Innovations in Democracy
By Hollie Russon Gilman
Ed. note: This essay was produced as part of New America’s annual conference, Exploring New America: What Drives Innovation Around the Country, held in Washington, D.C. on April 23 and 24.
Exploring a new America must include examining and taking stock of the near-constant changes in our lives, including the innovations in everything from how we buy goods to how we engage with our friends and family that have been occurring at an astounding pace during recent decades. Mobile technology and social media have produced a truly 24/7 global economy; the ability to always be connected has also transformed personal interaction.
And yet, even though Twitter makes it possible to talk to a thousand people as easily as you can with one person and technologies like live-streaming and document-sharing enable unprecedented levels of collaborative work, the way we interact with our government remains relatively untouched. In this moment and in the future, elections every two or four years no longer seem like the most cutting-edge or effective way to engage with democracy or democratic institutions. We should be experimenting with new tools and technologies for social participation to see how they can re-make political participation as well.
Democracy is not as static as the white columns on capital buildings might suggest; with creativity and purpose, democracy can innovate just the same way social interaction has. In fact, democratic institutions around the globe are already trying out new ways beyond traditional elections to engage people in their own governance and to build new civic ecosystems.
One particularly exciting example of this trend is participatory budgeting (PB) — a process that began in Brazil in 1989 and is now being imported to the United States. The World Bank has dubbed it a “best practice” in democratic innovation because it provides a unique opportunity for residents to work directly with their government to make public decisions collaboratively. Local authorities empower residents to identify community needs, work with government entities to craft viable proposals to address those needs, and vote amongst themselves to determine where and how to spend funds. The ideal result is more transparent public decision making with a more engaged and informed citizenry. So far, PB is making great strides toward achieving this goal.
Since starting in the U.S. with one Chicago alderman in 2009, the PB process has been picking up momentum and popularity across the country. Roughly half of New York City Council members are putting a portion of their discretionary funds into the process. Other big cities — from San Francisco to Boston — are enacting PB. The White House even pledged to support it as part of an international commitment towards open government. Across America, new parks, school technology, and gardens are the direct result of residents engaging with PB.
PB is just one of many compelling examples of how social and technological innovations are fostering civic engagement and how communities are using these new tools to empower citizens by involving them directly in discourse and governance.
Take civic crowd-funding — a kind of municipal Kickstarter. After Central Falls, Rhode Island declared bankruptcy, government officials wanted to think outside of the box to find solutions to their financial problems. They paired with an online civic crowd-funding platform called Citizinvestor to ask residents to identify and collectively fund community improvements. The city asked residents to identify the most pressing communal needs. Because the city was unable to purchase proper trashcans, the state provided flimsy receptacles that resulted in wind-blown and litter-filled public spaces. The community singled out better trash maintenance as a priority and raised funds using Citizinvestor. After raising funds together, people of all ages came out to decorate and celebrate their latest community achievement — a newly beautified and clean public park.
Another great example of innovating democracy is Oregon’s “Kitchen Table,” which provides virtual but community-driven spaces for dialogue and deliberation on critical policy issues. Anyone can sign up to be a member of the Kitchen Table. Decision-makers such as the Department of Education propose questions that call for citizen input. Partners, such as Portland State University, create in-depth and non-partisan questionnaires to gather public feedback. The public is invited to weigh in online and meet in person across the state to discuss and deliberate. Through the process people talk and listen to each other. The compiled end result is a valuable and nuanced resource for Oregon’s public officials. The state knows they have a place to turn when they want diverse citizen feedback.
One of the potential downsides of the constant social media buzz that surrounds most of us is its lack of in-person conversations. When was the last time you talked with someone new while waiting for a bus — instead of checking your smartphone? Perhaps the most powerful advantage of efforts like PB or Oregon’s Kitchen Table — to name but a very few — is that they engage a wide diversity of participants through a combination of virtual and in-person exchanges. As a result, people get to know their neighbors, community, and government officials in a new light while also using digital tools that are comfortable and familiar. Democratic innovations like PB or Oregon’s Kitchen Table like these can foster genuine dialogue and deliberation amongst people who otherwise may not be in conversation.
The people who are participating in these democratic experiments represent a variety of Americans. Some of them have been politically active for the last 30 years while others are getting involved for the first time. Some are well-off while others are homeless or squeezing in time to get involved between working two jobs. The more we increase the availability and variety of options for engagement — coupled with access to digital tools — the more opportunities we can provide for new people to participate in government and community action.
Creating better models for democratic engagement will also benefit the next generation by creating more occasions for young people to get involved and bring their ideas to the table, where mothers can bring their daughters and sons to community budget meetings or students can join their teachers to paint houses. And as these smaller moments happen, the people’s desire and ability for civic engagement will expand both organically and exponentially. While no one individual experiment or engagement will transform governance, the road to a more vibrant public sphere lies in creating a more innovative toolkit for democracy.
