The Dream of Living Citizenship

The murdered Swedish politicians Olof Palme and Anna Lindh dreamed in the 80’s of “Living Citizenship”. It was a social utopia where people are at the center, not institutions, laws, structures, or power games. It was an impossible dream due to the conservative critics. To reach this state, some general problems need to be solved first:

• People in general lack knowledge and interest.
• They don’t have the time to familiarize themselves with all political issues.
• People are required to have a deep understanding of the issues they vote on.
• There is a risk that decisions otherwise are based on emotions rather than facts.

Adding Options to Choose From

Forty years later, a new democratic invention makes this criticism fall point by point.
Peer Democracy builds upon Equal Democracy. It addresses the complexities of modern governance. It also meets the demand for equality and expands it with a new variable.

The formula for Peer Democracy is:
For every person, every year, one vote on an optional specific issue.

The keyword is optional. Citizens can choose which single issue they vote on during a given cycle.
This choice introduces a mechanism of self-selection. This subtle change has profound implications for the quality of decision-making.

The Dream Synthesis: From Equality to Expertise

The optional nature of Peer Democracy naturally creates a specialized electorate for each issue.
It assumes that individuals will vote on topics where they possess a strong personal interest.
They may also choose based on their professional expertise.

Mathematically speaking, this transforms democracy.
Peer Democracy acts as a bridge—or a function—mapping Equal Democracy to an Expert Board.

Historically, the fundamental critique of direct democracy, and the primary argument for representative democracy, has been the “competence gap.” The argument posits that the general public lacks the time, knowledge, and sustained interest to make complex policy decisions.

No More Competence Gap in the Living Citizenship

Peer Democracy dismantles this critique. Limiting the vote to one optional issue per year removes the burden of universal competence. A citizen does not need to be an expert on everything. They only need to be informed about the one issue they care about most.

By moving from a static model of equality to a dynamic peer-based model, we can improve democratic decision-making. The result is a system that is both deeply democratic and highly competent at the same time.

The tool for implementing Peer Democracy is an app with an open-source database. The app uses advanced technology to protect electoral secrets and avoid unauthorized manipulation. Because it is easy to translate, it can be quickly distributed and scaled up globally.

Do we want a society where citizens are not just customers but also participants? The change is possible now. Peer Democracy is what needs to, in Olof Palme’s words, “decentralize and democratize the public sector”.