All together now: why collaboration is better than competition

I love the idea of citizen’s assemblies and I would be happy to be called to serve on one.

If they take off, then we will have to work hard to protect their integrity, to fend off those who would reduce their power and influence and to ensure their long-term integration into the democratic process.

I believe citizen committees would be a great factor for change, not just for climate change, but the rest of the ills that face our communities, and indeed the country as a whole.

The only problem I see is getting recognition by government as a legitimate oversight agency of government affairs. The long-term politicians feel that the purse strings belong to them, in fact the purse, and would rather argue it out as factions rather than a collective. For the most part they’ve taken the opinion that they are the leaders rather than the servants of the people, and I’m afraid I must blame us for that. Without legitimacy, the communities and their recommendations would be blown off if the committee recommendations weren’t the authority.

I absolutely agree that participation in local, regional or national citizens’ assemblies should be mandatory for all adults in the same way as jury service.

Similarly, why not engage school leavers in a ‘climate emergency national service’ – a variation of their grandfathers’ military national service – particularly now that other opportunities have shrunk for them?

Citizen assemblies are still thinking too small. All matters of policy, public or potential, should be publicly listed, with every citizen able to access, comment and vote on them digitally.

We needed representative democracy back before (and during) the telephone age. Now, we have the ability to connect every citizen to critical issues, the same scientific reports provided to politicians and the ability for massive data to be crunched in very little time.

If I can lodge my tax on my phone, I ought to be able to lodge my vote as well.

As an elderly urban planner, I cut my teeth in Vancouver, Canada, on citizen participatory neighbourhood planning. The neighbourhoods were small, the agenda was broad, and engagement with and by citizens was remarkably wholehearted. Everyone was civil and engaged in good faith. Consequential decisions were reached and implemented, housing was repaired, amenities and open spaces were created, sidewalks fixed, and so forth. It was extremely fulfilling for a young planner.

On the other hand, I’ve just returned home after 18 years in the United States … Americans are a different breed, and not particularly sympathetic to most ‘others’. That of course includes neighbours. Civil and informed discourse for planning purposes would be a herculean task at the best of times. These are not those times.

The rationales for, and benefits of, citizen assemblies are numerous, and I can’t imagine effective neighbourhood planning without local input. Mandatory participation is a welcome and fine idea.