Is Democracy Best Served By An Open or Representative Town Meeting?

In the first part of this examination of RTM and democracy it was demonstrated that RTM is in fact more representative now than it has ever been. In this part we compare direct democracy to representative democracy in the context of RTM. Open town meeting versus 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 only works in a small body (say 10 to 15). 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 if not the same as those in a direct democracy. Even in a group of ten 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 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 decision the body is most likely to choose is the one 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, are well informed and well prepared.  I shall add that though 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 a thousand 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 it is generally the case that 20 or 30 well-formed opinions will probably reveal all the important views. There are different meeting techniques [we don’t use them] that can be employed 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 from their peers a responsibility to do just that. Random, self-selected participants are typically more inclined to “just show up” and tend to do so in pursuit of an outcome for a particular issue than a sense of responsibility to the entire polity. In fact, according to the history of RTM, this latter, the pursuit of self-interest and the resulting chaos at open town meetings, is a major reason RTM was proposed to replace open town meeting with a representative form.

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? 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 US Congress? Can the Methodist Church decide the subject of the sermon in the Catholic Church? When the Selectboard produces the RTM Warning they are performing an administrative duty required of them 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. Democracy cannot be achieved merely by voting.  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 expression of our faith in the better nature of humans and humanity. Precisely what democracy was invented to do!