The people are smart. Why can’t they be trusted to make decisions?
The Anglo trial showed ordinary people can make intelligent decisions, yet they have no real say in the political sphere
Seán FitzPatrick, after being acquitted last week. Under intense pressure, jurors heard complex evidence from a number of witnesses and came up with verdicts that seem nuanced, sophisticated, coherent and fair. Photograph: Eric Luke/The Irish Times
In spite of appearances, people are smart. Give so-called ordinary people enough information, a calm context in which to interpret it and a sense of responsibility, and they generally make intelligent decisions. If you don’t believe this, look at the outcome of the Anglo Irish Bank trial. A jury of typical citizens – including a sales rep, a nurse, a bus driver, a personal assistant, an unemployed man, a hospital procurement professional and a trade union employee – listened to 54 witnesses over 43 days. They considered 42 charges against three different defendants, all of them relating to complex financial transactions. They did all of this in relation to events whose dire consequences stir high emotions. And they came up with verdicts that seem nuanced, sophisticated, coherent and fair.
But we couldn’t ever dream of letting such people decide on the running of their local primary school or whether to have a playground in the park or how much of a budget should be spent on fixing potholes. There’s an utterly weird disjunction between two arms of government. In the legal system, it is assumed that citizens can be smart and serious and that they are willing and able to take responsibility. In the political arena, it is increasingly axiomatic that “ordinary people” don’t know what’s good for them. Their only role is to elect professional politicians who in turn appoint technocratic experts answerable to no one.
Citizens can be trusted, apparently, to send someone to prison for life, to deal intelligently and dispassionately with the most emotional of events; murder, rape, child abuse, a catastrophic banking collapse. But they can’t be trusted to make decisions even about their own immediate communities.
You can see this contradiction at work in the one experiment we’ve had in deliberative democracy – the creation of what is essentially an extension of the jury system into politics. Pretty much everyone agrees that the 66 citizens who were randomly selected to be members of the Constitutional Convention performed really well, taking their responsibilities very seriously, working diligently and approaching questions with open minds. But they were allowed no actual power. They couldn’t possibly be trusted enough to have their recommendations put directly to their fellow citizens in a referendum. All of their decisions go back to the Government and hence to the lavishly paid handlers, advisers, experts and consultants who will figure out why most of them are just not on.
We know empirically that this closed, centralised way of doing things is a failure. We know to our immense and continuing cost that it leads to groupthink, cronyism, mutual back-scratching, waste of money and corruption. We know that we have to reinvent our democracy.