Bezold-Anticipatory Democracy ...

[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
Anticipatory Democracy Revisited
Anticipatory Democracy Revisited
Clement Bezold
Ph.D.
Institute for Alternative Futures (IAF)
Introduction
This paper “revisits” anticipatory democracy. The original use of the term was by Alvin Toffler,
as his prescription for “future shock”, in his book by that title in the early 1970s. Toffler asked
me to edit a volume of cases in the mid 1970’s, published as the book, Anticipatory Democracy:
People in the Politics of the Future. I’ll reflect on some of the key sections of that book of 30
years ago. In this paper I’ll also “revisit” anticipatory democracy in light of a global scan of
cyber democracy that I and my colleagues at the Institute for Alternative Futures conducted in
2000 and 2001, as well as current developments “transforming governments” at the state level
in the U.S. Finally, I’ll give my sense of options in 2006.
This paper is being prepared for the Finnish Parliament’s celebration, in 2006, of the 100 year
anniversary of being the first nation to give women the right to vote.
This is only a partial review. Anticipatory democracy involves a wide range of developments in
futures and foresight, as well as in participation in government, particularly participation by the
public. The book, Anticipatory Democracy: People in the Politics of the Future, is a major cata-
logue of activities in the 1970s. The global scan of developments in “Cyber Democracy”, more
than 20 years later identify some trends, that support our conclusions in the 1970s, particularly
how communications and internet enhancements to voting, other public participation, and to
what government does. The third section provides reviews from 2006 of futures commissions, a
core part of anticipatory democracy that we considered in 1978. These reviews focus on activi-
ties in U.S. states and communities generally including futures commissions in state court sys-
tems. These reviews were part of an exploration of “transformational initiatives” for state gov-
ernment in the US. Finally I will provide conclusions about directions for anticipatory democ-
racy.
Anticipatory democracy – 1970’s
In the 1970’s, in the course of working with Alvin Toffler in encouraging foresight and greater
public participation, Toffler asked me to edit a book that reviewed the various experiments in
looking ahead and involving the public. The result was
Anticipatory Democracy: People in the
Politics of the Future.
1
1
Clement Bezold, ed., Anticipatory Democracy: People in the Politics of the Future, (New York: Random House,
1970)
- 38 -
Bezold
Anticipatory Democracy had been Toffler’s prescription at the end of his best seller, Future
Shock. In the Introduction to Anticipatory Democracy, Toffler wrote that:
“The simplest definition of anticipatory democracy (or A/D) is that it is a process for
combining citizen participation with future consciousness.”
Toffler argued that representative government was the key political technology of the industrial
era and that new forms must be invented in the face of the crushing decisional overload, or po-
litical future shock, that we faced.
2
The book reviewed cases and arguments covering a wide set of areas for developments that mar-
ry greater future consciousness and greater participation.
I’ll focus on a few of these, both because of the subsequent roles of their authors, and because of
their significance for this revisiting of anticipatory democracy.
An Overview of Anticipatory Democracy Experiments
David Baker reviewed 15 of the leading experiments at the local, state and national level in the
US in the 1960s and 1970s. These had multiple motivations. Some were explicitly focused on
developing goals, some on growth or environmental issues, some on more general explorations
of the future. Baker’s review lead him to provide several key insights about their design: obtain
adequate funding ($100,000USD per year in the mid 1970s – or about $360,000USD in 2005
dollars); face political realities; decide on the major research/goals topics early; build ties with
the bureaucracy; design and implement a process that involves policy makers from the start; and
present findings early and throughout the life of the process.
3
There were specific case studies, a few of which retain transcendent significance. One is
Newt Gingrich’s article on Jimmy Carter’s Goals for Georgia Program. Carter had been elected
Governor of Georgia in 1970 and had created a public goals program. Gingrich was a professor
of history and colleague of Toffler. Carter went on to be elected US President in 1976. Gingrich
was elected to the US Congress in 1978 and went on to rebuild the Republican Party in the Hou-
se of Representatives, becoming the Speaker of the House in 1995 – the first in 40 years. Both
Carter and Gingrich were significant for foresight - more below.
In setting up Goals for Georgia, Carter had argued that in a democracy, no government can be
stronger, or wiser, or more just than its people.
4
Gingrich, in his review of the Goals for Georgia
program, made several observations:
•
One of the primary benefits of Goals for Georgia was the opportunity for community lea-
ders to learn from each other
•
It set the stage for the state government reorganization effort, by making bureaucrats and
citizens more aware of current problems
2
Ibid, Introduction by Alvin Toffler, pp. xii and xvii
3
David Baker, “State, Regional, and Local Experiments in Anticipatory Democracy: An Overview”, in Bezold, op.
cit., p. 30–33
4
Newt Gingrich, “The Goals for Georgia Program” in Bezold op. cit p. 38
- 39 -
Anticipatory Democracy Revisited
•
Goals for Georgia did not explore a range of alternatives, nor did it have systematic pub-
lic involvement, beyond the leaders, in building commitments as bases for future pro-
grams
•
Georgia’s personality, scandal, and trivia focused news reporting that make anticipatory
programs difficult. “To be effective, anticipatory democracy must rely on thematic dia-
logues over time in order to enable the individual citizen to understand the problems, and
respond by helping to develop serious alternatives.” This is made more difficult by Geor-
gia’s traditionalistic political culture and by the need for sustained support by the gover-
nor to make such an effort permanent.
•
The low level of citizen activism (in Georgia) is likely to make any Goals program de-
pendent on the life of the incumbent administration. And without a network of supporters
within government, goals programs would not be sustained.
This last point is important for anticipatory democracy – namely these future focused programs
need popular support and the support of top leadership. When the top leader leaves, his or her
successor can and often does ignore the effort. Alternatives for Washington showed that deep,
significant involvement of the public (both active citizens and the general public) can create a
base of support that transcends specific administrations.
In the 1960’s and 1970’s programs were held focusing on the year 2000. Hawaii 2000, is an ex-
ample, which included leadership from the Governor and the Editor of the Honolulu’s major
newspaper, and University of Hawaii political scientist Glenn Paige. This had a major impact at
the time and in setting up the state’s plan. Unlike Alternatives for Washington, there was not as
much friction in changing administrations. Yet Hawaii 2000 shows that the shelf life of a futures
program is not likely to extend for multiple decades. In 2005 the state has begun a renewed effort
Hawaii 2050, focusing on sustainability.
5
Goals for Dallas
Many American cities have used goals programs to focus their community. Goals for Dallas was
a prime example. Robert Bradley’s review summarized it as:
•
An effective leadership device, broadly framed in the range of goals it pursued.
•
It catalogued aspirations and dreams of many within the Dallas community.
•
It gave the city tools for anticipation and a structure that increases the leadership’s
sensitivity.
•
But it was imperfect in that participation was focused primarily on the well off sec-
tors of the community, and it failed to consider a range of futures and goals directly
related to the lowest economic sectors of the city.
6
5
for Hawaii 2050 see <
> and
Hawaii+2000%22+edited+by+George+Chaplin+and+Glenn+Paige&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2
6
Robert Bradley, “Goals for Dallas”, in Bezold, Anticipatory Democracy, p. 87.
- 40 -
Bezold
Alternatives for Washington
Alternatives for Washington remains one of the finest anticipatory democracy programs in the
US. Governor Dan Evans initiated the program in 1974 stating that:
“Our future need be imposed neither by the personal interests of an elite nor the imper-
sonal force of history. It can be determined by all of the people of the state if they are
willing to…devote the effort to the task… I believe the citizens of this state can, in an or-
derly and rational manner, determine their future and assure such as privilege will also be
available to generations yet to come.”
7
Alternatives for Washington proved to be a unique combination of leadership, novel involvement
processes, media involvement, and advanced facilitation. John Osman of the Brookings Institu-
tion was the lead facilitator. Governor Evans was the originator and leader of the process. Over
60,000 people in the state took part in the focus groups, surveys, or local meetings. The print and
broadcast media in the state cooperated in distributing educational material and surveys. The
public generated 11 alternative futures. Citizens voted on their preferences. This led to a set of
policy preferences. The Governor then asked the public to take up the more difficult question of
budget priorities. Tens of thousands of citizens gave their preferences for budget priorities.
The article in Anticipatory Democracy does not fully cover the second round of the program that
took place in 1977. I was a visiting scholar at Brookings during the time Alternatives for Wash-
ington was going on. John Osman once commented that Governor Evans complained that the
project had led to a different type of citizen activism. Typically most issue groups focused on
their own issues, after their experience with Alternatives for Washington, groups were taking
positions across the policy and budget spectrum. One criticism of AFW was the lack of engage-
ment of state legislators in the process – leading to a lack of responsiveness to the Governor’s
proposal of AFW based goals after the first round of the process. This was made more difficult
when the next Governor, Dixie Lee Ray, essentially told her administration to ignore AFW.
Yet the AFW remains one of the most significant programs in terms of impact because of the
depth of its involvement in the state, the range of alternatives it considered, and the focus on both
policy and budget priorities. Five years after AFW ended the National Conference of State Leg-
islatures asked me to put on a panel on goals and futures programs. I recruited a state legislator
from Washington State. She went to the state budget office and asked for a tally of how many of
the AFW recommendations had been put in place five years after the program ended. It was
about 80%, in spite of the lack of active engagement of the legislature at the time and in the face
of hostility from the next Governor. There had been enough increase in citizen and issue group
understanding to get the proposals passed.
The significance of AFW was brought home to me when, in 2000 and 2001, we did the Cyber
Democracy Global Scan summarized below.
7
Governor Dan Evans quoted in “Alternatives for Washington”, by Robert L. Stilger, in Bezold, op. cit., p. 88
- 41 -
Anticipatory Democracy Revisited
Legislative Foresight
A core part of representative democracies are legislatures. The most consistent participation citi-
zens have available to them is electing their representatives. Legislatures then develop policies
reflective of constituents’ interests – at least theoretically. Anticipatory democracy includes not
only the public goals and futures programs but greater “foresight” in legislatures as well. As de-
scribed in the Anticipatory Democracy, there were significant discussions of foresight in the US
Congress in the 1970s. I defined foresight at the time as “the systematic looking ahead”.
8
The
key functions of foresight in Congress
9
included:
1.
to improve early warning of issues, problems and opportunities that might become the
subject of legislation;
2.
to develop a greater awareness of the future in drafting and preparing legislation, includ-
ing the preparation of forecasts of the primary or intended as well as the secondary or
side impacts of legislation. These are known as impact forecasts;
3.
to encourage the conscious coordination of policies across committees by identifying the
cross impacts of legislation and setting priorities through the budget process and other
mechanisms for establishing coordinated national policy;
4.
to support oversight activities of Congress and committees.
10
There were also important commissions focused on the operation of Congress, both for the Hou-
se and the Senate. Each included recommendations encouraging foresight. In 1974 The House
Select Committee on Committees recommended that each standing committee… shall on a con-
tinuing basis undertake futures research and forecasting on matters within the jurisdiction of that
committee.
11
The House the Senate for There had been a series of activities working to promote
foresight in Congress in the 1970s and early 1980s. These included the introduction of a bill by
then Congressmen Al Gore and Newt Gingrich in 1983 to provide for the continuous assessment
of critical trends and alternative futures.
Congress had established the Office of Technology Assessment to provide some of this analysis
on major current or emerging technologies.
In Congress, legislative foresight and interest in futures generally was aided by a major day-long
seminar in 1975 on “Outsmarting Crisis: Futures Thinking in Congress”, developed by the
Committee for Anticipatory Democracy (particularly by Alvin Toffler and I) at the request of
Sen. John Culver, Rep. Charlie Rose, and former representative John Heinz. This in turn led to
the formation of the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future
12
.
8
Clement Bezold and William Renfro, “Citizens and Legislative Foresight”, Anticipatory Democracy, p. 116
9
Clement Bezold, Strategic Policy Assessment and Congressional Reform: The Future in Committee, Ph.D. Disser-
tation (Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1976)
10
Bezold, Anticipatory Democracy., p. 124
11
Ironically that provision remains in the House Rules: see Charles W. Johnson 2000, How Our Laws are Made:
12
Congressman Charlie Rose, “Building a Futures Network in Congress”, in Bezold op. cit., pp. 105-113
- 42 -
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]