Introduction
The public interest concept is often referred to the notion of general well-being and common welfare. It is essential for any policy debate, and any politician who is struggling for the votes uses this notion as the central pivot for the election campaign and political debates.
Main body
This concept of public interest is discussed by lots of policy researchers, and it is claimed, that public interest concept is the central one for the democratic leader. This concept is often divided into objective and subjective: objective is usually defined as the current situation, while subjective – is the opinion of how the total image should look like. In Amy Klobuchar’s “Uncovering the Dome” the notion of public interest is closely connected with the large scale project building of Hubert Humphrey Metrodome stadium. It is argued, that the building of this stadium is among the interests of the citizens, while the objective is that it discovers the chaotic principles of American policy, and the fact, that different politicians use different concepts of public interest.
Actually, the precise level of public interest to any project may be measured only by sociological survey, as any other considerations will be approximate. The fact is that, the public attitude towards any particular project is different, as different, the interests are.
The measuring of Public Interest was involved into the stadium controversy to the extent of showing the obvious difference in the interests of the citizens. Thus, some of them claimed the stadium should be built, as it would increase the general welfare (because of the incomes from the ticket sells), the others argued, that this project would decrease the well-being, as the expenses for the building would be too high. Consequently, this project became the matter of political manipulations, as the politicians, in order to win more voters, took either positive or negative position towards the building of the stadium.
Arguing on the matters of the model of political power it is necessary to mention the following fact: the attitude towards the described events is different. Some consider them the elitist snobs, while other regard them as the pluralist leaders. The main difference of these two models is in the approach to the state regulation: thus, in the elitist model only the restricted group of people (elite) takes all the necessary decisions. These people have the most wealth, power, authority influence and other factors attributed to elite. Consequently, all the decisions are taken to support the interests of the elite.
The pluralist model stands for the notion, that the ruling group is neither with the electorate, not with the elite. Frequently, the political power is distributed with particular interest groups (trade unions, business organizations etc). It is obvious, that interest groups have their own interests, which may not coincide. However, the interest groups often represent the interests of the wider public.
The events described in the book may be explained by both models. The fact is that, such a large scale building may be interesting both for elite and for the trade unions, as elite, who possesses immense financial resources, often requires the capital investments for further income. Trade unions, in its turn, realize, that the large scale buildings require immense human resources, consequently, the issue of unemployment may be solved.
The book represents this event as instance the pluralistic model, as this building is represented as the public interest. Moreover, it should be stated, that Joe Smo pluralist group is regarded here as the ruling group, that was interested in the advancement of the Hubert Humphrey Metrodome stadium. This group represents the interests of the working group, consequently, it may be equaled to the trade union, which is interested in the creation of the working places.
Actually, the interest groups are also not the pivoting associations, that may solve all the necessary matters. Citizen juries entail the wider group of people in the decision-making procedure. Partakers are engaged as citizens with no official positions or allegiances rather than specialists. Citizen juries use a delegation model of citizenship (generally formed in the random manner) who are briefed in detail on the backdrop and present thinking associating with a particular matter, and asked to argue on probable approaches, sometimes in a telecasted group. Citizen juries are aimed to balance the other forms of discussion and decision taking rather than entirely replace them. Citizens are inquired to become jurors and make a decision in the shape of a report, as they would in lawful juries.
The concept of juries is used in the book as the necessary part of decision taking in the pluralist model of ruling, as elite is not interested in the requirements of the citizens, in spite of the fact the jurors often consist of active citizens, who will not fold their hands. Consequently, the concept of citizen Jurors are essential for the pluralistic model, which is described in the book as the central and the most preferred model.
The Jurors were accountable to the public, but the fact is that, this responsibility and accountability was restricted just to the sending delegates to the Juror groups, while the groups themselves aimed not to devote too much time for the communication with the citizens. The reason is banal: citizens are too numerous, and it is impossible to devote time to everyone. It should be emphasized, that this scheme of communication is used in every Juror group all over the world, where this practice is applied. As for the accountability, as the type of feedback, the citizens could see the results of their activity applied in practice: the achievements of the groups’ activity were either issued in the mass media, or seen directly at the process of State decision taking.
Arguing on the matters of merits and demerits of this approach for the decision making, it is necessary to mention, that both are serious. The fact is that, the citizen jurors are aimed to get to know the viewpoint of the majority. On the one hand it may be obvious, but on the other hand it would be necessary to held additional surveys to be sure in the correct decision. These surveys are just additional troubles that take time. On the other hand, the governing stratum will be sure, that the decision will satisfy this majority.
Conclusion
It is also necessary to mention, that this way of decision taking is not perfect, as it is confirmed that the more people are included into the decision-making process, the more time it will be necessary to achieve the final decision. Actually, this demerit is attributed to any democratic decision taking, while sometimes, this time is of great significance.
References
Klobuchar, Amy. Uncovering the Dome. Waveland Press, 1986