My Voice in America’s Democracy

At the core of American democracy lies the principle of citizen participation in government decision-making. What distinguishes democratic government from a police state or dictatorship is the principle that government derives its authority from the consent of the people: to be governed by choices made by the many, rather than by the whims of one or a few. In a very deep sense, a person is a member of a democratic community not if he or she is allowed to vote once every two or four years, but only if a fair opportunity is provided that allows him or her to participate in their government: to air his or her views on matters that affect them and the people and things he or she cares about, to attempt to change the existing laws and to shape new ones to reflect his or her views, and to ensure that his or her voice is treated by public officials generally with respect, and with an ear to prevailing on the merits, regardless of the influence that his or her voice may possess.

There are a considerable variety of participation-oriented activities that fall into each of these categories, and one will notice, in looking at them, that the role of democratic advocacy and expert quantitative or qualitative tests in promoting favorable governmental action varies with the nature of the most effective sorts of strategies, tactics, and activities that a group seeks to employ in the pursuit of shared goals. While the list is not exhaustive, the description of participation-oriented activities included here should provide a broad indication of the primary sorts of tactics that a group might employ in its effort to achieve fair access to government.

Evolution of Voice in American Democracy

No single model defines the ideal form of democratic participation in America. Indeed, many dimensions of democracy exist. From the descent of democracy as reflecting the interests of elites to more recent models of participatory democracy, where ordinary citizens collectively settle key issues of public life, the balance and how competing interests translate into public policy characterize the debates. This disagreement was rethought. This dissent is forged from long experience, stretching back to when the framers of our constitution arrived at what was then a novel governing framework. The framers were familiar with the organization of nations thought to defy history's repeatedly abridged account of previous ventures. As a people, they had learned and could draw upon their enormous reservoir of experience with republics and other forms of governance.

The framers pursued the ideal of government that featured an organized blend of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. They hoped to merge these three conflicting principles into a single governance system that would mitigate their internal contradictions, thus also, they believed, creating a durable political order. Their effort was contemporaneous with widespread efforts to spell out empirically the forces that shaped governance in countries past while the framers sought to shape a government for the people and a large fertile continent.

Challenges and Benefits of Various Viewpoints

While technology offers unprecedented opportunities for individuals to communicate with one another and access a broad and diverse set of views and facts, the same technology can also be used to amplify the loudest voices when it comes to public conversation and the dissemination of information. Today, conversations about public policy, news, political campaigns, and many other issues take place in online spaces, which privilege those individuals and groups that control the platforms or can manipulate the platform's algorithms to reach audiences en masse. Further, the decline in public investments in local journalism, the refusal of social media platforms to take responsibility for misinformation and disinformation, and emerging barriers to individuals' content contributions have resulted in more filtered discussions in online spaces, with certain individuals and voices being marginalized or effectively silenced. Individual voices are undoubtedly important, but they are most effective when exercising free speech and seeking information in a context that expands and supports their voices. Thus, in order to help challenge, discredit, or amplify other voices, the FCC has a clear responsibility to strengthen the public’s First Amendment guarantees about freedom of expression and access to information. When we talk about “the public” in the context of traditional broadcast programming, it is insufficient to think only in terms of listener numbers or share prices. Since 1927, American broadcast policy has always assumed that the public has an international dimension, promoting “the local station.” More generally, broadcast policy assumes that the programming of the local broadcast service serves several groups, including regions, cities, licensees, and employees, who in turn create diverse programming that interests certain segments of the public in every community. Broadcast policy is intended to be a tool of public service, not a private playground. That is the Free Speech Doctrine federal court decisions that guide broadcast regulation, as well as the public interest standard enshrined in the Communications Act of 1934.

The Impact of Technology on Voice

Today, we have new electronic channels for our civic voice. The era of audience democracy can now give way to an era of citizen democracy. But we have a long way to go to turn audience citizens into active participants in self-government envisioned by our founders. In the text that follows, I explore the new electronic channels for civic voice and suggestions for encouraging greater citizen participation. New technology is changing the way people communicate, not only for profit and pleasure but also to influence the shaping of public policy. Perhaps, in this, the United States also follows the lessons of history. More than two centuries ago, it was the emergence of public spaces for discussion of public issues that helped to shape the democracy we inherited. As the embryo of our nation began to grow, it was the tavern, the printing press, the pulpit, and the courthouse that allowed citizens to give voice to the ideas that gave rise to the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, and the 27 amendments that followed.

Conclusion

As America continues to grapple with momentous societal, political, and economic issues, the voices of all its citizens and residents from diverse walks of life are critical inputs into the effective governance of the body politic. The objective of an inclusive democracy is not only to ensure broad representation and participation; it is also to ensure equal consideration of viewpoints and interests when matters of public policy and governance are debated and decided. To achieve this end, it is critical to understand the reasons that voices are marginalized in order to counteract these forces and to ensure that these views are adequately represented. Substantially and consistently hearing from all sectors of the population and from all walks of life can strengthen the foundation of our society, engender trust, and limit social divisions. By adhering to a full and inclusive view of democratic practices, we can reaffirm our national purpose and our commitment to securing the general welfare while also reinforcing our democratic institutions for current and future generations. Recognizing these interconnected strengths and values, we offer a national agenda for establishing truly inclusive democratic practices to guide our public institutions. The aim of these recommendations is to ensure that the powerful echo chamber in which too many decision-makers and the information they possess are resonating is open, wide, clear, and receptive to the entire range and variety of voices and institutions that constitute the Americans who seek a more inclusive and equitable democracy and economy. We offer this agenda with the hope that it can address and resolve such pressing problems that only through a broader and more inclusive engagement can these and future crises be averted, minimized, or resolved to reinforce the long-term strength, coherence, and prosperity of the American people. Only by doing so can we endow our institutions and bodies politic with the legitimacy and durability our nation both requires and deserves.

Did you like this example?

244

10