I appreciated this a lot, especially the attempt to describe what life would feel like under deep democracy, not just how it would be structured. The sections on exhaustion, social pressure, and the risk of rule by the most engaged felt unusually honest for this kind of piece.
One thing I kept thinking about, though, is how uneven the cost of participation can be. In my own experience, highly deliberative and “horizontal” spaces can be energizing for some people and quietly draining or coercive for others, especially for people who come in with prior experiences of moralized participation or group pressure.
You touch on this with social pressure and incumbents, but I’m curious how you imagine a deep democracy protecting not just dissent, but the legitimacy of opting out, without non-participation turning into something culturally suspect.
Not meant as a challenge so much as a real question. This feels like one of the harder seams where culture and governance rub up against lived experience.
I think the main way to prevent such taboos from forming is to frame participation in governance ‘opting in’ to different roles as opposed to thinking of it as opting out. It would work like clubs or activities in high school, where you peruse the different options before selecting into one or two options that speak to you. Structuring civil society in that way should tamp down on feelings of obligation in horizontal spaces.
Additionally, there could still be referendums and whatnot on large policy packages and major decisions where the options are crafted and implemented in a participatory manner but the final decision is directly democratic.
Hey, remember me? The camphost that summer.
I appreciated this a lot, especially the attempt to describe what life would feel like under deep democracy, not just how it would be structured. The sections on exhaustion, social pressure, and the risk of rule by the most engaged felt unusually honest for this kind of piece.
One thing I kept thinking about, though, is how uneven the cost of participation can be. In my own experience, highly deliberative and “horizontal” spaces can be energizing for some people and quietly draining or coercive for others, especially for people who come in with prior experiences of moralized participation or group pressure.
You touch on this with social pressure and incumbents, but I’m curious how you imagine a deep democracy protecting not just dissent, but the legitimacy of opting out, without non-participation turning into something culturally suspect.
Not meant as a challenge so much as a real question. This feels like one of the harder seams where culture and governance rub up against lived experience.
Hi Thad!!! It’s good to hear from you :)
I think the main way to prevent such taboos from forming is to frame participation in governance ‘opting in’ to different roles as opposed to thinking of it as opting out. It would work like clubs or activities in high school, where you peruse the different options before selecting into one or two options that speak to you. Structuring civil society in that way should tamp down on feelings of obligation in horizontal spaces.
Additionally, there could still be referendums and whatnot on large policy packages and major decisions where the options are crafted and implemented in a participatory manner but the final decision is directly democratic.