Governance and Participatory Decision Making
Page 1 of 4
Echoes from History:
Language of Participatory Democracy and Self-Governance
The rhetoric surrounding Open Source initiatives has something in common with the
passionate and upending debates accompanying the revolutionary phase of American
history. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for Open Source rhetoric to be found lacking
reason, wisdom and a sense of strategic direction. However, many well considered
commentators and advocates have also made constructive contributions to the emerging
debate on the proper role of Open Source Code. Stanford Law Professor Lawrence Lessig
has opined on this subject at length – at once scolding the overreaching of some advocates
of Open Source while at the same time persuasively presenting a thesis in its favor. The
fundamental premises supporting Open Source Code deserve serious consideration and
are worthy of attempted application to many types of software – especially Participatory
Governance Environments.
Massachusetts Constitution
It is helpful to consider the foundational texts supporting public sector self-governance in
the United States as a reference point. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts (one of the original 13 colonies whose constitution predates that of the
United States); has much to say on the question of participatory democracy and self-
governance.
On the topic of representative government, Article V of the Massachusetts Constitution
provides:
All power residing originally in the people, and being derived from them, the several
magistrates and officers of government, vested with authority, whether legislative,
executive, or judicial, are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times
accountable to them.
This text strongly curtails the discretion of elected and appointed government officials by
restraining them to act only according to the express desired of the people they represent.
Despite the fact that this language exists within the Constitution itself – the basic controlling
social compact enabling the state government – it is now common knowledge that
government does not resemble this provision. In fact, as of the middle of this semester, the
Massachusetts legislature is embroiled in a law suit by backers of an initiative petition
creating “clean elections” enacted into law by a substantial majority of voters during the last
election. This ballot question method is a recognized manner of enacting law in
Massachusetts – and yet the House of Representative of the state has nonetheless
decided not to fund the law. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has ruled that the
publicly funded elections must be given adequate financial disbursement or the legislature
must act to repeal the law. However this particular contest ends, it stands as clear
evidence that government does not always act as the humble, responsive and accountable
servant of the people that was envisioned and commanded under the Constitution.
This
preview
has intentionally blurred sections.
Sign up to view the full version.

This is the end of the preview.
Sign up
to
access the rest of the document.
- Spring '03
- WilliamHubbardassn
- Lawrence Lessig, Free software, participatory decision making
-
Click to edit the document details