Is Participatory Democracy Like Jury Duty? Part II

Is Participatory Democracy Like Jury Duty? (Part II)

In Part I, I made the argument that American attitudes and political behavior can be mirrored by the way many people feel about jury duty. You have a small pool of eager people who really do take this seriously as their civic duty and want to be there. You have some who would rather be doing something else but are just going through the motions because it’s the law to participate. And then there’s the vast majority of folks who would rather not be bothered by it, who consider jury duty to be a nuisance and an inconvenient break from their daily routines, and would welcome getting out of it if they can.

What’s the point of this analysis you might ask? The point of this is that I believe politicians, political parties, and those who hold and keep power have already figured this out to a science and actually conduct their campaigns and implement policy with this type of categorization of Americans by political attitudes and behavior in mind. They have figured out how to game the System by the way actual people behave and think.

Democratic governance and participation in its ideal sense requires as much of the citizenry as possible to be educated, engaged, and confident in the System to actually work. It assumes that the majority of citizens actually do care about the issues and the state of the nation to actually want to participate and to take participation seriously as their civic duty.

But what if they don’t? What if the model for jury duty really is how most people actually do think about political participation and democracy in America? And that professional politicians and political parties have already figured this out and are taking advantage of it to keep their hold on power and to prevent any substantive change from happening?

This is bad news for you if you are one of those who are Engaged but see many flaws and problems in the System that needs to be fixed. You might be one of those willing to do the work not only to educate yourself but also to put yourself out these as an activist for reform. But the essential task of getting something done remains dependent on appealing to the vast majority of folks who could care less.

I’m not being cynical just for the sake of being cynical. I’m seriously exploring the implications of how the ideal of democracy works based not just on the institutions set up for it but also on the makeup of the population who are supposed to benefit from it. I mean, why have the pretense of a democracy at all when the vast majority of people could very well care less and are pretty much satisfied through bread and circuses and being left alone?

Do the neocons and those for whom the People are a gullible and easily led and manipulated bunch have it right? That the best (and most stable and self-perpetuating) form of government and society is one that appeals to the population's base needs and their greed and apathy? If so, then the times and state of democracy is frightening indeed!