Community Centred Decision Making

In order to express the functionality of our measurement system, it is necessary to explain the practical basis of Factor ‘X’ as well as examples that serve to demonstrate the viability of such a proposal.

Fundamentally, factor ‘X’ is a form of direct democracy through a regular feedback loop, that ascertains the specific needs and desires, essentially the priorities, of the population relative to various spending areas. It would be done through a regular, regional survey that would suggest a variety of spending areas, asking the population to quantify each proposal in terms of importance to them in relation to wellbeing on a numerical scale. This allows a non-linear ranking system thus allowing for the prioritisation of multiple interlinked areas whilst also avoiding a situation whereby important factors are completely ignored out of a feeling that certain areas should necessarily be given low scores to contrast high scores in other areas.

The survey will be organised into five main sections:

1. Economic sufficiency and stability

• To what extent are your basic survival needs met?
• Does your current financial situation hinder your overall prosperity?

2. Access to Education

• Do you consider your access to education to be challenging or scarce?
• Does your access to education affect your satisfaction with life?

3. Physical and Mental Health

• Do you feel there are barriers to healthcare access?
• Does this lack of access result in a poorer quality of life?

4. Environmental situation

• Does the current environmental situation in your region concern you?
• To what extent do these concerns negatively affect your well being?

5. Safety

• Do you feel safe in the area/ neighbourhood you live in?
• Does this sense of (un)safety affect your well being?

This would be distributed by regional authorities, allowing for specific local issues and priorities that may otherwise be forgotten in a large-scale system, thus empowering individuals and localities. Furthering the practical aspect of this proposal, this would be neither monetarily compensated nor mandatory. Instead, it would focus on the principle of procedural fairness, that the demos are more receptive to policies, even those they don’t agree with, when they feel they have a say in the process and can therefore feel the tangible action of democracy. This would also give greater democratic legitimacy to taxation and spending decisions. Often, we confine our conception of government democracy to the election of political figures and how this gives them legitimacy; however, democratic principles can, and should, be applied elsewhere, in this case legitimising spending and tax.

A practical example to demonstrate the viability of such a system, is the Internet-based participatory planning system implemented in Kabul between 2019 and 2021. This system used digital surveys to ascertain the opinion of citizens in regards to infrastructure decisions and to directly involve the needs and opinions of the local population in the issues that affected them the most. During the period from 2019 to the Taliban takeover of Kabul in 2021, this system saw opinions from over 15,000 different citizens providing 75,000 different opinions, informing over 300 decisions. Whilst this system, an attempt to engender democratic ideals and build democratic culture in Kabul, is under threat from the Taliban takeover and equally has its limitations regarding digital access, as a preliminary concept it is impressive, therefore demonstrating the viability of such a system on an expanded scale. Since its inception, various other cities have attempted similar systems, most notably Paris’ participatory budget system which has seen great success in expanding people’s voices in governance.