I believe that Democracy has some form of intrinsic value.
The concept that each individual within a country has an input into the systems
that govern their lives has a powerful allure. However in order to maximise
this value, a democratic state must ensure that the information required to
make informed decisions is readily available to its members.
By casting my vote I am making a choice which I believe will
most likely bring about the state of affairs that I wish to see in the world.
This requires a degree of information which allows me to predict, of the choices
available to me, which will most likely result in the sorts of outcomes I wish
to see occur. As our information becomes poorer, there is a substantial risk
that our choices become less related to the outcomes we wish to see – as this
disparity grows, the value that democracy provides to us diminishes.
Information within our society is currently too expensive,
in terms of both time and resources, and consequently damages our democracy. It
is expensive because, while it is easy to obtain thanks to the internet and
24/7 news channels, it has become increasingly difficult to verify. The sheer
number of news sources available means that for all but the most basic
questions, you will be able to find at least a semi credible source to support
most sides of an argument. In the face of information overload, with limited
realistic ability to discern what is true and what isn’t, it is hard to believe
that one’s ability to vote according to their outcome preferences are not
harmed.
My proposal is that the state set up a series of
independent, highly specialised institutions, each of which have a narrow remit
of either producing, or assessing the veracity of, certain information. The
value of these institutions would lie in creating a clear authority on certain
questions, allowing the media and general public to be better informed.
The institutions must be specialised, otherwise they risk
losing the knowledge which makes them an authority on the issues they talk
about. They must also be funded by the state, firstly to ensure they receive
sufficient funding, but more importantly so that their neutrality is ensured
and they are seen as a credible source of information (compared to say news
channels and think tanks). The state has a successful track record in creating
respected neutral institutions (for example central banks).
I admit at this stage my argument sounds a bit like a naïve
rant by a liberal (semi) intellectual who is frustrated at the state of
political decision making in the west. However, while this may all be perfectly
true (it is), it should not remove from the important point that this would
produce clear value to society.
What I am proposing has already successfully been done in
some countries to a limited extent. Fiscal councils around the world, such as
the OBR in the UK, provide independent projections of government budgets. In
the US and the Netherlands, fiscal councils also evaluate the proposed spending
plans of opposition parties so that voters may know whether they are credible
options. Politifact in the US assess the degree of veracity in the statements
of politicians (however as it is a non-public institution it comes under attack
for lack of neutrality – ironically by both sides of the political spectrum).
My area of knowledge is primarily economic – hence the
examples given above, but I could easily see room for institutions in the areas
of environmental science, medicine and law among others.
There are some obvious drawbacks of this proposal. Firstly
there must be a limit of some kind imposed to the number of institutions and to
their scope. What kind of questions are appropriately addressed by such institutions?
How much information must the state provide the public with before it has
absolved its duty? We clearly couldn’t have a thousand government owned and
operated think tanks.
On a more fundamental level, I worry about the impact of
having a state line on “the truth”. Many of the questions I would hope are
assessed by such entities, are difficult and complex. A state line might stifle
discussion on these areas and be a way to control debate in a country. It goes
strongly against the Millian ideal of discovering truth through extensive
public argument. However while this risk exists in the extreme, I do not feel
it undermines a cautious move in the direction I advocate.
So in summary, my argument:
1) Democracy has intrinsic value.
2) This value is linked to the information citizens have access to.
3) Currently information is too expensive in our society and the state has an obligation to lower this cost.
This cost is due to the difficulty in verifying the validity of arguments.
4) The state should set up focused independent institutions which seek to provide clear guidance on issues of import to the public.
5) Institutions of this kind do exist to a limited extent currently, do work and are a positive impact on society. We should expand on these.
1) Democracy has intrinsic value.
2) This value is linked to the information citizens have access to.
3) Currently information is too expensive in our society and the state has an obligation to lower this cost.
This cost is due to the difficulty in verifying the validity of arguments.
4) The state should set up focused independent institutions which seek to provide clear guidance on issues of import to the public.
5) Institutions of this kind do exist to a limited extent currently, do work and are a positive impact on society. We should expand on these.
Open questions:
1) How much information does the state need to provide to absolve its obligation to its citizens?
2) What is the limit to the kind of questions we are comfortable providing a state researched view on?
3) Why does publicly funded media fail to provide the information the public requires? / Does it fail?
4) What are the precise questions we would ask these institutions to answer?
1) How much information does the state need to provide to absolve its obligation to its citizens?
2) What is the limit to the kind of questions we are comfortable providing a state researched view on?
3) Why does publicly funded media fail to provide the information the public requires? / Does it fail?
4) What are the precise questions we would ask these institutions to answer?
I’m sure there are
many more beyond this initial list.