French Socialist Presidential Candidate Also Under Fire From ¡°Direct Democrat¡± Site for Her Views on Citizen Juries
-Direct Democracy network Discussion About Whether ¡°Sego¡¯s¡± Use of CJs Would Really Empower Public
¡¡
As recently reported in JPD, the French Socialist Party¡¯s candidate
for President of France, Segolene Royal, is a strong advocate for
moving France forward in ¡°participatory democracy¡± by using a wide
variety of well tested methods. One of these is the ¡°Citizens
Jury¡±¡ªinvented by American Ned Crosby in the early 1970s¡ªand now
widely and successfully experimented with around the world.
According to Royal, she envisions employing Citizens Juries in a novel way, one not yet part of any representative democracy in the world. She would choose citizens randomly to come together and become a sort of public watchdog over government, in terms of their policies, acts of possible conflict of interest or corruption and the like.
Of course, this has not become a major issue in a campaign that will not end until April 2007 and Royal skimps on the details. Still, as of early January 2007, Royal is about 50-50 against her main right wing rival for the presidency www.msnbc.com (See Newsweek International Edition). So, how she handles this issue, could make a difference.
Citizens Juries vs. Participatory Budgeting?
Her platform of ¡°more participatory democracy in France¡± has prompted a debate within The French Socialist Party, as reported earlier. However, it has also sparked thought and discussion within a global direct democracy network called The World Direct Democracy Movement (WDDM) at www.@world-wide-democracy.net through comments made from another network ¡°Reseau Democratizer Radicalement la Democratie¡± www.budget-participatif.org. This latter group is a network of concerned citizens, NGOs, elected representatives, and academics who promote new methods of empowering the public. One of their favored methods, with a well proved track record, is that of Participatory Budgeting as developed in Porto Alegre, Brazil.
According to a posting in the worldwide direct democracy network, Segolene Royal¡¯s proposal would not empower the public beforehand¡ªas is obviously the case with the Porto Alegre method. Moreover, it does not allow all citizens to come and discuss important money and capital improvement items in advance. Worst of all of its sins, according to the writer, it has no power whatsoever of mobilizing the citizenry, something for which the Porto Alegre process is well suited to do. From such a viewpoint, Royal¡¯s use of CJs is almost a hoax since it is comprised of small groups of randomly selected citizens who can¡¯t make any decisions at all and the public, itself, is disengaged.
¡¡
The French Democratic Critique
Les « jurys citoyens » sont constitu¨¦s par tirage au sort et donc *ne sont en aucune mani¨¨re* des dispositifs faisant appel ¨¤ la *mobilisation de* *_tous_* les citoyens. Ils n¡¯ont donc aucune l¨¦gitimit¨¦ d¨¦mocratique et donc, contrairement ¨¤ ce qu¡¯on dit de nombreux ¨¦lus en r¨¦ponse ¨¤ S¨¦gol¨¨ne Royal, ne remettent fondamentalement pas en cause la conception ¨¦litiste de la d¨¦mocratie repr¨¦sentative. Ils r¨¦pondent apparemment ¨¤ une volont¨¦ suppos¨¦e de contrôle des ¨¦lus par les citoyens. Oui, les citoyens aspirent ¨¤ contrôler les ¨¦lus plus souvent qu¡¯aux ¨¦lections ;mais ils entendent les contrôler *directement *et surtout participer ¨¤ la d¨¦finition des priorit¨¦s, d¨¦finir les priorit¨¦s et ensuite contrôler que les ¨¦lus mettent en œuvre les priorit¨¦s. C¡¯est cela la *d¨¦mocratie participative*. Les « jurys citoyens » propos¨¦s sont ¨¤ l¡¯oppos¨¦ de cette conception ; Ils sont au mieux une fausse r¨¦ponse ¨¤ une r¨¦elle aspiration et au pire un ¨¦cran vers une v¨¦ritable d¨¦mocratie participative.