The government has a voice, unions have a voice, business lobbies have a voice, environmental groups have a voice and think tanks have a voice, among others. But what of average citizens? What of the large, silent majority of people who, even if they belong to a union or run a small business, don’t define themselves or their politics entirely by what Unifor or the Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) has to say about issues?
If a matter of education policy, such as classroom size, becomes an issue of public debate, you will hear from the teachers’ unions, you will hear from the government, you may even watch a panel on the nightly news featuring representatives from the Conference Board of Canada and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and perhaps a professor of education or political science; but what of the average parent or citizen? Do you ever see them on the panel shows? You might read an article in the newspaper covering the release of a report on the state of education by a free-market think tank, but have you ever seen coverage of the thoughts of an unaffiliated parent or citizen, other than reactionary pieces?
The average citizen has no voice or, at least, no meaningful voice in public debates. A person can write a letter to the editor or to their MLA, which may be read by a few people, but it does not carry the weight or have the reach of the organized groups engaging in the debate. Nor should it, for that matter. For individuals may have varying views on the issue, so to take the voice of one person is not fair; it’s not representative. That is why the newsrooms use spokespeople of organized groups – because they know these people represent the beliefs of a large number of citizens. Its also because spokespeople actually have a thought-out position on the issue, even if it is a self-serving position. What average citizen has familiarized himself with the various research and positions on the effects of classroom size on student achievement? What average parent could sit on a panel and refute the arguments of the think tank representatives who have spent months or even years researching the issue and have been on numerous panels in the past?
The answer, of course, is none. And even if it wasn’t none, no single parent’s views could be taken as the voice of parents or regular citizens as a whole. So if we want to insert the average citizen’s voice into public debates so that it is not simply a discussion among the various interest groups, many of which are self-serving, what can we do?
The solution is to organize average citizens. Citizens need their own think tank. Not a Conference Board of Canada, but a Conference Board of Canadians. Not the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, but the Canadians’ Centre for Policy Alternatives. Not the C.D. Howe Institute or the Fraser Institute, but the Albertans’ Institute or the Ontarians’ Institute, and the Canadians’ Institute.
What does this mean? Isn’t this just creating another interest group, such as the Council of Canadians, that appeals to certain politically-inclined members of the public, such as progressives? No. The difference between a citizens’ think tank and any others is that membership in the citizens’ think tank is representative of Canadians in general, or Albertans or Ontarians, depending on whether the issue is federal or provincial. People will be randomly selected from the voters’ list to participate in the think tank, much as average citizens were randomly selected to sit on British Columbia’s Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Let us return to our classroom size discussion to flesh out the idea.
Why is it important to have a citizen voice in public debates? Because many of the groups that are active in public debates are special, in a bad way. They are special interest groups. Teachers and the party in power are probably the most obvious two for the classroom size issue. Teachers’ unions have a vested interest in maintaining jobs for their members. By increasing class sizes, it means fewer teachers are needed. This means either job losses or fewer new jobs for teachers in the future if the policy is implemented. So regardless of whether it is good for learning or not, teachers’ unions have a strong incentive to lobby for smaller classroom sizes. Their jobs are literally on the line, as are union membership dues.
The government, on the other hand, has the opposite interest, generally. Governments never have as much money as they would like. They have to make tough choices about where the money gets spent. Do they build a new hospital to ensure patients don’t get put in hallways during busy periods, or do they increase funding to universities so that tuition doesn’t become unaffordable for the children of less well-off families? Or, do they spend that money on hiring more teachers to ensure smaller class sizes? Again, regardless of the educational merits, governments are going to be biased against spending money on classroom size simply because it is expensive and will limit what they can spend on other priorities.
Complicating this matter, however, is the fact that unions tend to support one party, while fiscally conservative people or low-tax advocates, such as many business owners, another. Depending on which party is in government, the government’s policy decision will almost certainly be influenced by their voter base. A government that is supported by union voters and donations will be more likely to implement policies favourable to teachers, regardless of the educational merits, as they are more likely to get re-elected with union votes and donations. A government that is opposed by teachers’ unions is more likely to enact policies that limit the power and spread of that union, to reduce the voters and donations of the other party, regardless of the educational merits of the policy.
Many of the other special interest groups that engage in the public debate are similarly self-interested. So it would be really valuable to have a group that could look at the policy with unbiased eyes. They could simply examine the merits of the policy on its educational value. Do students fare better in smaller classes? To what extent? Are there other changes that are less costly that could achieve the same bump in learning outcomes, such as more support personnel for students with special needs so that teachers can focus on teaching?
Now, of course, it will always be tough to decide what the priorities for spending are in any province or country. So even if reducing classroom size is good for learning and it is the most economical way of achieving improvements in learning, it may not be a high enough priority for funding. If hospitals are overcrowded and bridges are crumbling, money may need to go to these areas before a government can implement smaller class sizes. But wouldn’t it be great to have a citizens’ think tank report that provides information that is not biased by partisan or self-interested considerations, unlike the information being presented by teachers’ unions, governments, and right and left-leaning think tanks? Wouldn’t it be great to have a representative from the citizens’ assembly on education participate on a newsroom panel to provide the conclusions from the deliberations of representative citizens? If a union rep or think tank panellist was presenting biased information, they could argue back and have the voice of the citizenry behind them. Not only would this help immediately, but it may also have a moderating impact on future rhetoric from special interest groups. Each special interest group could no longer simply dismiss the counter-arguments as coming from a biased lobby. For if the counter-arguments came from a representative of the citizens’ assembly, the special interests would actually have to engage and present a real argument in defence of their viewpoint. You can’t just dismiss the citizenry.
The think tank, or assemblies, would not actually be making laws, but simply providing unbiased information and recommendations. It would essentially be a way to get a snapshot of what the citizenry, represented by a smaller group which has had time to learn about and deliberate on an issue, thinks about a policy or proposal. It may be that the citizenry is divided on an issue, which would be reflected in the snapshot. Representatives, or authorized spokespeople, from these groups could then participate in the public debate, by appearing on political panels, being interviewed in print and other media and writing letters to editors.
Here is an imaginary exchange that might take place on a political panel:
Teachers’ union representative: “Small classroom sizes are so critical to student learning. This government is not supporting students the way it should be.”
Right-wing think tank representative: “That’s just not true. Studies out of Finland have shown that there is no correlation between classroom size and student achievement. The more important factor is the quality of the teachers. Which is why we need to have merit-based pay for teachers.”
Citizen think tank representative: “While it’s true that Finnish studies have shown no correlation, other studies we looked at did show some correlation, though it is not as big of an impact as teachers argue. For that and other reasons, eighty percent of the members of the Citizens’ Assembly on Education were against a policy of smaller class sizes.”
Host: “So would you agree with Mark (right-wing think tank rep) that the solution is tying teachers’ pay to their performance?”
Citizen think tank representative: “We didn’t examine that issue in particular, so I can’t comment on that. All I know is that there wasn’t enough evidence to convince the citizen panellists that reducing class sizes was worth the investment that it would take.”
Teachers’ union representative: “It’s not a big investment. This is our children we are talking about. The government can easily afford this.”
Citizen think tank representative: “I can’t say how much the government can or can’t afford, that’s for the politicians and voters to decide, but just so your viewers know, one of our findings was that it would add $1 billion dollars per year to the education budget to cap class size at 24 in high school and 20 in elementary school, as the teachers are recommending.”
Host: “That sounds like a lot of money. Unfortunately, we’ll have to leave it there, as we are all out of time. Thank you all for coming, and particularly to you Chris, for representing the deliberations of the Citizen Think Tank.”
While this exchange may be imaginary, the idea of selected groups of ordinary citizens deliberating on issues and making recommendations for public consumption is not. There are examples of this type of body in Canada, Australia and the United States and, I wouldn’t doubt, elsewhere as well. In Canada, the provinces of both British Columbia and Ontario, comprising over half of Canada’s population, created citizens’ assemblies on electoral reform to come up with recommendations for referendums on changing their voting systems. In America, Oregon State piloted a citizen panel to provide information and a recommendation from average citizens on select ballot measures, such as those relating to mandatory labelling on genetically modified food. It has since been made a permanent program in Oregon and is now spreading to other states.
The Oregon Citizen Panels are probably the best example of what the role of a citizen think tank would be. In Oregon, as in other U.S. states, citizens can put policy options on the state ballot if they can gain enough support from their fellow citizens. So, for example, when Oregonians went to vote in 2014, there were seven measures on the ballot, including a measure to change how the nomination process works in general elections and a measure to require mandatory labelling of genetically modified foods. The citizen panel was tasked with reviewing and providing their recommendations on these two measures.
The panel of 18 to 24 Oregonians is selected via impartial survey methods from the voters list to ensure each Oregonian has an equal chance of selection, with adjustment, as needed, to help ensure geographic, demographic and other representation of electors. The panellists meet for a minimum of 5 days and 25 hours to discuss, deliberate and hear from proponents and opponents of the measure, with professional moderators to guide the process. The job of the panel is to come up with an information packet that is mailed out to voters to help inform them about the ballot measure under consideration. They can include statements for or against, or both, including reasons for their views. They can also include a section of key findings to help voters understand the issue better and clarify what the measure is really about.
For example, on the issue of labelling GMOs, the panel informed voters that: “The labelling requirements do not apply to alcoholic beverages, or prepared restaurant food because they are currently outside the food labeling system laws.” In other words, they have the opportunity to clear up any confusion or misrepresentation by special interest groups by providing facts directly to the public. Panels may also include further information giving context to the issue, but there is a higher threshold for approval (75% of panellists) to include this information in the packet.
There are a number of benefits to having this type of citizen panel on proposed policy measures. As I already mentioned, a group of citizens can present some straight facts about the policy, helping to counter the spin and misrepresentation of both proponents and opponents in the debate. It is a source of trusted information. Each “side” of the debate can also present their arguments for their position, giving voters a nice for and against snapshot of the debate based on the panellists’ more informed discussion of the measure.
According to a blog post by Colorado Public Radio host Rachel Estabrook on the Healthy Democracy website, voters found the information useful. Estabrook quotes researcher Katie Knobloch of Colorado State University who found that over half of voters read the citizen panel information and that of those who did: “over two thirds found it helpful when making their voting decision.” The packet also includes the number of panellists who supported each position. For example, in mandatory labelling, nine panellists supported labelling, while 11 opposed it. When Oregonians voted, the result followed the close outcome of the panel; it was so close a recount was ordered, but the measure was ultimately defeated.
On the other measure, as well, the results from the voters paralleled the support from the panellists. Over two-thirds were opposed among both voters and panellists. An advantage of this concurrence is that it may give more legitimacy to a final vote if both a citizen panel that has debated it and the voters who have voted come to the same conclusion. It takes away some of the suspicion that the voters during elections have simply been misinformed by special interest groups with huge advertising budgets. It could make citizens feel that they really are in control and their votes matter.
Not least, there is also the direct benefit to the panellists themselves and those they interact with when they return to their communities. They get experience of really looking into an issue and debating it with their fellow citizens. In the Healthy Democracy post again, panellist Amy Bissell is quoted as saying: “This process showed me how shallow – and I think that’s the best word for it – how shallow I have been in the past on voting.” That is, this process is helping teach citizens what kind of thought and debate ought to go into voting on issues. It makes them better citizens.
This was also the experience of those who participated in the other example of a citizen panel I mentioned, the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform. Writing in Learning Citizenship by Practicing Democracy, Amy Lang reports that members of the BC Assembly had more interest and self-confidence in participating in politics following their assembly experience: “One participant described the BC Assembly experience as “the best year of her life” and recounted how since the Assembly finished she had joined her local Chamber of Commerce and was being encouraged to run for office. Another recounted that in addition to getting onto her local parks and recreation board, she would now switch on the all-news channel and watch political debates”. How amazing is that? People have often never had meaningful experiences with politics in their lives, other than voting. By participating in a citizen assembly, people become inspired and better equipped to participate in other aspects of politics. For that reason alone, a citizen think tank would be of value, and, it would follow that the more opportunities there are for citizens to participate on panels, the greater number of engaged citizens you will create.
Something similar to this was discovered by Alexis Tocqueville when he studied American democracy in the early 1800s. Writing in Democracy in America, Tocqueville says: “I think that the practical intelligence and political good sense of the Americans are mainly attributable to the long use which they have made of the jury in civil causes (p. 329)”. This originally struck me as an odd thing to say, but Tocqueville explains that the jury is like a classroom for democracy. The citizens are educated by the judge and lawyers about the laws that apply in the particular case, giving them knowledge of the laws of their country, and are asked to deliberate and make a decision about whether the law has, indeed, been broken. During this process, they are guided by the lawyers and the judge in how to come to a decision, that is, they are trained in some thinking skills. The Americans used juries way more than other countries so that many citizens had the experience of the jury classroom, leading him to conclude: “Thus the jury, which is the most energetic means of making the people rule, is also the most efficacious means of teaching it to rule well (p. 331)”.
Describing the courtroom is much like describing a citizen panel. Ordinary citizens are brought together. Experts and proponents provide education and arguments about the issue at hand. The panellists deliberate, all the while guided by moderators who are trained in keeping discussion focussed and civil. So citizens’ assemblies act as classrooms as well. It is not just a way to help decide issues, but a way to provide training and education in democracy.
But the most important classroom effect, I think, as Amy Lang’s report indicates, is the feelings of engagement that citizens have after participating in a meaningful democratic experience. With participation in political parties significantly down from previous generations, and a general feeling that there is a democratic deficit, it is of great value to have a mechanism that can serve to re-inspire and re-connect citizens to their democracy and one another. I think the creator of the BC Citizens Assembly, Gordon Gibson, said it best when he remarked in a speech at Pepperdine University in 2007: “There is more ability to create and contribute in most human beings than they are normally ever given the chance to display. To a person, every member of the B.C. Citizens’ Assembly says that experience changed their lives, by having a chance to contribute.”
Inspiring words. So what might a Citizen Think Tank look like? For it differs from both the Oregon Citizen Panels and the BC Citizens’ Assembly in that its role would extend beyond issues that are up for a vote by the electorate. That is, the panel would consider and present its findings and position on issues that the citizens will have no immediate say in. Just as a private think tank will issue papers and recommendations on classroom size and whether we should ban fish farming even though citizens aren’t voting on it at the moment or foreseeable future, so the Citizen Think Tank will do the same. The point is to provide an opportunity for the public voice to get as much hearing as the voice of the private think tanks and advocacy organizations do today. So how do you set something up to have the same power and media penetration as a well-known think tank?
Here is one option. The Citizen Think Tank would have a central body, with staff and perhaps even a figure-head or, at least, a spokesperson. The body would be independent of government, much like the Office of the Auditor General or Office of the Ombudsperson. This would be the umbrella organization or secretariat for the various citizen panels that would take place in any given year. Just as the reports of the auditor general are released to the press and posted on the Office’s website, so would the findings of the citizen panels be handled. Each panel might might designate one or more people to act as a media contact or spokesperson for that panel’s findings, or they might choose to designate the spokesperson of the Citizen Think Tank (Spokescitizen?) to speak on their behalf. At any time, the panel could vote to change who their spokespeople are if they feel the panel’s conclusions are not being represented fairly.
At any given time, there may be several different panels operating under the administration of the Citizen Think Tank, with hundreds in any given year. Some of them may be shorter in duration for less major issues, while others may be longer, for major changes to the functioning of our democracy, such as electoral reform. Some may be formed in response to proposed legislation or policy by the government, such as changes to employment insurance, resulting in a sort of citizen opposition or endorsement, depending on how they view the issue, or they may simply provide recommendations or proposed alterations, much as the Canadian Senate might do. Others may be formed based on an historically divisive issue or one where unbiased information is hard to come by, such as the need for a new hydroelectric dam. Still others may be convened to take a broader or longer-term perspective on issues than governments are typically inclined to do, such as on climate change or pension funding. Just as private think tanks respond to what is trending as well as try to start a conversation on important issues that politicians may be ignoring, so the Citizen Think Tank could do the same.
The big question then becomes, who decides which issues get considered? This is, perhaps, the biggest stumbling block to the effective implementation of a Citizen Think Tank. For in order to be effective, panels will need to have a very narrow mandate, otherwise they will not be able to come to any meaningful conclusions. For example, it wouldn’t work to ask a panel to provide recommendations on forest policy, for there are just way too many issues for panellists to become familiar with and debate and decide on in order for them to come to any meaningful conclusions. However, it could work to ask a panel to decide whether the government should ban or restrict raw log exports. So, then, who would decide that that is an issue a citizen panel should discuss?
You would need to create a special body for this express purpose. It could be composed of randomly selected members of the public who would set an agenda for the coming year as well as remain active to respond to any emerging issues throughout the year. Regular citizens could submit suggestions for the panel to consider, much as citizens can submit proposals to the auditor general to investigate. The panel, call it the Issue Selection Panel, could meet to discuss and debate what they feel are the appropriate issues as well as refine and clarify proposals from the public to turn them into appropriate questions.
There could be some criteria, created either by the legislature or the head of the Citizen Think Tank, modifiable by the Selection Panel, to help guide decisions. For example, issues that involve a conflict of interest by politicians may be given higher priority, such as compensation for politicians, rules around government advertising and campaign finance reform. Other issues given a higher priority might be ones that involve a major shift in public expenditure, such as major infrastructure projects, Olympic bids and tax changes, whether cutting or raising taxes. The Oregon Citizen Panels have a body like this with set criteria.
In any case, the point of this chapter is not to develop the exact framework for a Citizen Think Tank and its various components, but simply to argue that a voice for average citizens is needed in the public debate and that this type of institution would help create and amplify that voice. Perhaps, too, there will only be limited support for this type of idea, especially in the beginning, and so the role, scope and budget of any citizen think tank would be very small. In that case, it may be more a case of designing one-off panels like the BC Citizens Assembly in order to deal with larger issues as the need arises, until the public is ready to jump in more fully.
For there will be those who oppose this idea, whether because it costs more money than they are comfortable with, or because they do not feel it will be perfectly representative or because they are afraid that it might gain too much power and become a bloated branch of government in itself. These are all fair concerns. But there are functioning examples of this on a small scale that counteract most of these concerns, such as the Oregon example. Others can be addressed as we improve the system itself. Cars today are nothing like the first cars, and no one would buy a car of the quality of a model T today. Just as cars improve as we learn to engineer them better and we learn what customers want and expect from them, so our citizen panels and Think Tank can improve too.
We have done so little to experiment with and improve our democracy since its inception that we ought, now, to err on the side of trying something new, even if it may not be perfect. For our democracy as it is now is not perfect. To maintain the status quo because we are too afraid to trial new initiatives is to accept the current problems with our democracy. We owe it to ourselves to try to do better. And as Gordon Gibson reminds us: “There is more ability to create and contribute in most human beings than they are normally ever given the chance to display.” Let’s take our chances.