Masuda, Yoneji, “The Information Society: as Post-Industrial Society,”
World Future Society, Washington, D.C., U.S.A., 1981, Page 101 to 108

Participatory Democracy: Policy Decisions by Citizens

We want to take up the question now of a possible political system in the information society. If we may set out our conclusion first, we would say that the political system in the information society must be in the nature of Participatory democracy. By this we mean a form of government in which policy decisions both for the state and for local self-government bodies will be made through the participation of ordinary citizens. The present political system is a parliamentary democracy in which the people elect representatives by vote, and the people participate only indirectly in decision making in the central government or local self-government entities, with political actions in the hands of the people's representatives. In other words, it acts as indirect democracy by means of indirect participation.

The Call for Participatory Democracy

The first reason why the political system in the information society will have to be changed from parliamentary democracy to participatory democracy, is that the behavioral pattern of ordinary citizens will change. They will be even less satisfied with mere material wants than they are now: their chief desire will be for self-realization. The satisfaction of material needs follows the process of production, distribution and consumption of material goods, while the quantitative and qualitative improvement of the people's material needs result from the increased capacity for material production and a better distribution of profits between capital and labor. In the long-range view, material production capacity grows at a much faster rate than the distribution in wages paid for labor.

An extreme example of this would be when material productivity of a given country grows 10-fold in half a century, whereas the absolute value of workers' earnings increases only five-fold, the distribution rate for labor standing at one half. The question we must ask is, what economic system can raise material productivity best to develop the economy? In industrial society, the liberal capitalist system has so far proved to be the most efficient socioeconomic system. It was in this form that trade unions developed, to overcome the shortcomings of the system and prevent an inadequate distribution rate for labor, and raise the wage level.

The last phase of this process -- consumption -- means the physical consumption of material goods by individual persons, an entirely non social act. What I want to stress here is that in industrial society, oriented toward the satisfaction of material needs, the liberal capitalist economic system has proved to be the most efficient social system; the public has given priority of this over other socio-economic and political systems, so long as material productivity grows to develop society and raise the level of material consumption. It can be said that because of this material satisfaction the demand of citizens for fuller participation in politics is reduced to a minimum.

However, in the information society, where the demand for self fulfillment will become the motivation for action, the process of satisfying the people's demand for attaining objectives will find fulfillment in the production and utilization of information, the selection of action and the attainment of set aims. An economic system such as is most appropriate for promoting, expanding and improving our information productivity, and for promoting, expanding its use, will have to be a synergistic economic system based on synergetic production and joint utilization. This has already, been discussed in Chapter 9, 'A Synergistic Economic System.' The latter part of this process -- selection of action and attainment of objectives -- concerns the effects on the external environment of action taken by the doers, and is therefore closely related to the social and political fields.

This is the way in which, in the information society, people's desires will change direction toward the attainment of objectives, which will mean that their demand for participation in decision making and the management of the economic, social and political system will become stronger.

The second reason is that the powers of the state and of commercial enterprises have greatly expanded, and that policy decisions made by such massive organizations cannot have far-reaching effects on the lives of ordinary people. For instance, such issues as nuclear power generation, pollution, inflation -- every one of these questions bears directly on the lives of ordinary people. Nevertheless, it is only by holding a national or local referendum that citizens can participate in policy decision on any of these vital issues.

The third reason is that many of the questions that we have to decide are matters that concern all mankind, global issues that know no national boundaries, and the settlement of which directly affects the lives of all persons. Take two examples: the question of the population explosion, and shortages of natural resources and energy; these diverse global issues override national borders, and while the activities of the United Nations and other international organizations through international cooperation will have an important role to play in resolving them. By far the more important role will be the voluntary cooperation of all citizens in resolving such global questions, and who can be expected to exercise restraints in their own lives. Take, for example, the question of the population explosion; this is a problem that can only be democratically resolved if throughout the world there are voluntary restraints accepted in the people's way of life, by which they restrict themselves to a basic replacement rate averaging about two children per couple. The only way to get cooperation in adopting such a principle is to secure the participation and agreement of citizens in working for such solutions.

The fourth reason is that the technical difficulties, that until now have made it impossible for large numbers of citizens to participate in policy-making, have now been solved by the revolution in computer communications technology.

One of the major factors that have stood in the way of direct participation of ordinary citizens in national policy-making was technical. To consider any such proposition would have involved the work of a great number of personnel and a long period of time, and tremendous cost. This becomes clear if we recall how a national referendum is held.

But now the remarkable development of computer and communications technology has solved this problem at one stroke. The development of communication satellites in particular, and home computers, along with the time-sharing system, together offer a solution to the problems of personnel, time and costs. Furthermore, citizens would be enabled to participate not merely once but repeatedly, enabling them to understand more deeply, from many angles and in a long-range perspective, both the nature and the implications of the problems arising on any issue. From this cooperation would come the fairest, the most reasonable composite solution, so that a final solution from among all proposals will come from understanding and popular consent. We can add that the people would be enabled to participate from time to time in dynamically changing any solution adopted, taking into consideration the actual results of implementation of their selection, and consistent with changes in the objective situation.

Six Basic Principles

To enable this direct, participatory democracy of citizens to function effectively, it will be necessary to set the following six basic principles, which would have to be strictly and faithfully observed.

First principle: All citizens would have to participate in decision making, or at least, the maximum number.

All citizens interested directly or indirectly in any question proposed would have the right to participate in this system, irrespective of race, religion, age, sex, or occupation. It will be necessary to ease restrictions on the score of age, with the present voting age substantially lowered, to take in teenagers, depending on the questions to be decided. No democratic solution would be possible without the participation of the teen-age generation on such matters as smoking, education, sex, and others.

Second principle: The spirit of synergy and mutual assistance should permeate the wholes stem.

To ensure the smooth management of the system of participation, and so that it may be fully effective, the basic attitude of all participating in this system should be inspired by the spirit of synergy and mutual assistance. 'Synergy' means that each person cooperates and acts from his or her own standpoint in solving common problems, and 'mutual assistance' implies readiness to voluntarily sacrifice one's own interests for the common good, to level out the disadvantages and sacrifices to other persons and/or groups.

But synergism goes beyond cooperative effort. Synergistic cooperation brings a wider law into operation, in that the total effect of things acting together is greater than the sum of individual or separate effects achieved.

Parliamentary democracy as we now know it is a system by which the majority imposes its will and policies on the minority, according to the principle of majority rule. It is based on the spirit of individualism and egotism, a self-centered and aggressive attitude that needs to be radically changed to one that is altruistic and cooperative. This is not to be confused with mere collectivism, as it is wholly based on respect for each individual's freedom and interests.

Third principle: All relevant information should be available to the public.

When a question is to be resolved with the participation of all the citizens, all relevant information must be made public. In present industrial-society, on questions most closely related to the living of the people, the major part of the relevant information is withheld on the grounds of national security or protection of enterprise secrets. But in the future information society, the principle of making information open to the public is a fundamental condition for citizen participatory democracy.

It is necessary that the public be informed not only on factual information, but also on all the possible social, economic and other effects on the lives of the people. Only in this way can each individual understand the problems in which he is interested, not one-sidedly or short-range, but with a broad, long-range perspective, and participate in the decision making not only from one's own standpoint but from the standpoint of the whole community.

In addition, people will be expected to Provide information voluntarily to contribute to a solution of any question. In the information society, it will be rather this kind of information provided by citizens that will play the major role as basic data for the solution of various problems. Let us imagine that GlUs (global information utility systems) are formed and operated by world citizens. This would mean that information monitored at hundreds of thousands of points on the earth about meteorological conditions, air pollution, plant growth and other matters would be available daily to GIUs. There is no doubt that data so collected would prove to be a fundamental factor in helping mankind meet the changing meteorological and ecological conditions all over the earth.

Fourth principle: All benefits received and sacrifices made by citizens should be distributed equitably among them.

All problems that require participation for their solution are complex by their nature, and the way they are solved would affect different people differently, depending on their place in life and the circumstances in which they live. There would frequently be extreme cases in which those who are to benefit greatly from the solution of a certain problem will be sharply opposed by others who expect it not to profit them. People may also have different evaluations of a problem according to the value systems they cherish. Therefore, in solution of a problem that has a complex effect on the people, consideration must be given to the benefits received and sacrifices made as a result of its solution being distributed in a balanced way among such individual citizens and groups of citizens as are specifically interested in it in one way or another. The balance to be maintained in such cases would be by combinations of the various benefits and sacrifices, determined by the nature and degree of effects on individuals and groups in different places and positions, a balanced combination achieved with a long-range perspective. For instance, sacrifices would have to be balanced by compensations not only in terms of goods or monetary gains, but also, for example, in special educational opportunities for the children of those making the sacrifices; good offices that help in securing desired jobs or positions, or by some other non-economic means. In some cases, long range political consideration will have to be given so that those who may have to make sacrifices without compensation in solving a certain problem may derive future benefit from the solution of other problems.

Fifth principle: A solution should be sought by persuasion and agreement.

A decision on the solution of a problem should, in principle, be made by the general agreement of all citizens concerned. Patient efforts will be needed to lead opposing individuals or groups to reach agreement. In our present parliamentary democracy, political deals and compromises are made in many cases between the ruling and opposition parties until a decision is reached on important policy matters, or action taken without agreement based on the principle of majority rule. But the information society will require that decisions be made by the consent of all participating citizens, and by persuasion. But to make this possible, the decisive point will be the above-mentioned conditions -- the spirit of synergy, mutual assistance, publication of all relevant information and a balanced distribution of benefits and sacrifices. In case there are individuals or groups that, even after tireless persuasion, are still opposed to a proposed solution, a second solution put up by such individuals or groups would have to be adopted, out of respect for a minority view, the condition being, however, that such a solution does not impose hardship on other individuals or groups.

Sixth principle: Once decided, all citizens would be expected to cooperate in applying the solution.

The principle is that all citizens will be expected to cooperate in the implementation of a solution decided with their participation. This obligation is a corollary to the right to participate directly in policy making, but it carries with it the expectation of voluntary self-restraint, and should not assume the form of compulsion accompanied by punishment by enforcement of law, as in the present industrial society. Participation in decision making, and the observance of the decision through voluntary self-restraints, are inseparable, and it is on this that a new policy making system and a new social order will be based in the information society. Naturally, there will arise the problem of citizens who violate this social ethical code, but such violators would not be subject to punishment, but would be required to compensate by making a social contribution, or by rendering service to the community in some way to make amends for their failure to abide by the decision. The system would not be adjusted by punishment but by the reform of offenders.

Problems Concerning Participatory Democracy

Even if these six principle were to be observed, a number of basic questions would still have to be resolved for participatory democracy to function effectively.

The first question is how to create and make available accurate and fair information. More important than anything else for people to make proper policy decisions in a direct, participatory democracy is for accurate and fair information to be made available to them. If an organ to create and provide information were to be monopolized by a small group with a vested interest, and operated to serve that interest, or if specialists and engineers working for such an organ should process information according to their own specific values or ideology, citizens would be participating in policy-making on distorted or inaccurate information. To guard against this, the participation of the people in the management of such an organ responsible to create and provide information would be absolutely necessary.

The second problem is, how will the people be able to participate in the settlement of problems that involve State sovereignty? How can they participate in decisions on questions involving national defense or even war?

There have been recurring controversies over the question of policy making on this kind of question between the military and a president or prime minister, or even between the Diet and the military. The main issue in such controversies is that of the need for instant action in the declaration of war, or in taking defensive measures in the face of enemy attack, or the disadvantage a country faces if a long time is required to make a decision on defensive military action.

But speaking from the basic concept of participatory democracy, it is precisely such important problems of the State that determine the future of a country, and in which all citizens are expected to participate. The only way to resolve this is for the citizens to participate in peacetime, in making decisions that will prevent a war from breaking out. As citizens come to participate in decisions on measures aimed at prevention of war, such as reduction of military spending and increased aid to developing countries, arguments calling for immediate military action will become increasingly untenable. But for these and other measures for the prevention of war to be really effective, citizens not only in one country, but also in countries that are in hostile relations with the former, will also be required to take concerted action, which stresses the need for international or global citizen participation.

The third problem is how to deal with a problem that cannot be solved even by respect for a minority. The most important aspect of policy-making by participatory democracy is that it aims at many-sided, complex solutions that take into account minority opinions, rather than seeking a single solution as in a parliamentary democracy. This method makes it possible to win the support of a majority of the citizens; but if a handful of citizens should stand out against a proposed solution, how far can the principle of respect for the minority be carried? There is only one way to settle this question. It is to carry out thorough enlightenment and education such as will lead the citizens to adopt a spirit of synergy and mutual assistance; the radical way of solving this is by directing such enlightenment and educational work not only at individuals or groups who may be opposed to such and such a solution, but also at all people from childhood in their homes and in schools, and in all their fields of activity.

Together with an objective-oriented pattern of behavior, this synergistic and mutual assistance spirit of the citizens is the most important for the information society.