“Not the answer we asked for. That’s democracy for you, it seldom produces the results you might want.” —
No 2684 Posted by fw, November 20, 2020 —
Tim Watkins, the author of this long article, is a British social and economic scientist with a background in public policy research. For those who prefer a quick read, here is my summary of Tim’s key arguments. My full repost of his piece appears below.
“Not the answer we asked for” – A summary
UK’s Extinction Rebellion considered Citizen’s Assemblies to be the “ideal form of government.” Assemblies were designed to overcome a basic flaw in democracy — “the people are mostly ignorant.” While there are really smart people among the general population, the majority will be “clueless.” Neoliberal technocracies, packed with “experts”, lead to fragmented knowledge silos that fail to arrive at a “broad truth” consensus. And dictatorships offer no improvements on democracy.
“Deliberative democracy” offers small groups an effective 3-step decision making procedure: 1) educate citizens; 2) select from the population a representative sample to serve as decisionmakers; 3) decisionmakers interview “experts” to arrive at informed solutions. But selected citizens who arrive with simplistic solutions soon discover the issues are more complicated than they believed. Presumably, when presented with the facts by experts, people can be guided to “the truth.”
Citizen’s assemblies are unrealistic as a way to engage the public in decision making because they are too time consuming for all – Assembly members, experts, and government decision makers. But the fundamental flaw with deliberative democracy is there is no “settled knowledge” for dealing with complex socio-economic problems. To illustrate, despite being exposed to the “pseudo-science” of neoclassical economists’ explanations of the 2008 global crash, they continue to dominate mainstream economics.
The UK’s report “The Path To Net Zero” is a classic example of who really has the power in the world of citizen’s assemblies. While the report shows the value of deliberative democracy, “it all feels like too little, too late.” In fact, the UK’s neoliberal system of the past four decades does not operate according to the UK Climate Assembly’s own five broad principles. It’s no surprise that the majority of members of the Climate Assembly did not regard climate change as a dire emergency. Assembly members were not keen on giving up their gas-guzzling cars for EV cars, or for losing the perk of get-away air travel.
Extinction Rebellion UK criticized the Assembly organizers for “picking the wrong experts.” And that’s the problem – different experts come up with different recommendations. Climate Assembly UK did a good job reaching a “balanced position” – albeit on more trivial matters – good enough for the general public, but not for committed activists. Moreover, choices have consequences – Any call from activists for higher taxes on the rich would likely result in more climate change denial from the corporate-owned mainstream media.
“That’s democracy for you; it seldom produces the results you might want.” And so long as the ruling elites get to choose the experts, the outcome will always disappoint.
Below is my repost of Tim’s article with added subheadings, text highlighting, added definitions, notes, and links. To read his original essay, click on the following linked title.
UK’s Extinction Rebellion considered Citizen’s Assemblies to be the “ideal form of government”
Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin is reputed to have said, “Those who vote decide nothing. Those who count the vote decide everything.” Something similar could be said of the Citizen’s Assemblies that Extinction Rebellion propose as the ideal form of government to shepherd us to the bright green promised land.
Assemblies were designed to overcome a basic flaw in democracy — “the people are mostly ignorant”
Although the name is new, the proposed Citizen’s Assembly is just the latest iteration of an older form of deliberative democracy, itself designed to overcome the fundamental flaw in democracy itself — This [fundamental flaw] is simply that the people – the demos – are largely ignorant.
While there are really smart people among the general population, the majority will be “clueless”
That is, while each of us – by hobby or occupation – may be extremely well-versed about a specific narrow portion of the grand sweep of human knowledge and experience, on any given subject, the majority will contain far more clueless people than those who can shed light on the issue being considered.
Dictatorships offer no improved alternative to democracy
Various forms of dictatorship offered as a potential alternative failed because the combination of sycophancy* and psychopathy [mental illness] that accompanies dictatorship renders this form of government more imbecilic than the democracy it seeks to usurp. [*Obsequious behavior toward someone important in order to gain advantage.]
Neoliberal technocracies, packed with “experts”, lead to fragmented knowledge silos that fail to arrive at a “broad truth” consensus
The modern neoliberal technocracy* fails for the opposite reason; although packed full of technical experts, technocracy is so divided into epistemological** silos that the broad truth is never observed. [*Favoring policies that promote free-market capitalism, deregulation, and reduction in government spending run by an elite of technical experts.] [**epistemological – an adjective referring to the methods, validity, and scope of a theory of knowledge used to justify a truth as distinct from an opinion]
“Deliberative democracy” offers citizens an effective 3-step decision making procedure
Deliberative democracy goes back to the people as the font of legitimacy for decision making.
It can be a very effective approach.
But selected citizens who arrive with simplistic solutions soon discover the issues are more complicated than they believed
People who arrive with no more than the simplistic narratives — provided to them by tabloid newspapers and populist* politicians — very quickly discover that the issues are far more complicated and, all too often, that the populist “solutions” cannot work. [*populist — politicians who strive to appeal to “ordinary people”]
When presented with the facts by experts people can be guided to “the truth”
The result is often a more rounded and comprehensive policy prescription than would be arrived at in a first-past-the-post election. Although the wider population cannot participate directly in this [deliberative] form of democracy, observing how a representative sample of people “just like us” changes its collective mind when presented with the facts (so far as they are known) by the experts can be persuasive. For example, an Irish Citizen’s Assembly set up to consider abortion seems to have helped break decades of political deadlock; paving the way for a referendum result in favour of reform.
Citizen’s assemblies are unrealistic as a way to engage the public in decision making because they are too time consuming for all involved
The main drawback with citizen’s assemblies ought to be obvious enough. However, even secondary problems render them unrealistic as a form of government –
The fundamental flaw with deliberative democracy is there is no “settled knowledge” for dealing with complex socio-economic problems
This brings us to that fundamental flaw in deliberative democracy, and back to the thoughts of comrade Stalin. There is no settled knowledge. Nor do “the facts” change the received wisdom. As German physicist Max Planck pointed out, the facts change one funeral at a time:
“A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.”
Despite being exposed to the “pseudo-science” of neoclassical economists’ explanations of the 2008 global economic crash, they continue to dominate mainstream economics
This is particularly true of a neoclassical economics pseudo-science which, despite being exposed in 2008, continues to hold sway in the upper reaches of the technocracy. With neither a theory of money nor a theory of energy, even the most eloquent exponent of mainstream economics will only ever be correct in the way that a stopped clock is occasionally right.
The UK’s report, The Path to Net Zero, is a classic example of who really has the power in the world of citizen’s assemblies
In the world of citizen’s assemblies it is the shadowy figure behind the curtain that gets to choose “the experts” who holds the power of decision. And if, in the case of the Climate Assembly UK (established by six parliamentary committees in part in response to the demands of Extinction Rebellion) the experts turn out to broadly support the line taken by the UK government, you should not be surprised by the outcome.
While the report shows the value of deliberative democracy, “it all feels like too little, too late”
The final report – The Path To Net Zero – shows the value of deliberative democracy in moving a representative sample of the UK population from the complacent narrative that “clever people somewhere else are dealing with it,” to a more realistic “something must be done!” Had its recommendations been made – and adopted – in the late 1970s or early 1980s, they might have had some relevance to the predicament that global industrial civilization now finds itself in. In 2020 though, it all feels like too little, too late.
The [five] broad principles that the Climate Assembly UK take as a starting point are hard to disagree with — Education and information; Fairness; Freedom and choice; Co-benefits; Protecting nature.
In fact, the UK’s neoliberal system of the past four decades does not operate according to these five principles
If only the neoliberal system of the past four decades had operated according to these, we might be well placed to make the transition to a zero-carbon economy by 2050. But since neoliberalism is based on creating an uneducated precariat* which is treated unfairly, has little freedom of choice and enjoyed none of the co-benefits of global financialization, we have Brexit, Boris Johnson and Donald Trump instead. [*people whose employment and income are insecure]
It’s no surprise that the majority of members of the Climate Assembly did not regard climate change as a dire emergency
This helps to explain why the Climate Assembly UK recommendations are incredibly weak compared to the radical de-carbonization required both for environmental and resource depletion reasons. Like the population at large, the majority of the Assembly members did not regard climate change as a dire emergency. As one of the members explains:
“I was a bit worried that it would just be the people who were most passionate about the crisis – that you’d get an influx of people so it would be very one-sided and biased. So to come in and find it is a complete representation: I’ve spoken to people for who it’s a complete crisis – to complete denial or don’t believe it’s a real thing, that end of the spectrum. So to see that representation was quite a surprise and really refreshing for someone like myself.”
Assembly members were not keen on giving up their gas-guzzling cars for EV cars, or for losing the perk of get-away air travel
Climate Assembly UK did its job insofar as it shifted the narrative from complacency to a need for government action. But it also indicated some of the barriers beyond which governments may struggle to go. For example, while they favoured investment in public transport and in cycling infrastructure, they were not so keen on giving up their cars without a scrappage scheme to compensate them for the loss and new grants to subsidize the purchase of new low-carbon cars. It was the same with air travel. Everyone should be granted their holiday flight; only frequent fliers should be penalised. The laws of physics-defying battery-powered commercial airliner was proposed as the best solution for future travel.
Extinction Rebellion criticized the Assembly organizers for “picking the wrong experts”
Inevitably, Extinction Rebellion have criticized the Climate Assembly UK organizers for picking the wrong experts:
“Assembly members were given no control over the scale and scope of the Assembly meaning they were not able to question the framing of the government net-zero target or to request more time…
“Now what we need is to do it again, but with a much more realistic sense of urgency, without the creative accounting of ‘Net-Zero’, and addressing all the glaring omissions, such as freight, biodiversity loss, supply chain emissions, our global impact world-wide and the need for global justice.”
And that’s the problem – Different experts come up with different recommendations
That’s the thing though.
Climate Assembly UK did a good job reaching a “balanced position” – on more trivial matters – good enough for the general public, but not for committed activists
In Climate Assembly UK, the parliamentary committees have in fact, done a good job at reaching a balanced position which – on more trivial matters – provides the best means of carrying the population with them. It will never be enough for activist groups, but the lessons learned from the French attempt to raise taxes on diesel indicate the public response that would surely follow if only the climate catastrophists (some will call them realists) are allowed to have their way.
Moreover, choices have consequences – Any call from activists for taxes on the rich would likely result in more climate change denial from the corporate-owned mainstream media
Too often, the growing majority who have come to realize that economists are mistaken about almost everything, draw the erroneous conclusion that “the economy” doesn’t matter. In reality, the economy is the limiting factor on everything we try to achieve. No matter how much you might wish it, in a democracy you cannot simply end the flights which take people on holiday – still less be rid of pollution-causing employment – without first levelling the playing field between rich and poor… This is why Climate Assembly UK did not recommend it. Either you compensate the mass of the population for their loss or you begin the trek toward a zero carbon economy by getting the rich to level-down their lifestyles first. And that’s the problem. Because the same elite that has accumulated all of the wealth, also owns the media through which the public is educated about issues like climate change.
“That’s democracy for you. It seldom produces the results you might want”
That’s democracy for you. It is messy. It seldom produces the results you might want.
And so long as the ruling elites get to choose the experts, the outcome will always disappoint
And when it comes to our current predicament, it barely perceives the issues, still less the means of dealing with them. But if you imagine that your version of dictatorship or technocracy is going to do any better, then history is against you. You may, indeed, get to have your Citizen’s Assembly and even have it replace the current version of democratic government. But – like Stalin counting the votes – so long as the ruling elites get to decide who the experts are, then the outcome will always disappoint.
FAIR USE NOTICE – For details click here