Having established that redistributing power is the key to overcoming the fundamental obstacles to environmental integration, that states are (still) crucially important for meeting the needs of individuals and societies, and that states hold the key to the reallocation and redistribution of power, the question is how to get hold of that key. Dominant economic interests have a firm grip on the state and use their control over (most of the) media to maintain the dominant economic paradigm. Liberal democratic governments are unwilling and unable to use the power of the state to remove the barriers to the fundamental changes that are required if societies are to move towards a more sustainable and desirable future.
The main rationale for focusing on political-institutional (state) reform is that existing political-economic systems are incapable of and unsuitable for adequately advancing sustainability, let alone in ways that societies are likely to deem acceptable or desirable. Many calls for action, mass mobilisation, and fundamental change have been made, but to little effect. Nonetheless, states remain the most important political institutions through which societies can make collective decisions regarding their future. What is required is a major reallocation and redistribution of power in the political-institutional sphere that has the potential to tilt the imbalance of power from the existing political-economic elites towards society.
The notion of sovereignty
Here, I elaborate on the idea of creating national-level Sovereign People’s Authorities as a strategic political-institutional change that could bring about such a shift in power in favour of societies. The idea hinges on the notion of popular sovereignty. The notion of sovereignty goes back to the creation of the modern system of states in the 17th century. At the time of absolute monarchies, monarchs were the sovereigns and thus embodied the state, as reflected in King Louis XIV’s saying “L’État, c’est moi” (“I am the state”). Monarchs justified their sovereignty by arguing that they had been granted this supreme power by God. This idea was challenged by 18th-century revolutionaries, who claimed that the source of the supreme power of the state rests with the people as a whole (the notion of popular sovereignty).[1] The American Revolution played a significant role in giving prominence to the idea of popular sovereignty. In the US Constitution, the Federalists entrenched the principle that the supreme or sovereign power resides in the people at large (as reflected in the statement “We, the people…”), cutting it loose from monarchs altogether.[2]
However, how popular sovereignty should be applied in political practice has been the subject of long-standing debate. Fundamentally, the question comes down to who speaks or can speak for the people.[3] Groups and even individuals (in particular, dictators) have laid and still lay claims to speak for the people. Notwithstanding Bodin’s view that sovereign power must be by definition indivisible, other political thinkers, largely out of a recognition that societies are divided and that there are (many) competing claims on what constitutes the public interest, took the view that supreme power could be divided and shared. The idea that the people at large were sovereign was transposed onto a system of government in which different institutions held supreme power, creating a system of checks and balances, laid down in a constitution. Thus, sovereign power was de facto shifted from the people to government institutions, which vary from country to country. In parliamentary democracies, parliaments are commonly formally embodied with sovereign power. In the United States, where popular sovereignty was laid down constitutionally in the institutions of government as a whole, arguably the principle was turned on its head as it became “the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”[4] This interpretation of popular sovereignty is a travesty of the original idea that governments, in whatever form, are subordinate to the supreme power of the people.
The main reasons why supreme power was assigned to the institutions of government (constitutions, parliaments or others) were twofold. First, in the European context, it ensured that the new property-owning class was able to rein in the arbitrary use of power by monarchs and secure its own wealth by creating natural or sacred property rights. Property-based criteria were introduced for the right to elect representatives to parliament. Second, this new class (also in the United States) had an even bigger fear for the mob than for monarchs, the general “uneducated and rough populace” that posed a threat to their property, wealth, privileges, and law and order. Interestingly, for much of history, the notion of democracy has been associated with mob rule and regarded as a threat rather than as a desirable political system.[5] The new political-economic elites preferred to talk about republicanism rather than democracy as the underlying ideology of the new political systems. The label liberal democracy only came into common use after the introduction of universal suffrage in the 20th century. But, formally, in more or less democratic systems, government institutions (often parliaments) have remained the locus of sovereign or supreme power.
In the light of rising public discontent about the prevailing liberal-democratic systems in many countries, growing political alienation and distrust, extreme inequality, and the erosion of democracy and legitimacy, it is time to revive the debate about popular sovereignty and reconsider how this principle can and should be applied in political practice. To that end, I propose to restate the case for interpreting sovereign power, in line with Bodin’s view, as supreme and indivisible (I think that, in a human and societal context, it goes too far to claim that power can be absolute and/or perpetual). Here, it must be emphasised, the focus is on formal political-institutional power, the power that is defined and created by humans (human societies), not by God or any other authority. Simply stated, I define supreme power in terms of having the final say, or colloquially stated, having the power to say that “the buck stops here”. If the people are meant to have sovereign power, they must have the final say on all issues rather than a government (executive power), a parliament and/or a Supreme Court, which, at best, are (very) poor substitutes for the people at large.
In this context, it is important to clarify the link between popular sovereignty and democracy. Democracy can be interpreted as the principle that “humans [could] decide for themselves as equals how they were to be governed”[6] or, in Robert Dahl’s words, that people have “the inalienable right” to govern themselves.[7] As Lummis rightly points out,[8] the idea or ideal of democracy should not be confused with specific political systems and institutions that are commonly labelled democracies, as these are often a poor translation, or even a travesty, of the idea. But this does not mean, as Lummis seems to suggest, that it is not possible to institutionalise the ideal of democracy in stronger and more meaningful forms.[9] Political systems vary in the extent to which they offer opportunities for citizens to have an input in collective decision-making and thus can be judged to be more or less democratic. The institutionalisation of popular sovereignty as advocated here might be referred to as radical democracy, the label used by Lummis to refer to the core of the democratic idea. But whatever the label used, a system that gives the final say to the people on how they wish to be governed and thus, effectively, how to govern themselves, would be at the higher end of the democracy scale.
Despite the prevalence of liberal democratic systems, the democratic project is far from complete. In many ways, the formal and non-formal rules associated with liberal democracy limit the power of the people to partake in decision-making and grant that power to representatives that are far from representative of the general population, even if they are elected by them. These systems have many filters that sift out the poor, uneducated, and so-called irresponsible elements. By contrast, they offer many opportunities to the economically powerful (capitalist interests) and their advocates to influence or even shape the decisions and policies of governments. This power imbalance is also entrenched in formal political and economic institutions, including the mandates of government departments that advocate for particular (industry) interest groups.
Although many contemporary political philosophers and analysts recognise the limitations and shortcomings of liberal democracies, few make a case for institutionalising the principle of popular sovereignty.[10] Most ideas and proposals for stronger democracy involve the introduction of mechanisms for promoting the direct participation of citizens in the decision- and policy-making but within existing systems of representative democracy while sovereignty (the supreme power) remains in the hands of parliaments or other government institutions. Many of these ideas advance the notion of deliberative democracy that involves the establishment of (mostly) ad hoc bodies of relatively small groups of citizens (“mini-publics”) that, under guidance, discuss a particular issue with open minds and on a level playing field that gives all participants an equal chance to contribute. Such deliberative exercises or experiments have been used to good effect in a range of countries, producing outcomes that have been widely supported and that probably would not have been achievable through the regular (often more adversarial) political institutions and processes. Deliberative approaches seem particularly suitable when highly controversial issues are at stake and that require a willingness to engage with and try to understand, conflicting standpoints and what they are based on.[11]
However, notwithstanding the merits of deliberative democracy as a process, it is unlikely to bring about a major shift in power within a political system as a whole. The argument that the essence of democracy lies in deliberation (among representatives of the people or in general) misses the point that if within this broader context, a non-representative (let alone a non-elected) person or body has the final say, this is, to say the least, a dubious form of democracy. For instance, it is questionable whether giving the final say to the US Supreme Court (a non-elected and highly unrepresentative body), on all kinds of matters of crucial importance to all US citizens, is democratic, however much the Court relies on deliberation between its members on a level playing field to arrive at its decisions.[12]
As noted above, forms of deliberative democracy have been mostly applied ad hoc to selected issues, at the discretion of extant governments. Arguably, the closest a deliberative exercise got to bringing about major political-institutional change was in Iceland, where, in the wake of the major economic breakdown of 2008, a deliberative process involving a (reasonably) representative sample of all citizens was organised to develop a proposal for a new constitution.[13] The Icelandic example has been deemed a success both in terms of the process and the quality of the proposed constitution that it produced. But, in the end, it failed because the existing Parliament, which “is, under the current constitution, not truly reflective of a majority of Icelanders”, imposed a super-majoritarian hurdle that it could not pass as “the powers that be” did not want to relinquish control. In other words, who has the final say proved to be the decisive factor.[14]
Giving the final say to the people requires breaking down such barriers. However, this should apply not just to ad hoc single issues, but to all matters that are of (great) importance to the people as a whole. For obvious reasons, doing so by very frequent referenda would not be practical, apart from their vulnerability to manipulation by non-democratic forces. Allowing all people to participate in online debates and decision-making on issues (internet democracy) is also not practically feasible with very large numbers of people. Also, such debates may be dominated by a highly unrepresentative section of the population and are also prone to manipulation (as illustrated by experiences in the social media like Facebook). Making well-informed decisions based on genuine and open discussion in which consideration is given to a diversity of views, values, and interests, requires more than twittering. Therefore, I propose the creation, in every state, of a permanent citizens’ body that has supreme power, and that arrives at decisions through the kind of deliberative processes that have proven their value in previous experiences. I will refer to such bodies as Sovereign People’s Authorities (SPAs).
Why Sovereign People’s Authorities?
Here, I discuss my main arguments in favour of establishing such Authorities at the apex of existing political systems.[15] Obviously, their creation would have different ramifications for existing systems with their wide variety of political-institutional arrangements. But the main principles and ideas on which the creation of SPAs are based apply to all political systems that claim that their legitimacy is rooted in the sovereignty of the people rather than in God or some other authority with whatever claim to supreme power. First, I outline what I see as the main features of such bodies. Next, I elaborate on my main arguments (linked to intrinsic and instrumental values), followed by a discussion of some of the main counterarguments that might be raised against the idea.
In my view, the three main features of SPAs should be: establishment by sortition and regular rotation; a constitutive (including constitutional) role; a long-term orientation.
First, membership of an SPA should be determined by sortition, that is by random selection from the population as a whole (based on a minimum age limit that can be altered by the SPA once established).[16] This should be done using sophisticated sampling methods to ensure that the composition of an SPA is as representative of the population at large as possible. This varies with the size of the Authority: a larger number/sample will produce a more fine-grained reflection of the diversity of a population. A body of between 250 and 1000 could be considered sufficiently representative.[17] The length of the term of membership for such authorities is open to discussion. On the one hand, to assist in the development and maintenance of the knowledge, experience, and skills conducive to the operation of such an Authority, it may be argued that a fairly long membership term of, say, six years, with a rotation of one-third every two years, is desirable. On the other hand, a case can be made for having a shorter term of, say, three years, with an annual rotation of one-third of the members to increase the number of citizens who get a chance to participate, and also to reduce the chance of the Authority being captured by particular interests.[18] Frequent rotation would ensure that an SPA reflects societal changes, possibly linked to events and changes in circumstances, views, and demographics. The general idea is to make the Authority as much as possible a dynamic miniature version of society in particular regarding the diversity in terms of age, gender, income and wealth, religion and other self-professed beliefs, education, ethnicity, geography, and possibly other characteristics that, although objective, are likely to influence or shape people’s values, ideologies, and views (which arguably are impossible to define objectively). Most likely, this would make it also reflective of the diversity of the values and beliefs held in society. As such, an SPA can be seen as a representative miniature version of society that can stand in for the whole of society when it comes to collective decision-making on behalf of society.
The second feature of an SPA would be that it has supreme power and thus stands at the apex of the political system.[19] However, rather than being involved in day-to-day decision-making on all matters that are presently handled by governments (the executive and legislative branches), the SPA would take on a constitutive role. This means that it would focus on and determine the institutional and policy frameworks within which day-to-day political decision- and policymaking occurs. Institutional frameworks are defined broadly and comprise all the organisations of the state, the rules that prescribe their main roles and functions, but also the constitutive principles, values, and goals on which these organisations, rules and legislation are based.[20] Thus, at the most fundamental level, an SPA would write and revise a country’s political constitution, define (positive and negative) human rights and obligations, and determine the functions and responsibilities of the state’s institutions (legislature, executive, judiciary, police and army). But it would also be able to adopt policy frameworks which the government of the day must respect in the development of policy. Such policy frameworks may comprise fundamental principles, goals and/or limits/boundaries. Policy frameworks may relate to anything that the Authority deems of (great) importance, which may include social (justice) issues, the distribution of wealth and income, environmental boundaries/limits and goals, the principles guiding the development of science and technology, the media, rights related to housing, health and education, and property rights, including to the means of production. Not for nothing, these authorities would be called sovereign as they, and no one else (government or non-government body), have the right to determine (and to have the final say on) what is deemed to be of fundamental importance to society.
Third, SPAs would focus on what societies consider important in the long(er) term. It would address the big questions that are too hard for most existing political systems to address, such as the kind of society that people want to live in, collective goods and aspirations, and the conditions that need to be created to promote the flourishing of individuals, communities, and the environment. Thus, its role is to steer societies consciously and deliberately into a direction that is considered collectively to be desirable and/or necessary. This implies that the Authority would (or needs to) avoid getting bogged down in the details of policy development and the day-to-day issues that presently dominate the business of governments and the media. Rather, it would put in place the mechanisms needed to monitor and assess the performance of governments against the fundamental (constitutive) principles, rules and goals that have been adopted by the Authority and hold governments accountable for what they have done or not done to advance these. It is thinkable that an SPA would include in the Constitution a provision for sanctioning (and possibly dismissing) ministers and governments for breaches of these constitutive principles, rules, values, and goals, to ensure that society’s views and values are not ignored or worse, sabotaged, by the government of the day.
These are what I see as the main features of a Sovereign People’s Authority. It would be up to an Authority itself to further define the institutional details, including those governing its own role, and for other political institutions and the political system as a whole. Therefore, there is little merit now in elaborating on what these should be. Nonetheless, a proposal to establish such an Authority must be specific enough to enable the citizens to form a well-informed opinion about the status, role, and rationale for its creation. To this end, I will add some further considerations and arguments.
First, it should be emphasised that an SPA, as proposed here, is a new and additional element of representative government. SPAs do not constitute a form of direct democracy that enables the active participation of all citizens in political decision-making.[21] An SPA represents the whole of society and stands in for society. The individual members of an SPA do not represent a particular group or class of society. They represent society by speaking their mind which, as pointed out above, is likely to be congruent with that of a segment of the population. The fact that, at the same time, they can speak for themselves and collectively for society as a whole, gives the SPA an important edge over traditional forms of political representation. By contrast, parliaments in most liberal democracies are far from representative of the whole population in terms of age, gender, income and wealth, religion or other self-professed beliefs, education, ethnicity, geography and other more or less objective characteristics that shape or influence people’s views, including those concerning their own and collective interests. Moreover, collective decision-making in such systems is dominated by particular interests, such as business groups, occupational and professional organisations, political-ideological groupings, and political parties. Interest groups have long been regarded as the key political actors in liberal democracies, while political parties provide platforms for aggregating rafts of interest groups under a programme and/or particular ideology (view of society). But, as many political analysts have pointed out before, politics in such systems is biased towards serving particularistic and short-term interests at the expense of collective and long-term interests.[22] I would add that the governments of such systems almost always represent a fraction of the citizens of a country, and in many cases not even a majority of the electorate.
Second, another reason to support the creation of SPAs is that it can help to restore or enhance the legitimacy of political systems. The election of Donald Trump in the US, Brexit, and the rise of populist movements and leaders in many countries can be seen as a decline of trust in political leaders and the legitimacy of political systems (the establishment). As the main political parties and leaders (often across the political spectrum) are often accused of being all the same, out of touch with the common people, or worse, corrupt and/or in the pocket of big business, this produces widespread political alienation and cynicism towards governments and elections (“They do what they want anyway”). This generates not only negative attitudes towards the state but undermines the belief in the value of democracy. These feelings have, of course, been cultivated by a variety of groups, including the extreme right and those who want to minimise unwanted state interference with the free market (big business).[23] Some go one step further and deny even the existence of societies.[24] Such moves also include banishing the concept of citizens from the political vocabulary altogether and replacing it with taxpayers and consumers.[25]
Arguably, to address the issues of distrust, alienation, fractiousness, political polarisation, and the actual corruption (involving money) that characterises many existing political systems, what may be needed is nothing less than a real social contract. The label social contract in this context seems more appropriate than its use to refer to the mythical foundation of societies or nations, or to what political philosophers and their supporters think holds or should hold societies or polities together.[26] Arguably the most important rationale for establishing an SPA as a truly representative body that stands in for a society is to find out what it is that binds the members of that society together, and why they form a political community. A common vision of the long-term future of a society, and the definition of its most important values, principles, rules, collective interests, and goals, forged by an SPA after extensive deliberation, can be regarded as nothing less than a foundational agreement on what holds a specific society or country together, also as a polity. This does, of course, not imply that all members of a society hold the same or similar views on all matters that are considered important, and principles and institutions that recognise diversity are likely to (have to) be important elements of a social contract to keep a polity together. But, at the same time, it should not be assumed that diversity means that the members of a society have no common interests and/or are unable to agree on what such interests are. Given the high level of interdependence between the members of all societies, it is hard to imagine that some groups might consider that they have no common interests whatsoever with the broader society in which they live (apart from living in the same geographical area).[27]
Here, I will not enter into a discussion of the formal political-institutional ramifications of the establishment of an SPA. These will differ from country to country. But one thing that needs to be emphasised is that these authorities must be allocated supreme power (have the final say) on all matters that are considered to be important by these authorities themselves. Thus, an SPA must have the right to overrule other branches of government, even though these may continue to pass legislation, make and implement government decisions and policies, and pass justice. But they do so based on the constitutive values, principles, rules, and goals determined by an SPA. The legitimacy of an SPA, as a body that stands in for society, is of a higher order than that of governments elected and supported by fractions of the population (often not even a majority). Also, as SPAs would have supreme (constitutional and constitutive) power, no court (however supreme or independent) should have the power to assess and declare decisions of an SPA unconstitutional, as such courts are commonly far from representative or democratically constituted. The only body that should be able to overrule a decision by the SPA is that of the citizenry as a whole. This suggests that it should be possible for citizens to demand a referendum on SPA decisions that prove to be highly controversial. But, in line with the fact that an SPA is representative of the whole of a population, to overrule a decision made by such an Authority through a popular vote (referendum), there should be near-universal turnout (say, at least 90%) and/or a very high level of support among the electorate (say, a super-majority of perhaps 70% or 80% or more of the electorate as a whole, including those who have not voted). In this context, it must be kept in mind that the turnover of a proportion of the members of the Authority (annually or bi-annually) may automatically create the support basis for a change that the people advocate.
Arguments against Sovereign People’s Authorities
No doubt, there are many grounds on which the creation of SPAs can be challenged and will be opposed. As noted above, many issues would need to be resolved before proposals for their creation can be submitted for approval to citizens, and the conditions for their creation will differ from country to country. Having presented my main arguments for their establishment, I will now discuss some of the general counterarguments that can be expected.
Arguably, the first objection that a proposal to create SPAs is most likely to provoke is that it is too risky to allocate supreme power (sovereignty) to a group of people who are unlikely to have the knowledge and expertise that is required to make sound decisions on the common and long-term interests of a society. Members of an SPA may be biased and prejudiced and not have the personality, motivation, knowledge and/or skills that are needed to scrutinise and debate issues rationally and collectively. As a result, it might be said, they are likely to make decisions that are poorly grounded in knowledge, incoherent, flawed, ineffective and ultimately disastrous for the whole country. As an SPA would be assigned supreme power, this argument must be taken very seriously. But there are at least three grounds for rejecting these objections.
First, democracy is not “rule by the wise”, most knowledgeable, or “the best”. In ancient Greece, the term for “rule by the best” was aristocracy, not democracy. In the same vein, rule by scientists (“the brightest minds in the country”) and/or by experts in all kinds of fields is also not democracy but technocracy. Simply stated, democracy means rule by the people. Democracy is not about having the correct (degree of) knowledge, or even about having a minimum of knowledge or expertise. This applies even to existing liberal-democratic systems. Most elected parliamentarians are not scientists or experts and have limited (scant, if any) knowledge and understanding of the most important issues that affect a country. A cynic might note that rare is a politician who has any expertise other than knowing how to make promises and then break them. The point is that government and politics are not about rule by “the best” or having the best knowledge. It is foremost about competing interests, power, and making decisions that keep those who govern (and/or their party) in power, among others by waging ideological battles, using propaganda and public manipulation (public relations) and, not seldomly, dirty and ugly means. This may sound cynical or realistic, depending on one’s views. In more sympathetic terms, one could say that governing is about trying to satisfy many different demands that are often incommensurate and conflicting and not easy to accommodate given the available means. It is about compromise (“the art of the possible”) and keeping key constituencies happy. Still, it is mostly a matter of muddling through while boasting about what has been achieved and downplaying or hiding what has not. But the argument that a lack of knowledge on the part of members of an SPA makes them unsuitable for high-level governance or government is not very persuasive as it is also very (or even more so) applicable to politicians and parliamentarians.
Of course, this does not mean that science, knowledge, and experts do not have an important role to play in the decisions to be made by an SPA. On the contrary, it is crucial that an SPA is supported by a comprehensive body of scientists, researchers, and analysts who can provide it with high-quality, non-partisan, data and information, analyses, reports, and advice. The staff of this body needs to be drawn from a wide range of disciplines linked to the three dimensions of sustainability (ecological, resource, and social). They must work in interdisciplinary teams to avoid cognitive capture by a particular discipline, and develop transdisciplinary and holistic ways of looking at and explaining reality. Special care should be taken that staff are not captured by conventional (neo-) classical/neoliberal economists or scientists and experts who have connections with vested economic interests. The SPA’s body of researchers and advisors must be independently funded (beyond the control of the government of the day) and accountable to the SPA, which must have a final say over appointments and dismissals. Supported by such a body, it is likely that SPA members will be able to make better-informed decisions than existing governments that rely on partisan advisors, politicised bureaucracies, private consultants, partisan think tanks that have their own political-ideological agendas (often funded by billionaires and corporations), and PR advisors whose main concern is to maintain or boost the government’s popularity and status in the polls.
However, public policymaking is not simply a matter of applying science and expertise. Equally important is the role of values and interests in shaping options and influencing decisions. But a significant difference between existing decision-making processes in liberal democratic (or authoritarian) institutions and the proposed SPAs lies in how values and interests influence and shape those decisions. The main strength of an SPA lies in its ability to stay out of the day-to-day political fray (partisan and petty politics) and to focus attention on issues that (assumedly) are most important to the whole of society, to take a long-term view, to engage in open discussion on a level playing field with people who have different views, to try to understand what lies behind those differences, and to work together on finding common ground and developing shared goals.[28] This is not, in the first instance, a matter of using one’s particular views, interests, or expertise to determine how all kinds of problems should or must be solved, but to engage with others in developing an overarching constitutive framework (a social contract) that provides direction and guidance to policies and institutions.
There are, therefore, good grounds for arguing that the decisions of an SPA, supported by a body of advisors as described above, and based on the common ground created by the (deliberative) interaction between the wide range of values and interests in society, will be superior to those made by most existing governments, both in terms of their knowledge and their support basis.
A second counterargument that the proposal to create Sovereign People’s Authorities based on sortition is likely to provoke is that this would undermine the legitimacy of existing democratically elected institutions (such as parliaments and presidents). Being ruled by a non-elected body might be seen as less democratic than being ruled by governments that the people have actively chosen through the act of voting.
This counterargument is valid if one assumes that electing representatives is the only way to give form to the idea of democracy. But, as argued above, the idea of democracy should not be confused with particular institutions such as voting for parliaments, presidents, or other institutions. If democracy is defined as letting the people decide how they wish to be governed or to govern themselves then this can take many different forms. Theoretically, I must admit, this definition opens the door to accepting that people may choose to be governed by authoritarian leaders. This has already been the case in countries where such leaders have been elected, even though this always raises questions about the way elections have been conducted and whether the results have been tampered with. But questions can be raised about how democratic the electoral system is in many countries, in particular, if a large proportion of voters (often even a majority of the electorate) has not voted for the party or parties that have won an election via non-proportional voting systems. If being elected by a majority of the people (including those who do not vote) is used as a yardstick of democracy, then many governments, even in liberal democratic political systems, do not meet that criterion, and hence have doubtful legitimacy. Instead, the people may choose to be represented by an SPA knowing that it will be (much) more representative of the population as a whole than existing parliaments. Of course, establishing such an Authority will need to be based on voting and the people must have recourse to abolishing or changing this institution (via constitutionally entrenched rules) if they are dissatisfied with its performance. But as a highly representative SPA can be seen as standing in for the whole of society (compared to a fraction or fractions on which most elected parliaments are based), it has a stronger claim to being called democratic and to being assigned sovereignty than many existing parliaments and governments.
Another, but perhaps more reluctantly or cautiously formulated counterargument may be that an SPA is likely to include (a large proportion of) “common people” who would not have a clue about how to perform the tasks that are expected from them, and that are likely to cause chaos, disorder or worse. This argument has its source in the negative view of democracy and its association with mob rule referred to above. It reflects not only an elitist view of who is suited to partake in political decision-making, especially at the highest level, but also a fear of what might happen to the elite(s) and their property if the people were to have the final say.[29] That governing is the proper domain of the higher classes and/or people with outstanding leadership qualities is a view that is still strongly entrenched in many societies, even among the so-called common people. This is a persistent remnant from the long history of non-democratic rule by kings and queens, oligarchs, and elites, and of the view that some people have a natural right or are born to rule over others.
Despite the persistence of this belief, there are good reasons for discarding it. First of all, democracy is not about giving people the right to just choose between leaders or elites. From a (radical) democratic perspective, all people already have political rights and do not need to be given such rights. The idea that some people (can) grant these rights to, or withhold them from, others is fundamentally undemocratic. Second, this view tends to overlook the fact that all leaders and members of elites are also human, with all their flaws and idiosyncrasies that unavoidably affect their decision-making. Look closer, and all leaders are very normal or common people (sex scandals are highly revelatory in this respect). They may have a big mouth, rhetorical skills, or the personality of a bully, but they are not fundamentally better people than others. Arguably, what distinguishes good leaders from bad leaders is a sense of morality, duty, and service to the common good. It is not the ability to take the people with them, which many dictators have been (and still are) able to do with their personal skills and the help of propaganda and PR. But political leaders and elites do not have a monopoly over morality and a sense of duty and service to the common good (possibly even less, as they are foremost concerned about protecting their own and sectional interests and power). Such qualities can at least as much be found among the (potential) members of an SPA who have been called to this duty, many of whom are likely to regard it as a privilege and will give their utmost best in this role. Moreover, the functions and processes of an SPA, as described above, aim to cultivate a culture and sense of common purpose. Third, as SPAs are highly representative of the people at large, they will be able to draw on a (far) wider range of knowledge, expertise, and qualities (based on occupations, talents, areas of knowledge and experience) than most existing parliaments (in which lawyers tend to be over-represented).
A final counterargument that I address here is that it is unlikely that, even if an SPA is established, it will be willing to undertake the kind of systemic or transformative changes that are necessary to move towards more sustainable societies and a less unsustainable world. This argument is based on the assumption, which is also shared by some advocates of sortition, that such a body will reflect the same spread of views and opinions as those held in society.[30] In other words, an SPA will be as fragmented, divided, conservative or progressive in its views as the rest of society. Why then would an SPA be willing to undertake fundamental, transformative change, or be capable of forging agreement for such change among itself?
This is a valid question, and I do not deny that I have concerns on this front myself. The creation of an SPA does not guarantee that transformative change along the lines that anyone thinks is necessary will be implemented. As SPAs are sovereign institutions that will make up their own mind about what is necessary or desirable to advance the perceived common and long-term interests of a country, no one can be certain about what such authorities will do or decide. Yet, I can think of three main reasons for being optimistic.
First, public surveys indicate that in many countries a majority of people are seriously concerned about environmental problems and trends. In 2019, a Gallup poll put the percentage of Americans prioritising the environment over the economy at 68%. Since 1985, in the US, the environment has typically scored higher than the economy as a priority, except for the period between 2009 and 2013, but in 2019 the margin was the highest since 2000.[31] In September 2020, a global opinion poll indicated that in 20 countries, including the US, European countries, Australia, Canada, Brazil and South Korea, a median of 71% of people assigned priority to the environment over economic considerations.[32] In 2019, in a special Eurobarometer poll, 72% of interviewees from the 28 EU countries indicated that governments did not do enough to protect the environment.[33] In 2021, with the effects of climate change making themselves increasingly felt around the world, across the G20 nations, 73% of people believed that human activity had pushed the Earth close to tipping points, and 74% agreed that “countries should move beyond focusing on gross domestic product and profit, and instead focus more on the health and wellbeing of humans and nature.” There is also widespread agreement (75%) that the COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated that rapid behaviour change is possible, and 71% thought that the pandemic “provided a unique opportunity to make societies more resilient.”[34]
While such data need to be treated with caution, they do indicate that in many countries the public is well ahead of governments when it comes to assigning priority to environmental protection and that, if an SPA were to be created from a cross-section of citizens, its members are likely to give a higher priority to environmental protection and sustainability than most members of existing parliaments and government.
Second, as mentioned above, the rationale for establishing SPAs is to develop a framework for decisions and policies aimed at creating a long-term view of a desirable society based on shared principles, interests, and goals. This makes it highly likely that the agenda and work programme of the Authority would focus on long-term environmental sustainability and what is needed to protect and advance the interests of societies as a whole on that basis. Therefore, an SPA will not be a very conducive platform for promoting the interests of particular (sectional) interest groups, something that dominates much of the business of existing political systems. Apart from enshrining this focus on the common and long-term interests of society constitutionally, it is important that the institutions, procedures, and support structures that guide the operations of an SPA are designed to create an organisational culture that cultivates and maintains that focus. This applies also to the role, work, and capacity of the advisory and administrative bodies on which the Authority relies, and the expertise and orientation of their staff. In this respect, it also helps that, across global publics, most people hold scientists in (some or high) esteem,[35] something that is likely to improve if and when SPAs will be able to rely on the advice of their own independent scientists. Given the rapidly deteriorating environment and the fact that independent scientists are increasingly leaving their ivory towers and calling for radical action, it is also likely that this will influence the assessments and views of the members of an SPA.
Third, although members of an SPA are likely to bring with them their biases and possibly poorly informed opinions, and different values and views on what is important in life, society, and the world, a reliance on the principles, rules and procedures of deliberative democracy, as already practised on many occasions in ad hoc issues as mentioned above, will be conducive to the development of open-mindedness. This is likely to extend to what people may initially consider to be radical and/or unrealistic views. Assuming that at least a proportion of the members of these authorities will hold (fairly) radical views and ideas, these will also get a chance to be aired and debated on a level playing field.[36] Again, this is not a guarantee that such views and arguments will carry the day, but they are much more likely to be taken seriously in these forums than in the existing political arenas and media of most countries. We cannot assume that, magically, all members of an SPA would leave behind their ideologies, biases, and interests, and suddenly accept that transformative change is needed in the interest of the common good, nationally, and globally. However, properly conducted, deliberative rules, methods, and procedures (“discursive designs”)[37] can go a long way towards creating the conditions for open-minded discussions based on different perceptions and interpretations of problems or issues, sources or causes, and potential approaches or solutions. Arguably, apart from being remunerated for their work, the greatest potential reward for members would be the reputation that they acquire and leave behind for what they have contributed to the common good of the country.
There are, therefore, good reasons for thinking that the major shift in political-institutional power that the establishment of SPAs will bring about will create a greater openness towards fundamental or transformative changes aimed at advancing more sustainable and desirable societies as defined by society rather than by the most economically powerful and existing governments. While there is no guarantee that such an Authority will undertake such changes, it is much more likely to do so than existing political institutions dominated by particularistic and short-term interests. At the very least, one can argue that the creation of SPAs would allow societies to get their best shot at the environmental crisis. It is sometimes argued that a country gets the leaders that it deserves. If SPAs are established, one would be justified in saying that societies may get the future that they deserve.
Establishing SPAs: agency and strategy
Ultimately, whether fundamental transformations aimed at creating more sustainable societies occur depends on agency (the choices made by individuals and groups), power (the resources actors have at their disposal to give consequence to their choices), contingency, and (strategic) action. Although a growing number of people may support environmental protection, the odds are stacked heavily against them. The prevailing institutions pose big obstacles to environmental integration, tilting the playing field in favour of non-environmental interests, while the economic power of environmental advocates pales in comparison to that of those interests. This power imbalance has led, and some might say forced, environmental advocates to focus their efforts on environmental problems or issues that offer the best chances of mobilising and using the power resources to which they have the most access: cognitive and social power. By skilfully using the tendency of the media to focus on emotive and dramatic stories and events, at times, environmental activists have been able to force the hand of governments to act on particular issues, for instance, to ban certain dangerous chemicals, stop development projects, or to protect some species, forests, or natural areas. In recent years, climate change (global heating) has become one of the main foci of environmental action aimed at forcing governments to adopt more ambitious targets and actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the efforts of environmental activists and movements are highly laudable, sometimes heroic, and at times effective, they have thus far failed to bring about the fundamental or transformative changes that are required to address the causes and sources of environmental pressure and problems. Although, on some issues, victories may have been scored and some progress made, environmental pressures continue to build up, new problems keep on emerging and, overall, environmental degradation continues unabated. There is, therefore, a strong need to revisit the focus and actions of the environmental movement.
One option, advocated by many radical environmental advocates, including eco-socialists, is to put forward ideas and/or demands for the abolition of capitalism which is rightly considered to be a (or even the) main source and driver of environmental decline. Capitalism is incompatible with meaningful and long-term environmental protection, and it will therefore have to be abolished and replaced by a different economic system. The same applies to the system of large-scale industrial production, which developed in a symbiotic relationship with capitalism from the 18th century. Making production and consumption compatible with ecological systems and processes, and with resource use practices that can be considered socially necessary or desirable, will require a major transformation of economic institutions, technologies, and practices.
However, as both capitalism and industrialism are deeply entrenched in the dominant political-economic systems of countries around the world, demands for immediately abolishing these systems seem to stand little if any chance. Moreover, at this stage, there is no widespread agreement, or even clarity, on the (kind of) systems that can or should replace them. The idea or expectation that the working class or the labour movement can or will be the most important agent of change, whether by revolution or reformist means, is no longer realistic. Although, strictly defined, most people in modern societies are still workers, the proportion of people that identifies themselves as such, and that supports the labour movement, has sharply declined. Moreover, the political-institutional power basis of trade unions has been severely curtailed by neoliberal reforms of labour legislation that make it very difficult for the movement to regain political ground. Also, whatever remains of the labour movement, including the social-democratic parties that were behind the expansion of the welfare states in many countries in the 19th and 20th centuries, has watered down their political-ideological aspirations and poses no threat to capitalism or industrialism. Therefore, while these fundamental changes are necessary, such demands are unlikely to gain much traction and provide a basis for effective social mobilisation. To make such changes possible, a fundamental change of a more realistic and strategic nature is required.
In this context, it is important to unmask the unfruitfulness of some other often heralded calls for action to address or solve the environmental challenge. It is often argued that we are all responsible for environmental problems and pressures through our individual choices, actions, and behaviour. The corollary to this argument is that, if we want to solve these problems, we all need to change our behaviour and opt for environmentally responsible products, services, behaviour, and practices. Conveniently, this argument disguises the fact that some people are far more responsible than others, in particular those who have the power to make political-economic decisions that have major environmental impacts, including on investments and finance, production, science and technology, energy and transport, and defence spending, among other. By far most people have no role or influence in such matters and have very little practical choice when it comes to dealing with the outcomes/products of these decisions. Moreover, if they do have a choice (for instance, not to travel by car or aeroplane), the positive effects of the decisions made by a (very) small fraction of the population or consumers, are completely negated by the (big) majorities that continue on the business-as-usual path. Effectively addressing by far most environmental problems requires real collective action based on collective decisions that are binding upon all members of society.
In the same vein, activities aimed at creating more sustainable communities, while highly valuable for both social and environmental reasons, can only go so far in moving societies and countries towards sustainability. Community-based efforts involving ecological protection and restoration, the promotion of waste reduction and recycling, the reduction of pollution, the banning of pesticides and the promotion of organic growing, encouraging the uptake of sustainable transport and energy alternatives, and sustainable housing projects, among other things, are very laudable in that they generate positive energy and provide foci for people who want to do their bit for the environment, and as they often produce tangible results and improvements for communities and local environments. Also, they can show what is possible and can or needs to be done at the local level. However, without fundamental changes in local and national-level institutions and policies in areas such as energy, transport, industry, and urban and regional development, they are little more than plasters on festering wounds. At worst, they can create the impression that local authorities and vested economic interests are committed to creating sustainable communities while in practice economic growth and development remain the highest priorities. Therefore, local agency and efforts aimed at environmental protection and improvement need to be complemented by action aimed at fundamentally changing the systems that generate unsustainability. Changes at the individual, group, local and individual business levels must be supported by transformational policy and institutional changes at the national level if they are to bring about meaningful change at a country, and possibly international, level.
Calls for fundamental change often emphasise the importance of building a broad-based social movement (a “big tent”) that brings together advocates for change on a (very) wide range of social and environmental issues, including indigenous people, the whole spectrum of environmental groups, the labour (trade union) movement, the social and environmental justice movements, the gender-based movement, and others. One of the most inclusive examples on this front is the World Social Forum, which aims to provide an international counterweight, or at least an alternative voice, to the Davos meetings of the World Economic Forum, which is widely seen as a platform for debating global issues controlled by the global political-economic elite (the “1%”). While the World Social Forum is more an arena for exchanging views and ideas than a medium for organising global action, advocates for transformative change increasingly emphasise the need for creating a broad programme of demands based on a values-based vision of the world supported by such inclusive social movements.[38] It is thought or hoped that such an alternative vision and programme has the potential to be supported by a majority of the population, and therefore will be transformative.
While, again, I applaud such efforts and largely agree with many of the substantive ideas that are contained in such proposals, I have my doubts about the construction of (very) broad-based programmes and visions as strategies for bringing about fundamental change. For a start, the broader and more diverse the groups involved in debating and constructing such visions and programmes, the more difficult it becomes to reach an agreement on more than either very general principles or rather technical ideas or proposals. Or they become catalogues of a large number of demands without a coherent cognitive framework and strategic thinking about priorities and how to bring about change. Also, the logistics of involving perhaps thousands of people in such exercises are not only daunting but vulnerable to accusations of manipulation and distortion by self-selected leaders. While arguably this is inherent to any broad societal movement, it does raise the legitimate question of to what extent the demands expressed can be regarded as reflecting the most important needs and priorities of the people as a whole.
Green parties arguably are the political spearheads of the social and environmental movements, putting forward comprehensive programmes for institutional and policy changes that are supported by a proportion of the population in many countries. However, although they provide platforms for highlighting social and environmental issues and how they can, should, or must be addressed, the efficacy of green parties in bringing about fundamental change has proved to be very limited at best. This is not surprising, of course, as in most countries they have remained relatively minor parties and have not acquired a political position that enables them to push through transformative change. And if they do gain more seats in Parliaments and get into a position where they can become a plank of the government, the need to compromise means that fundamental change remains beyond reach, with the result that the internal divisions within these parties become sharper, their environmental credibility gets compromised, and their electoral support basis weakens. Practically, green parties are and remain trapped within political-institutional systems that are unable to undertake systemic change. They operate within these systems and are constrained by their limitations. Again, the most that they can achieve is to put some plasters on some wounds.
This critical assessment of what may be regarded by many as the most important or promising agents of change in the 21st century indicates that the prospects of bringing about transformative change through these groups and movements are small. This highlights the need for radically rethinking how fundamental change aimed at creating more sustainable and desirable societies can be achieved. I do nottake the view that societies cannot be steered in a particular direction. History, including that of the last fifty years, has demonstrated that this is possible, as reflected by the neoliberal revolution that has taken place around the world. This was not a case of drifting or evolution, but the result of well-organised and well-funded strategic action by very powerful groups in societies. To dismantle the fundamental changes that this movement has been able to put in place requires an equally well-organised and smart strategic campaign aimed at tilting the imbalance of power towards those who can legitimately speak for the common and long-term interests of societies as a whole. The creation of SPAs proposed here can provide, in my view, a focus for social mobilisation and strategic action that offers a more promising prospect for fundamental change. This view is based on an assessment of the existing distribution of power, the relative strengths (power base) of social and environmental movements, and the crucial role of the state in tilting the balance of power one way or the other. But rather than working for change through existing political institutions, it puts forward an addition to those frameworks that has the potential to bring about a major shift in political-institutional power, based on the principle of popular sovereignty. The proposal puts the focus squarely on the importance of completing the unfinished business of democratisation by putting an end to the rule by elites or fractions of the population.
This proposed course of action implies a shift from social mobilisation behind a broad programme of (more or less fundamental) changes agreed upon by a wide range of groups or social movements towards society-wide mobilisation behind a single proposal for radical political-institutional change, the establishment of a Sovereign People’s Authority. Still, getting this through will require a massive effort, but the chances of rallying a large proportion of society behind such a proposal are, I think, considerably better than any of the calls for action that have been emanating from the social movements mentioned above. It also implies that, for the time being, factional battles within and between these social movements are put on hold, and that they recognise the importance of establishing an SPA as a common cause that, once established, will greatly enhance the chances of any of their particular concerns being heard.
Thus, environmental advocates and social activists should align themselves in the broadest possible coalition and give priority to the creation of an SPA. This does not necessarily mean giving up all other actions and campaigns aimed at environmental protection, but these must be used to point out the need, and support the demand, for an SPA, and not detract from it. Rather, social movement advocates should assign priority to discussing the specific form and functions (formal/legal powers, resources etc.) that an SPA should have so that a concrete proposal can be presented to the public and become a key demand to governments. Focusing on just one key demand (for an SPA with specific terms) would not only be less demanding in terms of achieving agreement compared to putting together a broad package of reforms that would address the particular concerns and priorities of a wide range of groups; it can also function as a focus for mass social mobilisation. By its very nature, the idea of constitutionally enshrining the principle of popular sovereignty in the form of an SPA with supreme power, exercised by the people directly, has the potential to be readily understood and supported by a big majority of the population, also across the left-right divide. In other words, it enables social movements to maximise social power, their main source of power.
The demand for the creation of an SPA must also be backed up by a well-thought-out strategic plan about the specific ways, means and tactics by which the demand is to be advanced. As noted before, spontaneous mass demonstrations may be impressive and even bring about the fall of rulers or governments, but they often fail to achieve the structural changes that are needed to advance the broad cause(s) of a popular movement. That does not mean that the social media, flash mobs, and other modern ways of deploying social power do not have a place. But these may be counterproductive if they result in gratuitous violence and looting, provoking harsh reactions from the police or even the army, and a loss of support from the public. By contrast, if a political system allows for public referenda, social mobilisation could be channelled by using the formal legal proceedings for organising a referendum to demand the creation of an SPA. This would be most effective if a government can be committed to holding a binding referendum, but it would even be useful to have a non-binding referendum that could generate a large majority in support. Such an outcome might be difficult for a government to ignore. But if they do, the movement could make the introduction of a legally binding referendum a core issue in the next elections, pressing political parties to commit themselves to introduce such a measure and encouraging voters to vote for the parties that do express a firm commitment on this point. Talented strategists, media specialists, and PR experts are likely to be able to add many ideas and suggestions about keeping the demand for the creation of an SPA on the public and political agendas. There is no reason not to use such expertise given the inequality in power (including media power) that exist and that will be used by vested interests against such a proposal.
Of course, these suggestions do not and cannot offer a guarantee that SPAs can be created in a particular country or context. For a start, although the reaction of the authorities and elites in a country is likely to be negative, fierce, and hostile, it is unpredictable what form(s) this reaction will take. As the Icelandic experience has shown, it is likely that, also in liberal democracies, existing political institutions (parliaments, including the main political parties) will block radical political-institutional reform that diminishes, let alone takes away, their sovereign power. One cannot exclude the possibility of repression in a variety of ways, including by the use of anti-terrorism legislation, declaring such proposals a threat to the sovereignty and/or security of the state, or the country’s vital economic interests. Such attempts at repression could perhaps be challenged in court (in countries that provide this option), but in (increasingly) authoritarian or dictatorial political systems all legal avenues towards fundamental change may well be blocked. If existing political regimes use the arms of physical power (army and police) to suppress the demand for creating a Sovereign People’s Authority, one cannot exclude the possibility that highly frustrated and angry masses of people will take to the streets trying to force a political change. But one might think or hope that the idea of giving supreme power to the people (society as a whole) rather than an elite or dictator would also find appeal within the armed forces, the members of which, after all, have their social roots in, and are part of, society.
In this context, contingency can play an important role. It is probably true that the situation in some countries makes them more prone to fundamental change than others. In this respect, it is worth spending a few words on the United States, which seems to be in the thrall of a process that is tearing the country apart. Political polarisation, economic stagnation and decline, the coexistence of extensive socio-economic misery with obscene wealth, the COVID-19 pandemic, structural racism, and last but not least, the Trump presidency, have all contributed to a sharpening of divisions within American society and politics. Even though Trump’s successor, President Biden, has restored an air of respectability to the office, these sharp divisions are hard to overcome. The political-economic system is so compromised that it seems near-impossible to change it through formal political processes. The country is now paying the price for the radical neoliberal policies and institutional changes that have eroded the socio-economic basis that provided a degree of social cohesion to American society in the decades following WWII. In this situation, the idea of creating a Sovereign People’s Authority may well find fertile ground and attract support from across American society. But, of course, the political-economic hurdles to creating such an Authority in the US are formidable and overcoming these would require strategic coalition-building across the political divide.
In China, arguably, the creation of an SPA should be quite straightforward. Being a “People’s Republic” all that is needed is to have the (2980) members of the National People’s Congress (NPC) selected by sortition (rather than elected indirectly) along the lines proposed earlier and to make this the sovereign political institution. The President, CCP, and the government’s administrative bodies would then become the executive arms of government, accountable to the NPC and operating within the long-term (green) plan that the NCP would develop and adopt. In many ways, China should have much less difficulty with the adoption of the type of (green) economic planning approach that must replace capitalism, apart perhaps from the democratic element. But what may be needed first is a severe economic downturn, perhaps combined with some major (environmental and/or social) disaster(s) that would compromise the legitimacy of the CCP and its supreme leader.
The same may apply to many other countries. As the Covid-19 pandemic has demonstrated, major threats and disasters may trigger people to reconsider globalisation and the degree of interdependence and vulnerabilities that it has created, reflect on the desirability of the path societies are on, and think about a possible reset of dominant values, practices, and routines. It is not unlikely that further disturbances related to the effects of global heating, environmental disasters, and/or another financial-economic crisis or collapse and the serious socio-economic consequences thereof, will raise further doubt about the capabilities of the existing political systems to cope with the mounting problems. This is likely to make the situation in countries more conducive to the kind of political-institutional changes proposed here.
Conclusion
The case for creating what I refer to as Sovereign People’s Authorities is based on two main grounds. First, the view that is highly unlikely that the fundamental (transformative) changes that are required if societies are to become less unsustainable can and will be achieved, or even pursued, within the existing political-economic systems, whether (more or less) democratic or authoritarian, capitalist, socialist, or mixed. Given the highly unequal power structures that come with these systems, environmental and social advocates can’t bring about significant and enduring change within these systems. In the past, this might have led to calls for revolution. But, apart from the enormous human costs that tend to come with political revolutions, they do not necessarily lead to more sustainable or desirable societies. Therefore, the second ground on which the case for creating SPAs is built is the idea that radical democracy is likely to offer a more promising basis for moving societies in a more desirable direction. The form of radical democracy advocated here is based on the principle of popular sovereignty. Thus far, this principle, although recognised as the source of legitimate political power in most (even authoritarian) political systems, has been interpreted in ways that de facto assign supreme political authority to political institutions rather than to the people (society) at large. By establishing SPAs, societies effectively claim their sovereign rights, which strictly speaking they already have and do not need to be given or granted, as most states in the world already accept popular sovereignty as the basis for their legitimacy. It is just that the existing political institutions that have been derived from this principle have come to be seen as the only way in which the principle can be (practically) implemented, and that virtually all political discourse is entrapped by this political paradigm.
Although the establishment of SPAs does not guarantee that an Authority will choose to introduce transformative systemic changes aimed at moving towards sustainable societies, there are reasons to believe that they will do so. These relate to public surveys that indicate that, in many countries, the protection of the environment is a higher priority for most people than continued economic growth, to the rationale for creating SPAs in the first place, and to the ways the discussions in these authorities will be guided by principles and rules developed by deliberative democracy theories and practices. These have already proven their value as guides towards developing a better (shared) understanding of, and common ground on, controversial issues. In combination, these reasons make it much more likely that the common and long-term interests of society, as defined by society itself, will get the attention and weight that they deserve compared to what existing political systems can deliver.
However, establishing SPAs will be far from straightforward given the expected opposition from vested interests and their formidable economic, political-institutional, cognitive, and physical power resources. Breaking through these barriers will require a very broad but well-focused and well-organised coalition of forces in civil society, and a strategic approach to social mobilisation aimed at holding a binding referendum (or several referenda) on a well-thought-out proposal for creating an SPA. Yet, if ever there was an idea on which a large majority of citizens should be able to agree, it is that a society should be allowed to decide for itself how it wishes to shape or influence its future. However, it must be acknowledged that the creation of SPAs would constitute only a first, albeit crucial, step in a long process of fundamentally transforming societies and steering them into a sustainable and desirable direction
References
[1] Although the idea that the people (should) have supreme power can be traced to Aristophanes and Herodotus in the 5th century BC, it was first developed in political theory by Jean Bodin in the 17th century. Bodin defined sovereign power as power that is supreme, absolute, indivisible and perpetual, but acknowledged that, although this kind of power has been granted by God to monarchs, it was in theory compatible with democracy. Bourke, Richard and Quentin Skinner (eds.) (2016), Popular Sovereignty in Historical Perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[2] Konig, David (2018), Popular Sovereignty, Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/united-states-and-canada/us-history/popular-sovereignty (Accessed: 16 Septem-ber 2021).
[3] To avoid misunderstandings, by the people I mean all the people of a polity, not just the non-elites as some branches of public discourse and literature may suggest. As individuals, allmembers of a society belong to the people. What is debatable is which members of the society can or should represent the people, most obviously with respect to age restrictions (from the age of 18, 16, 12, or even younger?).
[4] This was stated by George Washington, who saw the Constitution as “an explicit and authentic act of the whole people [that] is sacredly obligatory on all”. Konig, David, Popular Sovereignty.
[5] In this respect, the new property-owning ruling elites had more in common with Plato and the aristocratic critics of Athenian democracy who deemed democracy the least desirable political system. Keane, John, The Life and Death of Democracy. London: Simon & Schuster, 58-61, 81-84, 201-204. See also Winters, Jeffrey A., Oligarchy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter1, especially pp.26-31; McChesney, Robert W. and John Nichols, People Get Ready: The Fight against a Jobless Economy and a Citizenless Democracy. New York: Nation Books, 152-162.
[6] Keane, John, The Life and Death of Democracy, 852.
[7] Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Economic Democracy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 57.
[8] Lummis, C. Douglas, Radical Democracy. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
[9] Barber, Benjamin R., Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University of California Press.
[10] I have come across two publications that, although they do not explicitly advocate institutionalising popular sovereignty, advance proposals for how to make democratic systems more representative of the citizens of a country. Callenbach and Phillips focus on the United States and put forward the idea of creating a “Citizen Legislature” constituted by the method of sortition. Callenbach, Ernst and Michael Phillips (1985), A Citizen Legislature. Berkely/Bodega, California: Banyan Tree Books/Clear Glass. Landemore discusses the idea of creating more representative bodies under the label of “open democracy”, as well a range of examples. Landemore, Hélène (2020), Open Democracy. Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Both publications are highly relevant to what I propose here as they provide solid arguments for why more representative citizens’ bodies are also likely to produce betterdecisions.
[11] There is a large literature on this topic. For a few starting points discussing principles, issues, and applications, see Goodin, Robert E. (2008), Innovating Democracy. Democratic Theory and Practice after the Deliberative Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Dryzek, John S., Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press; Landemore, Hélène, Open Democracy. Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century.
[12] In this respect, I part ways with those who see deliberation as the essence of democracy. Deliberation is an inherent feature of democracy, but who has the final say is definitely a key issue. Of course, the distribution of all forms of power is important to democracy, but when it comes to formal political-institutional power, who has the final say, is arguably the most important issue for democracy, along with how much opportunity there is for the people to have an input.
[13] Landemore, Hélène, Open Democracy. Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century, Chapter 7.
[14] Ibid., 175.
[15] I have chosen the label Sovereign People’s Authority rather than that of Sovereign Citizens’ Authority for two main reasons: first, the latter has been misappropriated by extreme-right white supremacist organisations that arose in the United States in the 1950s, and that used the expression “supreme citizen” to justify not paying taxes or fines and, more recently, to refuse wearing masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, seeing such rules as infringements on their individualrights as a citizen; second, because the name Sovereign People’s Authority better encapsulates the principle that sovereignty lies with the people as a whole (popular sovereignty), not with individual citizens, or monarchs or parliaments. The notion of popular sovereignty has nothing to do with either white supremacy or the idea that individuals are sovereign. Meaningful concepts like popular sovereignty (or freedom, justice, sustainability) should not be abandoned because some people abuse them for their own narrow purposes. Rather, they must be reclaimed for the whole of society.
[16] For a seminal publication on the idea of applying sortition to the highest political-institutional levels, see Callenbach, Ernst and Michael Phillips, A Citizen Legislature. The authors put forward a proposal to compose the US House of Representatives using sortition. Their proposal was inspired by the shortcomings of the existing US system, which they attributed to the influence of “big money” and special (corporate) interests, as well as an overrepresentation of lawyers.
[17] Callenbach and Phillips argue that a sample (body) of 435 people would be large enough to provide a “transcript” of the (US) nation. Ibid., section 4. Landemore suggests an assembly of between 150 and 1000 and notes that a sample of around 500 is considered the “gold standard”. Landemore, Hélène, Open Democracy. Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century, 13, 64, 92. Statistically, a sample size of 601 to represent a population of 5 million would give a margin of error of 4% and a confidence level of 95%. Above populations of 20,000, the sample size needed is not much larger. Medallia (2021), Checkmarket. Sample Size Calculator, https://www.checkmarket.com/sample-size-calculator/ (Accessed: 22 September 2021).
[18] Callenbach and Phillips suggested a turnover of one third every year. One of their main arguments for frequent rotation is that it would significantly reduce the chances (or at least the effectiveness) of bribery and corruption efforts. This is a valid argument, but very short terms imply that members will have little time to learn and apply the knowledge needed to contribute to deliberations and decision-making. Full transparency of all deliberations and communications between council members, as well as strict accountability (of financial transactions, among other) can also reduce the scope for corruption. Callenbach, Ernst and Michael Phillips, A Citizen Legislature.
[19] For this reason, I have chosen to label these bodies Authorities rather than Councils. Citizens’ Assemblies or Citizens’ Juries have mostly had advisory roles.
[20] Doremus discusses a similar view related to the role of constitutive law and its importance to environmental policy, emphasising the importance of values that underlie such law. Doremus, Holly (2003), “Constitutive Law and Environmental Policy”, Stanford Environmental Law Journal, Vol.22, 295-379.
[21] The importance of this distinction is elaborated upon by Landemore, who rightly points out that direct democracy in this sense is only possible in the smallest of polities. Even in ancient Athenian democracy, often depicted as a form of direct democracy, public participation in deliberation and decision-making was de facto confined to a proportion of the population, which was too large (estimated around 30,000) for everyone to actively participate. Most of the debate (also in the Assembly, which could comprise up to 8,000 people) took place between a relatively small group of “professional orators” (whom we might call politicians in modern terminology). Landemore, Hélène, Open Democracy. Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century, notably Chapter 3.
[22] Lowi, Theodore J. (1979, 2d . ed.), The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States. New York: Norton; Dryzek, John S. (1992), “Ecology and Discursive Democracy: Beyond Liberal Capitalism and the Administrative State”, Capitalism, nature, socialism, Vol.3, No.20, pp.18-42; Eckersley, Robyn (1998), “Environment Rights and Democracy”, in Keil, R., D. Bell, P. Penz and L. Fawcett (eds.), Political Ecology: Global and Local. London: Routledge, pp.353-376.
[23] As famously expressed by President Ronald Reagan, who stated in his inaugural address on 20 January 1981 that “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” Ronald Reagan Institute (2021), Reagan Quotes and Speeches. Inaugural Address, https://www.reaganfoundation.org/ronald-reagan/reagan-quotes-speeches/inaugural-address-2/ (Accessed: 15 September 2021).
[24] Such as UK Prime Minister Thatcher. See Keay, Douglas (1987), “Margaret Thatcher. Interview for Woman’s Own”, Woman’s Own, Publication date: 23 September, http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689 (Accessed: 2 September 2021).
[25] In New Zealand, a neoliberal libertarian political party was set up under the name of Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT) to give expression to its view of what politics is about.
[26] Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are modern philosophers most associated with the idea that societies are based on a “social contract”, an abstraction rather than an historical fact, that constitutes a political understanding that citizens accept the authority of a government as long as the government protects the interests of its citizens, in particular their security. As such, it is strongly concerned with the moral foundations that underlie societies and how or why these are, or should be, held together. For an overview of social contract theories, see Friend, Celeste (2021), Social Contract Theory, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/ (Accessed: 17 September 2021).
[27] It is thinkable that, in highly polarised societies (politically, ethnically, or otherwise), no such common ground can be found. If so, this casts doubt over the viability of such a polity and could provide a legitimate basis for arguing that it be split up territorially (into smaller states), or functionally (separate political institutions for different groups). The latter form creates all kinds of complications, but it might be better to let people (of different groups) find out the unworkability of such arrangements rather than keep a polity together by suppression and force. Paradoxically, creating such arrangements between highly polarised parties requires in-depth deliberation aimed at finding common ground on what arrangements are acceptable and could be made to work, de factoshaping a new but differentiated polity (akin to, for instance, the EU). In this context, the “subsidiarity principle” is likely to be helpful, as it implies that only matters on which it is agreed that they cannot realistically be handled (well) by smaller polities would be delegated to larger ones. Such a functional approach is compatible with the retention of the final say (sovereignty) by the smaller polities.
[28] It should be noted that, in larger bodies, deliberation would probably need to be stacked, with discussions taking place in small groups that feed (through representatives) into more encompassing scales. Landemore, Hélène, Open Democracy. Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century, 64-65.
[29] It is this view that creates a distinction between the people and the elite(s), which is reciprocated by the slogan “power to the people” which is commonly interpreted as taking it away from the elite(s).
[30] Callenbach, Ernst and Michael Phillips, A Citizen Legislature.
[31] Saad, Lydia (2019), Preference for Environment over Economy Largest since 2020, Gallup, https://news.gallup.com/poll/248243/preference-environment-economy-largest-2000.aspx (Accessed: 5 October 2020).
[32] Funk, Cary, et al. (2020), Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem across Global Publics, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/ (Accessed: 22 September 2021).
[33] European Commission (2020), Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment, https://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Survey/getSurveyDetail/instruments/SPECIAL/surveyKy/2156, 67 (Accessed: 5 October 2020).
[34] Watts, Jonathan (2021), “Humans ‘Pushing Earth Close to Tipping Point’, Say Most in G20”, The Guardian, 16 August 2021.
[35] Funk, Cary, et al., Science and Scientists Held in High Esteem across Global Publics. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/ (Accessed: 22 September 2021).
[36] That the youngest generations (the millennials and generation Z) have more radical views on societal matters has been revealed by several polls that indicated that 75% of these groups in the UK believe that the climate emergency is “specifically a capitalist problem”, that 72% back “sweeping nationalisation” and that 67% “want to live under a socialist system”. In the US, in 2018, only 45% of young Americans saw capitalism favourably, down from 68% in 2010. Jones, Owen (2021), “Eat the Rich! Why Millennials and Generation Z Turned Their Backs on Capitalism”, The Guardian, Publication date: 20 September, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/eat-the-rich-why-millennials-and-generation-z-have-turned-their-backs-on-capitalism (Accessed: 21 September 2021). The fact that many of these generations will bear the brunt of the growing social and environmental problems no doubt plays a role in their disenchantment, which is likely to flow through to a Sovereign People’s Authority (if established) on which they will also be represented.
[37] Dryzek, John S. (1987), “Discursive Designs: Critical Theory and Political Institutions”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol.31, No.3, 656-679.
[38] See, for instance, Klein, Naomi, No Is Not Enough: Defeating the New Shock Politics. Great Britain: Allen Lane. Monbiot also points out the importance of developing and spreading an alternative “story” of how societies and the world can or should be to replace the dominant neoliberal view of the world Monbiot, George, Out of the Wreckage. A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. London and New York: Verso.
Humanity on Trial 