Conference on Participatory democracy at local level,

Yerevan, Armenia 19 June 2013

Session I:         “Is local democracy possible today without direct participation?”

Keynote speech by Knud Andersen (Denmark, ILDG), Member of the Congress, Chamber of Regions

1.            Contrary to popular belief, direct democracy is not new, it has been with us for thousands of years. But these days we are talking about it more and more.  Why?  Maybe this is because, as people spend more and more time on their telephones and electronic devices, they are getting used to instant messages, rapid responses and are increasingly losing patience with our traditional forms of political behaviour.

2.            In many of our member states, representative democracy at all levels of government, is under pressure.  We see this in the declining membership of political parties, the declining voter turnout at local, regional and European elections, the growth of political movements and parties at the extreme right and extreme left of the political spectrum and loss of political legitimation of authorities and even the political system.

3.            On the other hand, the last few years have seen a rapid growth in other forms of democracy.  We are seeing more and more referendums, e-petitions, and citizen-panels. In an increasing number of our countries, citizens are becoming directly involved in drafting policies and legislation. These experiments, which are gaining in popularity, are an important trend in our democratic life. 

4.            These new developments are reflected in new terminology. We have the new term  “crowd-sourcing” to describe large-scale online consultations . New technology makes it much easier to consult large numbers of people in a very short time and to pick their brains.   It is the idea of the wisdom of the crowd - collecting large amounts of information and putting them together to get a complete and accurate picture of a topic. 

5.            The basic assumption is that a group of people is, on average, more knowledgeable than an individual. This notion of collective intelligence proves particularly effective on the Internet, where people from diverse backgrounds can contribute in real-time using the same forum.

6.            It is not an idea invented by politicians – as so often the advertisers and businessmen have already recognised and begun to exploit this resource – to test and develop new products.  But it can also be extremely useful for testing new policies, for sounding out the opinions and priorities of people who live in a particular neighbourhood.

7.            Urban planning is an obvious example.  People who live in an area obviously have lots of ideas and suggestions about how their environment can be improved.  So our municipal councils (in this age where time is money) can avoid costly mistakes by testing the reactions of local people to different projects before the big investments are made.  It seems very sensible.  What is harder to understand is why our local councillors don’t do it more often.

8.            Proper consultation would seem to be an indispensable part of policy making.  It is for this reason that it is referred to several times in our European Charter of Local Self-Government. Giving people a say in the elaboration of projects is part of direct democracy. It does not replace our traditional representative democracy, but it can contribute much to making it more effective and responsive to the people that our politicians are elected to serve.

9.            In Denmark we have a lot of experience and practice of direct local democracy, going back way before the invention of computers and mobile phones.  We have a tradition of local referendums on specific issues, such as a referendum on whether or not to close a local school or referendums on changes to municipal boundaries.   In some sectors, our legislation makes the outcomes of these referendums binding.

10.         So the principle and practice of combining these elements of direct democracy with the general model of representative democracy - where we elect people every few years and leave them to get on with the job – this principle is an old one, long established and widely accepted.

11.         What has changed in recent times is that new technology makes this type of consultation much easier, must faster, much cheaper.  This is an opportunity for us.  We can and should be doing more of this direct democracy.  In my mind we shouldn’t see it as a threat to our politicians, but as a tool to help them do the work that we have entrusted to them.

12.         Some countries, such as Iceland and Estonia, are making bold experiments in direct democracy at the national level.    Iceland went to the polls on 20 October last year to vote on a new constitutional bill, drawn up as a reaction to Iceland’s 2008 financial meltdown.   This bill was drafted with input from a special national assembly of 950 citizens selected at random from the national voter register. So every citizen of 18 years or more had an equal chance of being invited to participate. This Assembly decided that Iceland did indeed need a new constitution and laid down some key provisions that should be included in the new constitution.  The Assembly adopted a resolution which an elected constitutional council then converted into a coherent constitutional bill.

13.         However, the opposition parties in Iceland, which have interests which are threatened by the new bill, have strongly opposed it.   So as of today, Iceland still has no new constitution and it seems that the whole project, while being a valuable experiment, has come to nothing.

14.         If there is a lesson for us here it is that however bold and innovative experiments with direct democracy may be, they are no substitute for our traditional forms of direct democracy. Even in Switzerland, which has the most advanced and far-reaching tradition of direct democracy in our continent, people regularly go to the polls to elect representatives to manage public affairs on their behalf. 

15.         At the end of last year, a new citizen initiative in Estonia published “Charter 12”.  This document, signed by 17 well-known public figures, calls for far-reaching democratic accountability from the Estonian authorities.  It demands a radical revision of Estonia’s electoral law and the laws on the conduct of political parties.  It is largely a response to public anger at a series of scandals involving senior politicians in Estonia. 

16.         Charter 12 has set in motion a consultative process that could see the country adopt two important new laws, drawn up with extensive public consultation – or “crowd-sourcing”.   Citizens have had the opportunity to propose amendments to the new legislation online and by ordinary mail. These proposals were then assessed by a group of independent experts, convened for this purpose, and tasked with drafting the amendment bills.

17.         The president of Estonia has supported the processes and repeatedly announced his wish for the legislation to be ready before the 2013 summer recess – which is the end of this month.

18.         In Estonia we are seeing a new public momentum for increased democracy and transparency that cannot be disregarded by the politicians.  It is reinvigorating political life and creating a new spirit of optimism and political motivation among citizens who had become disillusioned with their political leaders.  It is too early to see where this will lead, but Estonia is a country that deserves our continued attention.

19.         While many of the examples we have of direct democracy come from the so-called ‘old’ democracies, Estonia is an exception.  Its political institutions are relatively young.  I would assert that you don’t have to be an old democracy to make bold experiments with direct participation. It might even be an advantage to be in a country where democratization is very much an issue of public debate.

20.         I am looking forward to hearing about what is happening here in Armenia.   When we meet in a country that we are less familiar with, we are often amazed at the rich variety and vitality of local political life.  I know that there are a lot of civic associations active in this country. How do they see the opportunities to participate directly in local political life?  What are the good stories that you can share with us today and what would you like to change?

21.         To return to our original question – “Is local democracy possible without direct participation?”  Of course it is possible.  It is happening all the time.  But local democracy without direct participation is not the best form of democracy.  For me democracy is a process, a journey.  We need to see how best to combine representative democracy with elements of direct consultation.  More democracy is always better.  The best form of democracy is one which is constantly re-evaluating itself, constantly seeking to do better, to be more responsive and more accountable.  This is the challenge for us, and I look forward to our discussions today.