Civic Co-Creation of EU-budget — A case for liquid democracy
Note: the following text is a draft version for an upcoming article
Introduction
Much of the history of democracy is also a history of the European continent. When looking at the history of ideas, Europe has been shaped by the historical legacy from antiquity, often known as Greek or Athenian democracy where contemporary citizens were meeting, debating and making decisions at the Agora. The case of Athenian democracy is also interesting because the Athenian democracy was also an illiberal/authoritarian and a populist one. Those who were citizens had political rights and exercised “unlimited” decision-making power. It was a model that on the long-term lead to the abolishment of citizenship, conversation process and democracy as a system of decision-making. Among several reasons for abolishment of Athenian democracy was the lack of constitutionalism. Since there were no human rights, no formal constitution, nor the rule of law. Also, at that time there was no recognition of the individual as an institution and a sovereign human.
The history of early democracy is also a history of why the philosopher Socrates was sentenced to death. Socrates never used the term the rule of law but did argue in favour of the judicial process that was not under the control of citizens. Those who in today's Europe argue against constitutional/liberal democracy do not realise the dangers and historical mistakes they are promoting. Such as with the cases of authoritarian governance by aspiring to abolish constitutional ideas and principles. These historical reasons are also the reasons why further development of European democracy must be based on and include constitutional principles and values as respect for individual freedom, human rights and the rule of law.
Another milestone of democracy in Europe was the aftermaths of American and French revolutions. During the 19th century and 20th-century, European nations and empires were transforming from agricultural to industrial societies, new ideas, lifestyles and popular movements came to be developed. One keyword was the class as in the sense of working-class or middle class. Another keyword was the mass as in mass movements, mass parties, mass armies. Industrial transformation, urbanisation and improvements in quality of life was a period also influenced by early nationalism that was connected to ideas of democracy and liberalism. It meant among other things that more people in Europe came to reject ideas of the territorial state where the rulers saw themselves as enjoying power with the support of God and Christian religion, and where certain inhabitants as the noblemen, priests and wealthy peasants had official privileges that most of the populations, who also, in general, were illiterate, did not enjoy.
The big change in Europe took place when the system of universal voting, mass parties and representative democracy via parliamentarian became a more implemented model of collective organisation. However, it is also important to keep in mind that before the 1940s, most of the European nations were still governed via dictatorship and authoritarian rule since very nations as UK, France, and the Scandinavian ones were democracies. Furthermore, during the Cold War period, almost half of Europe was still governed by dictatorships of the communist parties. Other vital changes with the case of democracy in Europe took place during the 1980s and 1990s. Partly it was about the first democratic elections for the European Parliament taking place and the start of processes that came to be called as globalisation after the fall of the Berlin wall.
Democratic development in modern times
Creation of nation-states during the 19th and 20th century led in several cases as regarding the Nordic region to the creation of representative, participatory and parliamentary democracy model. The legacy from antique was applied as during the French revolution and other national-liberal revolutions in the 19th century. The legacy had to be adjusted to ideas and affections for larger units as nations and territories during the period that also was influenced by urbanisation and industrialism. The case for parliamentary and representative democracy was given for such a historical period. However, several changes started taking place during the end of the 1970s and beginning of 1980s. This included aspects such as more economical and political integration of Europe, and as well as of what came to be known as globalisation. Both processes of integrating countries economise, individuals, structures began to affect the development of democracy.
Many Europeans, especially in those countries which were member states of the European Community and later with the establishment of the European Union in 1993, became more active in politics above the state level. Either by engagement via political parties, NGO: s, networks or other forums. This was also depending on the implementation of the Maastricht Treaty, which included the introduction of European citizenship. The treaty also insisted on the formation of “European parties”, meaning that political parties operating across the union, should be encouraged in order to democratise Europe. At the same time, the EU itself became more officially committed to promoting democracy, human rights and the rule of law globally.
Keeping in mind the history of democracy in Europe, there are still big problems but also new possibilities. The EU is still influenced by democratic deficit where only between 40–50 % of European voting citizens are participating during EP-elections and while there are still few “real” EU-wide parties. There is also a lack of “real” European public and media sphere. At the same time, the current decentralisation trend offers to citizens and residents of the union to participate in liquid democratic processes also in combination with co-creative behaviours rather than the older style of inter-party competition.
Liquid democracy and co-creative decision-making
The basic idea of liquid democracy is a practice of mixture between direct democracy and indirect democracy — a mixture of referendums and civic initiatives with the public representation within decision-making institutions as the parliaments. Liquid democracy at European level, as well as other levels, would mean that citizens can vote daily, weekly, monthly, or when one wishes on different policy issues. Another feature of the liquid democracy is vote delegation. An induvial can delegate its vote to another individual or to an organisation, whom one is favouring based on trust, knowledge and skills. At the current moment, citizens of the union are voting for the EP-elections every five years and in principle only at those candidates who are attached union-wide or country-wide political parties. With the introduction of a liquid democratic system, it would be possible for citizens to vote more often and to delegate their votes to different individuals or organisations in different policy areas.
There are several important aspects to be understood when it comes to the meaning of liquid democracy and its relations to trends regarding identification and public representation — historically seen, around many parts of Europe and especially in its “Western” parts as, during the Cold War, voters and citizens would identify themselves with the political parties around ideas and storytelling connected to the meaning of class and social status. One can also say that many voters in Europe used to be “clan voters” who for example voted for the social democratic parties because they are having blue colour and physical jobs or grew up in families with the working-class identification.
When looking at Europe’s modern development, it can be said that Europe of today is more post-industrial and with higher levels of individualistic behaviours. Such processes are partly explaining why the political trends and situation has changed during the 2010s comparing to the situation in 1990s and 2000s. Among these changes are aspects as the rise of right-wing populist and nationalist parties, rise of the green parties, higher importance of the EU- and global dimensions, reduced meaning of the left-right economic spectrum, multidimensional political behaviours, the existence of post-material values, and “uberisation” of politics. Fewer Europeans today see themselves as only socialists, liberals or conservatives in their political identification. In for example Sweden, there are more voters today who comparing to 1990s rather than identifying themselves with only one party are having sympathies and attachments to two or several parties in different policy areas. This also represents the case where political parties themselves are often seen as less relevant to canalise and conduct politics since individuals can thank social media organise themselves in groups and movements based on topic and interest.
One problem among the current representative democratic systems in Europe is the tendency of “two-party” systems. Historically this was principally based on the majority of the voters voting for either social-democratic and conservative parties. The “two-party” trend came to be changed with the emergence of right-wing populist/nationalist parties and different progressive parties such as the green parties, thereby making the European political landscapes more diversified. However, one problem with the current representative models is the feelings among voters of not only being unrepresented but also of being misrepresented. In practice, it means that many voters in Europe are voting for parties whom they feel are misrepresenting them the least.
The role of liquid democracy also regards social changes when it comes to identification where fewer people are identifying themselves with ideas and stories established during the transformation from agricultural Europe to industrial Europe. While the public or political representation was connected to mass-parties, class-identification and focus on economic topics, the liquid democracy is reflecting a post-industrial, post-material and post-national development. A development where conversations and decision-making process, meaning politics, can at a higher degree be done by networks and groups, individuals with poly-centric and glocal identifications. Including more focus on other topics than the economic ones also in combination with multidimensional understandings as when it comes to global problems and challenges.
The concept of liquid democracy is connected to the development of what it means to be an individual and a citizen what it means to belong to different communities. It is also connected to discussions about complexity in conversation- and decision-making processes and ideas that more people need to feel involved and exercise post-postmodern or metamodern values ac co-creation and co-intelligence.
As the academic James C. Miller, the “founder” of liquid democracy, wrote already in 1969 in that liquid democracy “improve[s] the legislature’s performance” by allowing members to select issue-competent delegates, rather than representatives who decide on all issues regardless of expertise” and where it is “more democratic than its representative counterpart since the entitlement to either vote directly or to delegate votes enables members to participate fully in political decisions. In modern terms, it means that compared to the representative system, the liquid democracy can “mobilise” higher levels of knowledge and expertise while the individuals can either vote directly or delegate their votes depending on personal behaviours, values and interests.
Co-creating the Union budget
Transformation of European democracy from the current representative system to a liquid-democratic system would mean a more equal, efficient and entrenched (approved) democracy. Not only will the voters be able to delegate their votes for different policy areas but also for different topics within policy areas and topics that are overlapping several policy areas. By doing so, the voters will also be able to terminate their vote delegations by personal choices and preferences. In one way, the transformation of Europe into a liquid-democratic union will mean a system where there is no division between the voting and representative adult citizens since all citizens can be liquid in their choices and identifications — that will say voting, represented and engaged.
There is a Swedish proverb that “nobody can do everything, but everybody can do something”. This is very reflecting for liquid democracy since knowledge, ideas and interactions can be “fully” mobilised. In a liquid-democratic Europe, there will be no need to have EP-elections every five years since the voters will be able to vote and participate constantly. Citizens will be able not only to conduct policy specific voting but also to provide area-specific voting, and where delegates can have a different number of votes, or voting power, in different topics and areas. With such a system, it would become easier to conduct decision-making process in those areas which are seen as a public good, such as regarding the union budget.
By applying liquid democracy, the citizens will be able to mobilise expertise and knowledge to decide both on the existence of public goods and how such goods should be dealt with. It has to do with error searching and providing analysis as well as discussions the size of public institutions and how, or if, institutions should be funded. This includes aspects such if the underlying information is valid and fact-based, and what are the tendencies behind a certain agenda. By applying to collective intelligence and co-creative process, it will become easier to make conclusions on what is “true” regarding the social reality. This would be a way to achieve conversation and decision-making standards and processes necessary for accepting or rejecting a certain proposal. In such terms, the liquid-democratic model could be better than the current representative model when it comes to aspects of reliability, processing what is true or false (or more true and less false), and when it comes to gathering arguments, ideas and knowledge. Moreover, when it comes to legitimation and acceptance of a certain institution or program where citizens could delegate or remove both their votes but also their funding as based via crypto or digital currency.
This is among other aspects regarding the EU-budget. Instead of the current system being based on intergovernmental negotiations, the union budget could be co-created and influenced directly by the citizens. The citizens could participate by not only deciding about how the budget as public goods should be shaped but also by funding it directly via their resources as via digital Euro. An important understanding of the liquid-democratic transformation is going to be that instead of choosing the representatives/rulers/governor/ministers and similar positions, the focus will instead be on choosing policy and processes.
Here, the early mentioned overlapping interests and collective intelligence of individuals would be applied. Co-creating a budget would also mean the necessity to constantly analyse and discuss problems and mistakes.
Furthermore, by applying liquid democracy, it could lead to reducing risks for corruption and distrust because problems around corruption and mismanagement could more easily be “punished” by the citizens who could withdraw their support for a certain institution or program. At least in those cases where the institutions are not vital as when it comes to the rule of law, freedom and human rights (primary in a negative sense, as meaning freedom from public coercion and obstacles).
As co-creators of union-budget, citizens could, in principle, be more cautious and involved than in the representative model since their personal property as the currency will be at stake. This would be in order to deal with policy inconsistency, where a certain public policy, program or political decisions is seen as problematic as concerning social reality and technological development that is making the policy seen as inconsistent and dysfunctional. Because conducting liquid democracy is not only about discussing and making decisions within policy areas but also between and across policy areas.
Moreover, the representative part of liquid democracy will play an important role where delegation can be made to individuals or organisations who are trusted with legislative and observing functions for a certain policy, program or political decision. Also, one can keep in mind that introducing liquid democracy at European level would be difficult at the beginning, as during the first decade, but that on the long-term European citizens would, in general, become more skilled, aware and cooperative. Therefore, it is not only right but also necessary that Europe’s future is liquid, as when it comes to budgets and public programs because different policy areas are affecting and interconnected to each other. By performing the liquid democratic transformation, the motto of “United in Diversity” will be achieved more practically and entrenched.