Pam Bailey: It’s budget season, and it’s clear DC needs a more participatory democracy

It’s the height of budget oversight season in the District of Columbia, and while preparing to testify on behalf of incarcerated DC residents — the individuals served by the nonprofit I co-founded called More Than Our Crimes — I have found my volunteer passion colliding with my professional occupation: promoting participatory democracy. Before I explain what that is, let me tell you what it is not. 

As both a relatively new resident of DC and a developing nonprofit leader, I didn’t have an easy time figuring out how and to whom I should make my voice heard. If I didn’t have a particular passion I wanted to spotlight in front of the government, I would be one of the many constituents living under the radar — people who have needs, but are unheard.

However, since communications is my profession and since I represent a largely invisible and underserved population who are also the District’s most recently enfranchised voters (thanks to DC’s Restore the Vote Amendment Act of 2020), I did my due diligence during the recent performance oversight hearings and began both tuning in and testifying.

What I observed was in large part a show: A couple of committee members asked good questions, but most of the people who lined up to rush through their allotted three minutes were either from the agency being reviewed (and thus presented their work in the most positive light possible) or recruited by it to do the same. When I followed up with council staff to politely complain, I was reassured that council members are aware of this gaming of the system and have a network of informal advisers behind the scenes. But their identities are not public, and it’s questionable whether they are any more representative of the public than recruited sycophants.

Sometimes the bias swings in the other direction. When there has been a recent groundswell of negative news — for example, about conditions at the DC jail or the length of the waiting list for space in public housing — a smattering of representatives of activist groups show up to push for action. As author and civic expert Matt Leighninger observed in an essay for the nonprofit Public Agenda, “On most issues, the public is either angry or absent; either way, very little is accomplished.” 

And too often, no matter which point of view is represented, the same faces and organizations are at the table from hearing to hearing. In the Knight Foundation’s landmark “Soul of the Community” study, researchers found that attending a public meeting was more likely to reduce a person’s sense of efficacy and attachment to community than to increase it. 

What’s often lacking is the involvement of a broad cross section of people, particularly those who are directly impacted, who tell the agency and its overseers how they could be better served. Ultimately, isn’t this what the government most needs?

DC isn’t unusual. The dog-and-pony show that masquerades as the three-minute public-comment period is standard government practice across the country. But there are other models to explore, such as participatory democracy, and the District could be a leader — setting an example for other cities and states.

Options for a more inclusive democracy abound: For instance, participatory budgeting allows everyone in a targeted neighborhood or group to propose and vote on what gets funded (now being implemented in New York City, for example). Meanwhile, there are models for more deliberative face-to-face meetings where randomly selected residents actually debate and recommend policy (called citizens’ assemblies, now being planned in Los Angeles). For the various options, a burgeoning array of online tools can facilitate broad engagement.

Imagine, for example, if all returned citizens (not just those who happen to hear about the hearings and are motivated/comfortable enough to prepare testimony) were allowed to propose and vote on how the Mayor’s Office on Returning Citizen Affairs spends the money allocated to help them. (Hint: I bet they would give more priority to free, immediately available housing than is currently available.) Or imagine if residents were randomly chosen from across DC — including people who are either victims of crimes or have spent time behind bars — to come together in a citizens’ assembly to hear from experts with differing points of view and discuss what improving public safety could and should mean in the District. Right now, that kind of complex decision-making is too often made via official pronouncements after a high-profile crime occurs, in the heat of the moment and with typically marginalized voices left out.

Government officials can and should do more to engage — beyond campaigning for election — the full range of those who are impacted by their decisions. In this regard, DC could be the leader it often has been on other issues. Let’s make our democracy more participatory.

Pam Bailey is director of communications for People Powered, a global hub that promotes participatory democracy, and is co-founder of More Than Our Crimes, which advocates for District residents and other individuals incarcerated in federal prisons. 

---

About commentaries

The DC Line welcomes commentaries representing various viewpoints on local issues of concern, but the opinions expressed do not represent those of The DC Line. Submissions of up to 850 words may be sent to editor Chris Kain at chriskain@thedcline.org.