politics and society. In the following testimony I am most concerned with what might happen once the initiative is passed. While the initiative should be supported, the policy-making context within which initiatives will take place is less than ideal. My testimony will attempt to anticipate problems once the initiative mechanism is in place. I will do this by focusing on four major problems in our current policy-making process. These are: (1) a low level of political knowledge on the part of American citizens; (2) unequal interest, knowledge, skill and resources for political involvement among citizens and citizens' groups; (3) failure of the system to effectively anticipate problems and to consciously set the major directions for society; (4) the lack of systematic consideration of the side effects of legislation before it is passed. The initiative with modifications, and in combination with other measures could aid in overcoming these. Without modifications the initiatve could easily exacerbate them. Before examining these problems in detail I should explain how I have developed my perspective on the policy-making process, and the context for the initiative. At the Institute for Alternative Futures, we are working to encourage what Alvin Toffler has called "anticipatory democracy". We have worked extensively with Congressional committees in encouraging legislative foresight, and with citizens' groups and state and local governments in examining ways in which citizens can take a more effective part in shaping the future. (attachment 1 gives further information on the activities of the Institute). ANTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS One particular aspect of our work-our research on citizens' goals and future groups-deserves mention at this point, because the lessons learned from it are reflected throughout the rest of my testimony. In recent years, over 40 cities, states and regions have made some systematic effort to involve citizens in shaping the future by recommending goals and policies. Attachment 2 is a list of these. In the best of these programs, citizens have been given the opportunity first to invent their preferred futures for the area and then to identify the policies-and the attendant costs and implications-required to achieve these futures. Once an initial working group of citizens and experts have formulated the choices (in such policy areas as housing, education, transportation) inherent in these futures, the futures are then taken to a wider group of citizens to be reexamined and refined. The final set of choices resulting from the review by this wider group and then disseminated through local newspapers; this distribution is timed to coincide with television and other media programs whose purpose is to inform citizens of the trends, conditions and opportunities underlying the choices in the various policy areas. The general public is then invited to participate in the project by responding to the newspaper survey or questionnaire, expressing their own preferred futures. These surveys are, in effect, referenda on the future; they allow broadbased choice on possible futures-choices informed by sufficient date to make them relevant to current policy decisions by the mayor, governor, or legislature. Citizens thus take part in choosing the future for their city, state or region in a rich educational process. Chart 1# illustrates the opportunities for citizen input to Alternatives for Washington, one of the more sophisticated and broadly-based efforts to involve citizens in planning and in choosing the future. PROBLEMS IN OUR CURRENT POLICY-MAKING SYSTEM AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INITIATIVE Problem 1: Inadequate Citizen Knowledge It has been charged that citizens do not know enough and that they are not sufficiently educated to vote on the issues. The initiative would enable citizens, in effect, to become lawmakers, a responsibility for which they are not prepared. Citizens awareness is essential for effective democracy, and as I will point out political awareness is distressingly low in this country. Yet this is not an argument against the initiative (if citizens are not sufficiently informed to vote on issues, the same data shows that they are not smart enough to vote intelligently for candidates either); rather this suggests that we should give much more concern and attention to citizen education. Studies repeatedly show that responsibility-the sense that something will make a difference is an important part of learning experiences. The initiative in this context, in conjunction with adequate educational efforts, represents a needed and positive method for citizen learning. Unfortunately for the work of this committee in considering the initiative proposal, most of the research on participation and citizen education focuses on voting in elections or other forms of political activity, but not specifically on the initiative. Although there is sufficient experience at the state level with the initiative to test some of the statements I will be reviewing here, that research—on the knowledge and awareness of citizens and on the impact over time of the initiatives on the policy agenda, emerging issues, and side effects of the initiative-produced legislation-has not been done. One of my first recommendations is that the committee should encourage this research. There are, however, large bodies of research now available which deal with aspects of citizen education and participation relevant to the initiative process. One very recent source is a draft report on "Citizen Education Today" prepared by the National Center for Voluntary Action for the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.1 In commenting on political knowledge, the report notes the following: "Despite the potential for utilizing political knowledge functionally as adults, studies of adult knowledge from the 1940's to the 1970's provide ample evidence of the long-standing political ignorance of large numbers of adult citizens. After reviewing numerous surveys of the political knowledge of adults, one researcher concluded that "these data are sufficient to establish that a large proportion of the American public cannot, or recently could not, intelligently vote or participate in the democratic process.2 The study then presents the findings of a Harris survey: "Less than 40 percent of a nationally representative sample of adults claim to be well-informed about government or current political events. Less than half of the respondents could name both of their Senators or the Representative to Congress from their district. Less than two-thirds knew that Congress is comprised of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Twenty percent said Congress consists of the House, the Senate, and U.S. Supreme Court this after all the textbook preachments about the three branches of government. Louis Harris concluded that "these results indicate substantial gaps in the public's knowledge of both the structure of government and also of many of the key individuals elected to high office." 3 The report also cites studies which give Americans low marks for other areas of knowledge useful in voting: economic literacy (ability to deal competently with economic aspects of public issues and personal decisions), historical understanding, and global understanding.1 It also mentions findings which I think are part of the explanation for the low level of knowledge-namely a feeling on the part of individuals that as citizens they can have little impact on what government does: 1 "Citizen Education Today", Draft Report prepared by the National Center for Voluntary Action for the Office of Education ("No official endorsement of the U.S. Office of Education should be inferred"), 1977. 2 ibid., p. 39 citing: Hazel Gaudet Erskine, "The Polls: The Informed Public", Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1962, 26, pp. 668-677. Norval D. Glenn, "The Distribution of Political Knowledge in the United States", in Dan D. Nimmo and Charles M. Bonjean (eds.), Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972, p. 273. 3 ibid., p. 40, citing: Louis Harris, "The Anguish of Change". New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1973, p. 77. W. L. Hansen, "The State of Economic Literacy", in D. R. Wentworth, et al. (eds.), (on Historical Understanding): Edward B. Fiske. "Times Test of College Freshmen Shows Knowledge of American History Limited", New York Times, May 2. 1976, pp. 1. 65 and Jonathan Friendly, "Scores Followed Normal Curve", New York Times, May 4, 1976. (on Global Understanding): Richard C. Remy, et al.. "International Learning and International Education in a Global Age". Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1975, pp. 5-43. Don D. Smith, "Dark Areas of Ignorance Revisited: Current Knowledge About Asian Affairs," in Dan D. Nimmo and Charles M. Bonjean (eds.), Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. pp. 267-272. J. V. Torney, "The International Orientations and Knowledge of Adolescents in Nine Countries: the IEA Civic Education Survey", International Journal of Political Education, in press. politics and society. In the following testimony I am most concerned with what might happen once the initiative is passed. While the initiative should be supported, the policy-making context within which initiatives will take place is less than ideal. My testimony will attempt to anticipate problems once the initiative mechanism is in place. I will do this by focusing on four major problems in our current policy-making process. These are: (1) a low level of political knowledge on the part of American citizens; (2) unequal interest, knowledge, skill and resources for political involvement among citizens and citizens' groups; (3) failure of the system to effectively anticipate problems and to consciously set the major directions for society; (4) the lack of systematic consideration of the side effects of legislation before it is passed. The initiative with modifications, and in combination with other measures could aid in overcoming these. Without modifications the initiatve could easily exacerbate them. Before examining these problems in detail I should explain how I have developed my perspective on the policy-making process, and the context for the initiative. At the Institute for Alternative Futures, we are working to encourage what Alvin Toffler has called "anticipatory democracy". We have worked extensively with Congressional committees in encouraging legislative foresight, and with citizens' groups and state and local governments in examining ways in which citizens can take a more effective part in shaping the future. (attachment 1 gives further information on the activities of the Institute). ANTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY PROGRAMS One particular aspect of our work-our research on citizens' goals and future groups-deserves mention at this point, because the lessons learned from it are reflected throughout the rest of my testimony. In recent years, over 40 cities, states and regions have made some systematic effort to involve citizens in shaping the future by recommending goals and policies. Attachment 2 is a list of these. In the best of these programs, citizens have been given the opportunity first to invent their preferred futures for the area and then to identify the policies and the attendant costs and implications-required to achieve these futures. Once an initial working group of citizens and experts have formulated the choices (in such policy areas as housing, education, transportation) inherent in these futures, the futures are then taken to a wider group of citizens to be reexamined and refined. The final set of choices resulting from the review by this wider group and then disseminated through local newspapers; this distribution is timed to coincide with television and other media programs whose purpose is to inform citizens of the trends, conditions and opportunities underlying the choices in the various policy areas. The general public is then invited to participate in the project by responding to the newspaper survey or questionnaire, expressing their own preferred futures. These surveys are, in effect, referenda on the future; they allow broadbased choice on possible futures-choices informed by sufficient date to make them relevant to current policy decisions by the mayor, governor, or legislature. Citizens thus take part in choosing the future for their city, state or region in a rich educational process. Chart 1# illustrates the opportunities for citizen input to Alternatives for Washington, one of the more sophisticated and broadly-based efforts to involve citizens in planning and in choosing the future. PROBLEMS IN OUR CURRENT POLICY-MAKING SYSTEM AND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INITIATIVE Problem 1: Inadequate Citizen Knowledge It has been charged that citizens do not know enough and that they are not sufficiently educated to vote on the issues. The initiative would enable citizens, in effect, to become lawmakers, a responsibility for which they are not prepared. Citizens awareness is essential for effective democracy, and as I will point out political awareness is distressingly low in this country. Yet this is not an argument against the initiative (if citizens are not sufficiently informed to vote on issues, the same data shows that they are not smart enough to vote intelligently for candidates either); rather this suggests that we should give much more concern and attention to citizen education. Studies repeatedly show that responsibility-the sense that something will make a difference is an important part of learning experiences. The initiative in this context, in conjunction with adequate educational efforts, represents a needed and positive method for citizen learning. Unfortunately for the work of this committee in considering the initiative proposal, most of the research on participation and citizen education focuses on voting in elections or other forms of political activity, but not specifically on the initiative. Although there is sufficient experience at the state level with the initiative to test some of the statements I will be reviewing here, that research-on the knowledge and awareness of citizens and on the impact over time of the initiatives on the policy agenda, emerging issues, and side effects of the initiative-produced legislation-has not been done. One of my first recommendations is that the committee should encourage this research. There are, however, large bodies of research now available which deal with aspects of citizen education and participation relevant to the initiative process. One very recent source is a draft report on "Citizen Education Today" prepared by the National Center for Voluntary Action for the Office of Education of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.1 In commenting on political knowledge, the report notes the following: "Despite the potential for utilizing political knowledge functionally as adults, studies of adult knowledge from the 1940's to the 1970's provide ample evidence of the long-standing political ignorance of large numbers of adult citizens. After reviewing numerous surveys of the political knowledge of adults, one researcher concluded that "these data are sufficient to establish that a large proportion of the American public cannot, or recently could not, intelligently vote or participate in the democratic process.2 The study then presents the findings of a Harris survey: "Less than 40 percent of a nationally representative sample of adults claim to be well-informed about government or current political events. Less than half of the respondents could name both of their Senators or the Representative to Congress from their district. Less than two-thirds knew that Congress is comprised of the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Twenty percent said Congress consists of the House, the Senate, and U.S. Supreme Court-this after all the textbook preachments about the three branches of government. Louis Harris concluded that "these results indicate substantial gaps in the public's knowledge of both the structure of government and also of many of the key individuals elected to high office." " The report also cites studies which give Americans low marks for other areas of knowledge useful in voting: economic literacy (ability to deal competently with economic aspects of public issues and personal decisions), historical understanding, and global understanding.* It also mentions findings which I think are part of the explanation for the low level of knowledge-namely a feeling on the part of individuals that as citizens they can have little impact on what government does: 1 "Citizen Education Today", Draft Report prepared by the National Center for Voluntary Action for the Office of Education ("No official endorsement of the U.S. Office of Education should be inferred"), 1977. 2 ibid., p. 39 citing: Hazel Gaudet Erskine, "The Polls: The Informed Public", Public Opinion Quarterly, Winter, 1962, 26, pp. 668-677. Norval D. Glenn, "The Distribution of Political Knowledge in the United States", in Dan D. Nimmo and Charles M. Bonjean (eds.), Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972, p. 273. 3 ibid., p. 40, citing: Louis Harris, "The Anguish of Change", New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1973, p. 77. W. L. Hansen, "The State of Economic Literacy", in D. R. Wentworth, et al. (eds.), (on Historical Understanding): Edward B. Fiske. "Times Test of College Freshmen Shows Knowledge of American History Limited", New York Times, May 2. 1976, pp. 1, 65 and Jonathan Friendly, "Scores Followed Normal Curve", New York Times, May 4, 1976. (on Global Understanding): Richard C. Remy. et al., "International Learning and International Education in a Global Age", Washington, D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies, 1975, pp. 5-43. Don D. Smith, "Dark Areas of Ignorance Revisited: Current Knowledge About Asian Affairs," in Dan D. Nimmo and Charles M. Boniean (eds.), Political Attitudes and Public Opinion, New York: David McKay Company, Inc., 1972. pp. 267-272. J. V. Torney, "The International Orientations and Knowledge of Adolescents in Nine Countries: the IEA Civic Education Survey", International Journal of Political Education, in press. "Political attitude studies from the 1950's through the 1970's have shown that citizens express low levels of political interest and efficacy. Although Americans tend to express favorable general attitudes about political participation as an ideal most feel that they are likely to have little or no effect on public policy decisions.' Other research has commented on the importance of this idea to voting. Pollster Patrick Caddell has suggested that "when the voter no longer believes that voting has anything but a random relation to outcome, he has no incentive to vote." Caddell and Albert Pierce note that: "Survey results from 1974 and 1975 suggest that perceptions of the linkage have weakened. Following the 1974 election, we asked those who actually voted in that 37% turnout: "Do you think your votes this fall changed anything? Do you expect anything will happen? Did it matter? "Yes, 34 percent; Don't Know, 18 percent; No, 47 percent. "Thus, only a third of the people who actually voted responded in a positive way. If we were to extrapolate this figure for the whole electorate (assuming those who didn't vote at all in the negative category), we would have about 12 percent of the electorate indicating confidence in the basic efficacy in the political process. "People see the choices between candidates as essentially meaningless: "Most politicians are so similar, it doesn't make much difference who gets elected. "Agree, 44 percent; Don't Know, 4 percent; Disagree, 52 percent. "Throughout the 1974 elections in state after state, with a few exceptions, our surveys indicated that voters did not really think that either party had anything approaching a substantial edge in solving the problems that concerned them. The Republicans may have lost the elections, but there was little evidence that the Democrats won them."" Thus an important aspect of responsible citizenship is the feeling that participation makes a difference. This conforms to studies of how citizens become knowledgeable about and skillful in public affairs; these studies suggest that responsibility is a powerful force in citizen education. The report for HEW cited above notes that "responsible citizenship requires more than knowledge, skills and positive attitudes. It also requires action. The ultimate end of education for good citizenship ought to be the ability to use knowledge and skills to influence public affairs." The initiative in this context takes on added importance as a learning experience, one which has the potential of diminishing the citizen's sense of alienation, increasing his political knowledge and sense of personal efficacy, while allowing him to take a more direct part in setting the policy agenda for the nation. As the research cited above points, the level of knowledge of the American public is disturbingly low. Yet to say that, as a result, citizens should not be able to have the right to legislative initiative, implies that they should not have the right to vote at all. If citizens are not wise enough to vote yes or no on legislative proposals which, though complex, are not incomprehensible, how can they be expected to decide wisely on candidates, whose current policy positions are often unclear and may not remain the same after they are in office. A fundamental tenet of our democracy is trust in the people to make wise decisions. A task in building more effective democracy is to provide a "civic education"-learning experiences which result in greater political knowledge and a stronger sense of personal efficacy for the individual. I think the initiative represents an important tool for accomplishing this. Having stated that there is a serious problem in the political knowledge of Americans and that the initiative should not be prohibited on those grounds but instead used more affirmatively to overcome that deficiency by showing citizens that their participation does make a difference, it is important to say that the informational aspects of the initiative must be given attention. 5 ibid., p. 62 citing: Louis Harris, op. cit., p. 101. Patrick H. Caddell and Albert C. Pierce, "Alienation and Politics: What Is the Electorate Telling Us" in Voters. Primaries, and Parties, selections from a conference on The Electorate and Party Politics: Recent Trends and Alternative Futures, Edited by Jonathan Moore and Albert C. Pierce, Institute of Politics, J. F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, 1976, p. 24. 7 Ibid. Ibid., p. 67. |