Spoon Agave has served in numerous positions in Brattleboro town government, including on the Selectboard. He has been a Representative Town Meeting member (District 8) for 27 years. This piece picks up from his previous Viewpoint, "Is Representative Town Meeting representative?" [Aug. 6].
BRATTLEBORO-Today's question: Is a representative body less democratic than a direct democracy?
In the first part of this examination of Brattleboro's Representative Town Meeting (RTM) and democracy, I demonstrated that RTM is in fact more representative now than it has ever been. Now, let's compare the direct democracy of open Town Meeting to representative democracy in the context of Representative Town Meeting.
Virtually the entire body of literature on the subject of political democracy agrees on one thing: Direct democracy is ideal, but it works only in a small body (say, 10 to 15 people). This is because everyone can participate directly. Everyone can speak. Every view can be heard.
But in larger bodies, all agree, democracy is better achieved through representation because, given the fact that only a limited number of people can participate, systems and standards can be set up to enrich the quality of participation.
Serious representatives working in a sound and democratic meeting structure will produce decisions close to, if not the same as, those in a direct democracy. Even in a group of 10, decisions will likely not represent the views of every member.
A perfect decision, 100% agreement, is rarely achieved. Democracy simply tries to get as close as possible.
* * *
Democracy itself must be understood. Why do we admire and use this political ideology at all?
It is because of our faith in human nature. At least, the faith that the better parts of ourselves will prevail (under conditions that we know are possible to create) and that we will survive better.
Democracy contends that if the elements of democratic process are met and all in the body are roughly equally well-informed with good quality of information and have equal access to participation and an equal vote, the body will most likely choose the option they believe is best for all. It is in their own interest to do so because they will all have to live with the decision.
Democracy is best served when decision-making outcomes are closest to enacting the will or desires of the whole. That outcome is most often achieved when the deliberating body is working in a fair and efficient structure of rules and its members are well-informed and well-prepared. I shall add that the will of the people is usually seen as, at least, a majority; however, protecting the rights of minorities is essential to the health and protection of the whole.
* * *
Let's look at Representative Town Meeting in Brattleboro. We have long experience there. We have considered more than 1,000 items over the years. Very consistently we find that on any given issue of substance we tend to hear about 25 to 30 speakers before the body becomes impatient and calls to end debate.
This normal human tendency will not change if the body present is 150 or 1,500. In fact, 20 or 30 well-formed opinions will generally reveal all the important views. Though we don't use them, there are different meeting techniques that we could employ to increase confidence that all major views are indeed represented by a limited number of speakers.
Access to information is another vital element of a democracy. That breaks down to several conditions. Access must be available to everyone. Information must be easy to obtain and understand, and it must be as truthful as possible. The stronger, more complete, and truthful the information, the more likely the best decision will be made.
Democracy fails when information is not complete, accessible, and true. Chosen representatives have a strong sense of obligation to be informed because they have accepted that responsibility from their peers.
Random, self-selected participants are typically more inclined to "just show up" and tend to do so more in pursuit of an outcome for a particular issue than a sense of responsibility to the entire polity.
In fact, in Brattleboro, this pursuit of self-interest and the resulting chaos is a major reason the town proposed to replace open Town Meeting with a representative form in 1961.
Another vital element of democracy is control of the agenda. Who is deciding what can and can't be talked about? Or will or won't be talked about? Can a democracy exist if citizens cannot themselves choose and decide upon issues important to them?
The word "democracy" means "rule by the people." It implies, among other things, that the people have the exclusive right to control their agenda - that is, what they can talk about.
To understand this, think about any body existing for a purpose. Should, say, the state have the power and responsibility to approve Town Meeting agendas? Should the RTM Finance Committee submit its agenda to the town manager for approval? Can China dictate the agenda in the U.S. Congress? Can the Methodist Church decide the subject of the homily in the Catholic Church?
The difference is that when the Selectboard produces the RTM warning, it is performing an administrative duty required by the citizens. Since it is the people's agenda, not theirs, it must be approved at a warned public meeting.
* * *
As you may be beginning to see, democracy will crash rapidly and grandly if it is reduced to mere voting. Voting is just the final step.
All the elements of a democracy, as embodied in democratic process, have to be in place and guiding the assembly before a decision can be taken. If not, the decision itself has no legitimacy.
We do find that as the diversity of RTM membership increased and the body tended to become better informed it shifted some of the emphasis on personal needs (my taxes, my backyard) to the health and welfare of the whole community, especially those who needed help most.
That is an important way that we express our faith in the better nature of humans and humanity.
Precisely what democracy was invented to do!
This Voices Viewpoint was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at [email protected].