When I first saw the title of Kevin J. Elliot’s new book, I thought that it might be a handbook or instruction manual for harried American citizens who need all the help they can get in navigating contemporary politics. Rather than a primer for busy people, the book is instead a deep examination of a key challenge faced by Americans (and really, citizens of any democracy): their busyness. The book then argues that we should take seriously the busyness of its citizenry when making institutional choices.
It is altogether too easy for engaged citizens, especially those with specialized training in the field of political science, to ignore the costs in time and attention that are needed to be truly informed. Or, perhaps worse, for those who are highly engaged to dismiss our fellow citizens as simply being unwilling to partake of understanding.
But, of course, the reality is that even the most highly engaged of citizens often find themselves inadequately informed given the finite time that even political professions can devote to understanding government and politics at all levels in the United States. How many of even the most focused political scientists can truly say they are sufficiently knowledgeable about every office or candidate on America’s often very, very long ballots? As Democracy for Busy People notes, we are all making choices about how much of our time and attention we are willing to allocate to the moral economy of democratic citizenship.
At a bare minimum, Elliot’s work is to be commended for making a very strong case for taking into consideration the costs just in time alone associated with being an engaged citizen. And, more importantly, drawing attention to the notion that these costs ought to be part of the conversation about when institutional design choices are made.
Key to his position is that he views “democratic citizenship…as an office—an institutional position with formal and informal powers, burdens, demands, and expectations” (17). He differentiates this from seeing citizenships simply as a status. If busyness can detract from the ability of ordinary citizens to adequately fulfill their obligations as citizens, then the system should be reformed to better allow for such participation.
The book is divided into two parts. The first makes a series of arguments about democratic citizenship. This section makes an important contribution to the democratic theory literature by raising the issue of time and attention and noting that “busyness is often the currency of disadvantage” (5). Some us of have more time than others to be engaged with politics, and that fact needs to be taken seriously when evaluating the quality of democracy. Inherent in this observation is the acknowledgment that the distribution of time and attention is not equal, and therefore addressing these inequities is a matter of justice.
The second part moves to institutional questions, looking specifically at term length and the role of political parties. It also directly addresses the deliberative democracy literature.
If, as the first section of the book argues, it is true that the system ought to take seriously the unequal distribution of time and attention, the design of the system ought to take this into account. For example, automatic or same-day voter registration would be two ways that would diminish time costs. Likewise, being mindful of the timing and number of elections.
Elliot’s most controversial recommendation in this area is one-year terms of office, so as to induce more interest in the population. “Shorter terms make representatives more dependent upon their constituents by cutting down the slack that can grow within the representative relationship” (145). On the one hand, the notion of a more consistent feedback loop makes sense in terms of incentivizing citizens to pay attention. On the other, it does raise questions about the demands of time of constant campaigns and elections.
Elliot is quite correct in suggesting that political parties could do more to act as signaling devices to help busy citizens make choices. As he notes, parties provide a signaling device that helps busy citizens make better choices. Parties enable “citizens to both efficiently and effectively monitor what is happening in politics and to step in when they understand their interests are at stake, or when political need requires it” (169). Parties are, therefore, a time-saving device in representative democracy because they link candidates, issues, and interests with identifiable labels that make it quicker and easier for voters to make choices.
The comparative look at multiparty versus two-party democracy is a timely one given US polarization at the moment. Elliot notes that empirically citizens in multi-party democracies have both higher turnout and higher political knowledge. So while having two parties might seem efficient because there are only two choices, the differentiation of politics into multiple parties provides for better signaling to citizens and increases engagement.
I do think one of the underdeveloped opportunities in the book is a more explicit examination of the long ballot in the United States and our arguable overabundance of elections. Certainly, this is a true challenge to busy people.
The piece is in dialogue with a number of ongoing conversations with the broad literature on democratic theory.
For example, by taking seriously the notion of the mundane reality that most people are busy, and therefore have finite resources to commit to democratic citizenship, Elliot addresses some long-standing views on apathy. Specifically, he notes that many theorists, like Dahl and Huntington (among others), have argued that lack of participation, or even apathy, on the part of citizens is either a legitimate choice or even a method by which demands on the systems are kept at manageable levels. Elliot argues that apathy means citizens are not fulfilling their basic obligations in a democratic system so argues for ways to make democracy more accessible for the busy instead of endorsing apathy and non-participation.
The discussions of how apathy can lead to instability (such as in support of non-democratic government) is certainly a warning in this present moment in American politics (indeed, globally, as we see a rising tide of illiberalism).
The work also directly engages the literature on deliberative democracy that emerged in 1980s and 1990s (such as the work of Fishkin). Elliot argues, persuasively in my view, that the time demands of the deliberative framework as such that they diminish the chances of citizens broadly engaging in their citizenship.
Overall, the book engages in a deeply theoretical discussion of the role of citizenry, and some of the institutional barriers that stand in the way of those citizens being engaged in democracy. It is also a highly accessible text and an easy read. I believe it is a worthy addition to the current broader discourse on American democracy and is a contribution to the democratic theory literature.
