Jon Alexander, co-founder of the New Citizen Project, says we’re trapped in old ways of thinking. For centuries, the “subject story” defined us as powerless subjects of paternalistic rulers. And the newer “consumer story” merely repositions us as passive shoppers, choosing from services provided by those in power. 

Enter a different narrative: the “citizen story,” which reframes each of us as capable of and willing to shape the world around us. Alexander, who previously worked in advertising, develops this idea at length in his book, “Citizens: Why the Key to Fixing Everything is All of Us.” And he works hard to encourage greater participation by businesses, governments and nonprofits at the New Citizen Project, which he co-founded 10 years ago. 

The organization’s projects this year include work to shift organizational culture among local government bodies in England; tackling food poverty along with a celebrity chef; and work with the Apolitical Foundation on a more collaborative and participatory form of democracy. New Citizen Project has also proposed the concept of RAPID democracy, drawing on a decision-making approach created by consultancy firm Bain & Company.

Proximate met Alexander in London to hear more about how citizen-first approaches might strengthen democracy far beyond the ballot box.

 You’re working on several different projects. What is the common thread?

People are citizens, not consumers. It's as simple as that. I would argue that all the dominant systems and structures of our society are based on the idea of people as consumers –independent, isolated individuals whose primary agency is to choose between options that someone else offers. We need to reimagine and redesign those systems, around a bigger, more accurate concept of people as collaborative, creative individuals: citizens, not consumers. That’s what all my work is about.

Your book came out two years ago. Are we any closer to the citizen story now?

 Both closer and further away! We are still trapped in the consumer story. But it's more and more obvious that it’s completely unsustainable. 

Too many people, in positions of power especially, think the only alternative to consumer logic is subject logic. They see that authoritarianism and fascism are rising, and therefore they see their role as being to defend what we have from that. But you can't defend the indefensible. It just ends up pushing people into the “arms” of the subject story. 

Look at America: The Democrats are the “consumer story party.” The language for a long time has been, “Follow your self-interest, and we will look after you. Carry on with your lives and we'll fix the big stuff.” People know that it isn't working, so the alternative that presents itself is authoritarianism. As things get more chaotic and broken, the offer of protection in return for obedience and unquestioning allegiance is incredibly attractive. 

You’ve helped develop a concept called circular power politics. What is it and why do we need it?

Circular power politics is a first go at articulating, in language that might resonate with politicians in the existing system, the opportunity offered by participatory democracy approaches.

Politicians tend to think democratic innovation is either boring, abstract and irrelevant, or an attempt to remove them [from the equation]. Participatory democracy sounds like a challenge to representative democracy. And, in a sense, it is: While voting in elections matters, we’re also saying people need more of a voice than just that. [In response,] there are politicians who understand fully, but do not want to do this stuff. But there is also a huge number who are genuinely open-minded, but fearful. They see themselves in a kind of a tower, and the guys with pointy sticks and bullhorns are coming for them. They think participatory democracy proponents are part of that. 

In the face of that, the language that’s being used by a lot of advocates is that “politicians need to give power away.” I think we need to be smarter in how we're communicating. Instead, invite [these politicians] to think of it as: “How might you build power with citizens?” Because power is not a zero-sum thing. That’s where this idea of circular power comes in.

Linear politics is what we have today: Citizens elect politicians, and politicians go and “do democracy” – a single line. Populist politics tries to break the citizens-politicians-democracy line by removing politicians and claiming to be citizens. What we're saying is, “There's a different resolution possible, which is to build power for both citizens and politicians, and actually build a better democracy together.”

The Circular Power Politics Guide talks about decision-makers having to shift from coming up with all the answers, to creating the space for or “holding the questions and the process.” Is that a significantly different role? Would politicians need different training, for example?

Yeah. If I could do one thing just by clicking my fingers, it would be to automatically give every elected politician in the world facilitation training. I think that would transform so much. And maybe every CEO as well. One of the lines in our subject-consumer-citizen chart [below] is “command, serve, facilitate.” The role of leaders in a subject story is to command. In a consumer story it’s to serve. And in a citizen story it’s to facilitate.

Ultimately, that might also change the kind of people wanting to go into politics…

I think that's probably the case. The think tank Demos just launched a project called collaborative democracy. I think that's a much better frame than participatory democracy, because it reframes the role of elected representatives, while making it clear that there still is a role for them, and a vital one at that.

For me, the key case study in the research for my book was what happened in Taiwan, when protesters occupied the Taiwanese Parliament, and then the speaker of the parliament endorsed the protest. That is a really interesting dynamic, because it’s not about politicians doing it for the people. We know we’re probably going to have to develop some of these systems and processes from outside, but we need enough of the people in positions of power in the existing system to open the door to it. 

Where does your RAPID framework fit into all this?

RAPID was, in part, inspired by looking at the Irish abortion referendum as an especially good example of a participatory democracy process that really changed something.

There were three phases to that process – recommend, agree and decide – and each had its own kind of participation. Recommend was a citizens’ assembly; agree allowed elected politicians to respond and provide input from their constituents; and decide was a referendum.

Our analysis led us to consider other phases too, such as input-gathering, at the beginning, to solicit more voices than just the few witnesses selected to present to a citizens’ assembly. And then the perform phase at the end [which we think is needed] is: How do you make the implementation of big decisions participatory as well? That might be when initiatives like participatory budgeting and matched crowdfunding could come in. We’ve experimented with all of that in a few places, such as the People’s Plan for Nature campaign.

I'm excited about RAPID because it's a way of thinking about what is actually going on in democratic decision-making, and how might you genuinely create a national conversation, with actions for everyone.

I can imagine some people feeling that all this should be the responsibility of our elected representatives, or that they don’t have the time or headspace to get involved. Is there a big section of the population who would need to be convinced about these ideas?

I have two responses to that. First, this isn't about everyone being involved, in everything, all the time. That's not going to happen and is undesirable anyway. Rather, it’s about opening the door so everyone who wants to be involved can be involved, meaningfully, and at the right time -- assuring that the decision is legitimate. 

The second point is that this sort of challenge comes from the nature of participation today, which is boring! A founding question in the New Citizen Project is: Why is consumerism so energetic and creative? And participation as dull as sh*t?! We have this slide we use in presentations that says: “People don't want to participate… in the old ways.” We need to make it joyful and meaningful. 

In the research for my book, I went a little way into QAnon conspiracy theory. The opening gambit of QAnon is: “We need your participation. Here's your first task.” We have this assumption that people want it done for them, that they want to elect politicians and let them get on with it. That's not true. And it is exactly that attitude that is pushing people into the arms of conspiracy theorists, who are currently the only people asking them to use their agency.

That’s a depressing thought…

I think it’s exciting, actually, because it makes you think. These people actually want to get involved! They're not evil; they are people whose agency has been throttled and denied. Our foundational idea is that people are citizens: They are collaborative, creative, caring creatures who want to get involved. And if you make that possible, meaningful and joyful, you can pretty much flip anything. 

This interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.