The Failure of Central Student Government: Part II

Photo via TechCrunch

In this second installment in my series “The Failure of Central Student Government,” I will make the case that CSG be removed and replaced with a deliberative direct democracy system as a solution to the democratic failures outline in my initial post. I will first answer the question of why a deliberative direct democracy is the best alternative in theory to the current representative democracy. I will then answer the question of how the system in practice will work and be implemented. By drawing on numerous democratic theorists and empirical studies, I will make a strong case for this new, more democratic student government system where all student voices can be heard.

The direct democracy system will be similar to the system Rousseau advocated for in “On Social Contract.” The entire student body, all 44,000 students, will act as the legislative power. The legislature would be able to discuss issues and propose solutions in an online chat room format. Some executive power, what Rousseau refers to as “Government,” will act to fulfill what the student body legislates. Likely, this government would be a dedicated University staff that would carry out the student body’s orders. Since this is a direct democracy, there will be no representatives, and issues that arise from representation, outlined in my first post, would be avoided. Rousseau’s model can potentially work because “The People” are relatively small in number in the case of the student body. One aspect of the model where there might be initial concern is the idea of producing a general will of the people for the common good of all. I will address that with Habermas’ public sphere below.

The deliberation part of the system will be modeled after the “public sphere” that Habermas advocates for. Decisions will be made via consensus deliberation in the public sphere. This deliberation in the public sphere will allow for all students to be free from relations of power. The consensus deliberation will promote inclusive, rational discussion of common concerns by all students. Students will be confronted with issues of others, and this will help all students realize common concerns they all have. The outcome of this deliberation will be “public opinion,” which will direct the actions of the executive government. Habermas states that this process will submit government power to reason and therefore be legitimate.

Photo via Kettering Foundation

This solution to involve the whole student body in student government decisions fits nicely with Pitkin’s claim in her paper “Representation and Democracy: Uneasy Alliance.” She states that increased local participation will make people realize the true meaning of citizenship. People will care more about the outcomes of their decisions and impact on their fellow citizen when they interact and deliberate, which also addresses the problem of how to come to a “general will.” It will make students feel responsible and invested in policy initiatives and outcomes, and this will help solve the problem of extremely low voter political participation I mentioned in the first post.

How will deliberation be balanced in practice? Karpowitz et al., in “Gender Inequality in DeliberativeParticipation,” address this very issue. Gender and minority voices would not be drown out by male and majority voices. Deliberative decisions would require unanimous, or near unanimous (95%), agreement. Karpowitz et al. show that unanimous agreement, when there are few women and minorities, helps close the gap in voice and authority between minority groups and the majority and between women to men.

To conclude, I am proposing a deliberative direct democracy student government system as a replacement to the representative democracy system we currently have at the University of Michigan. The dynamics between the executive and legislature will be modeled after Rousseau’s Social Contract system, allowing for the students to dictate their general will to the executive for implementation. The legislature will come to decisions via consensus deliberation, modeled after Habermas' Public Sphere, which allows for an open exchange of ideas without power dynamics. And, decisions will be reached unanimously, allowing voice and authority gaps to be closed for women and minorities.

In my third and final post, I will raise counterpoints to my proposed solutions and attempt to rebut them. I will also examine what I think the short-term and long-term effects of my solutions will be, and I will briefly address any problems I see arising in the future.