bythepeople.info

Brought to you by CitizenSpeak Citizens for Participatory Democracy in Nelson

more articles about participatory democracy

Some Arguments FOR and AGAINST Participatory Democracy in Nelson

edited from the http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/ website for Nelson relevance by  Sjeng Derkx
 

The Case FOR Participatory Democracy in Nelson

1. Participatory Democracy provides a more accurate expression of the will of the people than other forms of democracy. It gets people involved in the political process and people know that political decisions are those that the majority really want.
2. Voters can vote directly for or against specific bylaws, drafted by council or by fellow citizens, throughout the mandate of a mayor and council. In the present system voters often vote because of the ‘hot’ issue of the election and then are stuck with an all powerful mayor and councillors, who they don’t necessarily agree with, for the next three years.
3. Participatory Democracy prevents policies that the majority of voters clearly do not want (e.g. the GST in Canada), and force council to accept bylaws which the majority clearly does want.
4. With Participatory Democracy all bylaws are made under the threat of referendum. Laws will reflect more clearly the will of the majority, even those laws that are not challenged by referendum. 
   (In Rossland the great majority of new bylaws are not challenged by referendum).
5. Participatory Democracy makes it easier to resolve the hard and divisive issues e.g. the future of Nelson’s waterfront or signing on to the motion of non-confidence in the IHA plans. Even for those on the loosing side of a referendum proposal, it is much easier to accept the decision when it was made by all the citizens than when the decision was made by just 7 people who may have been elected as long as 3 years earlier.
6. Participatory Democracy reduces the degree of polarization. Participatory Democracy cuts across party lines and leads to changing alliances of voters voting for or against specific issues.
7. Participatory Democracy reduces the power of special interest groups in the community. It doesn’t suffice to support candidates who are favourable to their goals anymore; they have to convince the whole community of the merits of their goals.
8. Participatory Democracy encourages citizens to educate themselves on issues and Civic affairs.
9. Participatory Democracy reduces the level of cynicism and increases the respect of citizens for politicians. Bylaws reflect more accurately the will of the people and if anything goes wrong, people know they have themselves to blame.
10. Elected representatives have a tendency to want to hide or whitewash their errors, but, in a Participatory Democracy, when citizens realize they have made a mistake, they can reverse their decision without anybody loosing face or worrying about the next election.

The Case against Participatory Democracy in Nelson

1. Participatory Democracy weakens the power of the mayor and council. (But, depending on one's point of view, one could argue that this is an argument in favour of Participatory Democracy).
Participatory Democracy encourages council and mayor to duck their responsibility and then face judgment by the people for its overall performance at a later date (But, some would say that it gives a government an effective method of tackling the hard and divisive issues).
2. Some say that ordinary citizens lack the time, intelligence, and wisdom to make good decisions.
   (This is really an anti-democracy argument.)
3. Participatory Democracy is more expensive. Referendums cost money.
4. Participatory Democracy means that decisions are made in an adversarial climate. You are either for or against. Good decisions require give and take, a willingness to listen to your opponents, and a spirit of compromise. (But where and when does this happen under the present system?)

more articles about participatory democracy

NELSON & AREA ELECTIONS 2002

Top of Page