Doparies: A Novel Party Deliberative and Aggregative Decision-Making Mechanism to Improve the Quality of Representative Democracy

The failings of parties are one of the central problems of contemporary democracies. What can be done to revive citizen participation? In this article, we present a novel party participatory decision-making mechanism named “doparies”. They are procedures that are nationally or locally implemented within and by parties, and permit any voter who declares to be an elector of that party (open doparies) or party members (internal doparies) to vote regarding crucial and controversial decisions during the period between one election and another. Whereas primaries are done before elections for choosing party candidates, doparies are done after elections for making party choices on issues. Doparies represent a bidirectional communication system between voters and representatives, and would retain the advantages of primaries (party–voters relationship) and referenda (debate before the vote), but would limit the excessive personalization of politics focusing on issues and not on people. There are both propositional doparies, allowing citizens to raise problems that are absent from their party political agenda, and consultative ones, allowing parties to hear the true voice of their voters, who, differently from what happens in polls, are informed by debates in party circles. We suggest that doparies are a new combination of deliberative and aggregative processes, and hypothesize that they can counteract parties’ crisis and abstention. Procedures similar to doparies are now part of the Italian Democratic Party statute and prominent national leaders have gathered signatures to organize local consultations. The use of primaries by Italian left-wing parties has had a contagious effect on right-wing ones as well as European ones. The same could happen with doparies.

[1]  P. Spada,et al.  Participatory Decision Making: A Field Experiment on Manipulating the Votes , 2010 .

[2]  L. Diamond,et al.  The global divergence of democracies , 2001 .

[3]  W. Heath The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies , 2008 .

[4]  José Halloy,et al.  Collegial decision making based on social amplification leads to optimal group formation. , 2006, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[5]  R. Dalton Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies , 1996 .

[6]  Archon Fung,et al.  Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences* , 2003 .

[7]  C. Sunstein The Law of Group Polarization , 1999, How Change Happens.

[8]  W. Schultz Multiple dopamine functions at different time courses. , 2007, Annual review of neuroscience.

[9]  G. Sartori Elementi di teoria politica , 1987 .

[10]  S. Huffmon Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know? , 2006 .

[11]  B. Fischhoff,et al.  Reasons for confidence. , 1980 .

[12]  H. Mercier,et al.  Reasoning is for Arguing: Understanding the Successes and Failures of Deliberation , 2012 .

[13]  Joshua Cohen,et al.  DELIBERATION AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY , 2005, Philosophy, Politics, Democracy.

[14]  M. Wattenberg,et al.  Parties without partisans : political change in advanced industrial democracies , 2000 .

[15]  Christian Rostboll,et al.  On Deliberative Democracy , 2001 .

[16]  P. Webb THE FAILINGS OF POLITICAL PARTIES: REALITY OR PERCEPTION? , 2009 .

[17]  Peter Mair,et al.  Party Membership in Twenty European Democracies, 1980-2000 , 2001 .

[18]  C. Coglianese Democracy and Its Critics , 1990 .

[19]  A. Tesser Self-Generated Attitude Change , 1978 .

[20]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  The ghosts of past and future: A memory that works by piecing together bits of the past may be better suited to simulating future events than one that is a store of perfect records. , 2007 .

[21]  Nadia Urbinati,et al.  Representative Democracy: Principles and Genealogy , 2006 .

[22]  L. Bobbio Dilemmi della democrazia partecipativa , 2006 .

[23]  Marc Hooghe,et al.  Inequalities in Non-Institutionalised forms of Political Participation: A Multi-Level Analysis of 25 Countries , 2010 .

[24]  Daniel L. Schacter,et al.  Constructive memory: The ghosts of past and future , 2007, Nature.

[25]  Mario Callegaro,et al.  Accuracy of Pre-Election Polls for the 2006 Italian Parliamentary Election: Too Close to Call , 2008 .

[26]  Bruno S. Frey,et al.  Happiness and economics , 2001 .

[27]  P. Mair Democracy Beyond Parties , 2005 .

[28]  Frank C Keil,et al.  WHEN AND WHY DO HEDGEHOGS AND FOXES DIFFER? , 2010, Critical review.

[29]  Edmund A. Mennis The Wisdom of Crowds: Why the Many Are Smarter than the Few and How Collective Wisdom Shapes Business, Economies, Societies, and Nations , 2006 .

[30]  James S. Fishkin,et al.  The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy , 1995 .

[31]  G. Stoker,et al.  REVITALISING POLITICS: HAVE WE LOST THE PLOT? , 2009 .