Update — Spring 2007Self-Government in PerilSince the founding of the United States, Americans have held a core belief: no aristocracy, no ruling class, no elite should be allowed to control our government. Rather, the people, through democratic processes embedded in a system of elected representation, must control the government. Our political processes, from our beginnings as a nation, have been filled with shortcomings and malfunctions. But we have never wavered from our dedication to self-government. We live in an era of mounting doubt that self-government is still possible in our political system. Ordinary citizens see the ideological extremes, both left and right, and big money interests controlling the agenda of elected officials. In California, the large majority of eligible voters hold preferences in the center of the political spectrum. But they see a legislature dominated by strong ideologues in both political parties and find themselves unheard in public policy debates and ever more frustrated. And the example of the California Legislature is far from unique. We have been swept up in a vicious cycle: (a) loss of public trust in representative institutions feeds a perception of governmental ineffectiveness and waste and (b) in turn, the perception of inept government stokes the loss of trust. The citizenry still wants good schools, sound fiscal management, clean water and reliable transportation systems. But they doubt the ability of government to provide these essentials. And these public doubts are found throughout the population and are not held solely by political conservatives and libertarians. We have lost the sense that we "own" our government and that we have the power, envisioned in the Declaration of Independence, to change it. Our elected representatives have their own discontents. They are assaulted by "stakeholders" with narrow and often selfish interests. They see no constituency for the "public interest" and that very term has fallen into disuse. As government officials they are confronted by complex problems and agonizing trade-offs. They see a public that wants services but fails to understand how difficult it is to make large governmental organizations respond and taxpayers unwilling to pay more taxes to governments seen as wasteful. The Promise of "Deliberative Democracy"Recognizing the vicious cycle of eroding trust and perceived governmental ineffectiveness and faced with intractable public controversies from re-zoning a defunct shopping center to reforming the public schools, many governments now seek more public "input" before adopting budgets or changing laws or regulations. When the level of conflict results in political gridlock, some government agencies have now turned to mediating among warring groups, such as developers, environmentalists and local residents. Sometimes these forms of "public engagement" improve communication, provide good ideas and help undergird constructive action. But these often useful forms of engagement leave either government officials and/or established interests and organizations, rather than average citizens, at the center of decision-making and action. It is doubtful that conventional forms of public engagement can reverse the vicious cycle of eroding trust and perceived government ineffectiveness because these forms do not really create an "ownership" role for ordinary citizens. We see the importance of developing modes of public participation that:
The most dramatic example of these ideas at work in North America is provided by the Citizens' Assembly of British Columbia. Created by the Province of British Columbia, the Citizens' Assembly is a group of 160 randomly selected citizens created to reform their electoral system. In 2004 the Citizens Assembly met periodically over a year to study alternative electoral systems, hold public hearings and deliberate about wholesale reform. Their proposal was far-reaching and won wide public trust because it had been developed by "regular" citizens and not elected officials or a blue-ribbon panel. Placed before the voting public in May 2005 the Citizens Assembly's proposition received a 58% yes vote. The British Columbia example is a small one but it is significant. It shows a path toward renewed citizen ownership of and responsibility for the working of democratic processes in a republican form of government. The Citizens Assembly built on work over the past 30 years that is called "Deliberative Democracy." The development of deliberative democracy has emerged from governments and independent organizations including Viewpoint Learning, AmericaSpeaks, the Stanford Center on Deliberative Democracy and Public Agenda. The range of work that has been carried out by these organizations and others is remarkable. Deliberative democracy projects have been carried out in small towns and major cities (and, indeed, in several major cities simultaneously through the use of electronic hook-up). Projects have been carried out in the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil, China, and several different European nations. The topics addressed have ranged from the allocation of a city budget in Eugene, Oregon and Menlo Park, California to the planning for recovery from Hurricane Katrina. to the question of integrating Catholic and Protestant youth in the schools of Northern Ireland. The size of the participating groups has ranged from a few dozen to more than a thousand persons. The amount of attention paid by the media to these processes has ranged from zero to major attention on national television. Common Sense CaliforniaCommon Sense California is the only statewide, citizens' organization in our nation's largest state committed to the use of "deliberative democracy" techniques to solve public problems and build trust between citizens and government. Our role is to:
Enduring and creative solutions are best found through respectful dialogue among Democrats, Republicans and the rapidly growing portion of the population that does not identify with either major party. California is already a state of 37 million people where no ethnic group constitutes a majority. Effective action in the public interest must build upon a foundation of broad-based citizen understanding and action that includes dramatic improvements in participation within and among communities of color1. On February 23-24, 2007 seventy-eight civic leaders, journalists, elected officials, foundation officers, academics and students gathered for a two-day conference on deliberative democracy in California2. The conference was held at Pepperdine University and co-hosted by the Pepperdine School of Public Policy and Common Sense California with additional sponsorship by the New America Foundation. The conference deliberations helped establish our focus for 2007-2008 on demonstrating the value of hearing the citizen voice at both the state level and in the context of meeting local and regional needs. Our top three priorities are:
In order to respond to these priorities, Common Sense California is establishing an office in conjunction with the School of Public Policy at Pepperdine University. Our efforts thus far have been made possible by extensive volunteer efforts and the financial contributions of the Whitman Institute, the Wallace and Alexander Gerbode Foundation, the Blue Shield Foundation and the Rosenberg Foundation in Northern California and the Sidney Stern Memorial Trust in Southern California and individual donors from several different regions. April 10, 2007
1 Our Board co-chairs are: David Davenport, a
long-time Republican, former President of Pepperdine
University and a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution
and Steve Weiner, a long-time Democrat, former Provost of
Mills College and former President of the Board of Governors
of the California Community Colleges. The full membership of
our Board and may be found here.
2 The February 2007 conference built on the work of earlier statewide meetings in June 2005 in Oakland, January 2006 at Pepperdine and June 2006 in Sacramento 
        |