Universal Truths About the Citizen's Role in Great Governance: The Importance of Reason

I didn't go into reading this book expecting to get out of it what I did. And there's more to it than just valuable stuff about civic engagement. (For the record, it's a badly-edited effort lacking in focus...and too often an unseemly and overwrought polemic against President George W. Bush.)

But as I was reading it, I came across some powerful bits, and I want to share them with you, because what Town Halls Hamilton is all about is very much what this stuff is all about. 


So herein are some choice excerpts...with some comments from me, as suitable.

(Fair warning: In most instances, I've paraphrased Mr. Gore's words. As little as possible, retaining the intent and the flavour of the material, but mostly excising American references. The propositions' value certainly take up a space well above and beyond the borders of the US, so I've taken the liberty to revise as necessary.)

 "...when the people are not informed, they cannot hold government accountable when it's incompetent, corrupt, or both."

And when cynicism and resignation are at play, then people tend not to be 'informed'. 

"The intricate clockwork mechanism of great governance has always depended on a 'ghost in the machine'. The ghost animating the machinery is not holy; it is us, all of us, the proverbial 'well-informed citizenry'. We may be endowed with individual rights by our Creator, but we act to protect those rights and govern ourselves with the instruments of reason."

I'm not so sure that the notion of a 'well-informed citizenry' is apparent to most in Hamilton. Therefore, there's probably insufficient animation going on. 

"The derivation of just power from the consent of the governed depends on the integrity of the reasoning process through which that consent is given. If the reasoning process is corrupted, then the consent of the governed is based on false premises, and any power thus derived is inherently counterfeit and unjust. If the consent of the governed is extorted through the manipulation of mass fears, or embezzled with claims of divine guidance, democracy is impoverished. If the suspension of reason causes a significant portion of the citizenry to lose confidence in the integrity of the process, democracy can be bankrupted. If citizens no longer participate, those among them who notice signs of corruption or illogic have no way to voice their concerns and summon the attention of others who, upon examining the same evidence, might share the same dismay. No critical mass of opposition can form among individuals who are isolate from one another, looking through one-way mirrors and soundproof rooms, shouting if they wish, but still unheard. If enough citizens cease to participate in its process, democracy dies."

Given that we have only 40% of eligible voters casting ballots, and almost two-thirds of these voting by way of 'name recognition', I'm not so sure we've got a very high level of 'integrity of the reasoning process' going on. Do you...?

"As long as individual citizens are not able to use logic and reason as the instruments with which they can dissect and meticulously examine ideas, opinions, policies and laws, corrupt forces will shape those policies and laws instead. It is the public's lack of participation that empowers its abusers. It is the public's enforced lack of participation that prevents people from joining with others in a collective effort to once again wield reason to mediate between wealth and power."

"When the public merely watches and listens and does not have a speaking part, the entire exercise is fraudulent."

"Most feel that government is unresponsive and that no one in positions of power listens to or cares what they think. They feel disconnected from democracy. They feel that one vote makes no difference, and that they, as individuals, now have no practical means of participating in self-governance."

'Nuff said. 

"I believe that the viability of democracy depends upon the openness, reliability, appropriateness, responsiveness and two-way nature of the communication environment. After all, democracy depends upon the regular sending and receiving of signals. Not only between the people and those who aspire to be their elected representatives, but also among the people themselves. It is the connection of each individual to the conversation that is the key. I believe that the citizens of any democracy learn, over time, to adopt a basic posture towards the possibilities of self-government.

If democracy seems to work, and if people receive a consistent, reliable and meaningful response from others when they communicate their opinions and feelings about shared experiences, they begin to assume that self-expression in democracy matters. When they can communicate with others regularly, in ways that produce meaningful changes, they learn that democracy matters. 

If they receive responses that seem to be substantive but actually are not, citizens begin to feel as if they're being manipulated. If the message they receive from the media feed this growing cynicism, the decline of democracy can be accelerated.

Moreover, if citizens express their opinions and feelings over an extended period of time without evoking a meaningful response, then they naturally begin to feel angry. If the flow of communication provides little opportunity for citizens to express themselves meaningfully, they naturally begin to reel frustration and powerlessness."

In the book, Mr. Gore finds a way to connect (and explain) the above with developmental psychology's 'attachment theory'. Basically, people respond in kind. They respond in ways that can be linked to how they've been treated. If they're encouraged to participate, if they're responded to in the same spirit by which they engage, then a functional democracy can result. If not...then you get cynicism, apathy and low turnout rates. 

It's a dance, people...

"The remedy for what ails democracy is not simply better education (as important as that is), or civic education (as important as that can be), but the re-establishment of a genuine democratic discourse in which individuals can participate in a meaningful way, in a conversation of democracy in which meritorious ideas and opinions from individuals do, in fact, evoke a meaningful response."

A 'conversation of democracy'. I like it. 

Or as they say over at the Hamilton Civic League, 

'Transforming democracy inaction to democracy in action.'

Nice. 

M Adrian Brassington