Updated Dec 2024
Originally published at HSG Focus Sept 2022
When making important decisions that affect entire communities, complexity is increased, uncertainty about outcomes is higher and the calculation of costs and benefits is a far more intricate task than when one has to make decisions in their everyday life. Most importantly, there is often disagreement among different groups in society about the end goal and the means for achieving it. Democratic decision-making around the world is plagued by these difficulties.
Representative government
Following the Industrial and National revolutions of the 19th century, sovereign nations across the world had the task of designing political decision-making processes to govern their communities in a democratic way. Representative forms of government were preferred over other alternatives of “self-rule”. These included the lot (a random selection of citizens much like a jury), or direct democracy and participatory processes of decision-making. The selection of an elite directly by the people, a “democratic aristocracy”, was deemed best to satisfy both the need for legitimate self-governance and for harnessing the necessary skill, competence and dedication to the task of making the right decisions for the entire community. Debates taking place among political elites in England, France and the US in late 18th century, already addressed this double need for democratic decision-making.
Partisan representative government, competition and elections structured through political parties allowed for the plurality of interests that exists within a community to be represented at the level where political decisions are being made. Further, institutions of checks and balances were put in place to protect the political system and the community at large from potential abuses by ruling elites and ephemeral popular majorities.
Alas, in the past two decades in many established democracies citizens feel that the promise of responsible and responsive party government is no longer being met. Politicians and governments are no longer trusted to be making decisions in the best interest of their community. Across the board from the US to the UK and other European countries, such as France, Italy and Germany, public opinion research registers a deep disappointment and disdain for political parties and the political class in its entirety. We also find citizens ready to support methods of decision-making other than through representative government. So what other ways of making political decisions can citizens consider?
Back to the roots of self-rule
Direct democracy – that is decisions taken according to a referendum vote – is most commonly brought up by citizens and by political scientists interested in democratic innovations alike. Switzerland is the well-functioning example of how people can have a direct say in the decisions that shape their community and how a democracy can flourish. However, both the Swiss experience and other direct democratic examples bring a host of lessons for the future. Firstly, the particularity of the Swiss system offers a long history of direct decision-making, where citizens are socialized in a community that has learned how to cast votes at referenda. This allows for caution, a measured approach to referendum campaigns and to how citizens decide to cast their eventual vote. Further, the institutions guiding direct democratic decision-making include checks and balances to the power of a majority vote, and the existence of a representative government that can limit or amend the initial decision if it will be at the detriment of the country. These latter institutional features can be replicated by other democracies, as indeed has been done in Belgium, Italy and beyond. But the experience of the citizenry and of political groups in handling such decisions is a different matter. The referendum on UK’s EU membership in 2016 bitterly divided its population and created long lasting crises of legitimacy at the core of the political system. Nevertheless, survey data from across established democracies shows citizens clearly support more participatory decision-making through referenda in well-structured processes, as opposed to leaving political decisions solely to elected politicians.
Experts, not government
While more direct decision-making by citizens remains the most promising avenue for reviving democratic politics, another alternative growing in popularity in many parts of the world is political decision-making by independent experts. The precise level of support for this technocratic alternative varies by country and depends on the exact phrasing of the question. Overall, research shows that where citizens are disappointed by their elected governments, distrust their politicians and feel urgent action needs to be taken, tend to favour experts making decisions over elected representatives. Especially so, when matters concern technically complex issues that require expert knowledge and where partisan politics proves unable to make important decisions, such as the climate emergency.
Support for decision-making by independent experts mainly reflects a demand for more competent governance, rather than a rejection of self-rule. The global pandemic, the climate crisis and deep economic or national crises have brought “independent experts” at the helm of governments and the forefront of political decision-making, not without cause for concern. Technocratic governments, such as Mario Monti’s government in Italy (2011-2013), Lucas Papademos’s government in Greece (2011-2012) and Dacian Cioloș in Romania (2015-2017), tend to be perceived by many citizens as non-democratic or imposed from above, even though these governments legislate and remain in power with the support of politicians elected by the people. When a parliamentary majority no longer supports it the government falls, as in the most recent case of Mario Draghi’s government in Italy, which is preparing for elections at the end of September. It is important to note that technocratic interventions, in the form of a technocratic government or policy program that is prescribed by a technocratic institution such as the ECB, IMF or an Independent Agency, rarely put an end to citizen demands for more effective political decision-making. Therefore, the inclusion of experts in political processes remains an issue of public debate, especially the need to figure how to utilise expertise in ways that is legitimate, liberal and democratic.
Beware of the illiberal challenge
In most democracies elections for representatives are the moment when every citizen can decide to throw their weight behind the party, program or person that best represents the version of their country they’d like to see realized. Representative government may be failing to live up to its promise of being responsive to its citizens and providing effective governance, but in most cases it remains the best system to recognize and reconcile diverging interests between groups in society. While research in political science continues to show the need to invigorate democratic decision-making through innovations that include more citizen participation and expert input for effective governance, there is a danger lurking, that is increasing citizen disillusionment with politics. A growing number of citizens turn their back to elections or decide to support radical, anti-systemic – and in some cases illiberal – political visions presented by new or old faces seeking to gain political power. We see these trends in newer, but also old democracies, for example in the popularity of the AfD party in Germany or the recently renamed National Rally in France. In survey research, support for political decision-making by a “strong leader that does not bother with parliament” regularly registers 20-35% support among different established democracies (Source: World Values Survey). According to the V-Dem project, countries such as the US, Poland, Hungary, Turkey and India are sliding back on liberal democracy indicators, with the last three now being classified as electoral authoritarian regimes. Strong leaders are often the ones to spearhead limitations to judicial independence, media freedom and legitimate opposition. Under such circumstances the potential for an illiberal turn is very real. It is therefore crucial to remind ourselves that while political decision-making may evolve, adapt to the needs of the times and the community, we should never lose sight of the more intricate – and perhaps boring – safeguards that ensure the decisions being made are not violating the democratic rights we all cherish.
Assistant Professor Dr. Eri Bertsou is a political scientist at the Institute of Political Science (IPW-HSG). She was recently awarded the Eccellenza Professorial Fellowship (Starting Grant) for the project ‘Varieties of Expertise’ (2022-2027) from the Swiss National Foundation.
