act and we are overdo for what comes after the Newtonian worldview we have now.
You might be interested in learning about the World Community Network and our efforts to unite the regular everyday people of the world ("The People") during these changing times. The URL is http://www.WorldCommunityNetwork.org
Small world. Someone put me in touch with Dea Shandara-Hunter a long while back and she sent me your book, "The Power of KM." I tried to follow-up and invited her -- and you -- to some things, but never heard from her again. How about sharing my ideas with your people and seeing if we can do some coordinating? As your site says, "Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children." Sitting Bull
It’s a great idea. Having one voice in charge creates sides, there should be one team that represents all the different voices and concerns and needs. Everyone should work together for the world, not just for their side.
I'm recruiting. You are in!
I really appreciate your effort, Suzanne. I recently ran across this info in James Bridle's book Ways of Being, which I find remarkable and antithetical to "experts." Food for thought.
"The function of the kleroterion – the ancient Athenians’ analogue computer for assigning positions in government at random – survives to this day in our processes for selecting juries. But this is not its only modern application. In recent years, a number of experiments have taken place, testing the effectiveness of sortition – selection by lottery – across a range of social and civic institutions. The results have been fascinating.
One such experiment took place in Ireland in 2016, when the government of the day created a Citizens’ Assembly to consider some of the thorniest issues faced by Irish society: abortion, fixed term parliaments, referendums, an ageing population and climate change. Ninety-nine people were brought together in a hotel outside Dublin, where over a succession of weekends they listened to expert presentations; took testimony from non-governmental organizations, think tanks and interested parties; held question-and-answer sessions; debated among themselves; and drew up a series of proposals for each of the topics under discussion, which the government had promised to review and act upon. The presentations and discussions were live-streamed on the internet to encourage public interest and awareness of the issues. The proceedings themselves were managed by a chairperson – the 100th participant – as well as a secretariat from the civil service, and drew upon procedural methods created by a handful of political theorists and other national governments and community groups over many years.
There are two points worth emphasizing about this Citizens’ Assembly. The first is that the ninety-nine participants were complete strangers to one another and were selected at random from the electoral roll, in a process akin to jury service. The results of the random selection were moderated to ensure a balance of certain criteria, such as gender, age, location and class. Beyond this, they were as random a collection of people as one could hope to find, with all the differences in experience, bias, background, education, points of view and personal philosophy that exist across any country. The second point is that the proposals which emerged from the Assembly were more progressive, more radical and potentially more world-changing than the politicians who commissioned it expected, or even believed possible. The Assembly’s recommendation on abortion – which had been made illegal in Ireland in 1861 and remained so following a nationwide referendum in 1983 – was that it should be put to another referendum. Abortion is the most contentious issue in Irish public life, with politicians losing their posts for even suggesting that it should be debated, and this fear of open discussion had strangled the possibility of reform for decades. Indeed, the press openly chastised the Assembly for ‘an overly-liberal interpretation of the current thinking of middle Ireland on the issue’. But here’s the thing: a random assembly isn’t ‘interpreting’ the thinking of a mythical middle citizenry. It’s representing it, directly. And when the government acted on the Assembly’s recommendations and put the Eight Amendment, which forbade abortion, to another referendum, the result was overwhelming and historic. A full 66 per cent of the population voted for the legalization of abortion, which was signed into law in September 2018, against all the expectations of the media and the political class. Six months later the Assembly came to similarly radical conclusions, this time on the subject of climate change. After taking testimony from experts and the general public, the Assembly issued a series of recommendations, each one passed by at least 80 per cent of its members, arguing for the institution of an independent body to address climate change; the imposition of a tax on carbon and other greenhouse gases; the encouragement of electric vehicles, public transport, ecological forestry and organic farming; the ending of subsidies to fossil fuels; the reduction of food waste; and support for sustainable electricity micro-generation. All these measures had been proposed to the government before, but had been abandoned or left to languish because politicians thought them unworkable or unpopular, or both. The Assembly’s report reinvigorated environmental campaigning in Ireland, leading to the declaration of a climate and biodiversity emergency by the Dáil, the Irish Assembly, and the publication of an official ‘government action plan on climate change’ in 2019.
It’s hard to overstate the significance of these results, which have been mirrored in the outcomes of similar citizens’ assemblies in Canada, France, the Netherlands, Poland and elsewhere. Not only did ninety-nine complete strangers, from every walk of life and every conceivable social and education background, come together and reach a consensus on some of the thorniest issues facing contemporary society – an almost unthinkable achievement in our age of political distrust, tribalism and division – but the proposals they put forth challenged our common idea of what is politically and socially possible and led to real, unequivocal change in the lives of their fellow citizens, and potentially in the more-than-human world. The assemblies further demonstrated that there is both an appetite and a willingness on the part of a supposedly apathetic public to seriously address some of the gravest and seemingly most intractable issues that we face. What was the importance of randomness in all this? I think its effects are twofold. First of all, random selection – sortition – returns to the democratic process something which its supporters often claim for it, but which has been largely lost: the approval and consent of the population. Sortition is transparent and verifiable. It bypasses the widely distrusted political class, and it allows each of us to imagine ourselves – even if not one of the ninety-nine – in a position of power and agency.
Its legitimacy is founded in equality, and it places power directly in the hands of the population – but not mindlessly.
This is not mob rule, or the tyranny of a vocal minority. Randomness is tempered by deliberate process. In its insistence on testimony, debate and consensus-building, the assembly returns to the people not only power, but also trust, clear communication, vital information and education – but not domination – by experts. The second effect of randomness is its inherent power to draw from the complex, fragmentary and often apparently divided landscape of our lives a coherent and effective mutual will, a yoking together of diverse forces which is greater than the whole. This is embodied in the broad consensus of the assemblies, as well as their willingness to put their names to policies which push beyond that which was previously thought possible."
(Also think the fact that it was live-streamed and they knew they were being observed was influential - transparency.)
Whew! And very smart. Thanks so much for getting it into play here. Something like this is among those blueprints being offered now but I don't encourage such a process because of the time it would take to get it going. What I'm proposing could be happening immediately. Maybe it could be a 2-step: immediate action plus longer range planning for something like this to take over when ready.
I like the Citizen Assemblies because they fit with what has long been my mantra that “people support what they create," (Margaret Wheatley) and that I have seen work over and over again. Citizen Assemblies require government agreements and getting, for instance, the US congress to agree on anything is next to impossible. At the same time, and I’m not an expert, I believe Citizen Assemblies are more local than national. They also fit with Complexity Theory: 1-The more interacting parts, the greater the complexity (keep it simple) 2-Keep it local (no top down org) 3-Negative Feedback Loops 4-Low Level Randomness or Unpredictability (More in this wonderful excerpt: https://nextbigideaclub.com/magazine/notes-complexity-scientific-theory-connection-consciousness-bookbite/42793/
I like the idea of contacting MacKenzie and while it would certainly be faster, it would still likely be quite a task. She probably gets hundreds if not thousands of requests that have to be organized, filtered, and evaluated. Then if she chooses, let’s say, universal basic income, she would need a process, probably in cooperation with some government agency, to implement and go through the organizing, filtering, evaluating, and administering again and again. I’m comparing it to Bill Gates and the process they had for the charity work they did. It was quite an ordeal to get through their approval process. Maybe there is an easier way.
Perhaps a letter to this group to do something on their own since I doubt, at least in the US, there will be any increased taxation of the wealthy in the very near future. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/19/millionaire-davos-tax-inequality-rich. I hope it happens and yet, even if it does, who knows how the money will be spent. A vast group of people do not even want to feed the hungry let alone give them a meager income. Again, maybe they could figure out how to bypass the taxation system.
I don’t have other ideas though I continue to think about possibilities. I also know that we have to somehow generate possibilities for changing beliefs in addition to structures. For example, we changed structures (voting laws, rights, policies…) following the civil rights movement, but many, many people have the same beliefs they had in the 60’s. Without a change in beliefs, it is still a constant battle for civil rights.
As with many things, it’s not an either or. What is for sure is that viable options will only be generated when people such as you create the intention and energy for them. Thank you for doing that, and I’ll keep following your thoughts!
My Wisdom Council is very simple to make operational and doesn't have to go through hoops to function -- nor is MacKenzie the only starter option, although I'm sure we could get to her since there are some heavyweights involved in my thinking about how to proceed. See earlier pieces of mine for more, including the bottom line for changing how we do things is changing how people think. As we think so we act and we are overdo for what comes after the Newtonian worldview we have now.
Very interesting!
Hi Suzanne,
I loved the Noosphere video.
You might be interested in learning about the World Community Network and our efforts to unite the regular everyday people of the world ("The People") during these changing times. The URL is http://www.WorldCommunityNetwork.org
Cheers,
Brent Hunter
Chairman and CEO
World Community Network
Small world. Someone put me in touch with Dea Shandara-Hunter a long while back and she sent me your book, "The Power of KM." I tried to follow-up and invited her -- and you -- to some things, but never heard from her again. How about sharing my ideas with your people and seeing if we can do some coordinating? As your site says, "Let us put our minds together and see what life we can make for our children." Sitting Bull