Alternatives
Against this background
democratic progress is best assured by retracing the
decisive, American steps taken to advance the principle of
government by consent. Using the common sense realist
approach upheld by Jefferson it is possible to develop a
conception of democracy which meets radical aspirations but
is unimpeded by the constricting circumstances of the
period, when it was necessary to maintain an alliance with
aristocratic forces. Following French revolutionary defeat
the task of superseding this alliance had still to be
deferred, even by the American Antimasonic Party, whose
activists later became in large part the militant core of
Lincoln's Republican Party. For these reasons the US
constitution has evolved upon a more conservative path of
development than had been envisaged by American radicalism.
The evolution of parties along this path was affected by
its limitations concerning the influence of factions.
Jefferson regarded parties as exerting a sometimes positive
but also potentially harmful influence. Famously he stated
that if he had to go to heaven with a party he would rather
not go. Constrained by relatively narrow parameters,
conflict between radicalism and conservatism has tended to
polarise. As in Jefferson's life, the self evident truths
of common sense comprise the best point of departure to
resolve these difficulties. This formulation is not
relativist, since these truths have always existed in human
society, even if unexpressed. If American revolutionary
radicalism had been able to formulate the basic principles
of government by consent without the constraints of its
time the indications are they would have been presented
essentially as follows.
First, that all persons have an equal right to life, and to
self defence; second, freedom of speech and to make
collective decisions; third, collective decisions if and
when necessary should be taken by majority vote held
without fear of coercion, that is, by secret ballot;
fourth, that where for practical purposes it is necessary
to delegate persons to act on behalf of the community they
should be chosen by lot, excepting where special skills are
indispensably necessary, in which case they can be chosen
by majority vote; fifth, that accordingly the tasks of
democratic decision making should be tackled intelligently
by as many persons as possible and should be publicly
funded to this purpose; sixth, that the earth belongs to
the living, and so constitutional priorities should be
subject to long term review and inheritance tax should be
understood as the most socially just way to fund government
spending.
These principles are universal in application and can be
grasped by anybody honestly willing to use their common
sense because they express the general standpoint of the
human race in the application of reason to the organisation
of political affairs based on consent and equality. They
have been realised to a great extent in the American
constitution. The shortfall in their application may be
explained, as shown, by historical limitations, including
the failure of reform in Europe to achieve stable and
supportive advance. Democratic reforms to improve political
participation can best succeed while preserving the
integrity of the electoral process if they conform to and
help further realise these basic truths of common sense in
regard to political affairs. Three related principles of
socio-political organisation therefore emerge as central to
this project: sortition, inheritance tax, and payment of
ordinary citizens to take part in political work.
These constitutional principles were not fully developed in
the American revolution due to the limitations of the time.
That is why the aristocratic principle remains artificially
dominant in representative democracy. Notwithstanding the
universal existence of slavery in the ancient world, the
more developed application of the principle of sortition in
Athenian elections along with payment for citizen political
participation ensured the poor had substantial political
influence. By such means the problem of factional
polarisation in the modern era between the various
aristocracies of inherited wealth and the proletariat that
in large part gave rise to radical extremism could be
better moderated. A more developed, participatory democracy
of this kind could provide a more flexible basis upon which
radically distinct macroeconomic systems can be tested over
time without the use of autocratic powers which has
characterised most socialist forms of government.
Jefferson's nineteen-year cycle for constitutional review
seems appropriate in this regard. A further consideration
is the use of random selection in election and recruitment
procedures for state and industrial institutions, including
both trade unions and public companies. Self evidently this
can help to forestall fifth column practices as well as
further democratising industrial relations. Academic
institutions may also benefit from such practices, more
especially in the social sciences. In this way these
reforms can serve as a means by which conflict between
radicalism and conservatism can evolve on a still
adversarial but less antagonistic and polarised foundation
while ensuring greater political participation and also
preserving the integrity of the democratic process. Without
such reforms voter turnout within present parameters of
electoral process may fall to unacceptably low
levels.