Life has intervened as they say, so I won’t be able to deliver my Ignite talk this evening.  For all five of you that are dissapointed - my mamma taught me to be humble - here are my prepared remarks. Not the same, I know…but the best I can do in a pinch. 

1. A very small minority of people affect political decision-making in London. They are the elected politicians, civic administrators, members of interests groups, and the several dozen hyper-engaged citizens that regularly show up to public meetings, or organize events like ChangeCamp and Ignite London. Then there are the other 300,000 people that only have voice when they are awoken from their civic slumber – like when your sleepy street is being turned into a major thoroughfare, your local school is slated to close, your quiet park is being converted to an off-leash dog run, or there’s an election.
 
2. But there are a lot of other important issues - how London grows, the health of our water systems, transportation issues, waste management, budget priorities, how we’re governed - that aren’t particularly rage-inducing or sexy, but still affect us all in very real ways. Unfortunately, most Londoners don’t have the time or inclination to give these issues much thought – many don’t even know which level of government is responsible for resolving these issues.

3. You could shrug this off and say democracy is for the ‘people who show up’ - but I think we can and must do better. So how can we balance the voices of the interest groups, super-citizens, and politicians with the desires of London’s ‘silent majority?’ And no, the solution is not appointing a local radio host as the official spokesperson of the silent majority – like some kind of all-seeing eye of Sauron. That’s the very big question I’ll try to answer in my very short talk.  And to help me, I’m going to take you through about 2,000 years of political history in – oh – 90 seconds.

4. One of my favourite periods of political history is the 4th Century BC in Athens, the birthplace of democracy.  Greece in a modern context may not be the best example of effective government, but they had something going on there 2,400 years ago.  In the interest of time, I’m about to make a very complex system very simple – so apologies to any classical historians in the crowd. Athenian democracy was direct democracy. All male citizens over the age of 18 were members of the Assembly (ekklesia), which was the lawmaking body of the land.  So, in theory, about 50,000 Athenians could speak and cast votes in their legislature – and they would gather near the agora to do so, which was a large civic square in the shadow of the acropolis. 

5. A subset of the Assembly – called the Council of 500 (boule) – is the closest thing the Athenians had to our version of representative democracy, the difference being that the 500 were selected by lot – that is, picked out of a hat (so the speak), and served for a term of one month of the ten month civic calendar.  Under this arrangement, most Athenians served on this Council once in their lifetime.  The Council of 500 was charged with carrying out the will of the larger Assembly, setting agendas for assembly meetings, but could not initiate policy on their own without the approval of the assembly – so they were part Executive branch, part civil service. 

6. Even better, the chair of the Council of 500 – our equivalent of mayor or president – rotated daily.  This seemingly crazy turnover was because the Athenians hated the idea of career politicians or the centralization of power with a single individual or group – they also clearly believed each and every citizen had the capacity to make well informed decisions and executions of those decisions.

7. Athenian direct democracy was really a short experiment in the grand scheme of Western political history.  Now fast forward a few thousand years, and we know our modern system of democracy evolved into something quite different. The Romans flipped between a republic and dictatorship (emperor), the dark ages hit and we had the monarchy and the feudal system.  In 1215 the seed of our modern democracy was first sewn in Runnymead when a bunch of crusty barons forced their king to respect certain rights, and honor the supremacy of parliament.

8. Democratic institutions and the rule of law evolved over the next few centuries. This evolution is best described in the social contract philosophy of 17th century philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, which in incredibly basic terms means that people willingly give up sovereignty to a government so that social order is maintained.  Hobbes belief was that if left to our own devices, the people are a brutish, selfish, evil bunch - Locke opinion of human nature was a little bit more cheery, but both believed that governments, with conscent of the people, were required as a check against ‘the natural state of man.’
 
9. Our democracy in Canada, like all modern democracies, is representative – this is that we all elect a select few to govern on behalf of the rest of us.  The Canadian democratic tradition, differing from the republic to the south, actually is based on a distrust of the ‘mob’ or the common folk – which is why our provincial legislatures used to have, and our federal parliament still has, an unelected chamber as a check on the commons – and, of course, everything requires royal ascent even though that is seen today as a given.  The basic rationale for representative democracy is that the size of our population, and also the sheer volume and complexity of issues facing society, doesn’t make it practical for citizens to cast votes on every issue – so instead have elected individuals to represents their interests.  Those elected reps are given the freedom to pass judgement on behalf of the rest of us, but the rest of us get to cast judgement on their job performance once every four years or so.

10. Municipal councils, being creatures of the provinces, are also representative in nature.  They used to have an ancient-Greek-like check against career politicans – back in the day Municipal Councils and mayors sat for one year, then it crept up to two, three, and now four year terms. Councillors and mayors were in principle, and in reality, part-time positions almost like serving on a Board of Directors – temporary service to the public, not a career.   Board of Controls were also in rage back in the 19th century, where Controllers, usually prominent business people, essentially acted as heads of departments within the civic administration.  That rage ended almost everywhere else in the early 20th century except in London – at least we got around to tying up that loose end in the early 21st century.

11. So, all that to get back to my original question – how to give voice to the entire citizenry of London rather than those who are elected, lobby, or self-select in to the process through public meetings or complaints to their councillor?  Well, I think we can take the best from the Athenian tradition of direct democracy, without totally upending our current representative structure. I truly believe technology exists to introduce even more radical forms of direct democracy, but that’s a subject for another talk – I’ve only got 5 minutes here.

12. My idea is to select a modern equivalent of the Council of 500 here in London, Ontario – I’ll call it the Advisory Assembly of 70.  The main objective of this assembly would be to provide advice to our elected representatives on large matters of the day – visioning, strategic planning, the annual budget, and any other matters the Council wishes to refer to it.

13. The Assembly of 70 would include 5 representatives from each ward in the city.  They would be selected randomly to sit for a one-year term, though demographics – gender, age, socio-economic status, and ethnicity – would be factored in to ensure a good representative sample of the city.  Polling firms already do this kind of work, so finding a random, representative sample wouldn’t be impossible to do.  Giving the assembly a short one-year term avoids too much power being vested in unelected members, or the feeling that they are somehow empowered to be an official opposition to the Council. It would also help strengthen the ‘engaged citizenry’ of London as I’d imagine many of these folks would continue to be involved in some capacity, and may also help deepen the political class in the city…otherwise known as ‘people crazy enough to put their name on a ballot.’

14. Members would need to commit the equivalent of one weekend per month for education and dialogue.  Assistance would be provided - child care, possible income supplements, etc. - to minimize barriers to participation for those selected.  With a population north of 300,000, it would also be fair to assume a citizen serve only once in their lifetime. The work of the assembly – presentations, educational materials, deliberations – would also be recorded and available online for all citizens to see, and would help engender more informed debate on issues facing the city.

15. A very important component of the assembly would be to go much deeper than most public engagement sessions (usually a Town Hall/public meeting) by ensuring participants receive information and background on the issues they’ll be asked to consider.  It is impossible to eliminate all bias, but education and information should be presented by civic administrators, and academics – I have a natural scepticism of leaving it all to experts, so building in time for average joe/jane citizens to weigh in would also be appropriate.   I also think it would be appropriate to allow politicians or activists to debate two sides of an issue, so the Assembly would get good flavour of the issue at hand. After receiving the advice and opinions of others, assembly members would deliberate and offer advice to Council in the form of a consensus position, or when consensus isn’t possible, a majority opinion combined with ‘other options considered.’

16. The Assembly would have no formal decision-making authority – that would still rest with the elected representatives – but it would be modelled after citizens assemblies that have been struck to study electoral reform, or citizen dialogues which have been used by some progressive leaning think-tanks like the Canadian Policy Research Networks.  The basic principle underpinning these kinds of citizen dialogues is that all citizens have the capacity to grapple with complex public policy issues.  We trust citizens with others’ lives in jury trials, so public policy should be a cinch, right?  

17. You may still think this is crazy, but I’d note that we had a similar experience here in London very recently.  The Strengthening Neighbourhoods Task Force, a group of over 100 citizens came together, received education and information, deliberated and debated, and ultimately provided very good advice – coming to a consensus position – to the Municipal Council.  Participants on this task force self-selected (i.e volunteered) rather than being randomly selected – but it shows this can work here in London-towne.

18. Of course, this Assembly of 70 can’t replace other existing forms of citizen engagement, nor does it preclude other innovative forms of civic engagement.  It would be another data point for our elected reps to balance with the voices of their advisors, civic administrators, neighbours, interest groups, and habitual town-hall attendees.  Almost like a control group to balance the opinions of those who self-select into local politics.

19. Yes, this would require resources to implement.  It also requires a leap of faith that 70 people a year would be willing to serve. But if we view opening up new and unique opportunities to hear considered and informed voices of the citizenry as fundamental as an election, this would be a long-term investment in strengthening our civic institutions; and if we appeal to service, I think Londoners will answer the bell just as the Athenians did several millennia ago, and as Londoners did recently with the Strengthening Neighbourhoods Task Force.

20. Elected representatives on Council would still have the authority to make decisions, but they’d also receive another source of very good, informed advice.  The ‘silent majority’ would have a formal voice, and wouldn’t have their voice represented by local radio personalities.  Interest groups, experts, and the hyper-engaged would still have the capacity to sway decisions – not necessarily a bad thing by the way – but they’d be checked by the Assembly of 70.  More citizens would be engaged in a meaningful way, which is bound to increase the overall civil literacy and engagement of the citizenry. And, finally, the silent majority may over time become a silent minority if the people’s faith in decision-making is restored. Thank-you for listening!