The Soil of Democracy Needs Nourishing

I was out in the garden recently, breaking up clods of chocolaty, clayey soil in the sunshine. Noticing worms, spiders and bugs scurry around, planting more native species and thinking of … democracy?

Well, thinking of some curious parallels between working to make a garden grow and what might be required to make democracies thrive.

Thriving gardens need healthy soils. Soil is alive, whilst dirt is not. Soil is a mixture of organic matter, minerals, gases, liquids, and organisms that helps to support plants and animals.

How Alive is Democracy?

Like soil, democracy can be alive and thriving, or lifeless and barren dirt (North Korea’s official name is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea).

Democracy is loosely defined as the rule of the people, based on its ancient Greek roots. Political systems tend to be defined by power and specifically, how decisions are made and by who? Surely the ‘rule of the people’ could be about more than just rules? 

We take democracy for granted in Australia. We have a rich tradition of democratic innovations, including the world’s first secret ballots in 1856, the early (but separate) adoption of universal male suffrage in 1856 and female suffrage in 1902.

But, First Nations peoples were specifically excluded from the right to vote in Australia until 1962 and were not considered to be legal citizens until 1967. Democracy in Australia, where all people over 18 are legally recognised by the State and can vote, has been alive for only 53 years. It’s only eight years older than me.

Democracy has evolved since its fiery rebirth in the American Revolution, but not much has changed recently. We got to representative democracy and there the growth has stopped.

Representative Democracy is the Only Choice Offered

Australia is classified as a representative democracy. In this political system, eligible electors vote for candidates to carry out the business of governing on their behalf. The representatives so chosen sit in Parliament to make decisions on the laws that govern society. Parliament governs and holds power on behalf of the people.

I wonder sometimes, how many Parliamentary laws do we actually need? Are these laws effective? Can the seeds of democracy bloom in this environment?

Around two-thirds of Australians support democracy according to the Lowy Institute’s annual polls, leaving at least one-third of people either having doubts or not supporting the way democracy functions. The 2019 Lowy Poll found that a significant proportion (30%) of 18–29 year olds say that, ‘in some circumstances, a non-democratic government can be preferable’. Why would such a large group people feel this way?

The classic party-based, representative democracy is increasingly becoming maligned, distrusted and unrepresentative, both here and around the world. A recent survey in Australia found that only four per cent of citizens thought that politicians could 'almost always' be trusted. The ‘crisis’ of democracy is of a particular iteration of representative democracy, a democracy of, by and for politicians.

Commentators have pointed out the contradictions inherent in the public’s loathing of politicians on one hand, whilst demanding that political leaders regulate or spend to fix every problem, preferably immediately.

‘The people’ have outsourced care and responsibility for what happens to governments. “Someone should do something”, is the common chorus. “It’s the government’s job to fix <insert topic here>”.

Our contemporary society borrows from future generations to pay for the excesses of the present. The ecological, social and economic systems are stressed by damaging climate change, environmental degradation and unsustainable financial debts. These democratic flaws aren’t unique to our times. The ancient Greeks anticipated similar issues with short-termism and fiscal recklessness.

At this point in the article, it would be common to start ascribing blame. Or suggesting silver bullet solutions - if we just do this, it will all change for the better. It is easy to blame politicians or governments for the problems, but it starts with cultures and mindsets.

Does the nature of democracy need to adapt?

Active Participation is Constrained

Australians predominately live in urban areas. Two-thirds of the nation’s population live in just eight capital cities.

The growth of cities in the Middle Ages in Europe was associated with a desire for personal autonomy and freedom from the religious and social constraints of village life. Modern cities are still associated with self-improvement, but they are also producing an epidemic of loneliness and disconnection, combined with growing constraints on individual and community-led action.

Founder of Renew Newcastle, Marcus Westbury, explored these ideas in his book, Creating Cities. He wrote that somewhere between his parent’s generation and his own, we forgot that individuals and communities could do things for themselves. The once-simple intersection between community-initiated action, civic improvement and government control became more and more complicated.

Cities became expensive, regulated and bureaucratised. There were many benefits to this, particularly with our increasingly busy and stressful lives. We mostly didn’t notice that it was happening, Cities got safer and cleaner, neater and more orderly, tamer and more professionally managed, Westbury poetically writes.

We gained something, but we lost something. Our society is less participatory, adaptive and resilient.

Liverpool Football Club’s uber-successful Manager, Jurgen Klopp, was asked in a magazine interview about the most important thing in the career of a football manager.

“That wherever you were, you made it a little better,” he said.

There is power in simplicity, and Klopp’s comment is rooted in the ideas of responsibility, agency and contribution. Of making things little better than when you found them. Of lots of little improvements, rather than huge infrastructure projects or grand plans.

It is both empowering and confronting. The ageless Athenian Oath is based on a similar ethos. The explicit challenge in these plain words is: what will you do to help?

Sure, you can volunteer for community groups or charities. Many people do. Australia would struggle without its legions of volunteers. But, it’s a hard, if rewarding, slog for many. It is not currently linked to the concept of democracy, nor properly valued by society generally.

Governments seem wary of volunteers, as though being a volunteer means a sub-professional result would be delivered. That amateurs cannot be as good as professionals. Maybe yes, maybe no. It depends, doesn’t it? It depends on what the real desired outcome is. Is a new playground an infrastructure project? Or a community building project? Could the construction of the playground also build community spirit at the same time?

What I believe is that the generous spirit of committed volunteers and constructive contributors makes a society worth living in. An authoritarian government could build an impressive playground, but it can’t foster a sense of community. The volunteer spirit of altruism and ‘having a crack’ is the image of a thriving, diverse garden. It should be celebrated and enabled. It should be important.

Reimagining Democracy

The ancient Greeks highly valued civic participation. An Athenian citizen was entitled to be involved in political decision-making and law-making, but citizenship as a concept was also tied to being interested more broadly in civic affairs.

We need to reimagine democracy. The solution may not be a revolution to overthrow the current version, but an evolution to return to the basis of democracy. At its heart, democracy is founded on the invitation and ability to participate in and positively contribute to society. The direct democracy of Athens encouraged citizens to be involved in making rules as an expression of this core value. The direct democracy of the agora is no longer possible, so, what then?

The ‘rule of the people’ is not just about rules, it is about power. Liberal democracy is supposed to be based on a pluralistic diffusion of power and a suspicion of concentrated forms of power. A reimagined democracy could be founded on this principle. Parliament would retain its legislative monopoly, but active involvement in the life of the community would be promoted and supported by all levels of government. The more people who participate, the richer the civil society and the stronger the reimagined democracy.

Democracy should be able to be lived every day, rather than being confined to lacklustre, periodic elections. It should be based on a person’s relationship to the society around them, not just the individual’s relationship to governments or political institutions.

Central governments would need to devolve some powers, revenues and responsibilities to lower (but not inferior) levels of government. This has been talked about for many years and is based on the principle of subsidiarity. It’s time to make it happen.

Why? Samantha Choudry wrote a beautiful article on her experiences of local communities being actively involved in cocreating their neighbourhood of Chicago.

The devolution of authority to local people gave them agency and ownership to take action at the local level, thereby creating more social trust and connection and a stronger sense of place and community.

This gets to the crux of some of the issues that Australia, like most Western countries, can’t seem to overcome. Loneliness, loss of social capital, falling trust in institutions, traffic congestion, mental health and alarming environmental challenges. Tackling these issues in a piecemeal fashion doesn’t work. Doing the same old things will get us the same old results. We need to share these problems with the people. Encourage them to be part of the solution.

To paraphrase Marcus Westbury, people need to be able to shape their communities by what they do, not just by how they spend or who they vote for. It’s idealism and realism mulched into new ideas based on old ideals.

The Importance of Place

In the internet age, it is tempting to forget the importance of physical geography. People are usually rooted to the place they love. We all need to live, work and play in places.

In multicultural modern societies, ‘Place’ can be an important way to bring together different cultures, language groups, lifestyles and beliefs. It can be a way to break down barriers and start conversations.

We would all like to live in a better place – to make it at least a little better, as Jurgen Klopp would say.

‘Placemaking’ is a movement that is spreading around the world. Project for Public Spaces explains that:

“As both an overarching idea and a hands-on approach for improving a neighborhood, city, or region, Placemaking inspires people to collectively reimagine and reinvent public spaces as the heart of every community. Strengthening the connection between people and the places they share, Placemaking refers to a collaborative process by which we can shape our public realm in order to maximize shared value.”

“It’s all down to imagination”, says placemaking innovator, David Engwicht. “Anyone can make an incredibly valuable contribution to society by thinking about their (personal) assets - what they could offer. How can I imaginatively use those gifts to enrich social or community life?”.

Engwicht sees placemaking as a way to build a sense of belonging and community spirit. Lots of small wins can create big improvements. We don’t need to wait for enormous, expensive programs run by the government. Placemaking instead advocates a “lighter, quicker, cheaper” approach.

Placemaking is an example of the participatory ‘Democracy of Doing’ in action. It is founded upon inclusiveness, contribution and continuous improvement. It enables people to act, not only as a moral principle, but also because it is a real way to improve the way a person relates to themselves, their neighbours and their world.

It's about building social and place capital. It’s a democracy founded on not just law-making by the people’s representatives in Parliament, but also actions by people in their local communities.

The Role of Government in a ‘Doing Democracy’

If you have made it this far, you are hopefully starting to see the picture of the kind of garden I want. A place fertilised by positive mindsets and apolitical care.

Governments have spent decades creating structures and processes to manage complicated problems (such as building infrastructure, enforcing regulation and service delivery).

We now face a range of complex problems. Climate change and terrorism are two examples of complex issues with no easy answers. It is not possible for governments to ‘solve’ these issues alone. Indeed, some of the things they do may exacerbate the problems.

Traditional management approaches have limited effectiveness when faced with complex problems. Conventional approaches simplify complex problems into what are considered to be their constituent parts and manage them through often piecemeal interventions, layered one on top of another (Working with Change Systems: approaches to public sector challenges: OECD 2017).

“The development of large, but fractured and siloed Government departments weakens and lowers the level of community capacity, to the point where both Government and the community it serves become increasingly dysfunctional”, argues PlacemakingX Chair, Peter Smith.

The existing culture, structures and processes of governments are barriers to progress.

The role of governments in a Democracy of Doing is similar to a sensitive and experienced gardener. This is a vital role and what is not done can be just as significant as what is done. Who does what and how it is done are also important.

The garden analogy has been used by various thinkers and writers. Michael Barber wrote an instructive book titled ‘How To Run a Government So That Citizens Benefit and Taxpayers Don’t Go Crazy’. The book discusses how governments can succeed in making real improvements to the lives of their citizens. In his view, the role of governments should move from prescribing and justifying in the “Awful to Adequate” phase of governance to regulating and building capacity in the “Adequate to Good” phase and finally enabling and incentivising in the “Good to Great” phase, which aims for world-class performance and continuous learning.

The government gardener should curate and nurture the right conditions to allow many types of plants, animals and fungi to thrive and collaborate. As a long-term thinker, the government gardener seeks to sustain and regenerate her organic garden. Sometimes a gardener’s role is to stand back and watch the garden grow, intervening at the right time and season to enable her plants to grow. It is the opposite approach to government by ‘announceables’ and feeding the 24/7 news cycle. Doing less can enable more growth in the right situations.

In simple terms, this approach to governance treats people as active (or potentially active) citizens, with rights and responsibilities, rather than just passive consumers to be serviced. It seeks to move from a parent-child relationship to a more constructive adult to adult relationship. It’s about governments letting go of some control, while communities need to step up and take on more responsibilities.

Governments need to ‘prepare and fertilise the soil’ to enable people to contribute. To plant seeds that will hopefully bloom. To remove barriers and make it easier for civil society to grow.

What could that mean in real life? It could be encouraging people to get involved. The ‘flower of confidence’ needs to be cultivated. The role of skilled government employees could be to work with positive people or organisations willing to have a go and help develop their confidence to act for the community’s benefit. This won’t need to involve every citizen. Just those that are willing to constructively contribute. Start with the willing and go where the energy is are principles of placemaking.

Margaret Mead famously said that:

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed it’s the only thing that ever has.”

The role of government is changed, but not undermined. It is a position that could attract supporters from both the conservative and progressive wings, as it includes elements of both philosophies. It sees government reducing activities in some areas, whilst stepping up activities in other areas.

“The central role of Government is to build community capacity and resilience, rather than to build Government capacity”, says Peter Smith.

Change will be hard for those keen to retain power and control and exciting for others when they see the potential for real improvements and addressing fundamental issues.

What’s the point of all this? you cry. It all seems pretty fluffy!

The point is that democracy, in its current form, isn’t sustainable when large numbers of people are dissatisfied with their political leaders or the system in general. The legitimacy of democracy may be under threat.

Democracy needs to evolve to become far more resilient, adaptable, inclusive and legitimate. It will be about building positive relationships, sharing responsibilities and enabling action. The role of government should not be just working for the betterment of society, but working with positive civil society contributors, businesses and residents for the betterment of society.

Democracy needs to be brought back into our everyday lives and directly experienced. It is too important to wither and die. An active democracy by the people, for the people needs to be nourished and cultivated like healthy soil in a thriving garden.