Australian Citizens' Parliament

[Note: see a commentary by John Burnheim on an earlier version of this Topic Sheet.]

Consider that our Westminister system of representative government was designed. To those who previously only knew feudalism and oligarthy, it must have been seen as a radical innovation. What if we were to start afresh in these modern times? Twenty-five years ago Professor John Burnheim, a political philosopher at the University of Sydney, suggested an alternative that he called demarchy.

What is Demarchy?

In a demarchy, the responsibilities and functions of Government are departmentalised as now. But the policy-setting for each department is organised quite differently. Members of the public who are experts or who have an interest in the departmental functions nominate to take a leading role. From each departmental pool of these registered aspirants, individuals are selected randomly to a group that directs the department. Burnheim called these groups policy juries. In a variation of the model, at least some ordinary citizens are randomly conscripted, much like trial juries. This method of selection of decision-makers by lottery (rather than election) is called sortition.

Each policy jury consists of 10 to 20 members, enough to offer diversity of perspective, but not too many to stifle healthy deliberation. They serve for a limited number of years. To maintain continuity, retirements are staggered. Decisions about the whole of Government are taken by a cabinet similarly selected by lot from the ministerial groups.

Burnheim advocates a network of juries ranging from local to national functional scope. They would replace both the elected politicians and the executive heads of the bureaucracy, at all levels. Rather than relying on the interests of elites, demarchy places the decision-making in the hands of a microcosm of citizens. For Burnheim, the public is the best judge of how public goods and services should be deployed. Burnheim goes further to suggest that his "conception of demarchy is not an alternative way of running the state, but a way of taking as many public goods as possible out of the power of the state."

They would work deliberatively to understand the requirements and constraints of their department, recommend policy changes or adjustments, and set operational strategy and guidelines. Each member brings different knowledge and perspectives to the group. Rather than dominating like the Chair of a Senate Committee or merely adjudicating procedure like a Parliamentary Speaker, a professionally-accredited facilitator would assist the deliberating group focus on the task, collaboratively explore differences, creatively articulate options and negotiate common ground. Policy jurors are obliged to work diligently, honestly and transparently for the duration of their terms.

As yet, no country has completely adopted such a system of governance. But throughout the world there are local councils, state departments and energy authorities that have implemented the recommendations of randomly selected citizens who deliberated on policy issues. The most common format for these demarchic groups is called a citizens' jury. In Germany, a similar demarchic approach called planning cells (Planungszelle) has been applied to land use and infrastructure development. Numerous consensus conferences, another demarchic process, have been convened in several countries to inform technology policy. A transition to demarchy could evolve over time, starting with local and specific implementations and working up to the national scale.

With this brief introduction, the advantages and disadvantages of demarchy are outlined.

The case for demarchy

A policy jury, especially if conscripted citizens are included, is a microcosm of the population. Thus, the diversity of perspectives is recognised and acknowledged in a decision-making group. The responsibility for governance is still delegated by the population, who can still carry on with their busy lives.

Demarchy would be less easily influenced by political parties and ideology, since such affiliation has no bearing on random selection. Also due to its randomness and limited terms, demarchy does not support cronyism or the perpetuation of vested interests. Rather than acting as delegates of particular factions of the community, jurists would be more inclined to take a holistic view of the needs of their community. Because they didn't have to seek elected approval, they don't have to return favours. Demarchy is more likely to innovate policy that crosscuts the diversity of political views in the population.

Demarchy does not reward charisma and rhetoric over substance. While communication with the public is still required, the public doesn't have to rely on stump speeches or their filtered analysis by the media. By being more directly connected to the community and unencumbered by delegated expectations, policy juries would appeal more readily to the public for support and understanding of policy directions. This would lead to more interest in public policy and better informed citizenry. Such communication exchanges would be continuous rather than tied to an election cycle.

Policy juries would be more responsive to community needs than professional politicians or career politicians who would at least to some extent be unwilling to rock the boat for fear of falling off. Also, jurists would only be focussing on a single functional area of governance.

Civil society and activists are often closed out by our present system. But with demarchy, they are provided an opportunity to gain entry to a decision-making circle.

Demarchy is democracy without elections. That means the immense cost and distraction of elections is bypassed.

The case against demarchy

Most of the disadvantages relate to the obvious problem of shifting from a well-entrenched system. For example, it threatens the livelihood of its prominent actors: the politicians and chief bureaucrats. They would hardly be keen for such change. Demarchy shifts the responsibility of governance from this professional elite to a group of more ordinary citizens. The population are so used to putting politicians on pedestals, they may doubt the capacity of their peers to rise to the occasion.

In the expert model of demarchy, there is no guarantee that enough people will be interested and motivated to nominate. On the other hand, the conscripted model may have difficulty gaining sufficient competence even in collaboration and with educational support. A response to this might be to include both experts and lay citizens in the policy jury.

Demarchy would benefit from a culture that pays attention to public policy and takes civic education seriously. This would have to happen first, but such public education would require a generational change and the motivation that could be provided by demarchy already in place. It's a chicken and egg problem.

People respond to personality and want strong national leaders on display. Demarchy does not provide for this explicitly. However, a popular spokesman for the government could still be appointed.

With demarchy, the media will find it more difficult to create adversarial stories that paradoxically sell better while reinforcing the ineffective polarisation of politics. Thus, the media would probably not support demarchy.

Many Australians gamble, to the peril of some. Yet the option to choose a government by lottery may not be so appealing. Elections determine outcomes that are predictable, thanks to the pollsters. Many people are unsettled by randomness and uncertainty.